Wednesday
WE ARE FACING A SERIOUS NATIONAL CRISIS!
A BRIEF EDITORIAL COMMENT: In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote these
words which have been repeated through the years of American history
whenever our nation faced extreme difficulties: "These are the times that
try men's souls." More about that later, but Paine's statement is probably
more true today than at any time in the more than 200 years of this attempt
of governing, called the United States of America. Paine labeled his essay
"The Crisis." If we are to survive our present crisis we are going to have
to make some drastic changes. The first major one is just 657 days away;
657 days till Election Day, Nov. 6, 2012 . . . 657 days to pray for our
nation's survival, and for guidance as we elect new leaders to lead us out
of our crisis and back to being the nation our Founding Fathers intended.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AGAIN, 235 YEARS LATER, "THESE ARE
THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS."
AND AGAIN, 235 YEARS LATER, WE ARE
FACING A SERIOUS NATIONAL CRISIS
In 1776, Thomas Paine, a liberal (for those times) journalist, thinker, and
author, wrote a treatise called "The Crisis." Theologically, we would not
be in agreement with Paine's religious views -- he was essentially anti-
religious, and anti-Christian. But some of his political philosophy made a
lot of sense then, and still does today, more than two centuries later. And
those often quoted words are applicable to our present national situation.
Consider them once again: "These are the times that try men's souls. The
summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from
the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily
conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the
conflict, the more glorious the triumph."
In brief: today we are facing a Constitutional crisis. Those foundational
18th century documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution, have together formed the solid rock upon which our nation
has been built. Yet today, after more than 200 years of success in building
a nation and a way of life which is the envy of the whole world of nations,
that rock is under attack, and Liberals ("Progressives") are in the process
of chipping away at the foundation they took an oath to support. In a very
real sense, we are facing a "Constitutional Crisis" of major significance.
Keen observer that he is, George Will summarized it this way: "Unlike
most of the 111th that preceded it, the 112th Congress must begin the
process of restoring the national regime and civic culture the Founders
bequeathed. This will require reviving the rule of law, reasserting the
relevance of the Constitution and affirming the reality of American
exceptionalism." But first, a very brief historical background . . .
The Founding Fathers -- the men who signed those basic documents, the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were Godly men of
the Christian faith -- among them, for example, Anglicans, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, Lutherans, Catholics (sorry, Mr. Obama: no Muslims,
regardless of what you say) and they were concerned that the President
should affirm his allegiance to, and his support of, the Constitution. They
included in the Constitution an oath which every president must take,
attesting that he would "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States." (Article II, Section 1)
No such oath was prescribed for members of Congress, but in the early
years the members took this simple oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support the Constitution of the United States." In 1861
Abraham Lincoln felt the need for an expanded oath for all federal
employees, and out of his efforts, in 1884 the current oath was enacted,
and since then all members of Congress -- Senators and Representatives --
take an oath, which begins with these words: "I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same ..."
So we have a president and members of Congress who have taken oaths
to support and defend the Constitution -- but the crisis we are now facing
is that the Congress has taken an oath to uphold a document they detest,
but they blithely pass laws that violate it, and even object to having the
Constitution read in public as a reminder to the nation of what it says. In
a TV interview before his election, Mr. Obama said, "The Constitution
is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you,
it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn’t say
what the federal government or the state government must do in your
behalf." And in Apr., 2009, as president, said we need a new standard
for our government, "To help build a new foundation for the 21st century
we need to reform our government." And in June, 2009 said, "Whatever
we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it."
Supporting the president's views, as the Constitution was read publicly,
for all the nation to hear, Democrat Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY),
the outgoing Chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the
Constitution, said, "They are reading it like a sacred text," and spoke of
the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense," and said that the document's
need for amendments showed it was "highly imperfect." Another protest
from a Democrat not quite so highly placed as Nadler, was registered by
Jay Inslee (D, WA) who tried to delay the reading on the grounds that
Congress hadn't had 72 hours to review the document in question. One
would have thought that all Members of Congress would be familiar with
the document, since they have all solemnly sworn to uphold it.
This prevailing Democrat and Liberal view of the Constitution was well
expressed by Michael Lind, Director of the Economic Growth Program
at the New America Foundation, a left-of-center political think tank, in
these words, "Of course federal laws should be constitutional. But if
we as a people want the federal government to do something that the
present constitution does not permit, let's amend the much-amended
constitution once again, or replace it with a completely new
constitution, as the states have frequently done. The U.S. Constitution
is not the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, and James Madison
and John Adams were not Lycurgus and Solon."
violence, and we pray for the victims and their families. ![]()
Sadly, this
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
