Mixed in the debate among the many issues swirling around Washington is the question on federal bailouts for cash-strapped states. Following the practice of using taxpayer money to prop up failed banks, the auto industry and the notorious AIG, the ‘too big to fail’ approach is being thrown around to lend assistance to a handful of states that are careening towards a cliff they must find some way to navigate.

Living generously during prosperous times, committing to lavish pensions with menacing unions, and failing to plan when good times end, states now find themselves squeezed. The deficit numbers are quite stark: $25 billion for California, $15 billion for Illinois, and $10 billion for New Jersey. Financial analyst Meredith Whitney, celebrated for forecasting the collapse of the banks, now predicts that we’ll begin to feel the states’ pain in the spring when federal stimulus money dries up. As recently as 2009, California was forced to issue IOU’s in lieu of payment due to lack of funds, the State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is making headlines once again saying the Golden State may have to once again use promissory notes as early as April if new Governor Jerry Brown does not address the problem quickly. In Illinois, the state legislature just passed a 66 percent increase on income tax as a means to address their state financial shortfall.

The conspicuous question on the table is what to do? Is the federal government now to run to the aide of states who can’t keep their books balanced? Is California to live high-on-the-hog with all benefits of Golden State amenities while a Texas or Indiana covers their bill? The answer is a resounding ‘no.’ In difficult times you have to make difficult decisions, a family must find ways to reduce spending and live within their means when hard time fall upon them, a business must learn to adapt and cut expenditures when the economy slows, and so it must be the same for states.

Within each of these states’ governments, they must confront their own problem and find a solution unique to their own circumstances including cutting state programs. The above-mentioned New Jersey is garnering front-page news with Governor Chris Christie making sweeping decisions in confronting runaway union pensions, ending wasteful construction projects that incur massive costs, and actually laying out a business friendly environment to encourage companies to move to New Jersey rather than increase taxes on their earnings. Here in Texas, our legislature is meeting to find a solution to our own budget shortfall, estimated to be close to 15 billion.

The fatigue voters felt after the numerous bailouts and government acquisition of private entities has run itself deep in the minds of voters across the country; recent November elections and a new congress reflect this sentiment. If Washington were to attempt another bailout for states on the brink, the general response from voters would be swift and harsh claiming they’ve had enough already, let the states figure it out for themselves.

One of the great, and often understated, things about this nation is the freedoms we have across the board. Aside from the constitutional rights we all know and love, one liberty we have is the ability to move freely whenever and however we choose. If someone finds themselves living in a state that issues worthless IOU’s for payment and has to suffer through a massive tax increase so government can balance their books, he is free to get up and move and find a much better place to live, most likely to a state that controls spending and keeps taxes low.

On a hot day in June 1815, standing atop a distant hill facing a red sea of British troops, Napoleon Bonaparte surveyed the military mass before him and realized Arthur Wellesley — the Duke of Wellington — was notably protecting his right flank with heavy amounts of cannon and artillery. Interpreting this to mean the Duke must be shielding a weak and vulnerable point, the Corsican determined he would launch an attack at exactly that spot, practicing his standard modus operandi of divide and conquer: hit your opponent where he is weak, force him to expend valuable reserves to protect the destabilized position therefore dividing his forces, and then aggressively press the middle to decimate a weakened center. Pointing to a farmhouse directly at the heart of this right periphery, Napoleon ordered his generals, “We’ll begin the attack there, at Hougoumont.”

As history would later dictate, this particular dwelling, Château d’Hougoumont, was held by a resolute British force that pushed back repeated advances from a superior-numbered French infantry. In a unique twist of events the strategy backfired on Napoleon: by sending waves of his men to take the Château, he stretched his troops thin and diluted the sum of his total force. This — combined with a late arrival of Blücher and his Prussian brigade — helped secure final defeat and eventual exile of the French Emperor. Despite its pivotal role in determining the battle’s outcome, Hougoumont stands as a subset of the larger conflict known as Waterloo.

As the 112th Congress convenes in Washington, the United States Senate stands as a modern-day Hougoumont, caught between a freshly minted conservative House of Representatives and a White House steadfastly holding to a Leftist ideology.

Legislation is meant to pass easier with much less parliamentary hassle in the People’s House, a simple majority is all that is needed for passage; conversely the Senate has a tradition of slow-going, debating the finer points of government policy and minutiae — one senator can hold up an entire bill single-handedly, and the filibuster serves as a counter-weight to the majority party, allowing the minority to force the party in power to garner 60 votes to end debate and bring a vote to the floor. At the top of the pyramid stands the White House, attempting to influence proposed law, hoping to have approved legislation it can sign into law and exterminate in congress ones the president wishes to avoid altogether.

Notwithstanding her devotion to all-things-bureaucratic, boundless energy to socialize anything that moves, and ubiquitous plastic smile, Nancy Pelosi has exited the stage far Left. In her absence, along with a presence of a solid Republican House majority, it is largely expected that a slew of conservative bills will emerge and pass the lower congressional chamber en masse. It is already viewed as a bold move that by weeks end Speaker Boehner will present a one-page bill to entirely repeal Obamacare — crown jewel of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, not to mention the recipient of the highest number of ‘Likes’ on Obamacare’s Facebook page from members of the New York City Sanitation Union and Humanities Department at New Hampshire State University. But I digress.

Once this revocation of socialized medicine — along with other bills to curtail spending, prevent tax increases, and keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his band of merry men out of a United States courtroom — emanates from the House it will most assuredly meet stiff resistance in the Senate, abetted by some string-pulling from White House liaisons to keep such bills away from the president’s desk.

It will be in the Senate where the heavy debating and strategic fighting will take place; where a frustrated public will have to listen to the ‘Gentlewoman from California’ explain why an exploding deficit and threats of hyperinflation are not really a big deal and there is no reason to curtail government spending. Newly elected Senators supported by the growing Tea Party movement will face off with antiquities who have held their seats for time immemorial: will a conservative Rand Paul emerge victorious in a debate with the Leftist relic John Kerry? More voting Americans identify themselves as conservative now than in recent memory, will Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell use this to his advantage, or cut a deal with Senate Democrats? At what lengths, or depths, will Senators go to invoke a filibuster? If the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the White House, under what conditions will Obama sign it into law or further the debate by using his veto pen? Many issues lay just under the surface and are sure to explode in the upcoming session: extending the national debt ceiling, closing Guantanamo, bailing out bankrupt states and cities, addressing illegal immigration, reducing spending levels to previous rates in 2008 or 2006 to mention a few. All of the above and more will have their fate determined in the Senate. And finally, keep in mind how all this will influence the 2012 election.

A lot is out there and much will be on the table, the Senate will serve as the dividing line between Congressional Republicans and President Obama, and that is where the real battle will take place.

I visited a close friend last weekend and sat next to a Chicago native on my flight back into Kansas City.  A sweet older gentleman, he asked, “What’s it like living in Kansas?”  I answered that it’s great if you like small towns, and that while I know it lacks the mountains of Colorado and the beaches of California, I have never wanted to live anywhere else.  Because the best people in the world live here in “flyover country.”

The phrase, “flyover country” was of course coined by a “coaster” who can’t imagine why anyone would choose a life of wheatfields and combines.  But you know, every big movement got its start here, in flyover country.

The abolition movement.  Women’s right to vote.  Prohibition.  Populism.  And more recently, the New Leaders Project.

Over at the Washington Times, there’s a great editorial written about the movement by local, area grass roots tea party leaders to identify new candidates for local office- everything from city council and school board to county commission and state legislator.  At dinner with an admittedly liberal friend Monday night, I told her about this new initiative that we were partnering with local leaders on, and she looked at me with eyes wide and said, “You’re training an army.”

Yep.  That’s the plan.

An army of solid, strong conservative leaders who care about their communities, their state and their nation; who understand the constitution and value it still today.  These new candidates, identified by the local tea party leader and backed by the members of those groups, will not only work to return our government to its proper size and scope, but also will be held accountable, by those very tea party activists who worked to identify them in the first place.  As the editorial states, “Efforts like those of American Majority, local Tea Party campaigns and citizen-led ballot initiatives are what’s needed to limit government power, town by town and state by state.”

It’s a novel idea- and it’s one that could change the nation.  And where did it begin?  As the Washington Times points out, in the heartland.  That’s right- here in flyover country.

I love it when my assigned scholarly research actually produces something useful:

“The present Federal Administration — by its utter inability to comprehend the dignity or responsibilities of the duties with which it is charged; by its devotion to personal and partisan interests; by its weak and incompetent management of the national finances; by its unwarranted interference with the local self-government of the people…by its complicity with corrupt practices and scandals in various quarters; and by its appointment of notoriously incompetent men to high official positions — has justly brought upon itself the condemnation of the American people.”

It’s a bit long to put on a poster, but it sounds about right, doesn’t it? If you are anything like me, you were nodding your head throughout that whole paragraph. So who said it? Krauthammer? Erickson? Palin? Gingrich? Boehner? Not even close.

This succinct indictment of the incumbent administration (and more generally, of the American “ruling class”) was first penned in February of 1874 by the Democratic Party of Connecticut as part of their yearly platform. The incumbent administration was that of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, infamous then and now for its corruption and incompetence. For six years, Grant had overseen the program known as Reconstruction, which was the broadest, most overt exercise of federal and executive power ever before attempted. The harvest reaped by Grant after his administration’s repeated snafus was, as this Democratic plank so bluntly puts it, “the condemnation of the American people.”

Later that year, the House of Representatives underwent the largest flip in American history, which still has not been matched to this day. Before 1874, the Republicans controlled the House 199-88, an absolutely insurmountable majority. At the end of the year (elections were held anytime between February and November), the Democrats controlled it 182-103, with two seats being held by independents – almost a complete reversal of the majority. In one year’s time, the American people completely rejected the ruling party, sending a clarion-clear message to the Grant administration that they would not tolerate more of the same.

As the title of this post states, some things never change. Unfortunately, the condemnations of this 125 year-old platform are still relevant today. Corruption, federal usurpation of state power, incompetence, and political pandering have not even begun to cease among America’s career politicians. In fact, most would argue that they have worsened. However, the good news is that the American people have not changed either. They are just as fed up and just as vigilant today as they were in 1874.

May we take heart as we reflect on the power of one year’s elections. In one year’s time, the American people achieved almost a complete inversion of power, ended an era of aristocratic rule, and effectively halted a theretofore unstoppable political agenda. We may not be looking at the same proportions as voters were then, but this year will, according to most predictions, be an undeniable rejection of the policies of an increasingly despised Congress. Regardless of allegiance to the Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, or whatever else, we are all approaching an opportunity to participate in a comprehensive change of course this year. The United States was founded on the concept of power being vested in the people, and elections such as this one are powerful reminders of the timelessness of that truth. If it happened a century ago, it can happen now. The next 1874 may be only a few days away.

Why celebrate Constitution Day?

On September 17, 1787, our founders, the members of the Constitutional Convention, adopted our Constitution as the governing document for our brand new country.  Faced with overwhelming odds against this country they fought for succeeding and thriving, they outlined a blueprint to “enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself” (Alexander Hamilton, 1788).

Where are we today?  We see videos of members of Congress forthrightly admitting that they don’t know what the Constitution says, or care about how it applies to legislation they are voting on, while we listen to a recorded voicemail of a member of Congress asking a lobbyist for money based upon her position and perceived clout.  Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House responds to the question of where in the Constitution the government is given the right to mandate health care with “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

It’s easy to think that our Constitution doesn’t matter; indeed, it is what those in power would have you believe.  Here is why our Constitution still matters-

For the first time in history, power was granted on the basis of the consent of the governed.  Not based upon your family name, your noble title, or your aristocratic bloodline.

For the first time in history, allowances were made for government to be altered and changed by the people, through the process of amending the Constitution.

For the first time in history, a country was founded on the premise that government has a purpose, and it is founded by “We the People.”

Now more than ever, it is important to recognize the significance of our Constitution, and to realize how readily and importantly it applies to our daily lives.  Take a moment today and read through our Constitution.  Listen to our national president Ned Ryun’s podcast series on the constitutional convention and the process through which our Constitution was written, signed and finally ratified.  Because now, perhaps more than ever before, our Constitution matters.

An excellent article describing how one ideology wants to target and change something properly sound, morally just, and historically unique; and another is working feverishly to protect it.

Why the Left Seeks to Transform America

What if you owned a small business?  What if you owned a small business and your customers came to your store or office?  What if you owned a small business where your customers came to your store or office, and parked in your parking lot?  What if you owned a small business where your customers came to your store or office, parked in your parking lot, and the government made you pay taxes for each and every car?

Would you still own a small business?

These may sound like hypothetical questions, but for a city in Kansas, they have become reality.  Last night, the city of Mission passed a new tax on driveways.   Yes, driveways.  Home owners will pay $72 each year for having a driveway.

Business owners, though, take the biggest hit in this new tax, which is being hailed as “revolutionary” and “ground-breaking.”  Beginning in December, all businesses will be taxed a fee of at least $3,558 per year.

But wait- it gets better…  Let’s say that you own a local bank, where customers come in to see you for home loans, business improvement packages, or simply to put money aside for the future.  You could owe the city $5,659 per year.  Maybe you own a local fast food franchise- do you have an extra $12,200 sitting around?  Because that’s how much you could be paying.  Maybe you work at a local Target- where the annual tax would amount to a whopping $64,750 per year.

Government charging businesses for having customers.  Doesn’t that sound like penalizing businesses for doing business?  (You know, investing in our economy?)  Because it sure sounds that way to me.

Let’s be honest, here- a small business owner taking on an additional $3,000-5,000 in taxes between now and December?  That could absolutely mean no Christmas bonuses for the employees.  Or how about that $65,000 tax on the local Target?  Do you think corporate headquarters will feel the brunt of that?  No, it will be the cashiers, customer service representatives, and cart shufflers who get laid off, or don’t get a raise.  The people who rely most on those jobs- and of course, the increased cost of doing business will be passed on to you and me, every time we visit that bank, eat at that restaurant, or shop at that store.

One last thing I forgot to tell you- Mission is very close to the Missouri state line.  After the Kansas legislature passed the second largest tax increase in our history- increasing sales tax in the entire state- and now that the city of Mission is burdening businesses in this manner… how many businesses do you think will stay in Kansas (much less Mission)?  How many will cross over into nearby Missouri?  How many new businesses will we attract?  And how many jobs will be lost, whether now or in the future, because of the elected officials’ decision last night?

We talk a lot about focusing local.  Chances are, if you own or are employed in a Merriam business, you understand the costs of elected officials who do not understand the importance of limited government on the local level.

Oh, one more thing- that tax?  Do you know what it’s going to pay for?  Transportation projects including a new express bus service to the upscale Country Club Plaza.  Help me here.  If you’re going to shop at Armani, Tiffany’s, Brooks Brothers or J. Crew- are you really going to be riding in a bus to get there?

It doesn’t make much sense to me, burdening families during a recession, when goodness knows we’re all tightening our belts as much as we can already. It makes even less sense to further burden the businesses that employ our spouses, friends and neighbors in the middle of a recession that no one sees a fast track out of.  Don’t worry though… I’m sure government officials know better than me.  After all, the mayor of Mission?  She is an attorney who “represents individuals and small businesses.”  And I’m sure the city really does need the money… after all, Mission is only spending $2,837,785 on Parks and Recreation in 2010.

Special thanks to Chris Stigall with the KCMO Morning Show with Chris Stigall for the background information in this story.

I encountered a man that was attending a training of ours in Russell, KS last evening.  After the training was over he came up to us and began chatting and sharing stories, and one story in particular really inspired me.  He talked about his experience last year when he attended the March on D.C.  He was explaining what an amazing experience it was for him and how blessed he felt to be a part of the movement – something bigger than himself.  He then went on to mention how shocked he was that when it was over and most everyone had cleared out, the streets were nearly spotless. He was blown away at how respectful everyone in attendance was towards their capitol.  However, there were a few signs on the ground and one in particular that had blown through a fence into the capitol building area that was off limits to the public.  He went up to the guard that was standing outside the fence and asked, “May I go pick up that sign so I can throw it away?”  The guard answered, “No.”  “Well, do you think maybe you could go grab it for me?  I would hate to think that my group was responsible for littering on the capitol,” the man said.  “Not my job” replied the guard.  The man was stunned and then said, “Well this is my capitol and I want to treat it with respect, so please sir, may I just climb through real quick and retrieve the sign?”  Finally the guard allowed him to do so.  This little exchange, though not a huge ordeal, really says a great deal about this man and people in attendance at the march.  It also says a great about the attitude that so many people seem to be taking nowadays.

When he told me this story, I was reminded of a poster that I once saw.  The poster is meant to demonstrate an instance in which a road-worker, instead of taking the initiative to move some road kill out of the middle of the road in order to paint, just painted right over it because it “wasn’t his job.”  However humorous the poster may be, it sends a scary message.  What would this country be like if everyone took the “not my job” approach that the capitol guard and the road-worker so willingly did?  There are many people who do; however, I am extremely thankful that there are citizens out there like the man at our training in Russell who understand that there are some things that you do because it is your duty as a citizen – it’s your job.

If you are a citizen of this great nation and enjoy the rights and freedoms granted to you in the United States Constitution, then it is your job.  It’s your job to hold your representatives accountable.  It’s your job to vote and to encourage others to vote as well.  It’s your job to educate those who may not be informed on important issues.  It’s your job to help candidates whom you believe in get elected.  And it’s your job to step up when there is a need for a liberty minded individual to emerge and run for office.

It is so refreshing and so motivating to see more and more citizens that understand how important it is to take the initiative when they see a problem in this country and make it their job to fix it.  The more active citizens that emerge, like the man I came across in Russell, the closer we will be to getting this country back on the track that our founding fathers intended it to go.

This is the third installment of a three-part series on American Religious Freedom. Click here for Part I, and here for Part II.

In last week’s post, I argued that the most pressing threat to our religious liberty was the movement for institutionalized secularism in America. If allowed to continue unchecked, the removal of religion from public affairs (governmental and non-governmental alike) will erode the morality of our culture and open the door for government to impinge on our individual liberties in general. This week, I argue that the looming future threat to our religious liberties is political correctness, which, reacting to the recent large-scale movement of Islam to the West, has the potential to sell out Americans’ most fundamental freedoms for the sake of a cosmopolitan, multicultural society devoid of absolute cultural standards and unalienable rights.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the "Father of the Turks"

In traditionally secular Turkey, an Islamist government has asserted its dominance and has undone many reforms put in place by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the great Turkish reformer and modernizer. Now, five prominent Catholic priests have been killed in Turkey in the past four years in spite of the fact that Christians make up only 0.2 percent of the Turkish population. What was until recently a relatively westernized, free, and peacefully multi-religious country has regressed into one of violently enforced institutionalized Islam.

Closer to home in Great Britain, there are now two million practicing Muslims, about as many as there are practicing Christians. “Mohammad” is the most popular name among all baby boys born in London (see the Daily Telegraph story here). The statistics are real, and the demographic shift over the past few decades is unprecedented and destabilizing. This is not intended to be a fear-mongering statement, nor is it a rallying cry against Islamic immigration. It is simply a statement of fact. Britain, Spain, France, and even Canada now face floods of Muslim immigrants, and they have shown themselves to be unprepared to deal with the cultural ramifications.

So how does this pertain to us in the United States?

In his fascinating book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, Mark Steyn argues that Europe’s present is America’s future. Even now, he writes, we face the challenge of large-scale Muslim immigration, and we must be prepared to respond to it to preserve our liberty, our unique culture, and our rights. Western European countries have shown us what happens when a country does not adhere to fundamental values and allows itself to be transformed by the culture of its immigrants. The result has been violence, terrorism, and ethnic self-segregation, as well as growing movements of racism and xenophobia among the native populations.

The fundamental question here is this: is it possible to maintain our fundamental liberties while allowing the free exercise of faiths different from that of our Founders and the majority of Americans? My answer is a wholehearted yes, and here’s how we do it.

As with just about any question regarding American liberty, the answer lies in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and their protections for the freedom of individuals. The First Amendment, which I have mentioned in each installment of this blog, provides for the free exercise of religion as any individual sees fit. According to this concept, Muslims should be allowed to practice their faith in America, plain and simple.

For example, there is a fight going on in New York City right now to determine if the use of a building as a mosque should be permitted adjacent to the former site of the Twin Towers. If the building is declared a historical landmark, its use as a mosque will not be allowed. Thus, many New Yorkers are lobbying to have the site declared historical precisely to avoid the existence of a mosque so close to the site of a disaster created by Islamic terrorism. Now, if the site is not made a landmark, there is, constitutionally speaking, nothing to prevent the owners of the Park51 building from converting it into a mosque, and they have every right to use it as they please. Personally, I hope that the site is declared historical because it was hit by debris from the falling towers in 2001. However, if it is allowed to become a place of Muslim worship, I am willing to respect the First Amendment and the free worship of those Muslims who choose to go there. Any government effort to disallow the building’s use as a mosque on the grounds of it being an inappropriate location for Muslims to meet would violate the First Amendment right to free religion, speech, and assembly.

On the other hand, we should not sell our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the price of multicultural acceptance. Europe and Canada have spent the past decades embarking on multicultural, multiethnic crusades of tolerance and political correctness, and radical Islam has festered inside their borders. In Canada, honor killings (the murder of girls by their fathers or husbands as punishment for sexual immorality) could potentially be prosecuted lightly because Muslim immigrants have different “cultural practices.” In Ontario, the government permits polygamy de facto by sending (assumedly Muslim) men monthly welfare checks for each of their wives. In France, a national law to ban the veiling of women is about to be approved as a measure to protect the individual liberties of women who are forcibly veiled.

Noor Almaleki, honor killing victim, murdered by her own father in October 2009.

In the American tradition, the free exercise of religion ends when the individual freedoms of others are invaded. Honor killings violate women’s fundamental right to life, plain and simple. As honor killings begin moving south of the border, young women must be protected from a tradition of murder by their own family members, and it is the government’s responsibility to do so. As for the French banning the veil, such a law would not be constitutional in the United States because women should be allowed to wear a veil if they choose to. However, if they are forced to wear a veil by a husband or family member, their right to free expression is violated, and the state should protect this right as well.

All of this is to say that the allowance of free religious expression protects Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike (along with all other faiths) only insofar as they respect the fundamental rights of others. The moment that a Muslim husband forces his wife to wear a veil, beheads his daughter for dressing immodestly, or advocates treasonous acts of terrorism on religious grounds, his First Amendment protection ends. But until he reaches such a point, the practice of his faith should not be impeded by any governmental or civilian authority. If he is not doing harm to anyone else, Americans should heed the words of John Locke in dealing with someone in a religious minority: “Let those men consider how heinously they sin, who, adding injustice, if not to their error, yet certainly to their pride, do rashly and arrogantly take upon them to misuse the servants of another master [god], who are not at all accountable to them.” When all is said and done, we are all accountable to God for our faith, or lack thereof. If a man does no harm to his neighbor in the practice of his faith, then his religion is of no concern to anyone else.

The challenge of Islam is often presented to us as a confrontation between “Islam and Christianity,” or “Islam vs. the West.” Though the distinction may seem a bit nuanced, it is more appropriate to see the clash as “Islamic tradition vs. the American tradition of God-given rights.” As Americans, we are blessed with a government whose sworn purpose is the preservation of our inviolable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of religion, as I have written here before, is essential to the prosperity and liberty of our society. However, it is imperative that we retain the delicate balance between allowing the free exercise of religion and allowing the practices of that religion to violate the God-given rights of individuals. As patriots and adherents to the values embodied in our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights, I hope that we can all look first to these documents for our policy on the freedom of religion.

I will conclude this post with a brief word of caution. The fear aroused by Muslim immigration has given rise to frighteningly powerful movements of racism and nativism in Europe, such as the Front National in France or the British National Party in England. Such movements represent a violent backlash from native populations who have abandoned their respect for the humanity and fundamental rights of immigrants, and they are a prime example of how not to face such a challenge here in America.

For further reading, I recommend John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration,” Mark Steyn’s America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, and Alexis deTocqueville’s Democracy in America.

This concludes the three parts of this blog, but I will post a short wrap-up segment next week to truly conclude this series on American religious freedom. I hope you have enjoyed it, and I hope you have learned as much as I have and will continue the dialogue in the future. I believe it is only fitting to end such a series by simply saying, “God Bless America.”

This is the second installment of a three part series on the tradition of American religious freedom. For Part I: The Past, click here.

Today’s blog is posted under a bit of a misnomer, as it will be more about the recent past than the actual present. In addition, it will be less of a historical narrative and more of an exposition of certain truths essential to understanding the source and application of American religious freedom, with a few historical examples to reinforce the central argument. As I proceed through these points, I will argue not only that religious freedom must be preserved, but that institutionalized secularism is a force that counteracts the advancement of religious liberty, and liberty in general. I ask you to bear with me as I try to cram a plethora of ideas into a post of a manageable length.

First, it is essential to understand, as I wrote in the previous installment of this blog, that an understanding of the Founding Fathers’ belief in a Creator as the source of our natural rights is essential to grasping the true meaning of liberty as they conceived it. I stress this because when we do not believe in God-given natural rights that cannot be taken away by any power on Earth, we diminish the dignity of our humanity. If I do not look to God for my rights, but to man, then my liberty is subject to the whims of a fundamentally corrupt being, and my value as an individual is likely to be neglected. The Founders believed that our Creator knows and values each one of us, and this is why we are all individually endowed with certain unalienable rights that are as much a part of us as our very humanity. The role of government is not to bestow these rights, but to preserve them.

Opposite this perspective stands the doctrine (and I use that word deliberately) of institutionalized secularism, which seeks to remove all religious influence from public life, mostly through the power of the courts. This practice is based on a flawed perception of religion’s role in American history, and its result is the minimization of human dignity, the degradation of fundamental societal values, and ultimately the lessening of liberty.

For a powerful historical example, I turn to the mid-19^th century. Belief in the dignity of the human individual was the driving force for the majority of the abolitionist movement according to Dr. Wayne Grudem, a leading reformed theologian at Phoenix Seminary (listen to his lecture series on faith and politics here). According to Dr. Grudem, two thirds of abolitionists in the United States were Christian clergymen (this statistic from Alvin Schmidt’s How Christianity Changed the World). My point here is not that Christianity is the only force for good in America, nor do I believe that to be true. Rather, my point is that it was the belief in the dignity of the individual, fostered by the belief in natural rights imparted to every man by his Creator, that spurred on a movement, ended slavery, and changed America forever.

John Locke

As a quick aside, to those who would point out that many slaveholders were Christians and that southerners often justified slavery on Biblical grounds, my response will be pithy. I do not believe I need to say much more than John Locke when he writes, “If [a man] be destitute of charity, meekness, and goodwill in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.” Now, there is no way for us to know the heart of anyone but ourselves. However, I find it hard to believe that any person who considered it proper and permissible to own chattel slaves could possibly have had a deep belief in the fundamental value of the individual, nor could he have truly understood that Christ came “that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

That being said, there is a movement afoot in America today that seeks to construct a “wall of separation” between church and state, removing any religious influence of any kind from the affairs of government. The argument for this position goes something like this: The influence of religion on government affairs will intrude on the free exercise of those who do not hold those particular religious convictions, and thus it cannot be allowed. The “wall of separation” implicitly argues that government will function just as well, in fact better, if religion is uninvolved in public life.

President George Washington

Now, this position is foolish in its belief that government can function without an absolute moral code. As George Washington said in his farewell address, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Moreover, to consistently assert that government would be better off without the influence of religion, one would have to argue, for example, that slavery would have been abolished without any religious influence on government. I leave it to you to decide what would have motivated an adequate number of Americans to agitate for the dignity and humanity of black slaves, if not the adherence to an absolute moral code handed down by a divine Creator.

In addition, one would have to remove the faith of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a pastor, from the Civil Rights Movement. Without the influence of Dr. King and the involvement of churches, would the Civil Rights Movement have succeeded as it did in reinforcing the value of the American individual regardless of race? The preamble to the Constitution asserts that our government exists to “promote the general welfare.” It is an undeniable historical fact that in the most momentous occasions where the general welfare has been promoted by the U.S. government, the influence of religion, or at least a moral code derived therefrom, has been indispensable.

By far the most glaring recent example of judicial activism supplanting the influence of religion on public affairs was the 1996 Colorado case Romer v. Evans, in which the Colorado Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment after it was passed in a popular election by the people of Colorado. The amendment essentially refused to recognize homosexuals as a protected class. The court justified its decision to strike down the amendment by saying that the law was passed with too much religious influence. According to the court’s opinion, the consideration of one’s religious principles while voting in an election “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests” (wade through the original text of the Colorado decision here). Dr. Grudem calls this justification “foolishness,” and he makes a compelling argument for the freedom of people to consider whatever they want while voting. “The nature of a free society requires that people should be able to base their political convictions on whatever reasoning process or whatever authority they prefer.”

The Romer decision, along with any other government action intended to discount the legitimacy of a person’s religious convictions in their decision making, amounts to nothing less than an infringement on citizens’ right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Historically speaking, religious freedom has been fundamental to the retention and advancement of American liberty in general. Because religion is allowed, in private and in public, to flourish without interference by the government, American morals are what they are, and individuals are valued as they deserve to be. It is because of the influence of religion on American history and philosophy that people of all races may vote without preconditions. Because of the general belief in the transcendent value of the individual, American women may vote, work, drive, and enjoy all other freedoms imparted to them as Americans. In addition, they can live without fearing the humiliation of polygamous marriages, oppressive dress codes, or cruel punishments as women do elsewhere in the world. I believe that our first president said it best: “Of all the dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable results.”

It is for this reason that institutionalized secularism is the single largest threat to American religious freedom today. We may not think much of a court decision here or there, but the ripple effect of degraded religious freedom will have enormous repercussions for our liberty as a whole, the state of our culture, and our well being as a nation.

In the third and final segment of this blog, I will address the issue of religious freedom as it applies to the mounting obstacles of globalization and radical Islam. For those who wish to read a more religiously universal assessment, rather than the Judeo-Christian focus of these first two parts, the upcoming installment will be of particular interest.

For further reading on the topics mentioned in this post, see John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration,” the chapter “On Faith and the Founding” in Mark R. Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, Alvin Schmidt’s How Christianity Changed the World, and Dr. Wayne Grudem’s lecture series on faith and politics.

This post is the first installment of a three-part series on the American tradition of religious freedom.

There are about as many opinions on religious freedom in America as there are Americans, and this blog certainly won’t please everyone. However, because faith is of such importance to so many Americans, why should it be taboo?

This post was largely inspired by two recent discoveries regarding the nature of religion in American politics and culture. The first of these is a lecture series on faith and American politics by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a seminary professor at Phoenix Seminary and one of the premier reformed theologians of today’s evangelical movement. These lectures, though I have only listened to a handful of them so far, have already brought much more depth and perspective to my thoughts and opinions on the tradition of religion in American public life, and I highly recommend them.

The second inspiration was a pithy quip by a tour guide at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, which I was privileged to visit this week. Our guide left no ambiguity in explaining that our third president was not a devout Christian, citing an 1820 letter to William Short in which Jefferson laments that the biblical accounts of Christ’s life are full of “so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible” that one person truly professed everything Jesus taught.

Thomas Jefferson, the "Sage of Monticello"

These words were written by the same man that had penned the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the very document that Americans look to for protection of the separation between church and state, as well as the freedom to individually and privately practice any religion. It is an interesting and ironic conundrum that the document cited by so many Christians in defense of their right to freely worship was written by a man who once wrote, “I can never join [John] Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.” It goes without saying that Jefferson was a man of contradictions. From his ownership of slaves to his opinions on religion, the “sage of Monticello” was indisputably brilliant, but certainly an enigma to his enthusiasts then and now.

With such uncertainty imputed to us by the very author of institutionalized American religious freedom, the question before us in this installment is: what role has religion played in the American culture, public life, and political tradition?

First, the concept of God-given natural rights is an essential component of our Declaration of Independence. In the first two sentences of the Declaration, the Founders (Jefferson being the principal author) make two references to God. First, the Declaration asserts that the United States have a right to be a free and independent country according to “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Second, it argues, in those famous words we all know and love, “that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Declaration begins by laying out two key assumptions. First, governments exist according to laws laid out by God. Here we encounter a commonly debated question, that of the origin of natural law. As C.S. Lewis once wrote, the existence of “moral [or natural] law suggests the existence of a moral [or natural] lawgiver.” All of our Founding Fathers probably would have agreed with this statement, though some (notably Jefferson and Franklin) would not have concluded that this “natural lawgiver” was the Christian God. The second assumption is this: We the People have certain rights that cannot be taken away by any government because they were given to us by God. Without the influence of faith, where would our rights come from? Would they be granted to us by men, and thus subject to the whims of whatever human authority was in power at any given moment? What a chaotic, unstable society that would be! It is exactly because our political tradition is entrenched in a belief in God-given, irrevocable natural rights that we can live without fear of tyranny from our own government.

Moreover, as argued by Dr. Grudem, without the appreciation of faith’s influence on our political culture, our Declaration of Independence would be rendered invalid. The Declaration appeals directly to God for the moral legitimacy of the states’ secession from the British Empire. It asserts that governments have “a separate and equal station” among entities which is given to them by God, and that this “station” is one that requires them to respect and protect the rights of their people. If our government was not established on the premise that God had ordained its status as a protector of freedoms, we would look to humans for a guarantee against tyranny, and such faith always proves to be misplaced.

Briefly, let us examine the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. A pithy document, the Statute opens by establishing the premise that “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” and that free minds should be given liberty to choose the way in which they worship. Thus, the government of Virginia declared in 1786 that it would not make any law impeding or compelling the practice of religion by individuals because freedom of religion was a “natural [read: ‘God-given’] right.” This idea became an American policy three years later in the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Jonathan Edwards

Finally, I conclude this portion of the blog with a quote from Jonathan Edwards, hailed by many as the greatest theologian ever produced by America (and for my fellow history nerds, the grandfather of Aaron Burr). Edwards, a man who surely considered his citizenship to be in Heaven (Philippians 3:20), nonetheless valued liberty here on Earth as much as any other American. Edwards wrote that “True liberty consists only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will.” That’s some complicated grammar. In other words, Edwards knew that liberty, as guaranteed to us by our Creator, is ultimately most perfectly manifested in our having the freedom to worship as we please (doing “what we ought to will”) and in not being coerced to worship in a certain way (“being constrained to do what we ought not to will”).

Now, this first installment has focused largely on the Judeo-Christian roots of the American political tradition. This is because our Founding Fathers, the initiators of that tradition, were largely Christian. However, the more important point that I am trying to make is that understanding the Founders’ faith in a Creator is essential to understanding the origin and sanctity of our American rights, privileges, and traditions. Our rights as Americans are unalienable not because they are so valued; rather, they are valued because they are unalienable, and unalienable because they are given to us by God. Intertwined with our commonly accepted national philosophy is an element of the divine, and we should be proud to say so.

For those who disagree, I urge you to probe the depths of your reasoning to determine the fundamental origin of your rights. Ultimately, we are all after truth, and I hope you find that above all else. In the end, this is only my personal perspective, influenced by some great thinkers and theologians. I would be very interested to hear what others have to say.

The next installment of this blog will examine some more recent instances in which American freedom of religion has been crucial to the promotion of the “general welfare,” some times when it was used to wrongly justify tyranny, and a few episodes in which it was called into question.

For further reading, I refer you to the American Majority pamphlet “Why America is Great: Volume 1.” There you will find a comprehensive look at the ancient backgrounds of the ideas contained in our political culture. Also, I recommend the chapter “On Faith and the Founding” in Mark R. Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.

Special thanks to Austin James for bringing this to my attention, and Raz Shafer for contributing key material. Regarding this piece from the Huffington Post:

We see here the fight that grassroots constitutionalists are up against, and the new medium that it is expanding to. There has been a fair amount of talk in political circles and elsewhere about the vast network of information, people, and resources that the government-expansion crowd uses to make their message palatable and marketable to the very voters that will be exploited by such statism. (For a more in-depth case study, see The Blueprint by Schrager and Whitwer, recommended by AM president Ned Ryun here).

This post by Ariana Huffington, written with a touch of hopeful anticipation, outlines a plan for the federal government to “open” (note the buzzword, falsely implying transparency) itself to outside innovation that will only further empower it. President Obama, in the parlance of media guru Tim O’Reilly, champions an overhaul of government that will allow more participation in public affairs by citizens via technology and new media. Sounds great, right? I mean, who wouldn’t want to have more involvement in the affairs of their government? That’s what democracy is all about, right?

The problem here is the goal of a Government 2.0-type program. Uncle Sam wants your ideas to help widen and streamline the way the federal government operates. We should not be surprised in the least by the tendency of the big-government establishment to employ new media and social networks to expand the influence of the bureaucracy. What’s more, those who support such an agenda make no effort to hide their expansionist goals. The Mayor of Newark, as quoted in the Huffington article, seeks to use new technology to build “a larger democracy that is learning how to master media and drive social change.” And why should such visionaries make any effort to hide their big-government tendencies? After all, the majority of voters in 2008 cast their ballots for “a larger democracy” and a government that “drives social change.” There can be no doubt that those behind this government-driven change will use any and all means to do so, including new technology. Would a technological Government 2.0 be more transparent? Maybe, but actions speak louder than words, and we have seen government transparency in practice over the past few weeks, months, and years, and you can draw your own conclusions from there. Would a “larger democracy” be good for the free market and individual liberty? Almost certainly not.

For the entirety of American history, the American population has been at odds with the power of the federal government. To channel a popular radio host, the American political tradition has always come down to an ongoing struggle between liberty and tyranny. When the proponents of government-driven wealth redistribution and social change by sometimes constitutionally questionable means advocate the use of new technology to involve more people in that agenda, their vision smacks of a relationship between governors and governed that Americans should instinctively perceive as too close for comfort.

To put it another way, here’s a quote from Barry Goldwater, the late U.S. senator and 1964 presidential candidate:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

The government-as-platform structure mentioned in the Huffington article is exactly the wrong application of new technological resources. Those who wish to pursue individual liberty and a smaller government should pursue the use of new technology and social networking to organize efforts aimed at resisting governmental expansion, not facilitating it. Here at American Majority, we are working to build a network of constitutionally minded grassroots activists that will bring about social change from the ground up, not imposed top-down by the government. Networks such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs, news websites, podcasts, and other media make possible the sharing of a vast wealth of information intended for the use of limiting government influence, rather than expanding it. They connect people with like-minded people of skill, means, and ambition, and the relationships formed through these networks grow into the movements whose influence we see in the congressional primaries even now. By training grassroots activists and candidates, we do not seek to build a “larger democracy” as the establishment does, but rather a new nation of responsible, conscious citizens who will be educated and equipped to defend liberty for this generation and the next.

The tools are out there for everyone to use. The big government crowd has already begun. When do we get started?

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment of: “Vote them All Out.” It’s also a mantra that is not all that reasonable or responsible. In fact one could argue this approach is a tad on the lazy side.

If we think of our government as a business, which in one way it is, then for us as the board of that business to fire the whole lot places unnecessary strain on an already ailing company.  I agree there are “public servants” that need to be discharged. Those who fundamentally are opposed to the intent and expressions of the Constitution – with regards to fiscal responsibility and limited government – definitely need to go.

I am reminded of a conversation that took place between Col. Davy Crocket, who was running for re-election at the time, and Horatio Bunce.  It is noted in detail in, “NOT YOURS TO GIVE“ . I encourage you to read the entire dialogue. It is an amazing story.

Several things struck me while reading this. It stood out that Mr. Bunce, while evidently living in a very rural area and being a working man, had taken time to familiarize himself with the Constitution. He sought to understand and revere it. Mr. Bunce also did his civic duty in keeping himself abreast of the news and how his elected officials were voting. He unmistakably took his voting right seriously.
It struck me most intriguing that this man, of some influence, decided after a civil discussion with his legislator, (with whom he clearly disagreed) to not only vote for him again but to help “influence” others on the legislator’s behalf.  They obviously had shared values and must have agreed on the majority of Col. Crocket’s voting record.

Horatio realized Col. Crocket was convicted of his previous usurpations against the Constitution and was truly repentant for that. “Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating [CRITICIZING] you for it,” Mr. Bunce said.

By following Mr. Bunce’s example and communicating with those elected officials we share values and principles with; we become part of the mechanism that makes this country great!  With open dialog between constituents and representatives we can expect accountability. Likewise, with accountability comes the power of impacting their decisions in a positive way, directly tied to the operation of our republic.

It always seems that whenever I write a post (here) I find myself layin’ the smack-down (here) focusing on things people should be doing, but aren’t or are doing, but shouldn’t (here)… Overall, it’s an M.O. I’m happy to take on.

Today is no different…

Lately, I’ve been in contact with several folks interested in running for office or who are currently running that are relatively new to the process.  Shocker, I know! Especially since I work for an organization that looks to identify and train first-time candidates!  The majority of them are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, are sick and tired with the ‘politics as usual’ and the ‘establishment’ (and understandably so).   They are inspired to their candidacy by a desire see the commonsense conservative principles of limited government, individual liberty, and a free market championed from their city hall to the Whitehouse in Washington.  These are the best types of raw candidates: principled and informed.  On top of that, they want to reflect this dedication to the principles in their campaign (and I’m all for it!).

A serious divergence of opinion develops, however, when one of these starry-eyed neophytes (terms applied lovingly) starts telling me about their grand strategy to win their election by being the “anti-political” candidate, staking out what they believe to be a pure and moral high ground to win solely on the merits of their idealism.

I’m not saying that in theory they are wrong or that this type of political positioning is wrong… quite the contrary.  Ideally we would have candidates not heavily influenced by invasive special interests or those not so obsessed to play the game of appearances that they become an empty suit having no real commitment to the issues.  We absolutely need candidates of substance.  But we also need candidates that want to win.

When a potential candidate approaches me with their scheme to be “anti-political” by deemphasizing the value of a comprehensive GOTV precinct strategy, swearing off all large donations from wealthy individuals or PACs, or even refusing to leverage the plethora of name-id tools like signs/ads/mail to promote their campaign, I obviously question their tactics, but more importantly question their actual motivation and dedication to win.

I’ve actually had a conversation go something close to this.

Anti-political candidate:  “I really want to run a campaign of the people.  I’m not raising any money (especially from PACs!), won’t be doing the whole ‘yard sign thing’, and don’t really think that door-walking makes that much of a difference.  I think I will seriously influence the debate and resonate with voters by making this statement.  What do you think?”
Me: “So… you don’t want to win then.”

Mind you, up to this point, this candidate has been a rockstar on the issues and their type is sorely needed at all levels of government.  But come out and tell me you want to win an election by not executing a strategic campaign, and all that build-up goes flat and I’m left frustrated and rolling my eyes.

Let’s be straight:  Money is a very important aspect of any political campaign.  Simply refusing to accept it from large donors or PACs out of hand is a blunder.  I’m certainly not saying one should whore their campaign for influence.  But accepting large donations from individuals and PAC organizations that represent a natural alliance with one’s principles and beliefs is a highly strategic and beneficial decision.

At the very base level, what bothers me the most about this type of anti-political candidate is not their scruples regarding donations and not even their unwillingness to run a proper campaign, it’s their obsession with enthusiastically  sacrificing such solid, principled potential in order to “make a statement” which history has shown will fall on deaf ears.

Politics is policy and the winners make the policy. If we have a true desire to influence the direction of this nation then we must win.

Conservatives in America are in need of winners not whiners.

The heat of adversity yields steely resolve, so says Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs Adjunct Scholar Paul Rahe in his landmark piece imploring conservatives to have heart, for this “could be our finest hour.”  Rahe highlights his thoughts in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift that Americans are “made of sterner stuff,” thus we have not fallen prey to the tide of Western European-style welfare statism like our Anglospheric brethren across the pond.

And it’s this “sterner stuff” that imbues the Tea Party with its on-going fervor.  It has already borne from the adversity presented by the unapologetic progressive statism of Barack Obama and company a new generation of citizen-activists committed to a change in the system and a change in the guard.  After all, Obama’s true “change” has been merely in the speed with which America careens toward the precipice of national disaster.

One among that new generation leading the charge is Oklahoma’s favorite son (in-law) Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) whose seminal speech to the 800 in attendance at OCPA’s annual banquet last week could be regarded as on par with Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” address.

Leaving no doubt, he rightly framed the terms of our present struggle by opening his address:

“Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill – or I should say, one political party passed it – over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much…or whether you don’t qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.  This presumptuous reform has put this nation … once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person … on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become.”

Ryan has drawn the line in the sand and declared to our progressive foes, “No more.”  To wit, the two conservative candidates for Oklahoma Attorney General have already pledged to join thirteen other states’ Attorneys General in the suit to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Not surprisingly, the progressive candidate juked and jived: “I agree with Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson that litigation should not be rushed into but the issue should be analyzed before a decision is made to join, or not join, or to take some alternative action.”  Translation: I’m really caught between a rock and hard place here in that my party expects me to support my president despite that Oklahoma’s voters are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing ObamaCare.

The battle that lies ahead — progressive statism versus liberty — could not be more stark.

Paul Rahe echoes Congressman Ryan in his prescription for our present progressive malady, summing their sentiments: “Barack Obama has made manifest; and to all with eyes to see, the danger that we have temporized with for nearly a century is now perfectly visible. As Obama himself has insisted in speech after speech, the moment in which we now live is a ‘defining moment.’ What is required in what he calls ‘this defining moment’ is what Abraham Lincoln once called ‘a new birth of freedom.’”