The Commonwealth Report

Need To Stay Focused

2012-01-04T21:36:00.000-06:00

The Iowa Caucus was last night, and the blogs went ballistic about the outcome. The media that reported on it went all out. This morning everyone was abuzz about whether Perry will stay in or quit, whether Bachmann will quit now. As the day went along, it seemed clear that Bachmann would quit and Perry would stay in. All of this is interesting, but the Iowa Caucus is not the election.

While the outcome of the race for President is important, indeed this is one of the most critical elections maybe ever, it is not the only race that is crucial to the future of America. Regardless of whomever is elected President, we absolutely must have a House and Senate that will protect the rights of all the people, not just the underdog, and which understands their highest prriority is to promote a free-market economy with a minium of government regulation and involvment. We need a Congress that respects the Constitution and the limitations imposed upon it by that Constitution.

We have an opportunity to take control of the Senate, and perhaps even an opportunity to elect a veto-proof majority or one that is close enough with a few right thinking Democrats to override a veto. Clearly, we must retain the majority in the House and even increase that majority. If we do these two things, we win regardless of which Republican is the next President, and especially if O should win a second term. Don’t get me wrong. I think O being elected to a second term would be terrible. I can think of nothing worse than having to endure him for another four years. But, we must remain focused on our goal. Our goal is to return our country to the one we started out with and not the one that the socialist agenda has been building for the last 100 years.

This mess didn’t just happen when GWB was President, or Clinton, or GHWB, or any of the Presidents of recent vintage. This has been building since the late 19th century and has been accelerating since the early 20th centuiry. Roosevelt’s New Deal was not the beginnnig but the culmination of a long record of socialist influence in high places in Europe and America. Most of us have known nothing but a gradual encroachment of socialism into our system of government for all of our lives.

It is time we got focused on the big picture. Iowa is not even a true blip on the radar screen. No delegates were commited last night to any candidate. In fact, delegates from Iowa won’t be selected until after almost all of the other true primaries. We have fallen victim to the mainstream media propoganda machine that Iowa matters. The Iowa Caucus system is no different from the usual precinct convention system most of us know in our own states. Delegates are selected at the precinct convention/Iowa caucus to go to the county convention, where delegates will be selected to go to the state convention, where delegates will be selected to go the national convention. Only after this process will delegates from Iowa be committed.

Watching the coverage last night on both Fox and CNN one had the impression that this was the big one, the election that will determine the Republican nominee. It was not the big one, except in the minds of the media pundits who needed something to do last night.

Let us stay focused on the truly important outcomes.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-24T08:45:00.004-06:00

This Christmas I can think of nothing better to post here than beautiful music praising God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. The following comes from a CD by one of my most favorite people, John Michael Talbot. If you don't know of him, please learn about him here and support his ministry. You will be blessed.

May this Christmas bring a special blessing to you and your loved ones, and may Christ dwell in you and you in Him.

Merry Christmas

These songs are by John Michael Talbot from his album, "The Birth Of Jesus" recorded with the National Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra of London, the Ambrosian Men's Choir, and the Junior Boys Choir of Desborough School.

Thanksgiving Day - 2011

2011-11-24T08:32:00.000-06:00

Psalm 100

A psalm. For giving grateful praise.

Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth.
Worship the LORD with gladness;
    come before him with joyful songs.
Know that the LORD is God.
It is he who made us, and we are his;
    we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
Enter his gates with thanksgiving
    and his courts with praise;
    give thanks to him and praise his name.
For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
    his faithfulness continues through all generations.

As I thought about what I wanted to say about Thanksgiving day this year, several things came to mind for which I am thankful. For example, my wife heads my list. She has been the greatest blessing in my life — right after the blessing of my redemption in Jesus Christ. I could write a book about how much Gloria means to me, but I will refrain from that today. Next are my children, each of the three of them have blessed me, and continue to bless me, in their own unique, individual ways. And the list goes on and on and on. When we sit down to list those things for which have reason to be thankful, we are often surprised at how many items are on that list.

Most of us in the US stop our usual activities to celebrate Thanksgiving Day with a feast of turkey, dressing, and all the rest. We eat too much. We share time with family. We take naps after the meal. We don’t engage in the activities that occupy our lives the rest of the time. And that is all a good thing. We should take time out to celebrate our thankfulness. For some it is a rare occasion when they actually say a prayer of thanksgiving to God.

Then comes the day after. Someone has labeled the Friday after Thanksgiving Day "Black Friday." It wasn’t always called by that name. It seems to me that it has only been in recent years that Black Friday showed up in our vocabulary. Of course, most of us know by now that it refers to the biggest shopping day of the year and the day on which merchants make a lot of money — when their profit and loss column goes into the black of profit instead of the red of loss.

It seems to me that we Americans have become enslaved so much to the activity of chasing after profit that we have forgotten that the source of our bounty lies not in our commercial activity but in our spiritual activity. In thinking about this, the following scripture came to mind:

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. (Matthew 6:24)

Clearly, our devotion cannot be divided if we wish to be successful at any endeavor. We must firmly decide our priorities and focus our energies on those priorities. Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside to focus on the priorities in our lives for which we are thankful — which are the real reason for what we do and who we are. But is it only for that one day alone that we are willing to set aside the commerce of our lives to focus on the source of our bounty, on the source of the goodness in our lives?

God clearly spoke to his children about the source of their wealth when he spoke to them as they were entering the promised land:

You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today. (Deuteronomy 8:17-18)

Thanksgiving Day is not about "wealth" in the ususal sense. It is, however, about bounty in a sense we rarely acknowledge. God’s blessings are new every morning, just as he provided the children with manna during their time in the wilderness. Every day brought more than enough for that day. And it still does. Each day, God provides from His endless bounty to supply all of our needs. In this way, God confirms and establishes His covenant with us. We will never run out of what we need because God never runs out of supply for those needs.

Those of us who live in the United States of America have a special blessing. This country was founded on the principles and values handed down to us through a long line of Christian patriots who preserved for us the written Word of God along with the wonderful traditions and sacraments of the Christian faith. We are a blessed nation. But, just as God’s children often rebelled against Him in the Old Testament, America is rebelling against God today, turning away from Him and His ways, and doing what is right in his or her own eyes rather than what it right in God’s eyes and abandoning His ways. So, while we are giving thanks for all of our blessings, let us also be vigilant in being good stewards of those blessings so that we remain faithful to the Source of all Blessing and thus continue to walk in the bounty of God’s paths of righteousness.

So, on this Thanksgiving Day, I pray that all of my family and all of my friends will stop long enough to give God thanks for His endless bounty and gracious mercy to them. As we sit down to our feast today, we will be saying a special "Thank You" to God.

For those who would like to have a pattern for such a prayer, here is a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer:

Let us give thanks to God our Father for all his gifts so freely bestowed upon us.
For the beauty and wonder of your creation, in earth and sky and sea,
For all that is gracious in the lives of men and women, revealing the image of Christ,
For our daily food and drink, our homes and families, and our friends,
For minds to think, and heart to love, and hands to serve,
For health and strength to work, ans leisure to rest and play,
For the brave and courageous, who are patient in suffering and faithful in adversity,
For all valiant seekers of truth, liberty, and justice,
For the communion of saints, in all times and places,
Above all, we give you thanks for the great mercies and promises given to us in Christ Jesus our Lord;
To him be praise and glory, with you, O Father, and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.

And then may we all join in the words of that song:

Give thanks with a grateful heart
Give thanks to the holy one
Give thanks for he's given
Jesus Christ, his son
And now let the weak say I am strong
Let the poor say I am rich
Because of what the lord has done for us
Give Thanks!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Veterans Day 2011

2011-11-11T15:17:00.001-06:00

Too many of Americans have forgotten the origins of what we call “Veteran’s Day.” It started out being called “Armistice Day” in honor of the end of hostilities in World War I. I suppose this is another example of how we have forgotten the sacraments of our times — things that mean more than just the thing itself. Today, I want to remember what this sacrament means and what it does not mean.

World War I was, at the time, thought to be the war to end all wars. The same was said for World War II. Of course, neither war was the last war. Scripture tells us there will be wars and rumors of war, but the end is not yet to be. So, it appears to be man’s destiny to continue to experience wars. There are those who cling to a belief that war can be eliminated, usually by mankind simply being kind to each other and respecting each other. That utopian point of view ignores the nature of man and of the world in which man lives. While I may choose to be at peace with my neighbor, try as I may, I cannot force my neighbor to be at peace with me if my neighbor does not wish it. The same is true with nations.

As a veteran, I can say with great conviction that most veterans, and most soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors want peace. Most military men and women want peace and not war, but they also understand that there are people and nations in the world that do not share their desire for peace, and the only way for America to be at peace is to be prepared to go to war. Paradox, to be sure, but then there are lot of paradoxes in this world. Even Scripture mentions these “Rules of Opposites.” The one who wants to be first must be last. The one who wants to gain life must lose it. Give and it will be given to you.

The History of Veterans Day

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France, but the fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

The United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I when it passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926, with these words:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

On May 13, 1938, Congress passed an act making the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday. The day was dubbed “Armistice Day” to honor veterans of World War I. In 1954, after World War II had required the greatest mobilization of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in the nation’s history and after American forces had fought aggression in Korea, the 83rd Congress amended the Act of 1938 by changing “Armistice Day” to ‘Veterans Day” With the approval of this legislation (Public Law 380) on June 1, 1954, November 11th became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

On October 8, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued the first "Veterans Day Proclamation" which stated: "In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, all veterans, all veterans' organizations, and the entire citizenry will wish to join hands in the common purpose. Toward this end, I am designating the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs as Chairman of a Veterans Day National Committee, which shall include such other persons as the Chairman may select, and which will coordinate at the national level necessary planning for the observance. I am also requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch of the Government to assist the National Committee in every way possible."

The Sacrament of Veterans Day

The word sacrament is usually defined in terms of its religious or theological meaning, but the word has a meaning in the temporal and secular world as well. In religious terms, a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward grace. In other words, it is something that is tangible in the physical world that reminds us of something that exists in the spiritual world. I am using it in a similar way to apply to a celebration (something tangible in the physical world) that brings to mind something that is more than simply a celebration (something that exists in the spiritual world). Once we think of special days as sacraments, instead of just a day of celebration, those days take on a special or sacramental meaning to us.

I read a meditation this morning about Veterans Day from a Christian blog that went off into explaining how, while Veterans Day is about honoring our veterans, it is really about honoring all the heroes in our lives, and it used two women, Lois and Eunice, Timothy’s grandmother and mother as examples of this. These women sacrificed to give Timothy an education in the Scriptures so the author of this meditation opined that we should use this day to remember the heroes in our own lives. Well, no, because to do so destroys the sacrament of this day.

Veterans Day is a special day to pay honor to those who have served the United States, and all of its citizens, by being in the military and defending the foundations of freedom and liberty — the very foundations upon which was built the United States of America. It is not a day to honor all of those who are special in our lives. It is a day to honor those living and dead who sacrificed their lives, or a part of their lives, so that all people can be free. To do otherwise cheapens transforms the sacrament into something it was never intended to be. It’s not “Heroes Day.” It is “Veterans Day.” I think we should leave it at that and stop trying to be “relevant” for today. It is what it is, and it is not what it is not.

Not all sacrifices in war require the ultimate sacrifice of life. I am a Vietnam vet. While I did not sacrifice my life by dying, I did, nonetheless, sacrifice my life. I had to put my normal life on hold while I went off to war in a foreign country. My wife was left behind to await my return, and to wonder if I would return. Her life was put on hold, too. My hopes and dreams had to wait until I returned to my normal life. When I first entered service in the Army my income dropped from $550 per month to $96 per month. Was that a sacrifice? You bet! But, there were many other sacrifices — separation from my family, isolation in a strange place, danger of being killed, sleeping on the wet ground, eating things that I don’t even want to mention, watching people die right beside me, and so many other big and little things. These are the sacrifices of a soldier, and they were not unique to me. All veterans have their own stories. So, when you see a veteran this Veterans Day, realize this person has been through hell for you and thank them. I was a civilian again for 30 years before the first person said thank you to me for my service — and it made me cry!

Since we have “Memorial Day” on which we remember those who have died in combat serving this country, perhaps we on Veterans Day we should remember those veterans who served and survived, who walk among us. On this Veterans Day, find a veteran and shake his or her hand and thank them for their service. When you look in the eye of combat veteran you are likely to see a lot of conflicting emotions when you do that — gratitude that someone thinks what they did was worth the effort to thank them, a flicking memory of their experience in war, the horror of watching a comrade fall dead at their side, and, at the same time, a peace and joy that only comes on the other side of war.

Obama Gaffs

2011-11-11T12:24:00.000-06:00

Rick Perry couldn't remember during a debate the third govenment department he would eliminate if elected President, and he is viewed as stupid. Obama has been lauded by his supporters as the most brilliant person to ever be elected President. Consider the following examples and see if you agree.

Have You Seen This?

2011-07-07T07:13:00.000-05:00

The short two minute ad from the Charles Koch Foundation needs to be seen by everyone. It is an excellent, factual piece on economic freedom.

At What Price Freedom?

2011-07-04T15:12:00.000-05:00

Today, we celebrate the 235th birthday of the United States of America. Today some will have cookouts, eat barbeque, spend time with family and friends, and, in some parts of the country, watch fireworks. Where I live in Texas, we have had less than one-half of our normal rainfall for the year and have had 24 days with temperatures over 100 degrees. So, we won’t be having any fireworks here this year. We’ll have to watch them on television. It just seems so much not like the old July4th celebrations we had once upon a time. Maybe we’ve forgotten the meaning of it all. Maybe we have become cynical about our traditions. And maybe we’ve become disillusioned about our country. There is a spirit of pessimism running throughout America today that I don’t remember experiencing before. Maybe it’s time for a new American Revolution! Maybe it’s time the people from main street to take back their communities. Maybe, just maybe, we can recapture that Spirit of ‘76 that drove our founding fathers to dare to dream of a new nation born of liberty, freedom, and justice. Let’s look at what happened in 1776.

In 1776, a group of 56 men, chosen from their respective states created a nation unlike any that had existed before it and unlike any to be created since. On July 4, 1776, gathered in modest Independence Hall in Philadelphia were the delegates to the Second Continental Congress. There, on that hot summer day, the Declaration of Independence was adopted, and the Colonies that were to become the United States of America became a free, independent and autonomous nation — free from the tyrannical rule of the British crown.

But independence from Britain was not what compelled them to gather in the first place. Independence was not a prevailing sentiment amongst the people who populated the Colonies until early 1776. The Second Continental Congress was a continuation of the First Continental Congress that met briefly starting September 5, 1774, and arose out of the realization within the Colonies that even common justice would be denied them by the “Home Government.” The British government had an avaricious need to replenish their exhausted treasury, and the King and Parliament saw the Colonies as a ready solution to their problem. The idea that taxation and equitable representation were inseparable and too vital to the existence of free people. Thus the Colonists decided it was necessary for a General Council to be created to deliberate on a solution. The First Continental Congress was convened in September, 1774, for this purpose, and out of that first congress formal requests were sent to the King George III and the Parliament to cease the Coercive Acts which had been passed by the British Parliament in response to the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, which was itself a protest of the British Parliaments onerous taxes levied on the Colonies.

The Stamp Act of 1765 was passed by Parliament by which they levied a tax all documents produced in connection with the Colonies — letters, deeds, contracts, invoices, etc — and other impositions of taxes on the Colonies without their consent. These Coercive Acts were intended to punish the Colonies and to assert Parliament’s view that the Colonies were merely servants of the British empire. These acts outraged the colonists and triggered sometimes violent resistence throughout the Colonies. The entreaties of the Fist Continental Congress fell on deaf ears in Britain, where the prevailing response was that increased force upon the Colonies to squelch any thoughts the Colonists may have about their right to govern themselves.

The deliberations of the First Continental Congress were firm: Loyalty to the crown, even though the Colonies were suffering increased oppression. No delegates discussed, even in private conversation, the idea of independence. They concentrated their attention on how best to maintain the integrity of the British realm while at the same time preserving for the Colonies their own inalienable rights. They sent appeals to the King, to Parliament, and to men of conscious and justice in Britain. In response, new oppressions were laid upon the Colonies, including the shedding of Colonists’ blood.

Having failed to convince the British Parliament to accede to the wishes of the Colonies, the Second Continental Congress was convened in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, which set up and organized a temporary government with an army whose commander-in-chief was George Washington. Still they did not talk of independence. They were arming themselves in defense of their rights under the British Constitution. They were still, at this time, prepared to lay down their arms and declare their loyalty to Britain just as soon as their rights were restored. Their appeals were met by armed mercenaries hired by the British Government from German princes, sent to the Colonies to butcher and kill British subjects for asserting the rights of British subjects!

The Second Continental Congress, which convened on May 20, 1775, was considered by those in attendance as a reconvening of the First Continental Congress, and most of the 56 delegates from twelve of the thirteen Colonies (Georgia did not send delegates until July 20, 1775) to the First Continental Congress attended the Second Continental Congress, and the Second Congress had the same officers as the First Congress. At this point the sentiment was still to attempt to convince the British Parliament and King George III to grant the Colonies more autonomy and to seek reconciliation with Britain, even though the Revolutionary War had already officially begun with the battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775.

The voices of some patriots had already begun to echo across the Colonies calling for independence prior to the two continental congresses. For example, as early as 1773 Patrick Henry speaking to Colonel Samuel Overton about Great Britain said, “She will drive us to extremities; no accommodation will take place; hostilities will soon commence; and a desperate bloody torch will be lit.” Overton then asked Henry if he thought the Colonies were strong enough to oppose Great Britain’s fleet and armies. Henry replied, “I will be candid with you. I doubt whether we shall be able, alone, to cope with so powerful a nation; but, where is France! — where is Spain! — where is Holland! — the natural enemies of Britain? Where will they be all this while? Do you suppose they will stand by, idle and indifferent spectators to the contest? Will Louis XVI be asleep all this time? Believe me, no! When Loius XVI shall be satisfied by our serious opposition, and our Declaration of Independence, that all prospect for reconciliation is gone, then, and not till then, will he furnish us with arms, ammunition and clothing; and not with them only, but he will send his fleets and armies to fight our battles for us; he will form a treaty with us, offensive and defensive, against our unnatural mother. Spain and Holland will join the confederation! Our independence will be established and we will take our stand among the nations of the earth!” Henry’s prediction was very accurate, because this is exactly what happened, including France, Spain, and Holland’s support of the Colonies once the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Having concluded from the repeated insults and retaliation from the British Parliament to the Colonies appeals for justice that the course of reconciliation was hopeless, the Colonies finally arrived at the conclusion that independence was the only solution left by early 1776. In June, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, offered a resolution in the General Congress declaring all allegiance to the British crown ended. Starting with North Carolina on April 22, 1776, the colonies began to instruct their delegates to the Second Continental Congress to stand for independence. Massachusetts followed on May 10, 1776, Virginia on May 17, 1776, Rhode Island in May, 1776, Connecticut on June 14, 1776, New Hampshire on June 15, 1776, New Jersey on June 22, 1776, Pennsylvania in June, 1776.

A committee was appointed for the purpose of drafting a Declaration of Independence. The committee members were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. The draft was written by Jefferson with a few verbal amendments from Franklin and Adams and was submitted to the Congress on June 28, 1776. It was brought up for discussion before the Congress on July 1st, and, after several amendments, nine states voted on July 2nd in favor of independence. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was officially signed by John Handcock, the President of the Second Continental Congress, and the Colonies were declared free and independent states. It was engrossed in the official records of the Congress and on August 2, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed by all but one of the fifty-six delegates. Matthew Thornton was the last to sign the document in November, 1776.

On the morning when the historical vote was taken on the Declaration of Independence in Independence Hall, the Hall’s bellman ascended the steps to the steeple. A small boy was positioned below near the door of the Hall to notify the bellman when the vote had been taken. The old man waited and waited and waited. He said to himself, “They will never do it, the will never do it.” Just then a shout rose from below. The little boy clapped his hands and shouted, “Ring! Ring!” The old man took firm hold of the tongue of the bell and swung it back and forth, back and forth a hundred times, all the while shouting, “Liberty to the land and the inhabitants thereof!”

It is time for another clarion call to freedom. Today people all across America are grumbling about how things are going for them. Some are unemployed. Some have lost homes. Some have just flat lost hope. Our government reminds me of the British government in 1776. Those who sit in seats of power seem to not care one whit what the people who elected them want done. They have spent money they did not have, money that belonged to Americans who earned their money to old fashion way by working for it. Now that they’ve spend more money than those American workers provided them, their solution is to tax those same workers some more to raise more money. And they claim that if they don’t get this new tax money, the county will default on its debts — the very same debts they have run up spending someone else’s money. Does this sound any different than the British Parliament and the King? In fact, this sound exactly like them!

This year, 2011, is getting late. If we are to resolve these issues, something has to be done besides the usual “go-along-to-get-along” way of doing things. We need reforms in every area of government. One of the chief things that is different about our time and 1776 is that we hold the power in our vote. Those patriots were fighting a leviathan across the sea which held all the cards and the key to the treasure chest. We hold the key to unlock the door to a successful future for our country. The key is our ballot. In 2010 a lot of people voted to change directions. In 2012 a lot of people will do it again. It is my hope and prayer that there are enough people who are motivated to actually learn about the candidates and overcome their own inertia and work for and vote for the best candidates running in their districts.

It’s time for a change!!!

The Second Verse

2011-06-09T21:59:00.003-05:00

Did you know there was a second verse to the National Anthem? This Marine did, and he delivered it with gusto!

May we all subscribe to the Marine motto: Sempre Fi. May we all be Always Faithful!

Isn't it time we stopped behaving like we don't understand what is happening and start doing something about it. America has become a nation just like the people in the story about the emperor who had no clothes. Everyone pretended that the emperor was clothed because none wanted to be the first to point out the obvious embarrasment.

America has declined so quickly that it is mind boggling. We must take action now to return to our foundations before the foundations are totally destroyed. This nation was founded on Christian principles. That is not just my opinion, but an objective fact for anyone who cares to actually examine the record of our founding and our early history.

I for one an ready to tackle the job, and I hope everyone who reads this wil likewise be motivated to stand up and take action. Enough is enough!

Copyright 2011. Bill Fisher. All rights reserved.

Memorial Day 2011

2011-05-30T10:49:00.002-05:00

The day we celebrate as Memorial Day this year will find Americans having picnics, shopping the seemingly unending Memorial Day Sale Events. A few of us will visit a cemetery where a veteran of some war is buried. This should be a day of solemn remembrance of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

The day we call Memorial Day started out as a day to encourage local communities to place flowers of the graves of the war dead after the civil war. The origin of this day seems to have its genesis from a visit to a Confederate cemetery by the wife of a Union general. In the spring of 1868, the wife of Maj. Gen. John Alexander “Black Jack” Logan accompanied Gen. William T. Sherman on a tour of southern battlefields of the civil war. She noticed everywhere she went that the Confederate graves were decorated with flowers, and she thought that should be done for the Union Army’s fallen soldiers as well. She suggested as much to her husband, and Gen. Logan issued GAR General Order No. 11, designating May 30 as Decoration Day, for "the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in the defense of their country.” Here is the order:

HEADQUARTERS GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC
General Orders No.11, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 1868

i. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors, and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from hishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

ii. It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to lend its friendly aid in bringing to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

iii. Department commanders will use efforts to make this order effective.

By order of

JOHN A. LOGAN,
Commander-in-Chief

N.P. CHIPMAN,
Adjutant General

Official:
WM. T. COLLINS, A.A.G.

The original date was set as May 30th, but in 1971 the U.S. Congress changed the day of observance to the last Monday in May. This year, Memorial Day actually falls on May 30th, the traditional day set aside for its celebration by Gen. Logan. While the day was set aside to memorialize the fallen soldiers of the Civil War, after WW I it became a day to memorialize those who died in any and all wars of the United States. Thus today we remember those who have died recently in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

May today be a day when we stop and actually take the time to reflect on the sacrifices made by so many so that our way of life might be preserved. Even in the Civil War, where there was such a national tear in our fabric, those who died were honored by both sides of that conflict. Today, we should lay aside our personal agendas about which wars were just and which were not and simply say ‘Thank You” to those who died so we could debate that issue in a free society.

Here is a poem quoted by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a Memorial Day speech at Harvard in 1895 entitled "The Soldier's Faith". Holmes spoke in the 1895 speech of "part of the soldier's faith: Having known great things, to be content with silence." He cited this poem as "a little song sung by a warlike people on the Danube, which seemed to me fit for a soldier's last word...a song of the sword in its scabbard, a song of oblivion and peace. A Soldier has been buried on the battlefield."

And when the wind in the tree-tops roared,
The soldier asked from the deep dark grave:
"Did the banner flutter then?"
"Not so, my hero," the wind replied.
"The fight is done, but the banner won,
Thy comrades of old have borne it hence,
Have borne it in triumph hence."
Then the soldier spake from the deep dark grave:
"I am content."

Then he heareth the lovers laughing pass,
and the soldier asks once more:
"Are these not the voices of them that love,
That love--and remember me?"
"Not so, my hero," the lovers say,
"We are those that remember not;
For the spring has come and the earth has smiled,
And the dead must be forgot."
Then the soldier spake from the deep dark grave:
"I am content."

Let us remember the reason they died. It was so we could be free. Let us ever stand vigilant to watch over and preserve that freedom that was paid for by the blood and courage of so many. May we never take it for granted.

Copyright © 2011. Bill Fisher. All rights reserved.

He Is Risen! - Easter 2011 Meditation

2011-04-23T13:51:00.006-05:00

This Easter, what is it? Some say it is the most holy day of the year. Others say it is one of the holy days on the church calendar. Still others say it is a secular holiday commemorating the arrival of Spring. Some Christians refuse to celebrate Easter because they believe it is associated with a Greek goddess of fertility rite celebrated by the Romans and adapted by the church in error. Whatever it is, it is important because it has such a wide influence throughout the world. Is that influence good? Yes, I think it is. On this day, the world is reminded that the Son of God died for the sin of the world, even if the world doesn’t quite get it.

This year, I am struck by the power of Easter — the power of the resurrection itself. The stone was rolled away from the tomb, not so that our Lord could get out — clearly solid walls could no longer contain him — but so his disciples could see in and know that he had risen from the dead. That was a big stone that had to be rolled away, and there was no man who could do it. Then, there is the power of the resurrection of Jesus within the tomb. That was the same power that moved over the chaos of the void before creation when God spoke and the worlds were created.

Think about this. At the creation, everything happened because God spoke a word. Did God speak at the resurrection? Did he, like Jesus at the raising of Lazarus, say, “Jesus, come forth?” But Jesus is the Word. John tells us that all that was created was created through him, the Word. So think about this: Jesus, the Word, spoke his resurrection into being before he died as he told his disciples that on the third day he would be raised from the dead. He had already spoken the Word of his resurrection before he died on the cross.

This Easter, our nation is faced with some mighty challenges. Our government is spending more than it has. Our leaders seem incapable of figuring out a solution. The price of gasoline is rising. Thousands of people have lost their jobs and homes. The government we have been depending on is running out of answers. People are getting worried about their future. Hope does not burn brightly in their breasts this Easter morning.

But we need not fear. Read Psalm 91:

5 You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.

The power of God is able to deliver us from this mess we find ourselves in. Has man ever made such a mess of things that God could not untangle it? No, and man never will, because man is simply not smart enough, powerful enough, or clever enough.

Starting sometime early in the 20th Century, Europeans and Americans began to think they had found a better way of doing things. The old, traditional ways simply would no longer serve the needs of the modern 20th Century world. So, as humankind is wont to do, they decided they could build a better world than the one God built and the one He maintained for their enjoyment. They reasoned among themselves that, in their view, everything was subject to change. Therefore, change must be an immutable law of sorts that they needed to harness for their own purposes. Then they decided that absolute truth, the kind God dispenses, was an obstaccle to this new-found change principle, so they would need an alternative. Moral relativism was their solution. This led them to turn everything upside down, calling what had been passe and of no more benefit. They threw out centuries of understanding and reliance on the beneficence of their Creator and replaced it with the beneficence of the State, which, of course, they controlled.

In the words of Stan Laurel “Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!” The problem is we have gotten ourselves in this mess by abandoning the truth for a lie. We have reached a point where now, finally, we are beginning to see that politicians are not to be trusted. If the polls are to be believed, the American people have become very distrustful of government and those who run it. Good! But what are they putting in the place of government as the object of their trust? Certainly not God. Church attendance is down. Religion, especially Christianity, is waning as influence over the morals of the nation.

The answer is right there in front of us. It is Easter! The resurrection power of Jesus Christ to resurrect us from our miserable attempts to become our own gods and rule our own lives. As Jeremiah writes in Jer. 10:23, “O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. “ We need God to direct our path, to show us the way out of the mess we are in. We have no power in ourselves that we should be gods. We are weak compared to the power of the creation, much less the power of the one who created it.

Have you ever stood in the surf and felt the awesome power of the water as it rolls in? Have you ever seen the power of a flood as it washes away everything in its path? Or the fury of a forest fire burning out of control? Or felt the earth tremble and shake during an earthquake? Our power, even in the machines and inventions of our most capable geniuses pale into insignificance when compared to the power of nature. And, yet, mankind still keeps believing he can come up with a better plan. How arrogant!

So, this Easter, I am focusing on the Power of Easter. “He is Risen” is a powerful statement, and it is my new power source. No matter what my eyes see in the coming year, I will remember “He is Risen.” No matter how large the challenge, how deep the hole, or how hopeless life appears, I will remember “He is Risen.” No matter what the world may throw at me, I will remember “HE IS RISEN!!!”

May this Easter be a breakthrough time for all of us as we ponder and digest the Power of Easter and as we confess “He is Risen” in our life anew this Easter.

Copyright 2011. By Bill Fisher. All Rights Reserved.

2011-04-22T12:17:00.003-05:00

Good Friday
A Meditation
By Bill Fisher
Copyright © 2011 by Bill Fisher. All rights reserved.

Today is Good Friday. Courthouses are closed in some places. Some government offices are closed. Some places of business are closed. Why? Here in the United States, a supposedly Christian nation, for those who are off work today, Good Friday has become just another day when they don’t have to go to work. Have we lost our bearings? Do we no longer revere the holy symbols of our faith?

Good Friday is the Friday before Easter Sunday. It is the day the Christian church remembers the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Did you see the movie? Do you remember what Jesus endured on that day some 2,000 years ago? Does it matter?

If Good Friday is to be a day of remembrance, then certainly it should mean something, or else why have it on the calendar. This day comes at the end of what is called Holy Week, the week leading up to Easter Sunday. During Holy Week pastors of churches all over the world are busy conducting services leading up to the ultimate service on Easter Sunday. By the time they finish the Sunday services, they are typically exhausted. But what about their flocks? Are they exhausted from the weeks devotions? Or, are they simply exhausted from working all week and happy to have the day off on Friday, if they are among the lucky few who actually get to take the day off?

In 1957, according to the Gallup polling firm, 69% of Americans believed that religion was increasing in influence in the United States. That has changed! In Gallup’s December 9, 2010, poll report, 70% of Americans believe that religion is a declining influence in the US. Why the flip-flop? What has happened to cause the change?

Well, a lot has happened since 1957. We have gone through a cultural metamorphosis. We have moved away from the foundational truths that sustained us from the founding of the nation to a more “enlightened” way. Now, we are in a era where moral relativism rules the day. There is no longer any absolute right or wrong. All things are relative. We have morphed into a secular humanistic society in which God is no longer relevant or even welcomed to attend our institutions. We must keep God in our church buildings as much as possible, and, where possible, keep Him out of there, too.

Scripture tells us in Psalm 94:

4 They pour out arrogant words;
all the evildoers are full of boasting.
5 They crush your people, LORD;
they oppress your inheritance.
6 They slay the widow and the foreigner;
they murder the fatherless.
7 They say, “The LORD does not see;
the God of Jacob takes no notice.”

Our society today seems to believe that God is not paying attention, and if He is, He doesn’t care what we are doing. Therefore, God is not having the influence on our society that He once did. After all, God is the one who set out all those obsolete absolute rules and values for men to follow, and, of course, we 21st century geniuses have moved beyond all that. We know what is best for us. And beside that, things change, so we have to be changeable to keep up with the times. There is no place for an unchangeable God. We don’t need that any more. So they say!

So, on this Good Friday, while the world is going about its business as though nothing really happened that matters to them, Christians are following the traditions of their faith and honoring God by remembering the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the cornerstone the builders of our modern society have rejected while they build their monuments to themselves on the ever shifting sands of moral relativism.

The remnant of the faithful continue to provide the foundations for the world, even when the world pays no attention. The faithful, by the very act of their faithfulness, serve as a redeeming force to show the way for the rest of the world. Today, as the Christian church remembers Good Friday, the act of remembrance serves all mankind, be they atheists, Muslims, Buddhist, or any of the many other religions practiced by people trying to create their own gods. It is the Christian community that holds up the Light that lights the world, and the darkness cannot snuff it out. All Jesus did that day was take away the sin of the world. It is finished!!!

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Memorial Day Remembrance 2010

2010-05-31T12:22:00.003-05:00

Today is Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those brave souls who have fought and died for the freedom of a nation built upon their sacrifice. It is often the young who go off to war and who die. But it is their courage and determination that drives them to make the ultimate sacrifice.

My father-in-law, Raymond Smith, went off to war during World War II as a 19 year old young man with the determination in his heart that he was personally going to kill Hitler. He didn’t get the chance to kill Hitler because he was a part of a special operation known as Merrill’s Marauders that served in Burma during the war. Raymond was wounded and nearly died. He received a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star for his gallantry during that campaign. I’m glad he survived so I could one day meet and marry his daughter.

My own father, Lee Fisher, served in George Patton’s Third Army during World War II, and was in five major battles. Thankfully, he survived, too. I had him in my life until he was 85.

I am a Vietnam Vet having served in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1969. I endured the fateful year of 1968. For those of you who don’t know, look up that year and take note of all of the major events that happened in that one year. One of the strange things about my own experience is that I don’t remember very many names, but there are faces I can never forget — fallen comrades as well as fellow survivors. But one thing I do remember. We all knew that what we were doing was important to the survival of our way of life. Unfortunately, many in our county didn’t understand that, and so, those of us who served in that war were never treated with respect. It was 30 years after I returned to civilian life before anyone ever said “Thank You” to me for my service. Thank God those who serve today are better respected by most people.

May we always remember with profound respect the sacrifices made by so many so that we can have the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, and may we never take those freedoms for granted. I would like to share with you President Ronald Reagan's 1986 Memorial Day remarks at Arlington National Cemetery:

Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It's a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It's a day to be with the family and remember.

I was thinking this morning that across the country children and their parents will be going to the town parade and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they'll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that's good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.

Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid, and passionate lives. There are the greats of the military: Bull Halsey and the Admirals Leahy, father and son; Black Jack Pershing; and the GI's general, Omar Bradley. Great men all, military men. But there are others here known for other things.

Here in Arlington rests a sharecropper's son who became a hero to a lonely people. Joe Louis came from nowhere, but he knew how to fight. And he galvanized a nation in the days after Pearl Harbor when he put on the uniform of his country and said, "I know we'll win because we're on God's side." Audie Murphy is here, Audie Murphy of the wild, wild courage. For what else would you call it when a man bounds to the top of a disabled tank, stops an enemy advance, saves lives, and rallies his men, and all of it single-handedly. When he radioed for artillery support and was asked how close the enemy was to his position, he said, "Wait a minute and I'll let you speak to them." [Laughter]

Michael Smith is here, and Dick Scobee, both of the space shuttle Challenger. Their courage wasn't wild, but thoughtful, the mature and measured courage of career professionals who took prudent risks for great reward——in their case, to advance the sum total of knowledge in the world. They're only the latest to rest here; they join other great explorers with names like Grissom and Chaffee.

Oliver Wendell Holmes is here, the great jurist and fighter for the right. A poet searching for an image of true majesty could not rest until he seized on "Holmes dissenting in a sordid age." Young Holmes served in the Civil War. He might have been thinking of the crosses and stars of Arlington when he wrote: "At the grave of a hero we end, not with sorrow at the inevitable loss, but with the contagion of his courage; and with a kind of desperate joy we go back to the fight."

All of these men were different, but they shared this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they wouldn't do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It's hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it's the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins. Not far from here is the statue of the three servicemen——the three fighting boys of Vietnam. It, too, has majesty and more. Perhaps you've seen it——three rough boys walking together, looking ahead with a steady gaze. There's something wounded about them, a kind of resigned toughness. But there's an unexpected tenderness, too. At first you don't really notice, but then you see it. The three are touching each other, as if they're supporting each other, helping each other on.

I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they're still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam——boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.

And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.

That, of course, is the lesson of this century, a lesson learned in the Sudetenland, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Cambodia. If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. That's the lesson of this century and, I think, of this day. And that's all I wanted to say. The rest of my contribution is to leave this great place to its peace, a peace it has earned.

Thank all of you, and God bless you, and have a day full of memories.

Arizona's New Immigration Law

2010-05-16T13:05:00.003-05:00

There is a lot of handwringing by liberals about how unconstitutional the new Arizona immigration law is. Of course, I doubt if one in a 1,000 of those who are complaining have actually read the law. I have. But rather than give you my opinion, let me share with you what the person who actually wrote the law has to say on the subject.

I am the author of Senate Bill 1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Maybe liberals ought to read the Constitution, case law or even just the bill itself before citing incorrect information. Fear-mongering and misinformation are the opponents' only tool against this common sense legislation.

"Illegal" is not a race, it is a crime. SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law, removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal "sanctuary" policies.

When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when? We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic.

Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) yet we have them all over the United States.

Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, "San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality." When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB1070 legislation that I introduced, this description seemed fitting.

However, when neighboring Oakland's city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last Tuesday, and President Pro Tem of the California State Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.

Why did I propose SB1070? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowing, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. The murder of Robert Krentz - whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907 - by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans.

Illegal aliens have murdered dozens of other citizens of our state. Currently, 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail on murder charges.

Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. All SB1070 does is allow Arizona law enforcement officials to detain illegal aliens under state law. The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal "lawful conduct" such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.

Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws. However, a long legal precedent going back to 1976 allows states to enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration so long as it does not conflict with federal law. We specifically designed SB1070 to mirror federal immigration law to avoid such a conflict.

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB1070 have no problems with "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens. In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city's public services.

Mayor Gavin Newsom stated, "We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know the city won't target them for using city services."

The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons whom he mistook for rival gang members. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman. Police arrested him on gang and weapons charges and promptly released him just three months before the murder. Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.

Our law is already working. One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like "Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation Scares Many in Underground Workforce Out of State,"

In contrast, American citizens are leaving California. For the past four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in.

In criticizing the SB1070, President Barack Obama said, "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

The solution is not "comprehensive immigration reform," a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration. Making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole. In fact, the Heritage Foundation's research puts the cost of amnesty at more than $2.5 trillion.

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals. Attrition by enforcement.

If states understand states' rights and our Constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government and it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking toward San Francisco instead.

Russell Pearce is a member of the Arizona State Senate representing Legislative District 18 and author of SB1070.

Maybe it's better than they say it is. Here is my "e-trade baby shock face."

Mount Vernon Statement

2010-02-19T10:38:00.002-06:00

It seems to a lot of people these days that the leaders of the United States have lost their bearings. They have wandered off the path that was laid out for this nation in 1776. Thus, the Tea Party. People are upset, yes, even angry, that their government leaders are not listening to them. They are upset that their leaders are attempting to cram down their throats policies and laws they have soundly rejected. There is an unrest in the land, and some have likened it to a revolution of sorts. Perhaps it is a revolution.

The revolution may have started on February 17, 2010, when the largest number of conservatives ever assembled met at Mount Vernon and their leaders signed, what has been named, the "Mount Vernon Statement." It is a straight forward statement of the principles upon which the United States was founded in 1776. It calls for a return to the fundamental, foundational truths of those ideals and values that prompted Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the rest to create what has become the United States of America. For those of you who have not read the Mount Vernon Statement, it reprinted here.

May God help us to rise to the occasion and preserve our heritage as Americans.

The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional
Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
February 17, 2010

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic. A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world. A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely
defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

If you agree with this statement, visit the Heritage Foundation and sign the statement.

Anglican Curmudgeon: What's the Difference Between Republicans and Democrats?

2009-12-12T09:43:00.000-06:00

Anglican Curmudgeon: What's the Difference Between Republicans and Democrats?

The Problem Hidden Inside Healthcare Reform

2009-10-06T09:30:00.002-05:00

By Bill Fisher
October 6, 2009
Copyright © 2009 by William L. Fisher. All rights reserved.

The debate over healthcare reform continues to shift from one point to the other, and the Obama Administration continues to identify new enemies of healthcare reform on a daily basis. Lately, Obama and his followers have identified the insurance industry as the bad guy dejour. In fact, if you are listening closely, you will notice that the proponents of Obamcare have changed the name of their plan from “healthcare reform” to “health insurance reform.” The subtlety of this change has flown over the heads of most of America. But we should be paying attention, because this change lays bare the plan to nationalize health care on a level never seen in the US.

All of the talk about insurance plans being required to provide first day coverage without any limits for pre-existing conditions strikes a positive chord in the minds of most people. That sounds like a good idea. Other suggestions have come out about what should be required to be covered by these insurance policies. Some have merit, some are really bad ideas.

One such idea is the health insurance exchange. The idea is that people who are having a problem buying affordable health care insurance will be able to go to the health care exchange program and buy affordable health care insurance there by choosing the plan that fits their need and their pocketbook. The only problem with this idea is that it all depends on attracting health insurance companies who will place their policies in the exchange. What incentive is offered to attract these products? None! So, even if such a system is created by Obamacare, how will it function if the basic premise for its existence fails to materialize? The answer is it will not function, and those benefits that were going to be offered through the exchange will now have to be included in the government option part of Obamacare. Once the exchange becomes part of the public option, the overwhelming tendency then will be to just simply blend the exchange and the public option into one product, which will be government run.

But what is not being discussed in this debate is the monumental change in the regulation of insurance in America that will be required to accomplish any of these changes. At the present time, insurance companies are regulated by the states. Every state has a Department of Insurance, State Board of Insurance, State Insurance Commission, or some other official agency of state government that oversees the regulation of insurance companies within each state. State legislatures create the rules by which insurance companies are permitted to do business in their state. Insurance companies are required to be registered business entities in each state. Everything about an insurance company’s business is regulated by the state in which it does business.

In order for Obamacare to accomplish its goal of nationalizing health care, it is absolutely essential that the authority for regulating insurance companies be transferred from the states to the national government. The size of such an undertaking is mind boggling. And it cannot be done swiftly. It will take time to dismantle the state infrastructures of government that have regulated insurance every since there was insurance. The federal government has never regulated insurance, and the federal government doesn't know how to regulate insurance. It will have to learn. How long will that take, and how many mistakes will our federal government make along the way while it is learning?

Someone may object and point to Social Security or Medicare. Neither of these are insurance. Social Security is a government run retirement system that relies on current taxpayers paying benefits to current retirees. No actuarial science is used. The same for Medicare. Premiums do not pay for the Medicare benefits, taxes pay for those benefits. So, just like Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries have their benefits paid for by current taxpayers. No actuarial science is involved.

If we are to have the kind of healthcare reform being discussed today, the federal government will have to become the largest insurance company in history. They’ve done a lousy job of handling Medicare and Social Security, so why would Americans want to hand over the job of running the insurance industry.

Fort Worth Case Summary Part 1

2009-10-04T10:04:00.002-05:00

On Friday, October 2, 2009, the 141st District Court, Fort Worth, issued its ruling on three pre-trial motions. The results are not alll surprising, and should not be taken as any landmarks concerning the ultimate outcome of the case. These are merely the initial follies from the first skirmishes. The results, however, were, by and large, quite favorable for Bp. Iker's side.

The court had three issues before it. One issue was Bp. Iker's side's request for a continuance on the faux diocese's motion for partial summary judgment. The court granted the continuance, which is normal, especially when such a motion is filed so early in the proecedings as to make discovery impossible before the hearing.

The second issue was Bp. Iker's side's request to broaden the playing field to include the individuals who allegedly hired Nelson and Wells to represent the faux diocese and who, themselves, claim to be the representatives of the faux dioocese. The court allowed these individuals to be brought into the suit to defend themselves. After all, these people sued Bp. Iker and the individuals who make up the Board of Trustees of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, so it is only fair that the individuals on the other side share in the fun. This is not a particularly surprising development, but it is one indication that Bp. Ikers' side has a very good lawyer.

Finally, Bp. Iker's side asked the court to revise its previous Rule 12 order which included the qualifier that Nelson and Wells did not represent the diocese or the corporation associated with Bp. Iker, which, of course, as they have responded, they never claimed to represent in the first place. The court refused to change it's order. However, this issue raises the most interesting questions of the three. If Nelson and Wells don't claim to represent the diocses and corporation associated with Bp. Iker, the ones established in 1983, and since there is at present only one such diocese and corporation, then, which diocese and corporation, pray tell, do they represent. Here lies the crux of the problem for their side, and, based on the transcripts of the hearings on the Rule 12 motion, the judge gets that they don't represent the one and only diocese. However, the judge, who is new to the bench, also understands that his ruling will be appealed and is being very careful. He will not be overruled for making the rulings he has made thus far, but he could have faced being overruled if he had ruled otherwise.

So far, Bp. Iker's side is looking pretty good.

Community Oganizers Pray To Obama

2009-10-02T09:15:00.002-05:00

The video shown below is a shocking example of how far adrift the United States has gone from its foundations. It should be unthinkable that any group of people in this country would even conceive of praying to a person, even one who has been elected President of the United States. But here it is. Our churches have so abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Gospel of the Age that many who currently lead the church have no compass with which to lead. Pray for America!

We The People Stimulus Package

2009-07-21T09:08:00.006-05:00

It is time for us to demand that our elected officials listen to us again. We need common sense applied by patriots to the challenges of our times. I hope the videos that follow will stir within you the desire and courage to act.

"

2009-06-19T22:59:00.004-05:00

With all of the action of late and all of the discussion about health care reform, I thought some of you might be nterested in hearing the following speech by Ronald Reagan during the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video ...

This was said almost 50 years ago in 1961, but it is very much like what is going on now. Reagan was talking about what ultimately became medicare, and he was right about it being a foot in the door. In the middle to late 1960's, before and after my stint in the U.S. Army, I was a CPA in Houston, Texas. One of my jobs was conducting a medicare cost audit for a hospital in Houston. In order to do the audit, I had to become somewhat of an expert on medicare cost reimbursement rules and regulations. During the course of my audit, I came to the inescabable conclusion that medicare would cause the cost of health care to rise dramatically over the next 20 years. Under the initial medicare program, medicare paid the average price charged in a geographic area for medical procedures and treatment. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if medicare paid the average price for everything it covered, the price of everything it paid for would have to go up. By paying the average price, medicare insured that the average would rise over time, and as the average rose, so would the upper brackets of charges rise. Thus the cost of medical care had to rise. This upward pressure applied through medicare fueled the flame of escalating costs for all medical care

San Joaquin Tentative Ruling

2009-05-04T21:36:00.011-05:00

Below you will find the full text of the "Tentative Ruling" issued today in the case in Fresno, California, in which TEC sued Bp. Schofield and the true Diocese of San Joaquin. The result of this ruling is that TEC gets it all. However, this is not the end of the matter. It is a "tentative" ruling and is subject to revision after a hearing, which is scheduled for May 5, 2009. Do not despair. This is just the first round in this case, and it does not mean that any other cases in Fort Worth, Pittsburg, or Quincy will follow. This is only the first ruling by the trial court, and if it remains as is, it will be appealed to a higher court.

Tentative Ruling

Re: Diocese of San Joaquin v. Schofield, et al.,

Superior Court Case No. 08 CECG 01425

Hearing Date: May 5, 2009 (Dept. 97A)

Motion: Summary Adjudication

Tentative Ruling: To grant.

Explanation:

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court must "consider all of the evidence' and all of the 'inferences' reasonably drawn therefrom and must view such evidence and such inferences 'in the light most favorable to the opposing party." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) In making this determination, courts usually follow a three prong analysis: identifying the issues as framed by the pleadings; determining whether the moving party has established facts negating the opposing party's claims and justifying judgment in the movant's favor; and determining whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Lease & Rental Management Corp. v. Arrowhead Central Credit Union (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1057-1058.)

The court's sole function on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue-determination. The court must determine from the evidence submitted whether there is a 'triable issue as to any material fact.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926.) "A plaintiff moving for summary adjudication of a cause of action must establish each element of the cause of action. … . If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to set forth "specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, as on a motion for summary judgment." (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1154-55.)

First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief

The first cause of action for declaratory relief alleges, in relevant part:

101. Defendants take the position that defendant Schofield was authorized to revise the articles of "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a corporation sole" in 2006 and 2008, and that defendant Schofield may continue as the incumbent of "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a corporation sole" and as President of the Episcopal Foundation and the Investment Trust after leaving the Episcopal Church and being deposed.

102. Plaintiffs contend to the contrary, that the purported amendments to the articles of the corporation sole were ultra vires, invalid and void, and that defendant Schofield may not continue as the incumbent of "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a corporation sole," or as President of the Episcopal Foundation or the Investment Trust, after leaving the Episcopal Church and being deposed.

Secular courts, when resolving church property disputes, must not entangle themselves in disputes over church doctrine or infringe the free exercise of religion. (In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, 478-479.) In In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, the California Supreme Court held that we must apply the "neutral principles of law" approach to resolving church property disputes in a hierarchical church organization.

In doing so, "State courts must not decide questions of religious doctrine; the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the point. But to the extent the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law. The court should consider sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canon, and rules, and relevant statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as Corporations Code section 9142." (In re Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 485.)

A hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church. (New v. Kroeger (2009) 167 Cal.App.4th 800, 815.) In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments. In contrast, a congregational church is defined as one strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and one that so far as church government is concerned, owes no fealty or obligation to any higher authority. (Id. at p. 816.)

Defendants dispute that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church, but both the California Supreme Court in In Re: Episcopal Church Cases and the appellate court in New v. Kroeger found it to be so. (In Re: Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 494; New v. Kroeger, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 816- 817.) A review of the Constitution and Canons of the Church indicates that it is indeed hierarchical.

The Episcopal Church’s Constitution provides for the establishment of a General Convention composed of two houses, the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, each with the right to originate and propose legislation. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 1, Constitution of Episcopal Church Article I, Sec. 1.) Among the duties of the General Convention is the enactment and amendment of the Canons. (See Mullin Decl. Exhibit 1, Canons of Episcopal Church Title 1, Canon 1, sec. (2(n)(3), Title V, Canon 1, Sec.1.) The General Convention approves and consents to the admission of new dioceses and the election of new bishops. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 1, Constitution of Episcopal Church Article II, Sec. 2, Article V, Sec. 1.) New dioceses must express "unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons" before they can be in union with the general convention and admitted to the Episcopal Church. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 1, Constitution of Episcopal Church Article V, Sec. 1.)

Defendant’s attempt to dispute the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church with the declaration of Rev. Wantland is unavailing. His declaration as to the nature of the Church is an inadmissible opinion on a legal conclusion. "[It] is thoroughly established that experts may not give opinions on matters which are essentially within the province of the court to decide." (Carter v. City of Los Angeles (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 524, 528.)

Lamb is the Incumbent of the Corporation Sole

Corporations Code section 10002 provides: "A corporation sole may be formed under this part by the bishop, chief priest, presiding elder, or other presiding officer of any religious denomination, society, or church, for the purpose of administering and managing the affairs, property, and temporalities thereof." "Historically, a corporation sole consists of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have." (Estate of Zabriskie (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 571, 576-577.) Religious corporations are merely "permitted as a convenience to assist in the conduct of the temporalities of the church. Notwithstanding incorporation the ecclesiastical body is still all-important. The corporation is a subordinate factor in the life and purposes of the church proper." (Wheelock v. First Presb. Church (1897) 119 Cal. 477, 483.)

"The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole" was created to hold title to property belonging to the Missionary District and, later, Diocese of San Joaquin. (UMF Nos. 23, 28, 34.) The Corporations initial articles stated that it was formed because "the rules and regulations of the Protestant Church in the Missionary District of San Joaquin … require that the bishop of said Missionary District shall become a corporation sole under the laws of the State of California by the title of The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin for the distraction of the temporalities thereof and the management of the state and property thereof." (UMF No. 23.) When the Missionary District became a Diocese, Cannon XVII (sections 411 and 412) continued to require the Bishop to be a corporation sole "by the title of ‘The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole’ " and to hold title to "[t]rust funds and real estate acquired by gift or purchase for the use of the Diocese of San Joaquin, or for any unincorporated parish therein, or for the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in any place within this Diocese where there is no organized congregation." (UMF No. 34.)

The documents are clear. Only the "Bishop" of the Diocese of San Joaquin has the right to the incumbency of the corporation originally entitled "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole" and given the number C0066488 by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the Episcopal Church has spoken as to who holds the position of Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin – Reverend Lamb. Defendants challenge Lamb’s election as Bishop on procedural grounds such as notice and quorum, but this court has no power to rule on the validity of the Episcopal Church’s election of its Bishops.

Both the United States Supreme Court and California courts have held that in the case of hierarchical religious entities the civil courts must accept as binding and defer to decisions by religious tribunals with respect to religious doctrine, practice, faith, ecclesiastical rule, discipline, custom, law, membership, polity, clergy credentials and discipline, as well as religious entity governance and administration.. (Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595, 602, 603-604; Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1411; Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696, 708–709, 713; Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) 393 U.S. 440, 449; Rosicrucian Fellow. v. Rosicrucian Etc. Ch. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 121, 131–132.)

Accordingly since the Episcopal Church has seen fit to recognize Lamb as the new Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, we must do so as well. (See UMF No. 66 -- Undisputed that Lamb has been asked to consent to the ordination of new bishops, performed baptisms and confirmations, attended the 2008 meeting of the house of bishops as the Bishop of San Joaquin and attended the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Bishops as the Bishop of San Joaquin.) Moreover, the Episcopal Church has deposed Schofield as Bishop. (UMF No. 55.)

Defendants contend that there was no proper notice of the March 29, 2008 special convention at which Lamb was elected. It is true that there is no competent evidence that 30 days notice of the meeting was given. Hall’s declaration only establishes that he received the notice on March 2, 2008. (Decl. Hall ¶ 20; Exhibit 9.) He did not mail the notice. It is undated. Defendants also contend that the deposition of Schofield was contrary to Church policy, procedure and law. However, we may not look into the prosperity of the election and deposition of church officers according to church regulations and rules. (Serbian Orthodox, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 708-709; Maxwell v. Brougher (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 824, 826; see Vukovich v. Radulovich (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 281, 292–293]; Higgins v. Maher (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, 1173.)

Lamb is the President of the Episcopal Foundation and Investment Trust

Diocesan Canon XXVII, section 28.02 states that the "Bishop of the Diocese shall serve as President and Chairman of the Board" of the Episcopal Foundation. (UMF No. 35.)

The Investment Trust’s articles of incorporation provide that the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin "shall be ex officio president of the Board of Trustees." (UMF No. 36.)

Therefore, Lamb holds both these offices.

The Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation in 2006 and 2008 Are Void

On March 21, 2006 Schofield filed amendments to the articles of incorporation that removed references that before a new bishop could be ordained, consent from the majority of Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church must be obtained and the bishop must be consecrated by three Episcopal bishops. (UMF No. 41.) This amendment was void because it violated the accession clause and was thus not in conformity with the "rules, regulations or laws" of the Episcopal Church. (See Corp. Code, § 10003.) Moreover, when amending the articles of incorporation of a corporation sole, the incumbent must "sign and verify a statement setting forth the provisions of the amendment and stating that it has been duly authorized by the religious organization governed by the corporation." (Corp. Code, § 10010.) Because the amendment was in direct contravention of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church at the time it was made, the accession clause prevented the Diocese from "duly authorizing" it.

The 2008 amendment changing the name of the corporation to "The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin" is likewise void. The Diocese of San Joaquin had not "duly authorized" the name change when it occurred. The only purported authorization came about after Schofield was deposed as a Bishop and the Anglican defendants were no longer recognized by the Episcopal Church as the Diocese of San Joaquin.

The Diocese is Properly a Party Plaintiff

Defendants contend that the Diocese of San Joaquin, by which they mean the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, has not been joined as a party and judgment may not be had unless it is joined because the declaratory relief action seeks to invalidate its acts.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, it ignores the fact that the Episcopal Church has, rightly or wrongly, procedurally correctly or not, recognized the organization headed by Lamb as the true and surviving Diocese of San Joaquin. (See UMF Nos. 55, 57-59, 66.) That Diocese is a party plaintiff.

Second, this is not a breach of contract action as defendants suggest in their memorandum of points and authorities. The Diocese is not being sued for breaching a contract with the Church. Although the rule regarding necessary parties is not relaxed in actions brought to obtain declaratory relief, the Diocese is not a necessary party. (See Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 808, 812.) No judgment or order against the Diocese directing them to pay or do anything is sought. Rather, Schofield is being sued for declaratory relief for his actions in amending the articles of incorporation of the corporation sole and in refusing to give up the incumbency of three corporations.

The Corporation Sole is a Party Plaintiff

Defendants claim that the corporation sole which is a party plaintiff is not the true corporation sole known as No. C0066488 which they claim to operate. Defendants are incorrect for the reasons expressed above. The Diocese of San Joaquin (plaintiffs) is not a new organization that "split off" from defendants’ older organization. It is the older organization from which defendants’ removed themselves.

Plaintiffs Have Standing to Sue

Defendants’ arguments that plaintiffs are not validly constituted as the Diocese and Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, or indeed of any subpart of the Episcopal Church are poorly taken. The defendants have voted to leave an organization that held certain real property and no longer have any claim to it.

" 'Ultra vires' refers to an act which is beyond the powers conferred upon a corporation by its charter or by the laws of the state of incorporation . . . ." (Marsili v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 313, 322.) Defendants argue that their right to amend their constitution and canons has always been unrestricted and unlimited. It is not. From the inception of the Diocese as a Missionary District, it acceded to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and recognized the authority of the General Convention of the same. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 7, Constitution of Missionary District of San Joaquin, Article II.) When the Missionary District Petitioned to become a Diocese in 1961, the petition clearly stated in conclusion, "As evidenced by the resolution of the Special Convocation above referred to, the Church in the Missionary District of San Joaquin has acceded to the Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 9, Petition and Memorial of Missionary District of San Joaquin.) The Constitution of the new Diocese of San Joaquin likewise acceded to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and recognized the authority of the General Convention. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 11, Constitution of Diocese of San Joaquin, Article II.)

Although defendants make much over the fact that the Diocese acceded only to the Constitution, and not the Canons of the Episcopal Church, the court finds that the Diocese implicitly acceded to both by virtue to acceding to the Constitution. The function of the Constitution is to form a legislative body, the General Convention. The General Convention adopted and amends the Canons. Acceding to the Constitution that creates the legislative body, and recognizing the authority of the legislative body, while simultaneously denying accession to the product of the legislative body is nonsensical. By analogy, a state could accede to the Constitution of the United States and claim that it did not accede to the federal law or the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, the Petition for the Erection of the Diocese of San Joaquin mentions accession to both the Constitution and Canons. This strongly implies that it was always the intention of the Diocese to accede to both documents. (See In re Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 488.) Finally, the Constitution of the Episcopal Church in place in 1961 required accession to both the Constitution and Canons. (Mullin Decl. Exhibit 8, Constitution of Episcopal Church, Article VI.)

Accordingly, the 2008 amendments to the Diocese’s Constitution purporting to strike the accession clause and insert new language relative to joining the Province of the Southern Cone were ultra vires and void.

The constitution of the Diocese has always permitted amendments. (AMF No. 69, Kamai Decl. Exhibits 4 and 7 Constitution of Diocese of San Joaquin, Article XIII.) Defendants contend that there was no legal impediment to their 2006 amendment qualifying the accession clause such that they acceded to the Episcopal Church’s Constitution only to the extent that it was not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese, as amended from time to time and further this 2006 amendment allowed for the 2008 amendment deleting the accession clause entirely and withdrawing from the Episcopal Church. Defendants are incorrect. The original accession clause itself prevents such amendment. If the Constitution of the Diocese incorporates and accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, which require accession, then the Constitution of the Diocese cannot be amended to remove such language.

Defendants also attack the special meeting at which Lamb was elected Bishop, claiming that the calling of the special meeting was not in accordance with the Constitutions and canons of either the Episcopal Church or the Diocese of San Joaquin. Again, the Episcopal Church having seen fit to recognize Lamb as the true Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, this court is without the power to countermand that decision. Defendants cite Singh v. Singh (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1283 for the proposition that a court has jurisdiction to review whether a religious corporation adhered to its own internal rules and bylaws. Singh is distinguishable. In that case an orally elected board of directors sued for judicial determination of the validity of their election or to order a new election and determine the rights of the members to vote, pursuant to Corporations Code section 9418, subdivision (c). The appellate court determined that the trial court, under neutral principles of law could validly interpret the bylaws of the corporation as it applied to the election of a board of directors and their term of office. It did not decide a matter of who was the ecclesiastical authority of the church.

Trust Beneficiaries Need Not Be Named or Noticed

Defendants claim that because this action is to remove Schofield from his position as incumbent of a corporation that holds property in trust for unincorporated missions and parishes, these beneficiaries are necessary parties and are required to be given notice of this action by virtue of Probate Code section 17203. Probate Code section 17203 applies only to proceedings under the probate code applicable to express trusts. The interest at stake here is incumbency in a corporation sole. The fact that the corporation sole holds property in trust does not mean that a petition for the removal of a trustee pursuant to Probate Code section 17200 has been filed.

Procedural Issues

Defendants claim that the motion must be denied because plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule of Court 3.150 which requires that the specific cause of action must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim in the separate statement of undisputed material facts. Specifically, plaintiff’s notice of motion and separate statement seek summary adjudication on "Count I" not the "First Cause of Action." This distinction is immaterial. As Weil and Brown note, that although few lawyers and judges use the term "count," the term may be used interchangeably with the phrase "cause of action." (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) "Pleadings" § 6:105-6:106.)

Defendants also take issue with the separate statement’s failure to place the supporting facts in the first column underneath the supported fact. (Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350, subdivision (d)) and failure to place all supporting evidence under one separate cover separately bound with a table of contents. (Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350, subdivision (g).) However, these minor technical violations did not impede the court’s review of the motion and are not grounds to deny the motion.

Defendants contend that because the first cause of action is broken into subparts seeking declaratory relief on several issues, each issue had to be separately identified in the separate statement of facts in support of summary judgment and the separate statement organized so that it could be determined which fact related to each issue. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), provides: "A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages [as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code], or one or more issues of duty . . . . A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty." As such the cause of action for declaratory relief stands or fails as a whole and the plaintiffs were not required to break the separate statement into sub "issues" for adjudication, as this would have been improper.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, subd. (a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subd. (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: AMC on May 4, 2009 .
(Judge’s Initial) (Date)

Attack on American Free Enterprise - Part Three

2009-05-02T14:15:00.003-05:00

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

ATTACK OF AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM — PART THREE

DATE: August 23, 1971

TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.

[See Introduction and Parts One and Two for material that precedes the following.]

What Can Be Done About the Public?

Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:

Television

The national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as "Selling of the Pentagon"), but to the daily "news analysis" which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system.12 Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in "business" and free enterprise.

This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints — to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission — should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.

Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.

Other Media

Radio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.

The Scholarly Journals

It is especially important for the Chamber's "faculty of scholars" to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for "publication" and "lecturing." A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's scholars.

Incentives might be devised to induce more "publishing" by independent scholars who do believe in the system.

There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals — ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review, New York, etc.)13 and to the various professional journals.

Books, Paperbacks and Pamphlets

The news stands — at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere — are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on "our side." It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made — on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success — this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.

Paid Advertisements

Business pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.

If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.

The Neglected Political Arena

In the final analysis, the payoff — short-of revolution — is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.

It is still Marxist doctrine that the "capitalist" countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.

Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of "lobbyist" for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the "forgotten man."

Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen's views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to "consumerism" or to the "environment."

Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.

The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking — not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.

But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.

Neglected Opportunity in the Courts

American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.

Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from "liberal" to the far left.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been inconsequential.

This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.

As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.

Neglected Stockholder Power

The average member of the public thinks of "business" as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that "business" actually embraces — in one way or another — most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders — most of whom are of modest means — are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.

The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders — 20 million voters — be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.

Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive "news" magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.

The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible — through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise — to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?

A More Aggressive Attitude

Business interests — especially big business and their national trade organizations — have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.

As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant — at least in public — of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.

Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable "demands" made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.

While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system — at all levels and at every opportunity — be far more aggressive than in the past.

There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.

Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected — where it counts the most — by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.

It is time for American business — which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions — to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.

The Cost

The type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.

The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.

It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.

Quality Control is Essential

Essential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and "quality control." The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees — all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.

Relationship to Freedom

The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.

It is this great truth — now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals — that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.

There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom — ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.

We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.

In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and — more recently — by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable.14 But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.

Conclusion

It hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late.
　
Footnotes:
　
12. It has been estimated that the evening half-hour news programs of the networks reach daily some 50,000,000 Americans.
13. One illustration of the type of article which should not go unanswered appeared in the popular "The New York" of July 19, 1971. This was entitled "A Populist Manifesto" by ultra liberal Jack Newfield — who argued that "the root need in our country is 'to redistribute wealth'."
14. The recent "freeze" of prices and wages may well be justified by the current inflationary crisis. But if imposed as a permanent measure the enterprise system will have sustained a near fatal blow.
　

Attack on American Free Enterprise - Part Two

2009-05-02T13:56:00.004-05:00

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

ATTACK OF AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM — PART TWO
DATE: August 23, 1971

TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.

[See Part One for material that precedes the following.]

The Campus

The assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.

Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence — far out of proportion to their numbers — on their colleagues and in the academic world.

Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that "balance" is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.

This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said:

"Because they were taught that way."1,

Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater:

"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores' of bright young men
... who despise the American political and economic system."

As these "bright young men," from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust — if not, indeed "despise" — they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as "staffers" and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.

Many do enter the enterprise system — in business and the professions — and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these "intellectuals" end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.

If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business — and organizations such as the Chamber — is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of "openness," "fairness" and "balance" — which are essential to its intellectual significance — there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.

What Can Be Done About the Campus

The ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:
Staff of Scholars

The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected — even when disagreed with.

Staff of Speakers

There also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.

Speaker's Bureau

In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.

Evaluation of Textbooks

The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.

The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.

We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.

If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected — honestly, fairly and thoroughly — to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.

Equal Time on the Campus

The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.

Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.

It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.11 This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard — in effect, insisted upon "equal time." University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.

The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure — publicly and privately — may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.

Balancing of Faculties

Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.

The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.

This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.

Graduate Schools of Business

The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.

Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.

Secondary Education

While the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction — especially the quality control — should be retained by the National Chamber.
　
Footnotes:
10. Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, "The Total Break with America, The Fifth Annual Conference of Socialist Scholars," Sept. 15, 1969.

Attack on American Free Enterprise - Part One

2009-05-02T13:49:00.002-05:00

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

ATTACK OF AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM — PART ONE
DATE: August 23, 1971

TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.

Dimensions of the Attack

No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.1 This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.

There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.

But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.

Sources of the Attack

The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.

The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.

Moreover, much of the media — for varying motives and in varying degrees — either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these "attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.

One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.

Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.

Tone of the Attack

This memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:

William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the "American lawyer most admired," incites audiences as follows:

"You must lean to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn
to do all of the things that property owners fear."2

The New Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are beginning to act -- not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses:

"Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39
times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by
arsonists."3

Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.

A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:

"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men
who are practitioners of 'the politics of despair.' These young men despise the
American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly
closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans."4

A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that:

"Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries."5

A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned:

"It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under
wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but
by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they
would never intentionally promote."6

Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader who — thanks largely to the media — has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:

"The passion that rules in him — and he is a passionate man — is aimed at
smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks,
and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison
— for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply
with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will
maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about
'fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management of blue chip business."7

A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: "The Greening of America," published last winter.

The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as "tax breaks," "loop holes" or "tax benefits" for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit "only the rich, the owners of big companies."8

It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only "business," without benefit to "the poor." The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the "rich" against the "poor," of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.

The Apathy and Default of Business

What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?

The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.

In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.

But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.

A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: "Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?"9 Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:

"General Motors, like American business in general, is 'plainly in trouble'
because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual
exposition of its point of view."

Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of "the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics." He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators:

"College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy
free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand
was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon
escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender."

One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business "plainly in trouble"; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.

Responsibility of Business Executives

What specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.

The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.

The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on "public relations" or "governmental affairs" — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.

A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP's) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task. Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce

But independent and uncoordinated (sic) activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.

Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.

The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.

It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.

Footnotes:
1. Variously called: the "free enterprise system," "capitalism," and the "profit system." The American political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack, often by the same individuals and organizations who seek to undermine the enterprise system.

2. Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1970. Column of William F. Buckley, Jr.

3. N.Y. Times Service article, reprinted Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 17, 1971.

4. Stewart Alsop, Yale and the Deadly Danger, Ncwsweek, May 18. 1970.

5. Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 7, 1971.

6. Dr. Milton Friedman, Prof. of Economics, U. of Chicago, writing a foreword to Dr. Arthur A. Shenfield's Rockford College lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," copyrighted 1970 by Rockford College.

7. Fortune. May, 1971, p. 145. This Fortune analysis of the Nader influence includes a reference to Nader's visit to a college where he was paid a lecture fee of $2,500 for "denouncing America's big corporations in venomous language . . . bringing (rousing and spontaneous) bursts of applause" when he was asked when he planned to run for President.

*. Italic emphasis added by Mr. Powell.

8. The Washington Post, Column of William Raspberry, June 28, 1971.

9. Jeffrey St. John, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1971.

Attack on American Free Enterprise - Introduction

2009-05-02T13:42:00.005-05:00

The Powell Memorandum was written in 1971 but has not been widely published, so in an attempt to spark a public debate and to encourage action, I have presenting the memorandum in its entirety here. Because of the length of the material, this article will be broken into 4 sections. As you read this, you may be struck, as I was, with the realization that what we are experiencing today has roots that extend back many years. Failure to heed the warnings from 1971 have resulted in the socialization of America we are seeing today. Only by vigilante and concentrated effort will the course of history be changed. The future is in our hands to mold it into whatever we choose. What will we choose?

BACKGROUND OF THE POWELL MEMORANDUM

When National Chamber Director Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., became chairman of the US Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, he discussed with his neighbor and long-time friend, Lewis F. Powell, Richmond attorney, ways to provide the public a more balanced view of the country's economic system.

At Mr. Sydnor's request, Mr. Powell, based on his broad experience as chairman of the Richmond City School Board, as well as the Virginia State Board of Education prepared a memorandum in which he incorporated a number of possible approaches. The memorandum covered a broad range of educational and other activities for study and consideration by the National Chamber.

The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months before Mr. Powell was nominated to become a member justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was studied and evaluation by Chamber officers and staff members. Several of its approaches were put into practice, but others languished for lack of resources or passion needed to carry out the suggestions.

Jack Anderson, the syndicated columnist, wrote several columns discussing the memorandum. Mr. Anderson obtained a copy of the memorandum without the knowledge or permission of the National Chamber. Anyone reading the Powell memorandum will easily conclude that it objectively and fairly deals with a very real problem facing the free enterprise system.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR LEWIS F. POWELL

Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. (September 19, 1907 – August 25, 1998) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He developed a reputation as a judicial moderate, and was known as a master of compromise and consensus-building. He was also widely well-regarded by contemporaries due to his personal good manners and politeness.
Powell was born in Suffolk, Virginia. He attended Washington and Lee University, garnering both an undergraduate and a law degree from that university. He was elected president of student body as an undergraduate and was a member of Phi Kappa Sigma. At a leadership conference, he met Edward R. Murrow and they became close friends. He attended Harvard Law School for a master's degree.

During World War II, he spent more than three years in Europe and North Africa. He started as a First Lieutenant, and eventually rose to the rank of Colonel. He worked mostly in intelligence, decoding German messages.

Powell was a partner for over a quarter of a century at Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell and Gibson, a large Virginia law firm, with its primary office in Richmond (now known as Hunton & Williams LLP). Powell practiced primarily in the areas of corporate law (especially in the field of mergers and acquisitions) and in railway litigation law.

The Powell Memorandum

In August 1971, prior to accepting Nixon's request to become Associate Justice of Supreme Court, Lewis Powell had sent to the leadership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce the "Confidential Memorandum", better known as the Powell Memorandum, and still under the radar of general public. It sounded an alarm with its title, "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System." The previous decade had seen the increasing regulation of many industries and, as Powell argued, "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements.

In an extraordinary prefiguring of the social goals of business that would be felt over the next three decades, Powell set his main goal: Changing how individuals and society think about the corporation, the government, the law, the culture, and the individual became, and would remain, a major goal of business.

He had been a board member of Philip Morris between 1964 until his appointment in 1971, and had acted as a contact point for the tobacco industry with the Virginia Commonwealth University. Through his law firm, Hunton Williams Gay Powell & Gibson (later just Hunton & Williams) he represented the Tobacco Institute and the various tobacco companies in numerous law cases.
　

Easter Blessing

2009-04-11T18:38:00.006-05:00

On this, the holiest day of the Christian year, it seems appropriate for me to stop, move away from the constant pull of the world, and meditate on a higher reason for my own existence. Therefore, I share with you today, briefly, what is on my heart.

In the account of the Easter story found in the Gospel of John (John 20:1-18), John helps us spend time with Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb of Jesus as she encounters her own emptiness. The story of the Resurrection is not some myth or fable, concocted to explain the Christian faith. No, it is MUCH more than that! It is a report of a real event that took place at a specific time in history, in a specific place, with real witnesses, who continue to provide their testimony through the gospels.

On Easter Sunday morning, when we stand and exchange the historic greeting, "Christ is risen; he is risen indeed," we join the eyewitnesses of the gospels, along with the countless others throughout that last 2,000 years who, with us, have placed their faith and their eternal outcome in that confession. We have experienced the resurrection of Christ in our own hearts, and we are also able to affirm that the resurrection of Christ is more than an idle tale.

This Easter morning when we encounter the empty tomb, what will it mean? There is a mountain of difference between "he's not here" and "he has risen." When Simon Peter and John saw the empty tomb, they believed. Mary stood at that same empty tomb and wept at her own emptiness.

The good news for us today is that God does not leave us to our own thoughts, even when we are full of doubt or despair. The lesson Mary teaches us today is to persevere until God's voice breaks through the fog of our lives.

Two of the disciples ran back to town with a believing conclusion. Mary stayed where she was until Jesus cleared her confusion. Will God do anything less for us? This is my prayer for us all:

Almighty God, who through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ overcame death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life: Grant that we, who celebrate with joy the day of our Lord’s resurrection, may be raised from the death of sin by your life-giving Spirit; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

On Easter morning, let us go forth into the world, rejoicing in the power of the Spirit.

In the Love and Grace of Our
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
　
Bill Fisher

Good Friday

2009-04-10T18:13:00.006-05:00

What could possibly be good about a Friday over 2,000 years ago when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on a Roman cross? How could death, and a terribly painful one at that, be good? Where did the idea come from to call this day in Holy Week "good?" The source is unclear. Some have suggested it is a corruption of the English phrase "God’s Friday." It is the title for this day among English and Dutch speaking people, but few others.

The liturgical title for this day in the Western church was "Friday of Preparation," similar to what the Jews called Friday — paraskeue (getting ready) or "day of preparation." Other names used are "Holy Friday" among the Latin nations, "Great Friday" among the Slavic countries, "Friday of Mourning" in Germany, and "Long Friday" in Norway.

Good Friday is good because, on this day God reconciled the world to himself in Christ. For us it is "good" because we look back at the crucifixion through the lens of Easter!

This is the starkest day of the Christian year. There are no adornments in the church. No gold is in sight. The Table is bare. No Bible is on the pulpit. Nothing but a simple wooden cross is present. Black is the theme chosen by many for this day, but the overwhelming consensus has been to use no color at all. In many churches, there is no music today, and in those where music is played, it is simple with only a keyboard, a piano, or a guitar. The ministers enter in silence. There are no choirs and no special music. Holy Communion is not to be offered at this service, nor at any time again until the Great Vigil or Easter Sunday morning. The service is ended without a benediction, but with a simple dismissal prayer and all depart in silence. This is the prayer from the Book of Common Prayer (page 282):

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, we pray you to set your passion, cross, and death between your judgment and our souls, now and in the hour of our death. Give mercy and grace to the living; pardon and rest to the dead; to your holy Church peace and concord; and to us sinners everlasting life and glory; for with the Father and Holy Spirit you live and reign, one God, now and for ever. Amen,

The Road to Liberty - 12 Principles

2009-04-08T15:10:00.006-05:00

The following is excerpted from "A Time For Truth", a book published in 1978 and written by former Secretary of the Treasury, William E. Simon. That these words were written 30 years ago should give every American reason to wonder if we have learned nothing from our past. The principles contained here reflect true wisdom and reveal a sound platform for the resuscitation of free enterprise and for conservative political activism that is essential today if we are to stop the slide of America into the liberal abyss of moral relativism. These guiding principles offered by Simon should aide in developing positive conservative talking points and underlying principles. It is essential that we return to sound economic policies as a people and as a government. There can be no mistake in applying the formula because political freedom and economic freedom are inexorably linked. At no time in America's history have these freedoms been in greater danger of being lost than at this present moment.

1. The overriding principle to be revived in American political life is that which sets individual liberty as the highest political value — that value to which all other values are subordinate and that which, at all times, is to be given the highest priority in policy discussions.

2. There must be a conscious philosophical prejudice against any intervention by the state into our lives, for by definition such intervention abridges liberty. Whatever form it may take, state intervention in the private and productive lives of the citizenry must be presumed to be negative, uncreative, and a dangerous act, to be adopted only when its proponents provide overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the benefits to society of such intervention far outweigh the costs.

3. The principle of "no taxation without representation" must again become a rallying cry for Americans. Only Congress represents American voters, and the process of transferring regulatory powers — which are a hidden power to tax — to unelected, uncontrollable, and unfireable bureaucrats must stop. The American voters, who pay the bills, must be in a position to know what is being economically inflicted on them and in a position to vote men out of office who assault their interests, as the voters define those interests. Which means that Congress should not pass bills creating programs that it cannot effectively oversee. The drive to demand scrupulous legislative oversight of our policing agencies, such as the CIA, is valid; it should be extended to all agencies of government which are also, directly or indirectly, exercising police powers.

4. A critical principle which must be communicated forcefully to the American public is the inexorable interdependence of economic and political liberty. Our citizens must learn that what keeps them prosperous is production and technological innovation. Their wealth emerges, not from government offices or politicians' edicts, but only from that portion of the marketplace which is free. They must also be taught to understand the relationship among collectivism, centralized planning, and poverty so that every new generation of Americans need not naively receive the Marxist revelation afresh.

5. Bureaucracies themselves should be assumed to be noxious, authoritarian parasites on society, with a tendency to augment their own size and power and to cultivate a parasitical clientele in all classes of society. Area after area of American life should be set free from their blind power drive. We commonly hear people call for a rollback of prices, often unaware that they are actually calling for the destruction of marginal businesses and jobs they furnish. People must be taught to start calling for the rollback of bureaucracy, where nothing will be lost but strangling regulation and where the gains will always take the form of liberty, productivity, and jobs.

6. Productivity and the growth of productivity must be the first economic consideration at all times, not the last. That is the source of technological innovation, jobs, and wealth. This means that profits needed for investment must be respected as a great social blessing, not as social evil, and that envy of the "rich" cannot be allowed to destroy a powerful economic system.

7. The concept that "wealth is theft" must be repudiated. It now lurks, implicitly, in most of the political statements we hear. Wealth can indeed be stolen, but only after it is produced. and the difference between stolen wealth and produced wealth is critical. If a man obtains money by fraud or by force, he is simply a criminal to be handled by the police and the courts. But if he has earned his income honorably, by the voluntary exchange of goods and services, he is not a criminal or a second-hand citizen and should not be treated as such. A society taught to perceive producers as criminals will end up destroying its productive processes.

8. Conversely, the concept that the absence of money implies some sort of virtue should be repudiated. Poverty may result from honest misfortune, but it may result from sloth, incompetence, and dishonesty. Again, the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor is important. It is a virtue to assist those who are in acute need through no fault of their own, but it is folly to glamorize men simply because they are penniless. The crude linkage between wealth and evil, poverty and virtue is false, stupid, and of value only to demagogues, parasites, and criminals — indeed, the three groups that alone have profited from the linkage

9. Similarly, the view that government is virtuous and producers are evil is a piece of folly, and a nation which allows itself to be tacitly guided by these illusions must lose both its liberty and its wealth. Government has its proper functions, and consequently, there can be both good and bad governments. Producers as well can be honest and dishonest. Our political discourse can be rendered rational only when people are taught to make such discriminations.

10. The "ethics" of egalitarianism must be repudiated. Achievers must not be penalized or parasites rewarded if we aspire to be a healthy, productive, and ethical society. Able bodied citizens must work to sustain their lives, and in a healthy economic system they would be enabled and encouraged to save for their own old age. Chiefly, so long as the government’s irrational fiscal policies make this impossible, present commitments to pensions and Social Security must be maintained at all costs, for the bulk of the population has no other recourse. But as soon as is politically feasible — meaning, as soon as production becomes the nation’s highest economic value — the contributions of able-bodied citizens to their own future pensions should be invested by them in far safer commercial institutions, where the sums can earn high interest without being squandered by politicians and bureaucrats. American citizens must be taught to wrest their life savings from the politicians if they are to know the comfort of genuine security.

11. The American citizen must be made aware that today a relatively small group of people is proclaiming its purposes to be the will of the People. That elitist approach to the government must be repudiated. There is no such thing as the People; it is a collectivist myth. There are only individual citizens with individual wills and individual purposes. There is only one social system that reflects this sovereignty of the individual: the free-market, or capitalist system, which means the sovereignty of the individual "vote" in the marketplace and the sovereignty of the individual in the political realm. That individual sovereignty is being destroyed in this country by our political trends, and it is scarcely astonishing that individuals now feel "alienated" from their government. They are alienated from it; they have virtually been expelled from the governmental process, where only organized mobs prevail.

12. The growing cynicism about democracy must be combated by explaining why it has become corrupted. People have been taught that if they can get together big enough gangs, they have the legal power to hijack other citizens' wealth, which means the power to hijack other people's efforts, energies, and lives. No decent society can function when men are given such power. A State does need funds, but a clear cutoff line must be established beyond which no political group or institution can confiscate a citizen’s honorably earned property. The notion that one can differentiate between "property rights" and "human rights" is ignoble. One need merely see the appalling condition of "human rights" in nations where there are no "property rights" to understand why. This is just a manifestation of the socialist myth which imagines that one can keep men’s minds free while enslaving their bodies.

These are some of the broad principles I have reached after four years in office. Essentially they are a set of guiding principles. America is foundering for the lack of principles; it is now guided by the belief that unprincipled action — for which the respectable name is "pragmatism" — is somehow superior. Such principles as I have listed do not represent dogma. There is, as I said, nothing arbitrary or dogmatic about the interlocking relationship between political and economic liberty. The history of every nation on earth demonstrates that relationship, and no economist known to me, including the theoreticians of interventionism and totalitarianism, denies this. If liberty is to be our highest political value, this set of broad principles follow consistently."

William E. Simon. A Time For Truth, McCraw-Hill Book Company, 1978, p. 217

Quotes Volume 1

2009-04-08T14:51:00.003-05:00

We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ John Adams

Duty is ours, results are God's ... ~ John Quincy Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. ~ John Quincy Adams; 6th President; July 4, 1821
　
The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country. ~ Calvin Coolidge; 30th President

In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns ... ~ Benjamin Franklin

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. ~ Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here. ~ Patrick Henry

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. ~ John Jay; first Supreme Court Justice

It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God …… and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord ……. We have been the recipients of the choicest blessings of heaven. …… We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation ever has grown; but we have forgotten God! ~ Abraham Lincoln

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. ~ Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. ~ H.L. Mencken

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. ~ Henry George

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all –– security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. ~ Edward Gibbon

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C. S. Lewis

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. ~ Ayn Rand

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. ~ Alexander Tytler

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. ~ G. Gordon Liddy

The government was set to protect man from criminals –– and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. ~ Ayn Rand

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. ~ Abraham Lincoln

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. ~ Thomas Jefferson

The war for freedom will never really be won because the price of our freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our Government. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. ~ Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. ~ Milton Friedman

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed –– unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ~ James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed …… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ~ Samuel Adams

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ~ Winston Churchill

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt (1783)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed –– and hence clamorous to be led to safety –– by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ~ H.L. Mencken

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ~ James Madison

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? ~ Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~ Lord Acton (1887)

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. ~ Thomas Sowell (1992)

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. ~ George Bernard Shaw

The Prayer of Faith - Does It Work?

2009-03-21T12:25:00.012-05:00

Copyright © 2006. Bill Fisher. All rights reserved

10/23/06

Does the prayer of faith really work? What does Scripture say on the subject? That must be our standard for answering this question. Here is a sampling of some key scriptures:

James 1:25 - But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it — he will be blessed in what he does.

James 4:2-3 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

James 5:13-18 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

1 John 3:21-22 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.

1 John 5:13-15 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.

Romans 8:26-27 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

Mark 11:23-24 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

First, there are only two passages in scripture where praying for healing is mentioned. One is James 5:14, 16 where James says we should call for the elders to pray for us if we are sick and that we should pray for each other so "you may be healed." The other scripture is Num. 12:13 where "Moses cried out to the Lord, ‘O God, please heal her.’" He was asking God to heal Miriam, his sister, whom God had struck with leprosy because of her opposition to Moses. In all other cases, healing came about as the result of someone speaking words of healing similar to, "Take up your bed and walk," or "Be healed."

Second, there is this idea that when we pray, we have to ask according to God’s will or we won’t get what we pray for. There is one scripture that says this...sort of. 1 John 5:14 says "if we ask according to his will, he hears us." But then, Romans 8:26 says, "We do not know what we ought to pray for," so the Holy Spirit intercedes for us "in accordance with God’s will." So, if we pray in the Spirit, we are praying in accordance with God’s will, and "whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him."

Someone will say, "Yes, but what if it doesn’t work?" If it doesn’t work, does that mean God’s Word is untrue? Or does it mean I’ve missed something. Either the fault lies with me or with God. There is no other possibility. Either what His Word says is not true, or my experience does not line up with the truth of His Word. If it doesn’t work, I will keep doing it until it does work. The alternative is to give up, to quit, and accept whatever bad thing is happening in my life. Now let me see, where do bad things come from? Where do good things come from? If I am praying for good things for my life, to whom to I pray? What are the words coming out of mouth saying? Are they faith-filled words, or are they doubt and unbelief?

I knew a woman whose husband became gravely ill, and she (and her whole family) prayed for his healing. She tried as hard as she could to stand on her faith that her beloved husband would be healed, but, in the end, he died. Some members of her church told her that her faith just wasn’t strong enough to save him. Some members of her family told her that it must have been God’s will. In fact, some of those same family members still, to this day, continue to say that it must have been God’s will. They say that because they prayed, and it didn’t happen. Therefore, the prayer must not have been according to God’s will, because that’s what 1 John 5:14 says. Therefore, it was God’s will that he die. Any mention of how faith works causes deep pain in this woman and her family, and they become defensive, to the point of attacking anyone who dares to suggest that we can have what we ask.

If Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and the curse of the law was death, sickness, and poverty, then it cannot be God’s will that someone die of sickness. We don’t have to be sick to die! There is not one verse in the Bible that says it is God’s will that we be sick, or that we die from sickness. Not ONE! Yet, people continue to say this based on their misunderstanding of one verse.

There are many, many verses that tell us things like "I am the God that heals you."and "By his stripes you were healed." Health is God’s will for his people. Abundance in every area of life is God’s will for his people. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life abundant." So, why do we continue to cling to wrong thinking about this? Because it is more comfortable to remain in ignorance than to stretch ourselves into the shape of the new creation that God has made us. Our old skin feels more comfortable. We have not "taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Col. 3:9-10)

The children of Israel wondered in the wilderness for 40 years but, even though they died, they did not get sick. God punished those adults over the age of 20 who grumbled when the spies returned and who refused to go in and take the land. Those particular spies who came back with a bad report died of plague, but the rest of the people just died.

Ex. 15:26 - He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."

Ex. 23:25 - Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you,

Duet. 7:15 - The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you.

What kind of God do we serve who would "will" that we get sick and die? Is this the God that heals us? Is this the God that brings us life abundant?

If you are one of those who believes that every bad thing that happens to you is God’s will to teach you something, then you need to go search out the Word of God to see what the Word says about this. That idea is an old religious doctrine that is simply not in line with the Word of God.

Psalm 103:2-5 Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits -- who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.

Do you believe there is a divine purpose behind the bad things that happen in your life? Do you believe sickness and trouble are part of God’s plan for your life? Before you can even begin to operate in faith, you must answer those questions. If you believe these things come to you from God because they are God’s will for you, it will be impossible for you to believe that it is God’s will for you to be healed. To believe God will heal you, then would be to believe for something that is not God’s will for you.

Religious doctrines have taught us, wrongly, that God brings trouble to us to teach us something. They use the children of Israel in the wilderness as an example. God did not leave the children of Israel in the wilderness to teach them anything. He left them so those unfaithful people would die out. He would not permit them to enter into the reward of the Promised Land.

Psalm 103:2-5 tells us that God forgives our sins, heals our diseases, redeems us from death, crowns us with love and compassion, and satisfies our desires with good things.

Psalm 37:3-4 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

No this is the God we serve, the God who heals us, who blesses us with abundant lives, who saves us from the curse of the law, who gives us the desires of our hearts. God does not will that we be sick or that we die of sickness. He can call us home without sickness and disease when our time comes to leave. But, he will not put sickness on us to get us out of here.

Unintended Consequences

2009-01-31T12:33:00.012-06:00

One hears a lot from the Fr. Jambor Camp (Jambor Camp) at All Saints Episcopal Church in Fort Worth about how the conflict between the EDFW and All Saints is all about the property. On the other hand , those who support the vote of the EDFW to separate from TEC deny that it is all about the property but is about TEC’s abandonment of the faith once delivered to the Saints. I would like to propose that the Jambor Camp may be right -- perhaps it really is all about the property. But it may be for a different reason than they suppose, and their decision may have unintended consequences for them.

Consider that much is made about the "Dennis Canon" and how it declares that all property of TEC parishes is held in trust for TEC and the diocese. Of course, some of us do not believe the Dennis Canon was ever legally enacted, nor could it invalidate the Statue of Frauds requiring such a trust to be in writing and signed by both the trustee and the beneficiary of such a trust. But, let us assume, just for the sake of this discussion, that the Dennis Canon is valid. What does it actually say? Here it is:

Title I.7.4 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.”

Now, the Jambor Camp keeps saying it is all about the property, and they are adamant that they are no longer a part of the EDFW to which Bp. Iker belongs but are part of the continuing diocese, which the North Texas Episcopalians are working to reconstitute. They want Bp. Iker to leave them and their property alone. Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that the Jambor Camp is correct when they claim they are part of TEC and the soon-to-be reconstituted diocese. On the agenda for the "Special Convention" of the reconstituted diocese, is a resolution to declare Canon 18.4, among others, to be unenforceable. That means they will no longer be under the protection of Canon 18.4 of the EDFW but will be under the authority of the so-called "Dennis Canon" cited above. Their property will no longer be held in trust for All Saints by the EDFW. Their property will then be held in trust by All Saints for TEC. Notice that Title I.7.4 cited above states that:

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located.”

This is quite different from what Canon 18.2 of the Canons of the EDFW which states:

“Real property acquired by the Corporation for the use of a particular Parish, Mission or Diocesan School shall be held by the Corporation in trust for the use and benefit of such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School.”

The Jambor Camp has been saying all along that, while "legal" title may rest in the EDFW, "equitable" title rests with the parish. This, they claim, is how a court will rule, and, therefore, the property of All Saints will belong to All Saints. In that event, and if the Dennis Canon is valid, All Saints will find they are no longer the beneficial owners of their property, as they are under Canon 18.4, but are then the trustee holding "legal" title to the property for TEC, who will then have the "equitable" title to their property. Following this line of reasoning, All Saints could never own their property.

If, on the other hand, All Saints were still under the authority of Canon 18.4 of the EDFW, their property ("equitable" title) would be protected by the EDFW’s trust ("legal" title) from TEC, and would thus defend All Saints’ property from a land grab by TEC. Notice the provision of Canon 18.4 below:

Property held by the Corporation for the use of a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School belongs beneficially to such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School only. No adverse claim to such beneficial interest by the Corporation, by the Diocese, or by The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is acknowledged, but rather is expressly denied.

If All Saints is not under the authority of Canon 18.4, All Saints has no protection from an adverse claim by TEC to their property. In fact, by removing themselves from the protection of Canon 18.4, All Saints will be subject to the Dennis Canon which claims all of All Saints' property as the property of TEC and the Diocese to which All Saints belongs.

Given the Pb’s proclivity for litigation, does the Jambor Camp really believe they would be immune from the Pb’s desire to take their property? Surely a review of recent history demonstrates that TEC has actively sought the property of those parishes that left TEC under the claim that the parish merely held title in trust for TEC under the Dennis Canon.

Now consider the direction that TEC appears to intend to lead All Saints and those parishes who are affiliated with the North Texas Episcopalians. The Pb has proposed Bp. Gulick for Bishop of the reconstituted diocese. This is a man who is far left of the great majority of those remaining in All Saints. He has:

Voted against Lambeth 1.10 which Fr. Jambor says all of All Saints supports.
Voted for the consecration of the homosexual Viki Gene Robinson as Bishop
Voted for same sex blessings and for a service to be added to Book of Occasional Services
Voted to insist on women’s ministries in every diocese
Signed Bishop Spong’s Statement of Koinonia
Signed the “Mea Culpa too” statement in support of Bp. Righter.
Voted to recognize and affirm relationships outside of marriage

How long does the Jambor Camp think it will take their new bishop to impose these on All Saints? If this is the Pb’s first choice for All Saints’s new bishop, how much further from the doctrines of the faithful will be the next bishop she sends them? How long will All Saints desire to remain a member of TEC under these circumstances? If these positions on the issues facing the church are contrary to the vast majority of All Saints' members, as Fr. Jambor has stated, what will All Saints do then? If they decide to leave, TEC will claim their property. If they decide to stay, they will have to endure continual assaults on their beliefs.

It seems to me that All Saints is opening themselves up to tremendous risk. They seem willing to trade the protection of a diocese and a bishop willing to accommodate them about their property for a Pb who has demonstrated a complete disregard for the desires of any parish wishing to own their own property. It appears the Pb’s position is that all of the property belongs to TEC, and none of the property belongs to the parishes or the diocese. So far, parishes have lost their battles with TEC and the TEC dioceses in their litigation over property. That is true everywhere except Virginia, so far. Does All Saints really believe that they can simply stay put and keep their property? The Pb will never allow it. And it would appear that the Jambor Camp has allowed itself to be manipulated by the TEC into a very narrow box and have become victims of unintended consequences.

The Genealogy of Man from Creation to Egyptian Captivity

2009-01-14T06:59:00.013-06:00

One day while reading Genesis I was struck with the number of years that were stated for the ages of the men when they had offspring and how old they were when they died. Being the kind of person who loves to figure things out, I set out to make a chart of each person with their ages when they had offspring and their ages when they died. After I did this, the idea came to me that if I could figure out a starting point, perhaps I could figure out when in time these things happened. So, I started from the beginning and worked my way through Genesis, but that did not prove to be very helpful in fixing events in time. So, I left the project and moved on to other things.

Next, I tried creating a chart with the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. That proved even more daunting because, as I discovered, there were overlaps and gaps that were difficult to reconcile. (I have since found a way to reconcile most of the overlaps and gaps and completed a chart for this as well.) However, I was able to discover a critical bit of information related to the reign of Solomon, which led me to the dates of Solomon's reign and the passage in 1 Kings 6:1 about the exodus occuring 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign. This brought me back to my first project and provided a starting point at the end of the chart. By plugging into my chart about the ages of the men in Genesis the date 480 years before the fourth year of the reign of Solomon (966 BC), I calculated the year of the Exodus to be for the year of 1446.

Two views of the date of the Exodus seem to prevail among Bible scholars. The early date is 1445 B.C. and the late date is 1290 B.C. Since, according to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus took place 480 years before the forth year of Solomon’s reign, and since that date is fairly well estgablised to be 966, the early date of 1455 B.C. is the one adopted here. Proceeding from 1445 B.C., we calculate the beginning of the 430 years of captivity (Ex. 12:40) to be 1875 B.C. We know that Jacob died at the age of 147 after living in Egypt 17 years (Gen. 47:28), meaning he was 130 years old in 1875. This was the second year of the famine (Gen. 45:6) thus giving us 9 years from the beginning of Joseph’s rule in Egypt at age 30 (Gen. 41:46). From this and working back from when Joseph’s brothers sold him at age 17 (Gen.37:2) we calculate that Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born, meaning Jacob was born in 2005 B.C. and Joseph was born in 1914 B.C. Using these dates as our starting point, we calculate the rest of the dates on the chart. Therefore, since the ages of all of the other people back to Adam are stated clearly in Genesis, Adam would have been created somewhere around 4100 B.C. In addition, Josephus says that the number of years from Adam to the flood was 1656, which corresponds exactly with this chart (Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter III, Sec. 3)

I did not consult Rev. Archbishop Ussher's famous work Annuals of the World during my study and calculations. For one thing, I did not have a copy available, and for another thing, I wanted to figure this out on my own. After I completed my chart I pulled out an old King James Bible that I used from my childhood. It was one of those center reference versions with references to other parts of the Bible listed in a center column. At the top of each column on each page was a year, which I learned much later in life came from Ussher's book. Several years after I created this chart, I received as a gift from one of my children a very fine copy of Ussher's book. I now find that my calculations are very close to his, only different by 109 years. I have accounted for 9 years as the difference between my calculation of the year of the exodus (1446) and the one adopted from Biblical scholars (1455) which I adopted as the date of the exodus for my chart. I have not identified the difference of 100 years, but, as time permits, I will attempt to find that difference as well.

I commend this chart to my readers for their education concerning the lives and times of the people who lived before the exodus. What struck me as I conducted this study, however, was much more profound than actually making sense of the ages and years. I found that these dates are very specific, and they are absolutely congruent with each other. No one lived longer than the calculation would allow, and none died sooner. One of the interesting examples of this is that Methuselah, the man who lived the longest of any man recorded in Genesis, died the same year as the flood. It would be speculation to suggest that he died in the flood, but this is one of those congruous calculations. Methuselah could not have died after the flood, so the time line makes absolute sense. But then, if that is true, what does one do about Adam? Some have opined that the story of Adam is a myth developed to explain the origin of man. Yet, if all the other dates are so precise and congruent, why would the dates for Adam be an invention. The conclusion at which I arrived was that the dates are real, the span of time is real, and the story in Genesis is real and literal. It is not myth based on approximate dates, but a true story with actual dates. I leave my readers to ponder the realities that such a statement makes possible, and the realities that such a statement makes impossible. It was a revelation to me as the implications of my calculations became clear. Perhaps my readers will catch the revelation as well.

(Please excuse the uneven columns. I could not figure out how to do this chart in this forum any other way.)

Date....Person/
BC.......Age ....................Scripture.....Event
4113..Adam - 0 ............................1;26; 2:7..Adam is created
3983..Adam - 130.........................5:3...........Seth is born to Adam
3878..Seth - 105............................5:6..........Enosh is born to Seth
3788..Enosh - 90...........................5:9..........Kenan is born to Enosh
3718..Kenan - 70...........................5:12........Mahalalel is born to Kenan
3653..Mahalalel - 65.....................5:15........Jared is born to Mahalalel
3491..Jared - 162..........................5:18........Enoch is born to Jared
3426..Enoch - 65...........................5:21........Methuselah is born to Enoch
3239..Methuselah - 187................5:25........Lamech is born to Methuselah
3183..Adam - 930.........................5:5..........Adam dies
3126..Enoch - 365.........................5:23-24..Enoch is translated
3071..Seth - 912............................5:8..........Seth dies
3057..Lamech - 182......................5:28........Noah is born to Lamech
2973..Enosh - 905.........................5:11........Enosh dies
2878..Kenan - 910.........................5:14.......Kenan dies
2863..Mahalalel - 895...................5:17.......Mahalalel dies
2691..Jared - 962..........................5:20......Jared dies
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Ham is born to Noah
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Shem is born to Noah
2557..Noah - 500..........................5:32......Japeth is born to Noah
2462..Lamech - 777......................5:30......Lamech dies
2457..Methuselah - 969...............5:27......Methuselah dies
2457..Noah - 600..........................7:6........THE FLOOD
...........Ham/ Shem/Japeth - 98..11:10
2456..Noah - 601.........................8:14.......Earth was dry
...........Ham, Shem, Japeth - 99
2455..Shem - 100.......................11:10......Arphaxad is born to Shem
2420..Arphaxad - 35..................11:12......Shelah is born to Arphaxad
2390..Shelah - 30.......................11:14......Eber is born to Arphaxad
2356..Eber - 34...........................11:16......Peleg is born to Eber
2326..Peleg - 30..........................11:18......Reu is born to Peleg
2294..Reu - 32............................11:20......Serug is born to Reu
2264..Serug - 30.........................11:22......Nahor is born to Serug
2235..Nahor - 29........................11:24......Terah is born to Nahor
2165..Terah - 70.........................11:26.....Abram is born to Terah
2117..Peleg - 239........................11:19......Peleg dies
2116..Nahor - 148......................11:25......Nahor dies
2107..Noah - 950.......................9:29........Noah dies
2087..Reu - 239.........................11:21......Reu dies
2079..Abram - 86......................17:24......Ishmael is born to Abram
2066..Abram - 99......................17:24.....Covenant of circumcision with Abram
2065..Abram - 100....................21:5.......Isaac is born to Abram
2064..Serug - 230......................11:23.....Serug dies
2030..Terah - 205.....................11:32.....Terah dies
2017..Arphaxad - 438...............11:13.....Arphaxad dies
2005..Isaac - 60.........................25:26....Jacob and Esau born to Isaac
1990..Abraham - 175.................25:7......Abraham dies
1987..Shelah - 433.....................11:15.....Shelah dies
1957..Shem - 600......................11:11......Shem dies
1942..Ishmael - 137...................25:17.....Ishmael dies
1926..Eber - 464........................11:17......Eber dies
1914..Jacob - 91.........................30:22.....Joseph is born to Jacob
1897..Joseph - 17.......................37:2.......Joseph sold by his brothers
1885..Isaac - 180.......................35:28.....Isaac dies
1884..Joseph - 30....................41:46.....Joseph 2nd in command of Egypt
1875..Jacob130/Joseph39........I Kg. 6:1.Israel begins 430 years in Egypt
...............................................Ex. 12:40
1858..Jacob - 147/Joseph 56...47:28......Blessing given - Jacob dies
1804..Joseph - 110....................50:26......Joseph dies

Copyright © 1991, 1995, 1997, 2009 by William L. Fisher. All rights reserved.

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

2008-12-26T16:18:00.014-06:00

Status of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
After Convention November, 2008

Introduction

This is intended to be a very brief explanation of the status of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth ("EDFW") and those parishes and parishioners who were members of the EDFW prior to and immediately after the Diocesan Convention, November, 2008 ("The Convention"). This explanation is not intended to be a legal explanation of all the nuances and fine points of the law concerning this subject, but merely an explanation that will hopefully educate those who were affected by the actions taken at The Convention.

Legal Entity

In order to understand any of what follows, it is first necessary to understand the legal entity that is the EDFW. It is a nonprofit corporation duly organized and registered with the Texas Secretary of State’s Corporate Filings Office in Austin. The filing information is as follows:

Name: Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
Date Filed: February 28, 1983
Charter. No.: 64493201
Registered Agent: Jack Leo Iker
Registered Office: 2900 Alemeda Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76108-5960
Status: Domestic Nonprofit Corporation
Tax ID: 17518551332

As a legally constituted corporation, the EDFW functions as any other nonprofit corporation functions, with all the rights and privileges attached to such a corporation. As such, it is free to enter into whatever associations it may choose. It is also free to disassociate itself from any association it may have once made. No nonprofit corporation, or any other corporation or person, is required to remain in association with any organization with which it does not wish to remain. There is no irrevocable association law. The corporation is governed by its governing documents, which, in the case of EDFW, in addition to its Charter and Bylaws, are its Constitution and Canons. No other governing documents may have legal preference over these. According to Article 2, Constitution of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth,("the Constitution") the legislation of the diocese is entrusted to:

". . . a Convention to consist as follows: First, of the Bishop, when there be one; of the Bishop Coadjutor, when there be one; of the Suffragan Bishops, Assistant Bishops, if there be any; Second, of all priests canonically resident in the Diocese, and not under Ecclesiastical discipline, and who have not in contemplation of removal from this Diocese, applied for their Letters Dimissory; and Third, of Lay Delegates chosen by and representing their Congregations. Lay Delegates and their Alternates shall be elected by the Congregations of their respective Parishes and Missions at the Annual Parish Meeting and shall hold office until their successors are elected. The Rectors of Parishes and Vicars of Missions shall have authority to fill such vacancies as may occur from the list of Alternate Lay Delegates between the time of such election and any meetings of the Convention. Lay Delegates shall be confirmed communicants in good standing, at least 18 years of age."

Status After The Convention

By law, any "legislation" passed by the duly chosen representative members of the EDFW at convention, held according to the Constitution, is the act of the EDFW and all of its constituent members, i.e. parishes and members of parishes. Some rectors and lay leaders within EDFW who voted at the Diocesan Convention in November, 2008, against the proposed changes to the Constitution and Canons of EDFW at that convention are making the mistake of declaring that because they voted "No" the changes do not effect them. They mistakenly believe they are unchanged by the vote of almost 80% of the duly chosen delegates to that convention.

The parishes that were part of the EDFW prior to The Convention sent their duly appointed clergy and lay delegates to The Convention, just as they had always done, and those delegates voted at The Convention on the propositions properly placed before them, just as they had always done. Unlike previous conventions, however, some parishes (or rather rectors and vestry members) went away from this convention convinced that what happened at this convention did not apply to them, as all previous actions at previous conventions had applied. For some reason, these rectors and vestry members took the position that they were no longer a part of what took place, nor were they a part of the diocese that had just held its convention. The question then remains, what was the defining moment that made such a result possible? How did those parishes walk into that convention a part of it and walk out not a part of it?

To illustrate the absurdity of this position, consider the recent national elections that were held in the US. First, there were the primaries where voters voted for their choice for the nominee of their party. John McCain won enough votes in the Republican primaries to be the nominee of that party, and Barack Obama won enough votes in the Democratic primaries to be the nominee of that party. Then there was the general election where voters voted for President and Vice President. Obama won and McCain lost. To apply the reasoning of those who "lost" the election at the Diocesan Convention in November, 2008, if I did not vote for Obama for President, then the election of the majority of voters in America doesn’t affect me. I can still claim to be under President Bush, or even worse that I am under John McCain. To make such a claim is absurd.

So it is absurd for those who voted "No" at the Diocesan Convention in November, 2008, to claim that they are still in TEC, when the vote of almost 80% of the delegates voted that the EDFW leave TEC. Some will say, "But we didn’t vote to leave, so why should we have to be the ones to start a new diocese? Shouldn’t you who voted to leave be the ones to start a new diocese?" Since the only diocese with any standing is the EDFW, and since the EDFW has left TEC, the only choice for those who wish to remain in TEC is for them to take some action to accomplish that. It is not possible to remain in place and remain in TEC, because the EDFW, to which they all belong at present, is no longer in TEC. They must separate from the EDFW and go their own way. The Canons of the EDFW were amended to provide for just such action by those who wish to separate from the EDFW.

The crux of the problem seems to be that some have believed the continual pronouncements from TEC that parishes and dioceses cannot leave TEC, only people can. From this premise follows all the conflict in the EDFW. It is important to check the premise of any argument in order to arrive at a correct result. If the premise is wrong, the result will be wrong. Each time TEC is challenged to defend their position concerning who can leave TEC, they are silent. Their only response is that the Constitutions and Canons of TEC do not allow a diocese to leave TEC. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitutions and Canons of TEC that even address a diocese leaving TEC, let alone prohibiting such action. The rule of law is that any act that is not prohibited in the governing document is, therefore, allowed.

If the founders of PECUSA had intended to prohibit dioceses from leaving PECUSA, they could have placed such a prohibition in the Constitution and Canons of PECUSA, but they did not. In the intervening 200 years, if the Bishops and clergy and lay delegates to General Convention had desired to place such a prohibition in the Constitution and Canons of PECUSA, ECUSA, or TEC, they could have amended those documents. The have not. It is not as if this has never been an issue. During the Civil War, the dioceses of the Confederate States left PECUSA, and after the war, they returned to PECUSA. No question was raised about whether they could leave PECUSA. The precedent has clearly been established that a diocese can leave TEC. There is no issue now, except in the mind of the Presiding Bishop and of her supporters, about diocese leaving TEC. So far, no court has been asked to settle this question, so that remains to be resolved, but the law appears to be on the side of the diocese in this conflict.

What About The Bishop?

Some rectors have told their parishes that they no longer have a bishop in the EDFW and that they will be having a convention in February to elect a new bishop. The Restated Articles of Incorporation of the EDFW set forth the process for selecting a bishop.

"In the event of a dispute or challenge regarding the identity of the Bishop of the body now known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, the elected Trustees shall have the sole authority to determine the identity and the authority of the Bishop, as provided by the Bylaws of the Corporation, for the purposes of these Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation." (Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Article VI.)

Since the Bishop of the EDFW is still Bp. Iker, there is no vacancy to be filled, but should such vacancy exist, it is clear that the Trustees of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have the "sole authority to determine the identity and the authority of the Bishop" and no one else. Therefore, those rectors and parishioners who believe they can simply call a convention and elect or appoint a bishop clearly do not know the rules by which this must be accomplished. Certainly, the Presiding Bishop of TEC has no authority to convene such a convention, as she proposed to do in Fort Worth on February 7, 2009.

What About the Property?

The issue of the title to the property of the EDFW is one of continual conjecture and controversy. It need not be. The title to the real property, i.e. the parish buildings and grounds, was vested in the Corporation of the Diocese of Fort Worth by court order in the case of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, et al. v. Jim Mattox, Cause No. 84-8573, the 95th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, (1984) in which the court entered a judgment whereby the title of all property standing in the name of the Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas and located within the present boundaries of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth were vested in the name of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Since a court of competent jurisdiction has already ruled on the title to the property, the EDFW is in a better position to withstand a challenge by TEC to the property of the EDFW.

Conclusion

The EDFW is still alive and well. It is a legal entity with a life of its own, separate and apart from TEC. There is nothing TEC can do that will have any legal effect on the EDFW. Those who voted at The Convention for the EDFW to leave TEC can thank God that He placed in positions of authority wise and learned leaders who were responsible for the formation of the EDFW in the beginning, and who have guided it through the troubled seas of recent times. From a legal perspective, it would appear the EDFW is on very solid ground. From a pastoral prospective it would appear the EDFW is on solid biblical grounds in how it proposes to treat those within the EDFW who disagree with leaving TEC. Those members of the EDFW who wish to remain in TEC must now take some affirmative action to go their separate way from the EDFW. Until they take such action, they remain part of the EDFW.

This I Believe - Part One, Chapter One

2008-12-12T19:09:00.000-06:00

This I Believe - Part One
By Bill Fisher

Introduction

Before I can explain what I believe, I must explain what I believe to be true about Scripture itself. My eldest daughter, Stacie, and her husband, Brian, have been thinking about the question: "Where did we get the Scripture we call The Bible?" This is a good question and deserves to be addressed first. Otherwise, what follows will ring hollow. If, as I wrote in the Preface, I believe Scripture to be the inspired Word of God, what do I mean? That fundamental issue will permeate all the rest of what I believe. At the outset, I refer to an old book, which was compiled from a series of articles written by Henry Gray Graham that appeared in the Catholic Press in 1908-1909 and which were written to demonstrate the origins of the Bible and its ties to the Roman Catholic Church. These articles were written in respect of the 300th anniversary of the King James Bible which was published in 1610. You can read or download this book at:

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html#preface and
http://hometown.aol.com/all4lifetoo/Graham/preface.html.

I also refer to another book, which unfortunately as far as I know cannot be downloaded from the internet, written by Neil R. Lightfoot, who was a professor of Bible at Abilene Christian University when I attended that university. It is entitled, How We Got The Bible, published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has been printed several times, including 1963 and 1988, both of which printings I have a copy. This book is a good basic review of much of what is not included in Graham’s much earlier book. It also gives a point of view from the other side, not the Roman Catholic view. Somewhere between the two perspectives lies the Truth.

Hebrew Scripture (Or Old Testament)

So, I shall begin with my understanding of where we got scripture. First, there is what we call the Old Testament. Obviously, this portion of Scripture was not called the Old Testament at the time of its writing. It was, rather referred to as the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings. This is the same Hebrew Scripture that Jesus and the apostles quoted in what we call the New Testament. If we are to be honest about where we got the Bible, we must admit that the Roman Catholic Church deserves a great deal of the credit. As much as some churchmen and churchwomen hate to admit it, there is not much that came down to the modern Christian church that did not first pass through the Roman Catholic Church. A cursory review of church history will reveal that after the church started in Judea, it spread throughout the Mediterranean world during the next 100 years or so, and, by the time of the first church councils, which I will cover later, a kind of consensus had developed as to what constituted the New Testament, and a confirmation of what constituted the Old Testament.

We have very early witnesses of what was accepted at the time of Jesus as the "canon" of the Old Testament. This word, "canon" is the English version of the Greek word kanon and the Hebrew word qaneh. The most basic meaning of these two words is a reed, or measuring rod. Thus the word came to mean the standard or rule by which to measure the writings accepted by the Hebrews and the church as "the Scriptures." The word ultimately was used to refer to the list or index of the books which are received as Holy Scripture.

It is fairly well settled that at least by 100 B.C. the canon of the Old Testament was established. It would have been nice if Jesus or one of the apostles would have listed the writings considered to make up the Old Testament at the time, but they didn’t. About the closest we can come to that is something Jesus said, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Lk. 24:44) This corresponds with how the Jews traditionally referred to the volume of Scripture we call the Old Testament.

Josephus, who lived during the first century after Christ, wrote the oldest known historical account of the life of Jesus outside of the New Testament. Josephus recounted in his writings, including Antiquities of the Jews, the writings then accepted as the Holy Scriptures of the Hebrews. His list contains the same writings we currently have in the Old Testament and none other. Therefore, we can be reasonably certain of what was considered to be the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings during Jesus’ time.

During the third century A.D., another writer confirmed Josephus’ "canon" of the Hebrew Scriptures. Origen, (184-254 A.D.) was one of the most prolific writers of, what has been called, the Early Church Fathers. Origen listed the titles of writings included in Josephus’ "canon" to include all of what we call the Old Testament. Origen’s "canon" agrees exactly with Josephus’ "canon," and both agree with what we have today.

It should be noted at this point that there are books contained in the Roman Catholic Bible that are not included in the King James Bible and those that followed. Those "apocryphal" books are contained between the Old and New Testaments of some Bibles. These apocryphal books were rejected as inspired and authoritative by later churchmen. I will not get bogged down in that debate. Entire books have been written on the subject. I will leave it at this: I have read the apocryphal books and have found nothing in them that added to my understanding of God or His plan for mankind. There is some interesting history contained in them, which is probably mostly true, and there are some quite outlandish tales contained in them. Why do I use the term "outlandish?" I use that term because some of those tales are contradictory of the rest of Scripture. If anyone is interested in what those tales may be, someday, in another writing, I will address them.

This I Believe - Part One, Dedication & Preface

2008-12-12T19:05:00.000-06:00

This I Believe - Part One
By Bill Fisher

Dedication

This writing, whatever it turns out to be, is dedicated to my three adult children, Stacie, Sheri, and Chris, whom I love like crazy. I list you in the order of your birth, which is the way I always seem to mention your names. I hope when you hear me do that, you don’t think it has anything to do with any order of preference or favor, or lack thereof. I love you each in a separate and special way that is unique to you, because you are each such unique and wonderful persons. You each bless me in a special way that the others don’t, but altogether you bless me so much that it overflows.

In addition to my children mentioned above, I want to dedicate this to two others who are also my children, Tim and Brian. Tim, you are our "adopted" son, even though there is no paper saying that in a court of law. You are our son in the court of heaven and in our hearts. Gloria and I include you daily in our prayers right along with our offspring. We love you and count it a blessing to have you in our family. Brian, you married into this family when you married Stacie, and we could not be more pleased to count you as one of our children as well. As with Tim, you are included in our daily prayers as we pray for each of our offspring. We love you dearly.
It is my heart’s desire that all of you come to know the Lord God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, in a close intimate way. I want you to enter into such a deep personal relationship with God that nothing can ever separate you from Him. This is the most important desire in my heart and in my soul. All other desires pale into insignificance compared to this one.

Preface

The inspiration for writing this came to me one day as I was praying for my adult children. As I prayed for God to speak to my children, He spoke to me. In seeking God’s help in sending someone to cross the path of my children, who would say the words, or live the Life of Faith as a model for them, He showed me that I am the spiritual head of my family, and it is my responsibility first. So, I embarked on this adventure of sharing my faith with my children. I have always tried to live out my faith in front of my children, and now it seems it’s time to write out what I truly believe as well.

It is my intention, as I begin, to start at my beginning and to write about what I believe. I will do my best not to preach to anyone, but to share my own faith. If I lapse into preaching somewhere along the way, I ask for forgiveness. It is my nature to teach. Gloria says I am a teacher at the core of my being. I may do some other work or have some other career to earn a living, but I always revert to my true nature of being a teacher. So, I embark from here, looking back to my beginnings in the faith walk, and winding my way through the paths, avenues, and freeways of my life to find, to tell, and to share what I believe.

In this explanation of, what I believe to be, the Truth concerning God and my relationship to Him, it seemed right to me to begin at the point of reference that shows how I know about God in the first place. The starting point for my knowledge about God is Scripture. I grew up listening to my mother read to me from a Bible story book. I still have that book. It is entitled, Bible Story Book, and was written by Elsie E. Egermeier and published by The Smithsonian Company, Los Angeles, California in 1939. The book was first copyrighted in 1923, and, by the time my mother acquired a copy in 1943, it was in its twenty-ninth printing and over 500,000 copies were in circulation. It was written as "A complete Narration from Genesis to Revelation for Young and Old.", according to the title page. It contains almost all of the Bible stories and made me fall in love with them. A copy of this exact same volume can be purchased today from Amazon. It is still in print, with the latest printing that I’ve seen being in 1974.

Before I launch into this subject, I need to clarify something that those who know me, especially my children, may think about me. I love Scripture. That is no surprise. As much as I love Scripture, however, I love my Father and my Savior, Jesus Christ, more. It is easy to fall into a trap when living the Life of Faith. Some Evangelicals, some Fundamentalists, some Protestants make such a big deal out of Scripture that some of them worship Scripture instead of the God of Scripture. This reminds me of a time when Jesus was addressing the Pharisees of his day and he said to them, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40a) Scripture leads us to God and His plan for mankind, but it is not the thing that should engender our affection, but rather, the Author of it, who came down from His lofty position to become Man, to live among men, to suffer and die a horrible death to take away the sin of the world, who deserves our adoration and devotion.

Scripture is a wonderful thing when handled rightly, but a deadly weapon when mishandled. Too many have mishandled it, and I plead guilty to having done this at one time in my life when I was young and accepted too much what some preacher said. I believe that Scripture is the Word of God written. I believe it is inspired of God. I believe it contains everything necessary for life and for salvation. There are many things I believe about Scripture, all of which I will eventually get to. For now, I will say only this about that: I believe Scripture, being the Word of God, is alive with God’s Holy Spirit and that it speaks to us when we read it out loud and hear its words coming from our own mouths. I believe Scripture can transform our lives into the pattern set forth with it.

For now, this verse from Scripture will suffice to set the tone for what follows.

"For the word of God is living and active: Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Heb. 4:12)

Unhitched — Liberalism’s Slide into Oblivion - Part One

2008-12-12T17:36:00.002-06:00

By Bill Fisher
Copyright © 2008 by Bill Fisher. All rights reserved.

Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost, modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism, sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress, only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s center, is what modern liberalism is all about.

Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance." Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational truths.

While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy, there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly, however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality made up of good-hearted people).

Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior rights to the various states within the country and those who distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and the states superior sovereignty over a central government.

Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century, everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism (liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the late 19th century came modern liberalism.

Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original. All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of the power.

It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776, barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century.

By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States, the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism, which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens and a focus on individualism as opposed to community.

In Part Two, I will explore specific examples of liberalism at work in the current financial crisis in which the United States finds itself. In Part Three, I will explore specific examples of liberalism at work in The Episcopal Church as that denominations is being split assunder by relativist doctrines

War of Worldviews

2006-08-22T15:01:00.000-05:00

Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington, predicted as late as the mid-1990s that the world was about to experience a war between very different worldviews — different from anything we had seen before. The war, he saw was one between the worldview of Islam and the worldview of the West.

Nobody paid much attention to this obscure prediction — that is until the clash of worldviews burst on the scene on September 11, 2001.

Liberals did what they always do. They blamed America for this disaster. They reasoned that if the United States had been more sensitive to the needs of the Muslims in the Middle East, this would not have happened. If the U.S. foreign policy had been more tolerant of other nations, if the U.S. had not been so much of a bully to the rest of the world, if...if...if...we could just sit down and talk this through everything would be alright again.

The problem is not American foreign policy or our tolerance. In fact, the problem is not America at all. The problem is a worldview held by Muslims that believes that all but the most devout Muslim is an infidel and must either convert to Islam or die. The Muslim worldview does not allow for tolerance of any degree.

The War on Terriorism is really a War of Worldviews. It is not like any war fought in our memory, and rarely in history has such a war been waged.

In 732, the Muslim armies were stopped in France as they marched North toward Paris. On September 11, 1683, the Ottoman Empire (for those of you who do not know, this was the Islamic force driving to conquer Europe and the world) was defeated in a decisive battle at the very gates of Vienna, Austria. Osama Ben Laden and his band of Islamic murderers chose September 11, 2001, as the date for the rebirth of the goals of the Ottoman Empire. It marks the modern war of hatred by Islamic followers.

There was a Muslim writer and philosopher named Sayyid Qutb who wrote a book entitled , In the Shade of the Koran, in 1970. He had been a prisoner in Egypt, lived in the West, and read the anti-Zionist propaganda of his day, of which there was plenty. His book clearly calls for killing the infidels. Qutb was executed by the Egyptians, but his brother, Muhammad Qutb, lived on to spread this worldview. Muhammad became a professor in Saudia Arabia where he taught, among others, Osama Ben Laden.

Millions of Muslims share this radical worldview today. By some estimates there are 100 million such Muslims in the world today. What we call terriorism is not what we have always thought it to be. The actions of radical Muslims are aimed at one thing — world domination by an Islamic hierarchy

For example, in Iran right now, there rules a leader who believes the twelfth Imnann is about to arrive on the scene. He is preparing the old Persian Empire to host this Islamic messiah who will usher in the end times of peace for all Muslims. This man is as mad as Adolf Hitler and possibly even more dangerous because, for him to die is to become a martyr and thus insures his place in paradise. For such as these, there is no fear of death, but rather an embrace of death as a welcome end to their mission for Allah.

These are dangerous times in which we live. We need to be paying better attention before it is too late.

Can a Good Muslim be a Good American?

2006-08-16T11:18:00.001-05:00

After I forwarded that question to a friend that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years, he responded with this reply.

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Koran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Koran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God, the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Koran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation... perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

This religious war is bigger than many of us know or understand.

What About the Religious Left?

2006-06-13T15:31:00.000-05:00

We hear a lot about the "Religious Right" but what about the Religious Left? Is there such a thing, or is it just a made-up name used by the "Religious Right" to get attention off themselves?

There is such a thing as the Religious Left, and they have been steadily eating away at the very foundations of Christianity for the past 25 years. Their insidious activities have crippled every mainline church in America and in Europe. Their liberal theology has accepted the theology of every other religion on the face of the earth in the name of tolerance. love, and acceptance.

The damage they have done is evident in the declining membership of every mainline denomination in America, with the possible exception of the Baptist Church and the Assembly of God Church. Liberal theology has given way to liberal politics and liberal philosophy so much that conservative Christians find themselves being attacked for their orthodox faith. To remain true to the "faith once delivered" is tantamount to being a heretic in today’s liberal religious hierarchy. Instead of the liberals, who have left the faith, being the heretic, the adversary has turned it upside down so that the conservatives who have remained faithful are the heretics and are singled out for ridicule.

It’s time for the laity to rise up and take back their churches from bishops and others in authority in the hierarchy of their churches. It can be done, and this message will explore a few ways to get the ball rolling.

I remember in the 1980's when the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, of which I was a member then, issued a "Pastoral Letter" to be read in all the churches. When our rector read the letter in our parish, I was incensed. So incensed was I that I wrote the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops a letter telling them they needed to stick with theology because they knew less than nothing about politics or national defense. I was also at the time a lobbyist and I did know a thing or two about the subjects the wrote so knowingly about. A short time after I sent the letter, my rector received a call from the Presiding Bishop’s office to inquire about who I was. This shook up the rector quite a bit since he was young and had been a rector only a short time.

The laity are going to have to revolt against these left-leaning pseudo-intellectuals and take back our churches. To start with, we are going to have to get involved in our local church government. Serving on boards, commission, and counsels, we are going to have to speak up against the idiotic suggestions that come down to us from on high about new programs and especially about social and political actions by our church bureaucracies. We are going to have to become out-spoken representatives from our churches and parishes to annual conferences, diocesan conferences, and other regional gatherings. Then we are going to have to go the general conferences, general conventions, and other national and international meetings of our churches and speak out against the true heresies that come from them.

This first in a series of messages merely opens the door. Any opinions are welcome, but beware, the writer is an orthodox Christian and will very aggressively defend the "faith once delivered" from attack from the left.

The Real Problem in Iraq

2005-12-21T10:43:00.000-06:00

You'll not read this in the mainline news reports, nor will you see this on network television. For some reason, the liberal press seems determined to undermine this adminsitration in its efforts in Iraq. Well, to be honest, the mainline press has hated GW since he was first elected, and their feelings have only grown stronger with time.So what is this news? The real problem in Iraq is not in Iraq. It is in Iran. The muslim leaders of Iran have a plan to take over Iraq, and they are on schedule. This is not a simple little affair where Iran hopes to overrun Iraq one day when the US led coalition pulls out. No, indeed. This is part a fifty year plan for Iraq, and other parts of the middle-east. Iran plans to become the dominate power. They seek to restore the old Persian Empire!I have access to documents from the Iranian ruling council that clearly shows their plan. Part of the plan is to infiltrate the Iraqi government and place their people in ministry positions and undermine the reforms from within. They are already doing this. Another part of the plan is to blame Sunni's for the insurgency. They have succeeded so far. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I will publish more later.

Where Do You Go When You Die? Introduction

2005-12-21T10:42:00.001-06:00

Where do you go when you die? That seems to be a question on the minds of a lot of people. To be perfectly frank, I don't think young people think about this too much, because they are invincible — they can’t possibly die soon. But for anyone over 40, the thought does enter the mind. "If I were to die today, where would I go?" It is both a theological question and a metaphysical question. Some approach the question from the attitude of wondering if they will go to heaven or hell, while others just wonder about life after death in general.

Most of what we think we know about this is wrong. For example, some people think when they die they turn into angels, like the angel in the movie It's a Wonderful Life starring Jimmy Stewart. We don't turn into angels and we don't get wings for doing good deeds. We do, however, go to a place called Paradise where we await the final judgment.

How do I know this? Let me explain. My approach is one based on my faith, my faith in God and in his Son Jesus Christ. My understanding comes from studying Holy Scripture for over 50 years. In the coming weeks, I will add more to this explanation of where you go when you die. For now, I just wanted to introduce the subject. If anyone is interested, your comments are welcome.