WHAT EXPLAINS AMERICA’S DECLINE? — PART 1

United States

Why I Retain Some Hope For My Country

Why do I retain some hope for my country? I am not an especially brilliant individual. Therefore, if I can understand how we have been swindled, I think most people capable of eventually reaching a similar understanding. However, I have no idea how or when the American people will reach that understanding. I just fear we are running out of time — losing the opportunity to peacefully recover the free country we once enjoyed.

What is the best evidence that Americans are slowly figuring out they have been swindled? That’s the Tea Party Revolution, that spontaneous uprising the began in the latter days of the administration of President George W. Bush. When Bush decided he needed hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, the truth finally began to dawn on millions of Americans. Our leaders no longer respect our Constitution or our nation’s traditions.

Does every member of the Tea Party Revolution think like me? No. Some undoubtedly have a better understanding the problems facing the country. Others just want to protect their Medicare and Social Security benefits from the ravages of a runaway, big-spending government. Many have yet to see the erosion of our Christian heritage as the core issue. Nonetheless, the Tea Party is united in one important respect. All understand that our government has become too big. All recognize big government as a threat to the rights of the citizens of this nation.

In previous series, I have written about:

Unfortunately, those posts missed an important concept.  Why? I did not understand that concept well enough to put it into words. Fortunately, when I read A Man Taking Care of His Wife and Daughter Is Now an “Alternative Lifestyle”? by Biltrix, an idea began to form.

In his post, derided a news story that treated a man taking care of his daughter as an “alternative lifestyle.” Here is how I commented on that post.

Consider this expression: the corporate mass media. Why would I use that expression?

What is a corporation? A corporation is a government creation. Unfortunately, in this era of big government, corporations no longer serve the same purpose they once had. In past, governments authorized corporations so that private citizens would have the legal means to amass capital for business projects. Now, with so much regulation and so many tax “incentives” corporations have become instruments of government policy. In fact, their survival often depends upon incestuous relationships with government officials.

So why does the corporate mass media twist and spin the news the way it does? Perhaps what is more amazing is that the news media retains any objectivity whatsoever. (from here)

When we think of government, we usually think of departments and agencies that call themselves departments of the government or government agencies. Because they seem so ordinary, we forget the incestuous ties that exist between so-called private collectives and local, state, and the federal government. In our country every type of organization now finds itself the subject of intense government regulation. If nothing else, our tax collectors demand to know how each and every organized entity collects and spends its money. Consider this ever expanding list that just covers nonprofits.

According to the IRS Publication 557†, in the Organization Reference Chart section, the following is an exact list of 501(c) organization types and their corresponding descriptions.[1]

501(c)(1) — Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)
501(c)(2) — Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization[2]
501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
501(c)(5) — Labor, Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations
501(c)(6) — Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.
501(c)(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs
501(c)(8) — Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations
501(c)(9) — Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations
501(c)(10) — Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations
501(c)(11) — Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations
501(c)(12) — Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc.
501(c)(13) — Cemetery Companies
501(c)(14) — State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds
501(c)(15) — Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations
501(c)(16) — Cooperative Organizations to Finance Crop Operations
501(c)(17) — Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts
501(c)(18) — Employee Funded Pension Trust (created before June 25, 1959)
501(c)(19) — Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces
501(c)(20) — Group Legal Services Plan Organizations
501(c)(21) — Black lung Benefit Trusts
501(c)(22) — Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund
501(c)(23) — Veterans Organization (created before 1880)
501(c)(24) — Section 4049 ERISA Trusts
501(c)(25) — Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents
501(c)(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals
501(c)(27) — State-Sponsored Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Organization
501(c)(28) — National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust
501(c)(29) — Qualified Nonprofit Health Insurance Issuers

(from here, but here is the IRS table)

What is the point? Organizations that work with politicians — that establish political connections with the government — receive special benefits and competitive advantages when they do so. How bad is that? Think about this question. What if an organization, even a religious organization, has to compromise its values to work with the government? Doesn’t our government reward them for doing so or punish them when they refuse?

So what will this series be about?

Do I have the answers to all these questions? Not really. The problem is more complicated than I know. I don’t really see the overthrow of our nation as a devious plot by masterminds. I just see a society slipped loose from its mooring — drifting further and further from the Truths it once held dear.

30 thoughts on “WHAT EXPLAINS AMERICA’S DECLINE? — PART 1

  1. What are the data that lead you to conclude that America is in decline? The lede sort of assumes that, but one can’t really find in the rest of the post any explanation for what the “decline” consists of.

    I can think of ways that one could argue that certain facets of American life are no longer as competitive with world measures as they once were, e.g., quality of health care, educational accomplishment, decrease in passenger railroads. But for every one of these data points, there is an entirely different and exclusive cause and solution.

    So, to have a meaningful conversation, we need to know which “decline” are we talking about. Once you focus on that, we can engage intelligently on what to do about it.

    Like

    1. “I can think of ways” you offer, as a level of abstraction to insulate this from something you actually believe. Then, “… one could argue that…” offering yet another layer of abstraction from your own beliefs. This suggests that you, yourself, think that America is still #1 in educational accomplishment, for example. You don’t believe this, it seems to me, and are merely wanting to argue about something. Anything, as long as it provides a distraction from the premises of limited-government conservative principles.

      The rise of progressivism with its attendant crony capitalism, and the resultant suppression of limited government conservative principles, are behind all these declines: healthcare, education, and even railroads (by distorting the marketplace there, as well). This cause is shared, not “entirely different and exclusive” to each case. You know this, I think.

      And this ignores other declines, such as the American decline in world political influence; Obama is openly laughed at by nascent enemies and erstwhile allies alike. OF

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

  2. There are a lot of data and a lot of measures one can use in assessing whether this country or any other is in a state of advancement, decline, stasis, or simply bobbing up and down. Usually, the data do not all point in one direction. – we may be declining in the percentage of the world market in steel that we produce, but advancing in other areas. Hence my question about the assumed, but unidentified “decline” in the post.

    By the way, I think American elementary and secondary education are measurably inferior to the educational systems offered by quite a few other advanced countries. I’m not sure why you would think I feel otherwise.

    Like

    1. You want to use “data” to argue we are not in a state of decline? To me that’s akin to using “data” to debate whether we have self-evident rights given to us by our Creator. Mathematics and statistics have legitimate purposes, but we tend to have unrealistic expectations. Have you seriously considered what the sort of decline this post about? The subject is the erosion of our freedoms. So that we might measure its decline, how would you quantify freedom?

      “Data” requires interpretation. To be be meaningful, the data has be meaningful to the quantity that is being measured. Are there quantities we can measure that might correlate with a rise or decline in freedom. I suppose so. Nonetheless, when the decline in our freedom is self evident, I am not inclined to debate around the matter. Instead of discussing anything meaningful, we would be discussing whether the “data” has any relevance.

      When the lost of our freedom must also result in spiritual and material losses, I have no doubt the United States is also experiencing declines in military power, economic power, cultural influence, and cultural values. The first two we can measure with statistics. The latter two we cannot. Have you check the state of our military and our economy lately?

      Like

  3. Which of our freedoms are less than they were, say, in 1950? (a date that I took out of a hat – you can substitute your own benchmark if you choose). Our economy is much stronger than it was then, by many measures, and, by the measures in which it is weaker, many of those are outliers influenced by the destruction of Europe and Japan in the Second World War. The economy gets a real kick in the teeth periodically and then tends to rebound. The 2008 collapse was a major one, and recovery is not as lively as many would wish, but it is clearly on an upturn (assuming events in Crimea do not put us all back in the tank). MIlitary power is a slippery thing to measure. The biggest hit that our military has taken in recent times was the result of a completely senseless dissipation of resources in Iraq. The People (of both conservative and liberal stripe) seem unwilling to invest the kind of tax revenues necessary to maintain a two war military. But, it may be that a smaller, smarter Army may be more appropriate for world conditions in the future. (I personally have some strong reservations about whether we are preparing carefully enough for China, but I accept that we need to listen to arguments that the country might be stronger overall if fewer of its resources were channeled into defense strategies predicated on world hegemonic dominance).

    America’s cultural influence probably has declined worldwide, and I agree with you that that is hard to measure. However, there is a great deal about American “culture” that is shallow and frivolous – it doesn’t bother me particularly if America Romantic Comedy movies are losing market share to African, Indian or Chinese film (to take another example out of a hat).

    Like

    1. We could pick a date of 1850, and that date would be just about as meaningful to this discussion. I suspect you know that as well as I do.

      Did you note the title of this post? I still hope for we can turn things around, but I have no way of knowing for certain.

      When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, how many people understood the nature of the events that would follow? Some understood that what Caesar was doing seemed to threaten the integrity of the Roman republic. These hoped that by killing Caesar they could end that threat, but the true problem resided in the hearts of the citizens of Rome. The Roman people no longer valued their republic. So murdering Caesar accomplished nothing except a killing.

      In America, too many no longer understand what the Constitution is suppose to do. Tragically, that includes many and perhaps most lawyers. Hence Keith DeHavelle’s comment about your method of argument. You would have us so immersed in the process of argument we would get sidetracked from the original subject of the debate.

      What lawyers do involves ensuring that their clients receive due process. However, legal processes do not exist for their own sake; they exist for the sake of justice. Unfortunately, we are losing sight of that connection. Thus, even though our legal systems still provide something that looks like due process, more and more often justice is not served. Instead, the already powerful grow more powerful.

      And what is the crux of the current problem? For most people it seems to be denial. If you cannot see for yourself that our President and Congress have assume powers well outside what the Constitution allows, then what could I say that would change your mind?

      Tyranny is just a type of sin, and denial is just part of an old process that leads to sin: DOUBT, DENIAL, DECEPTION, AND DISOBEDIENCE.
      http://familyallianceonline.org/2013/10/03/doubt-denial-deception-and-disobediance/

      Like

  4. Your last comment is fairly jumpy, and I can’t say that I follow it. I used 1950 (concededly a bit arbitrarily) because it is post-WWII, not so distant that it is beyond the awareness of a large number of people, and somewhat modern in its technologies. I also used that date because is marks a high point of relative American military and diplomatic influence in the world. So my question is, which of our freedoms are substantially lessened over where we stood at that 65-year back milestone. I think I could make a good case, that, in some respects at least, we have greater freedom within this country than we did then, and that the same could be said globally for many, though clearly not all people. So, the question remains, what is this “Decline” that the post is concerned with. As I mentioned in my first comment, I can think of many aspects of American life where there has been a demonstrable decline – passenger rail service was one of many examples. I also happen to think our educational system has declined – not so much in absolute terms (American children are probably getting about the same education I got a billion years ago), but relative to competitor countries where they appear to have leap-frogged us with their pedagogical methods and organization of the schools. But I can also think of a number of other areas where there have been definite improvements. Often, things that have declined do so for sound economic reasons.

    I suspect that there was never a time in America where there was wide, deep popular understanding of the Constitution and its unique gifts to the People. The Constitution always comes up short when the political burners get turned up. I doubt that this is a new phenomenon. When one frequents the”conservative” blogosphere, as you and I do, one finds an appalling amount of ignorance, trumpeted loudly and with conviction, about the document. I suppose the same thing is at least as true in the liberal blogs, but I don’t spend time there.

    Like

    1. I find it curious how easily you say this has declined and that has declined. You just will not agree we have experienced a decline in freedom. How do you define freedom? When the Brits enacted the Magna Carta, how did that document aid the cause of freedom? When America succeeded in its rebellion against the Brits, did we become more free? If we did, what happened? How would you explain it?

      We have a founding documents. I believe most people would point to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the primary documents. Are these documents the source of our freedom? What does each exist to do? How would we measure how well we are using them to protect our rights?

      Is there “something” that allows a nation to exist as a free people? Without this “something,” must the people of a nation be fit only for the rule of tyrants?

      Like

  5. My experience is that the citizenry of this country uses the founding documents rather effectively to protect rights, Tom.

    As for the Revolution, we became more free because we broke out of the limbo that we, as colonists, were stuck in: We were subjects of the British Crown, constrained by its mercantilist economic/colonial policies, but without representation, voice or vote in Parliament. We created our own system of governance that incorporated many of the liberal (in the traditional sense of the word) elements of British rights, but without the hereditary monarchy. That’s how I would explain it. I’m sure there are other equally valid explanations. But, since you asked . . . .

    Like

    1. I am disappointed. You ignored most of my questions, but I suppose I asked too many.

      You said.

      I suspect that there was never a time in America where there was wide, deep popular understanding of the Constitution and its unique gifts to the People. The Constitution always comes up short when the political burners get turned up. I doubt that this is a new phenomenon.

      And you also have this experience: “My experience is that the citizenry of this country uses the founding documents rather effectively to protect rights, Tom. ” I am curious as to how you think that works.

      As to your analysis of how we gained greater freedom as the result of the Revolution, I think that it is a reasonably good explanation. I just wonder if you think we still have effective representation in Congress today. Are our leaders pursuing the best interests of the people or their own agendas?

      I am still curious about these two questions.
      1. How do you define freedom?
      2. Is there “something” that allows a nation to exist as a free people?

      Like

  6. It generally works through the court system, Tom. If you review the docket of the Supreme Court in any particular term, you will find it larded with individual rights cases.

    Very few politicians respect the liberties granted in the Constitution. This isn’t a left/right, conservative/liberal proposition. Pols from all points on the spectrum are quick to jettison basic rights for the pottage of a few votes. For every “liberal” who would restrict Amendment X, there is at least an offsetting “conservative” who would restrict XIV.

    This isn’t the place for long essays or books. So I’ll decline your query re how I define freedom. The answer is not a short one because “freedom” has political and individual aspects. A bumper sticker won’t do. Nonetheless, for the shorthand context of sites like these, I consider the government of the United States under the 1789 (or 1787) Constitution to describe a free Republic.

    I will take a stab, however, at your second question as to whether there is ” ‘something’ that allows a nation to exist as a free people?” My sense of that is that the “something” is an unyielding devotion to the concept that Governments are instituted among Men to protect Life, Liberty and they Purfuit of Happinefs, and that these governments derive their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . . That;s about as concise as I can make it for a medium such as this.

    Like

  7. PS: sorry about the “Purfuit of Happinefs” . I can’t help my self-amusement with 18th Century orthography and Stan Freburg’s seminal work on the subject in the late 1950s.

    You know what I mean.

    Like

    1. The right to due process, a date in court, only works to protect our rights when men honor that “something” you just made an effort to define.

      When we elect our leaders, those devious politicians you mentioned, we show we honor that “something” by electing leaders who do respect our laws. We also show we honor that “something” by holding our leaders accountable when they don’t respect our laws. When judges make their decisions, the courts must honor that “something” too, and, of course, we must hold our judges accountable too.

      Yet as you yourself stated: “Very few politicians respect the liberties granted in the Constitution.” And they have appointed judges that suit them. And we have not held either our elected leaders or our judges accountable.

      “Purfuit of Happinefs”? Not a problem. Have trouble hearing the difference between and “s” and an “f” anyway.

      Like

  8. Members of Congress are subject to “accountability” at the ballot box. Judges are subject to accountability in the confirmation process. Generally, the courts are perhaps overly sensitive to liberty interests. The “conservative”criticism of much of the past half-century of Supreme Court jurisprudence is that the Court tends to expand individual liberties beyond “original intent.”

    Like

    1. Members of Congress are subject to “accountability” at the ballot box.

      There is a difference between between being subject to “accountability” and actually being held to account.

      The system we have now is corrupt. Consider. Because they vote, the elderly get social security and tax breaks. Just when their children are trying to raise up the next generation, the elderly punish their children with higher taxes. Because that’s what their parents did to them, today’s elderly rob their children to make them to pay for Social Security and Medicare. And neither of these programs is authorized by the Constitution.

      We have an out-of-control government. We know why we have an out of control government. When the largest chunks of Federal Spending include Social Security and healthcare costs, the generation I belong to (the baby boomers) has to know. To get what we want, too many of us have accepted the bribe of “other people’s money” from the politicians we elected. We do not honor that “something.”

      Like

  9. I think I hear you saying, at least in the second paragraph, that voters sometimes vote in their best interests. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, although it can have bad outcomes. The elderly (which I am borderline one of), made a contract with the government that funds would be taken from them to support the elderly of their youth, and, in return, they would be supported when they were aged. One can debate the policy, but that was the deal among us. The Constitution is drafted broadly enough to accommodate these programs if the political process acts to create them. Your last paragraphs alludes to the monetary impact of these policy choices. Fair enough. Then we use the political process to find sustainable ways to accomplish the same objectives (assuming most people agree with the objectives).

    Like

    1. Do people sometime vote against their own best interests? Yeah. People sometimes believe the lies of con-artists.

      Let’s proceed with the logic of your own words: “Very few politicians respect the liberties granted in the Constitution.” The Constitution is the overarching contract the American people have with their government. Our leaders swear to support and defend it. Within the context of the Constitution, you say programs such as Social Security and Medicare are contracts the elderly made with their government. So what do we have? Our leaders foist programs upon the elderly the Constitution does not authorize. Is it any wonder the Social Security Trust Fund is just a pile of IOUs? Should we be surprised there never seems to be enough money to fund Social Security or any government-run healthcare program?

      Social Security and Medicare are just Ponzi schemes. The managers any private company would go to jail if they tried to sell people such trash.
      https://citizentom.com/2011/06/20/when-will-we-admit-we-have-been-robbed/

      Because we are willing to elect such leaders, we are in a state of decline.

      Like

  10. I doubt that anyone saw Social Security or Medicare as programs “foisted upon the elderly.” If they were “foisted” on anyone, it was the young. I’m sure that the elderly demographic largely welcomed both programs. My earlier comment was loosely worded. The “contract” I spoke of there was made with the People, some of who were elderly and some of whom expected to become elderly and thus were willing to put aside money in the present in expectation that the program would also be there to benefit them when they became elderly.

    We’ve been over the Constitutional issues before. Both programs are constitutionally valid. You’re confusing constitutionality with your concerns over the mechanics and policy wisdom of the programs. It’s a fair argument that Social Security’s founding arithmetic has radically changed from when it was a system of many workers funding benefits for a few retirees, as opposed to the current situation where contributors and beneficiaries exist in almost equal numbers. Perhaps there is a better way. Your proposals would be of great interest, at least to me.

    But the concept that there is a societal benefit of providing for retirement and medical support for the elderly is probably still widely held in the Republic. How we go about it is a matter that can be thrashed through in the political process.

    Like

    1. Young or elderly now given a choice, there are plenty of folks who would not pay the Social Security Tax that judges called a tax, but its proponents wanted us to believe is something else (Where have we heard that one before?).

      The Constitution is a charter that authorizes the Federal Government with certain, specified powers. Where does the Constitution authorize Social Security and Medicare?

      Like

  11. There’s hardly a politician anywhere who likes to call taxes taxes. No surprise there.

    I’ve already instructed you at some length, at least for this medium, on the intent of the Founders to draft a document that bestowed sufficient general powers to not become ossified after 1790 by changes in events or technologies. Without sufficient general powers, the Constitution would expire every five to ten years. The Founders expressly addressed this aspect of the document. Medicare and Social Security have both been found to be within the constitutional powers of the national government.

    As I’ve reminded you before, there are many things that are lawfully provided by the national government that were totally unmentioned an unknown by the Founders. They knew that would happen.

    Like

    1. Thank you for your instruction and your exhibitions of the art sophistry. I have especially enjoyed watching you display your impressive rhetorical abilities as you repeatedly dodge a straightforward question: where does the Constitution authorize Social Security and Medicare?

      BTW — This statement clashes directly with both the 9th and 10th amendments.

      As I’ve reminded you before, there are many things that are lawfully provided by the national government that were totally unmentioned an unknown by the Founders. They knew that would happen.

      Nonetheless, I think I understand why you keep saying our leaders must make such adjustments to the Constitution. If we repeat a lie enough times, it magically becomes the truth. Thus:
      — the globe is warming
      — the Obama administration is deporting more illegal immigrants than the Bush Administration
      — if you like your healthcare you can keep it.
      — if the Israelis give in to a two-state solution, they will have peace, not extermination
      — and so forth

      Like

  12. Of those four specific points, two are hard to quantify. But what are the data on deportations under Bush v. Obama? What are the temperature data on the global climate? (I happen to be one of those who have no doubts that we are in a warming phase – the data seem very clear on that point – but doubt that there is much that man can do to reverse that).

    Of course, I am not saying that our leaders must make adjustments to the Constitution. where did you get that idea? I’m saying that it has sufficient flexibility to accommodate itself to new technologies and events that amendments are rarely necessary. Which is why I oppose a new constitutional convention. I view that as a radical liberal idea that conservatives need to oppose strenuously. Surely you, as a self-described “conservative”, are with me on that point.

    Like

    1. Scout – After this winter, you still take global warming seriously? Given the plainly obvious desire of the Obama administration to have as many illegal immigrants in this country as they can get….. 😆

      There is plenty of data available global warming, and there are editorials out there on how the Obama administration is skewing the immigration stats.

      What is so complicated about my question? Is the basic premise wrong? Isn’t the Constitution a charter that authorizes the Federal Government with certain, specified powers. No? Then where does the Constitution authorize Social Security and Medicare?

      Like

  13. I think you’re mixing up weather with climate, Tom. I don’t think there’s any vaguely literate person who doubts that the earth is in a warming trend. The data are conclusive. How long it will last, what causes it, what can or should be done about it are the real questions.

    The Obama Administration has been more aggressive on deportations than any Administration in my adult lifetime (which extends well back into the 1960s). What is your reference point for the statement that this Administration has an “obvious desire” to have as many illegal immigrants as they can get [smiley face aside]?

    I’m not sure what your premise is on the Constitutional issue. But to the extent I can discern it, yes, it’s wrong. There are a number of elements in the Constitution that convey general powers to the federal government to execute its assigned role in the Republic. Were that not the case, we wouldn’t have federal highways, air traffic control, etc. – anything that didn’t exist in 1789. Challenges to Social Security bit the dust decades ago. It’s here to stay. That doesn’t mean there might not be policy reasons to re-structure it legislatively, but there is no constitutional issue about its validity as a lawful function of the Federal Government.

    Like

    1. scout – According to the geologic record there have been periods where the earth got warmer and periods where the earth cooled. The conclusion is obvious. Human civilization has repeatedly filled the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and then collapsed as the oceans rose and flooded the world. That apparently explains Noah’s flood. 😉

      Frankly, there has been little change in the earth temperature in recent years. The data collected with satellite observations may or may not show a small change, but what it means depends upon politics of the viewer. If you want to amuse yourself, google global warming satellite temperature data.

      Do you think you have seen global warming? You haven’t. We all tend to think our point-of-view is somehow sacred, but it is a mistake in logic to broadly generalize our own experiences. Do you know what a “heat island” is? If not, I suggest you google that too.

      What happens to all the carbon dioxide we generate? The oceans turn it into rocks like limestone.

      Here are some links that explain the Obama administration’s immigration stats.
      http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/deportation-record/

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles#!

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66805.html

      http://blog.heritage.org/2014/03/03/lamar-smith-dhs-chief-white-house-inflating-deportation-numbers/

      You don’t want to answer my question? Too confusing? You enjoy obfuscating? Shrug.

      Because what goes around comes around, even the people who think they are benefiting from pretending the Constitution says something it does not will end up worse off. Even nothing else, God will judge them for knowingly defending such fraud.

      Like

  14. My own view, Tom, is that God is not particularly mired in fine point disputes of constitutional law in the US of A. I doubt sincerely that God will judge people for being on one side or the other of a legal dispute over the meaning of particular phrases in the American Constitution.

    I’m old enough to have witnessed climate change in North America. I have a lot of friends my age and younger in Scandinavia who have witnessed it also. I haven’t curled up enough with the science to have a position on whether I think Man can or should try to do anything about it. I’m leaning to just going with the flow and having some confidence that things will swing back in a colder direction prior to mass extinction.

    What’s your question? If it is what I think it is, I’ve answered it several times without charging you fees or tuition. That puts you in a special, preferred category. The Hamiltonian, Federalist interpretation of the Constitution prevails. The only answer that controls reality is the one given by the Supreme Court. Social Security is constitutional. Medicare, a fortiorari, is also. Thankfully for you and me, the Founders have an amendment process. If you think Social Security or Medicare should be declared unconstitutional, push through your amendment at the earliest opportunity.

    Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

Settled In Heaven Blog

A text & video blog striving to honor Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through Bible lessons, devotionals, Sunday School studies and small group studies.

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

I Refuse To Follow Your Blog

Stop being a follower!!!

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Defining the Narrative

Discussing the Soul of America

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

John Liming.Blog

Politics, Opinions And General Discourse

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

Necessary and Proper

Returning to common sense in America

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

The Ancients

Awakening From Adam's Sleep

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

Deo Vindice

The Great Commission, The Great Experiment, Virginia and my musings

%d bloggers like this: