Albert Einstein told us that the eighth Wonder of the World was compounding interest. Compounding interest is either your very best friend if you are earning it, or your very worst enemy if you're paying it. If you have ever tried paying off a credit card with minimum payments you know of what I am speaking. This is the same if it is you personally paying or earning interest, if a company is, or if the government is. With our out of control government spending the interest is going to be frightening indeed.
The Rule of 72:
To be able to do compound interest problems in your head, the Rule of 72 gives you a lightning fast benchmark to determine how good (or not so good) a potential investment is likely to be.
The rule of 72 says that in order to find the number of years required to double your money at a given interest rate, you can just divide the interest rate into 72.
For example, if you want to know how long it will take to double your money at eight percent interest, divide 8 into 72 and get 9 years.
The rule of 72 is remarkably accurate, as long as the interest rate is less than twenty percent.
You can also run it backwards. If you want to double your money in six years, just divide 6 into 72 to find that it will require an interest rate of about 12 percent.
If you really want to see magic look at the below example.
If I were to offer you a special project for next month, and would either pay you 100,000.00 dollars for it, or give you a penny on day one and double it everyday which would you take?
1. .01
2. .02
3. .04
4. .08
5. .16
6. .32
7. .64
At the end of your first week you would earn 1.27.
8. 1.28
9. 2.56
10. 5.12
11. 10.24
12. 20.48
13. 40.96
14. 81.92
At the end of two weeks you would have earned 543.00.
15. 163.84
16. 327.68
17. 655.36
18. 1,310.72
19. 2,621.44
20. 5,242.88
21. 10,485.76
At the end of three weeks you would have earned 21,352.11.
22. 20,971.52
23. 41,943.04
24. 83,886.08
25. 167,772.16
26. 335,544.32
27. 671,066.64
28. 1,342,177.28
29. 2,684,354.56
30. 5,368,709.12
31. 10,737,418.24
At the end of the month you would have earned 21,475,192.00.
Hope this math is enlightening to you. Keep it in mind when you hear that we are going to borrow billions here, and trillions there.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Our First American Conflict With Muslim Terrorists
Was it under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush that we started fighting Muslim terrorists? Who was the first to use a preemtive war to go after them, George W. Bush, as we are told was the "Bush Doctrine" we all heard for the first time when Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin?
Actually it goes back a bit before any of the above were born. The first American conflict with Muslim terrorists were when several Muslim countries along the North African coast had estabilished the tradition of plundering ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release.
In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. Adams and Jefferson had asked the ambassador from Tripoli to explain on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who shuold not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them whereever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners..."
Jefferson found such unmitgated blackmail beyond his comprehnsion and beyond any recognized principle of law or justice. He initially proposed that the United States refuse to pay ransoms and instead dispatch a naval force to the Mediterranian to teach these outlaws of the sea a lesson. Later he supplemented his proposal with a comphrehensive scheme whereby the United States would organize an international task force comprised of all European nations whose shipping was being victimized. "Justice and Honor favor this course," he exclaimed to Adams, and it would probably cost less in the long run to boot.
Adams agreed that it was impossible to negotiate with the Barbary pirates; as he put it, "Avarice and Fear are the only Agents at Algiers..." But Jefferson's accounting, Adams observed, grossly underestimated the cost. It would require at least 500,000 pounds annually to sustain a naval force in the region. The Congress would never authorize such a sum, and the United States had nothing in the way of a navy to send over anyway. "From these Premises," he apprised Jefferson, "I conclude it to be wisest for us to negotiate and pay the necessary Sum, without loss of Time." Adams insisted that Jefferson's solution, while bold and wholly honorable in its own terms, was an idea whose time had not come. "Congress will never, or at least not for years, take any such Resolution," he reminded Jefferson, "and in the mean time our Trade and Honour suffers beyond Calculation. We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever."
Jefferson remained unconvinced but agreed that Adams's opinion should be the basis for the official American position: "You make the result differently from what I do" he wrote to Adams in London, but "it is of no consequence; as I have nothing to say in the decision."
It is possible to detect in Jefferson an early undertone of resentment toward Adams's realism, which consistently undercut Jefferson's own grander visions. Jefferson tried to go over Adams's head by having his own proposal for an international naval force presented to Congress by a third party, a ploy that failed when Congress rejected the scheme outright, as Adams predicted they would.
Those who want to try to revise history by claiming that our founding fathers didn't create America through their own Christian beliefs always use this quote from John Adams from the U.S. Treaty with Tripoli 1796 and 1797 as their "proof".
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
However, when taken in context to what it was as part of a national bribe to terrorists claiming that America wasn't a nation formed as a Theocracy is a long way from how it is being used today.
After a few years of paying these bribes, Jefferson finally got his way. After the pasha of Tripoli chopped down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate there, it was a direct affront and an act of war. In 1801, Jefferson slowed down the mothballing of the naval fleet and sent ships to blockade the port.
Operating only under a set of joint resolutions, not a declaration of war, Jefferson nevertheless informed all the Barbary States that the United States was at war with them. He sought to get an interenational coalition to help, but no European states wanted to alter their status quo. So, in 1804, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur went ashore with eight U.S. Marines; set fire to a captured frigate, the Philadelphia' and through an expedition across the desert led by William Eaton and Greek mercenaries, organized locals who detested the pasha.
The American desert army also threatened the pirates' lucrative slave trade, and the presence of the powerful British fleet not far away put even more teeth into this threat. This stick combined with a carrot of a small ransom for the Philadelphia's crew, sufficed to force the pirates down and after releasing the crew, they recognized American freedom to sail the high seas uninterrupted.
By dispatching even such a small body of men so far to secure American national interests, Jefferson put the world on notice that the United States intended to be a force, if only a minor one, in world affairs. It was a remarkably brazen display of preemptive war by a president usually held up as a model of a limited government, and it achieved its results.
Thomas Jefferson, not George W. Bush was the first American president to do a preemptive attack. Both against Muslim Terrorist states. As you can clearly see, there is nothing new here. This conflict started with America and Muslim terrorists even before our Constitution was ratified.
Actually it goes back a bit before any of the above were born. The first American conflict with Muslim terrorists were when several Muslim countries along the North African coast had estabilished the tradition of plundering ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release.
In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. Adams and Jefferson had asked the ambassador from Tripoli to explain on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who shuold not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them whereever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners..."
Jefferson found such unmitgated blackmail beyond his comprehnsion and beyond any recognized principle of law or justice. He initially proposed that the United States refuse to pay ransoms and instead dispatch a naval force to the Mediterranian to teach these outlaws of the sea a lesson. Later he supplemented his proposal with a comphrehensive scheme whereby the United States would organize an international task force comprised of all European nations whose shipping was being victimized. "Justice and Honor favor this course," he exclaimed to Adams, and it would probably cost less in the long run to boot.
Adams agreed that it was impossible to negotiate with the Barbary pirates; as he put it, "Avarice and Fear are the only Agents at Algiers..." But Jefferson's accounting, Adams observed, grossly underestimated the cost. It would require at least 500,000 pounds annually to sustain a naval force in the region. The Congress would never authorize such a sum, and the United States had nothing in the way of a navy to send over anyway. "From these Premises," he apprised Jefferson, "I conclude it to be wisest for us to negotiate and pay the necessary Sum, without loss of Time." Adams insisted that Jefferson's solution, while bold and wholly honorable in its own terms, was an idea whose time had not come. "Congress will never, or at least not for years, take any such Resolution," he reminded Jefferson, "and in the mean time our Trade and Honour suffers beyond Calculation. We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever."
Jefferson remained unconvinced but agreed that Adams's opinion should be the basis for the official American position: "You make the result differently from what I do" he wrote to Adams in London, but "it is of no consequence; as I have nothing to say in the decision."
It is possible to detect in Jefferson an early undertone of resentment toward Adams's realism, which consistently undercut Jefferson's own grander visions. Jefferson tried to go over Adams's head by having his own proposal for an international naval force presented to Congress by a third party, a ploy that failed when Congress rejected the scheme outright, as Adams predicted they would.
Those who want to try to revise history by claiming that our founding fathers didn't create America through their own Christian beliefs always use this quote from John Adams from the U.S. Treaty with Tripoli 1796 and 1797 as their "proof".
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
However, when taken in context to what it was as part of a national bribe to terrorists claiming that America wasn't a nation formed as a Theocracy is a long way from how it is being used today.
After a few years of paying these bribes, Jefferson finally got his way. After the pasha of Tripoli chopped down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate there, it was a direct affront and an act of war. In 1801, Jefferson slowed down the mothballing of the naval fleet and sent ships to blockade the port.
Operating only under a set of joint resolutions, not a declaration of war, Jefferson nevertheless informed all the Barbary States that the United States was at war with them. He sought to get an interenational coalition to help, but no European states wanted to alter their status quo. So, in 1804, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur went ashore with eight U.S. Marines; set fire to a captured frigate, the Philadelphia' and through an expedition across the desert led by William Eaton and Greek mercenaries, organized locals who detested the pasha.
The American desert army also threatened the pirates' lucrative slave trade, and the presence of the powerful British fleet not far away put even more teeth into this threat. This stick combined with a carrot of a small ransom for the Philadelphia's crew, sufficed to force the pirates down and after releasing the crew, they recognized American freedom to sail the high seas uninterrupted.
By dispatching even such a small body of men so far to secure American national interests, Jefferson put the world on notice that the United States intended to be a force, if only a minor one, in world affairs. It was a remarkably brazen display of preemptive war by a president usually held up as a model of a limited government, and it achieved its results.
Thomas Jefferson, not George W. Bush was the first American president to do a preemptive attack. Both against Muslim Terrorist states. As you can clearly see, there is nothing new here. This conflict started with America and Muslim terrorists even before our Constitution was ratified.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Could Obamacare Be Our Dred Scott Decision?
Could the Democrat Health Care Bill be our generation's Dred Scott Decision? We the people are being ignored by the "ruling" party as they ram through a nation changing bill that the large majority of Americans have openly rejected, without regard to the overwhelming feelings of their constituents. This is governance by arrogance of government, not by will of the people. How can they not expect a backlash?
Before the Civil War in the ongoing battle over slavery an arrogant decision by a pro-slavery Supreme Court Chief Justice ignited a backlash that swept the new Republican party into power.
After his 1856 election victory, James Buchanan, gave an inaugural speech stating that the slavery question "belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled." It is widely rumored that Buchanan had already been informed by the Chief Justice what his decision would be. At the very least, it was a terminal case of wishful thinking.
The case Buchanan was talking about had been brought on behalf of Dred Scott, the slave of John Emerson, an army doctor from Missouri. Scott had been taken to different army posts in the United States and the western territories, and having spent two years in the free territory of Minnesota, he claimed he was no longer a slave under the Missouri Compromise. Backed by abolitionists, Scott sued for his freedom in 1846 after failing to purchase his and his wife's freedom from Emerson's widow.
This began an eleven-year legal battle that changed American history. New York abolitionist John F. A. Sanford bought Dred Scott in order to take the case to court. )Sandford's name was misspelled as the other party in Dred Scott v Sandford.) The case went through a number of lower courts, all but one ruling against Scott, until 1855, when it reached the Supreme Court. The case was argued by Montgomery Blair, the son of prominent Democratic politician and later Lincoln's Postmaster General. The Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, was an eighty-year-old Marylander, Andrew Jackson, appointee to fill the vacancy left by the death of the legendary John Marshall. Taney had freed his own slaves in 1818, but believed passionately that slavery was necessary. The Court's decision came right after Buchanan's inaugural in a 7-2 vote. (seven Democratic justices were opposed by two Republican justices) This was a huge blow to the hopes of anti-slavery factions. Although nine different opinions were issued, Taney's were the most far reaching.
First, Taney said that no black man, free or slave, was a U.S. citizen: therefore a black man had o right to sue in federal court. He could have stopped there without further comment, but he seemed bent on the complete destruction of every piece of anti-slavery legislation ever passed, going back to the Northwest Ordinance. Taney, speaking for the court, then ruled that Congress never had the right to ban slavery in territories because the Constitution protected people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property. According to Taney, slaves, like cows or goats, were property and could be taken anywhere under U.S. jurisdiction.
Slaveholders rejoiced and felt relief and vindication. One newspaper reported, "The Southern opinion upon the subject of Southern slavery... is now the supreme law of the land." Suddenly, the issue was not only non-extension of slavery, but the removal of all laws limiting or prohibiting slavery. Bills to reopen the African slave trade were offered in Congress.
Abolitionists, and moderate "non-extensionists" like Abraham Lincoln, were outraged. Journalists and poet William Cullen Byrant, an abolitionist and Republican party organizer, wrote that slavery was now "a Federal institution...Hereafter, whenever our..flag floats, it is the flag of slavery."
The irony is that the decision actually aided the anti-slavery cause. The new Republican party gained strength when many fence-sitters joined the ranks of those more passionately opposed to slavery. The decision also widened the divisions over slavery within the Democrat party. The Dred Scott decision went a long way toward building the foundation for a Republican victory in 1860.
Will Obamacare be that same catalyst for the rise of the Republican party and political suicide of the Democrats once again?
Before the Civil War in the ongoing battle over slavery an arrogant decision by a pro-slavery Supreme Court Chief Justice ignited a backlash that swept the new Republican party into power.
After his 1856 election victory, James Buchanan, gave an inaugural speech stating that the slavery question "belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled." It is widely rumored that Buchanan had already been informed by the Chief Justice what his decision would be. At the very least, it was a terminal case of wishful thinking.
The case Buchanan was talking about had been brought on behalf of Dred Scott, the slave of John Emerson, an army doctor from Missouri. Scott had been taken to different army posts in the United States and the western territories, and having spent two years in the free territory of Minnesota, he claimed he was no longer a slave under the Missouri Compromise. Backed by abolitionists, Scott sued for his freedom in 1846 after failing to purchase his and his wife's freedom from Emerson's widow.
This began an eleven-year legal battle that changed American history. New York abolitionist John F. A. Sanford bought Dred Scott in order to take the case to court. )Sandford's name was misspelled as the other party in Dred Scott v Sandford.) The case went through a number of lower courts, all but one ruling against Scott, until 1855, when it reached the Supreme Court. The case was argued by Montgomery Blair, the son of prominent Democratic politician and later Lincoln's Postmaster General. The Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, was an eighty-year-old Marylander, Andrew Jackson, appointee to fill the vacancy left by the death of the legendary John Marshall. Taney had freed his own slaves in 1818, but believed passionately that slavery was necessary. The Court's decision came right after Buchanan's inaugural in a 7-2 vote. (seven Democratic justices were opposed by two Republican justices) This was a huge blow to the hopes of anti-slavery factions. Although nine different opinions were issued, Taney's were the most far reaching.
First, Taney said that no black man, free or slave, was a U.S. citizen: therefore a black man had o right to sue in federal court. He could have stopped there without further comment, but he seemed bent on the complete destruction of every piece of anti-slavery legislation ever passed, going back to the Northwest Ordinance. Taney, speaking for the court, then ruled that Congress never had the right to ban slavery in territories because the Constitution protected people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property. According to Taney, slaves, like cows or goats, were property and could be taken anywhere under U.S. jurisdiction.
Slaveholders rejoiced and felt relief and vindication. One newspaper reported, "The Southern opinion upon the subject of Southern slavery... is now the supreme law of the land." Suddenly, the issue was not only non-extension of slavery, but the removal of all laws limiting or prohibiting slavery. Bills to reopen the African slave trade were offered in Congress.
Abolitionists, and moderate "non-extensionists" like Abraham Lincoln, were outraged. Journalists and poet William Cullen Byrant, an abolitionist and Republican party organizer, wrote that slavery was now "a Federal institution...Hereafter, whenever our..flag floats, it is the flag of slavery."
The irony is that the decision actually aided the anti-slavery cause. The new Republican party gained strength when many fence-sitters joined the ranks of those more passionately opposed to slavery. The decision also widened the divisions over slavery within the Democrat party. The Dred Scott decision went a long way toward building the foundation for a Republican victory in 1860.
Will Obamacare be that same catalyst for the rise of the Republican party and political suicide of the Democrats once again?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
What Child is This?
Who was that child in the manger? Was he God born as man, the Son of God, or a prophet, or teacher? Was he who the Bible tells us he is, or something more human?
First let's recap the story.
Luke Chapter 2:
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14"Glory to God in the highest,and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
Joseph and Mary were not poor waifs who were in the manger because they were homeless, and without government health care, they arrived in the city that was overflowing with travelers who by edict had to come for the census. Everyone had to go back to the town of their birth to be counted, Bethlehem didn't have a huge tourist trade with accompanying travel lodge industry. Joseph was a businessman, he was a carpenter, while not rich, surely wasn't a vagrant.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was God born as a man, was born to fulfill God's promise to man to give us a Saviour to live as a man, to live a sinless life, and then to die for our own sins to purchase our redemption through his sacrifice.
What does Jesus say about who he was and is? We must read His own words as to who he said that He was. When you do you will find an uncomfortable moment, you must be honest with yourself as to who you say He is. Once you read what Jesus said about who H was, and what He came to do, you are only left with one of two choices. Jesus was either exactly who He said he was, or he was either insane, or a con-man. You can't find that comfortable option of a teacher or prophet.
"The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
"And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14)
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)
Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:32-35)
Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life." The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You are bearing witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true." Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going." (John 8:12-14)
Jesus therefore said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (John 10:7-11)
Martha therefore said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." Jesus said to her, "Your brother shall rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." (John 11:21-27)
But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later." But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him. (Mark 9:31-32)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)
"All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:37-40)
Jesus was very clear who he said and believed himself to be. He was by his own words either the one and only Son of God, or a lunatic. We have been given free will to decide for ourselves, I have made my decision who about you?
First let's recap the story.
Luke Chapter 2:
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14"Glory to God in the highest,and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
Joseph and Mary were not poor waifs who were in the manger because they were homeless, and without government health care, they arrived in the city that was overflowing with travelers who by edict had to come for the census. Everyone had to go back to the town of their birth to be counted, Bethlehem didn't have a huge tourist trade with accompanying travel lodge industry. Joseph was a businessman, he was a carpenter, while not rich, surely wasn't a vagrant.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was God born as a man, was born to fulfill God's promise to man to give us a Saviour to live as a man, to live a sinless life, and then to die for our own sins to purchase our redemption through his sacrifice.
What does Jesus say about who he was and is? We must read His own words as to who he said that He was. When you do you will find an uncomfortable moment, you must be honest with yourself as to who you say He is. Once you read what Jesus said about who H was, and what He came to do, you are only left with one of two choices. Jesus was either exactly who He said he was, or he was either insane, or a con-man. You can't find that comfortable option of a teacher or prophet.
"The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
"And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14)
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)
Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:32-35)
Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life." The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You are bearing witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true." Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going." (John 8:12-14)
Jesus therefore said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (John 10:7-11)
Martha therefore said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." Jesus said to her, "Your brother shall rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." (John 11:21-27)
But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later." But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him. (Mark 9:31-32)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)
"All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:37-40)
Jesus was very clear who he said and believed himself to be. He was by his own words either the one and only Son of God, or a lunatic. We have been given free will to decide for ourselves, I have made my decision who about you?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
We Need To Reach The Middle's Radar
This week gave me a new insight into the biggest problem we face in turning America around from this Marxist onslaught brought forth by the Obama administration and the Democrats. I saw where one of my Facebook friends posted that Brittany Murphy died at 32. My first thought was that she must have been someone this poster knew personally. Then seeing more comments I realized that she was some sort of celebrity. I asked my wife who she was, she handles all the entertainment industry news for our family, so she started trying to tell me where I would know her. What I found was that I had truly never heard of her before, and had never seen her in anything she had ever done. She simply was never on my radar until her death notice.
With this I thought back to all the holiday family get togethers over the years where my relatives would be having these discussions of television programs, and the characters on them, and I would be sitting there clueless of what they were talking about. I have never been interested in network programing. Sports yes, television shows no. Never knew who shot J.R. and didn't care. The only show I have ever allowed myself to watch is "24." My son has tried to get me to watch "House", but just seeing the trailers makes me avoid it, it looks like something I would like and could get hooked on. I have no interest in being committed to watching a show.
This isn't a condemnation on those who do, it was just never part of my world. What it did teach me is I now understand those blank stares I get when I talk politics, economics, civics, and history, which are the topics I enjoy and read, study, and watch things about. These are topics that are not on most people's radars, and are things that make many feel like their eyes are glazing over.
So if that is how it is, how do we reach those who are not interested in politics, who are more interested in what is happening on their favorite sitcom, or American Idol? This is going to be key in winning back America, is getting the attention of the masses. Right now we are having a heated battle between the 10% who are passionately on the right, and the 10% who are passionately on the left, and we are gaining the attention of 20-30%.
The key to success is to capture the hearts and minds of those who are independent, or in the middle politically. John Adams taught us that in any war 1/3 of Americans would be passionately for it, another 1/3 would be passionately against any war, and the real battle ground is for the hearts and minds of the 1/3 in the middle.
So how do we do it? How do we get their attention? Once they are paying attention, how do we package a message that will captivate someone who has spent their life not paying attention to politics and hasn't a lot of understanding of it?
Something that I have sent to the GOP on several occasions is an idea that I think might work. Instead of spending our campaign advertising money to run ads that attack our opponents that tend to sound just like the ones our opponents use to attack us, how about using that money to educate?
Imagine if you will an ad campaign that uses the same teaching style that "School House Rocks" used to. Where a catchy song is used to teach about one of our platform issues, where the listener would find it stuck in their heads, but would have a new understanding of how something works, and why.
The democrats require an uneducated, ignorant electorate to have any chance of moving their agenda forward. The conservatives have to have an educated electorate who understands the consequences of different approaches to an issue to win. The schools have not educated, and our society doesn't watch the news, doesn't read the paper, and has almost no understanding of economics, history, civics, or politics. How can we hope that they will understand our message unless we package it in fun 30 second jingles? It is worth a try.
With this I thought back to all the holiday family get togethers over the years where my relatives would be having these discussions of television programs, and the characters on them, and I would be sitting there clueless of what they were talking about. I have never been interested in network programing. Sports yes, television shows no. Never knew who shot J.R. and didn't care. The only show I have ever allowed myself to watch is "24." My son has tried to get me to watch "House", but just seeing the trailers makes me avoid it, it looks like something I would like and could get hooked on. I have no interest in being committed to watching a show.
This isn't a condemnation on those who do, it was just never part of my world. What it did teach me is I now understand those blank stares I get when I talk politics, economics, civics, and history, which are the topics I enjoy and read, study, and watch things about. These are topics that are not on most people's radars, and are things that make many feel like their eyes are glazing over.
So if that is how it is, how do we reach those who are not interested in politics, who are more interested in what is happening on their favorite sitcom, or American Idol? This is going to be key in winning back America, is getting the attention of the masses. Right now we are having a heated battle between the 10% who are passionately on the right, and the 10% who are passionately on the left, and we are gaining the attention of 20-30%.
The key to success is to capture the hearts and minds of those who are independent, or in the middle politically. John Adams taught us that in any war 1/3 of Americans would be passionately for it, another 1/3 would be passionately against any war, and the real battle ground is for the hearts and minds of the 1/3 in the middle.
So how do we do it? How do we get their attention? Once they are paying attention, how do we package a message that will captivate someone who has spent their life not paying attention to politics and hasn't a lot of understanding of it?
Something that I have sent to the GOP on several occasions is an idea that I think might work. Instead of spending our campaign advertising money to run ads that attack our opponents that tend to sound just like the ones our opponents use to attack us, how about using that money to educate?
Imagine if you will an ad campaign that uses the same teaching style that "School House Rocks" used to. Where a catchy song is used to teach about one of our platform issues, where the listener would find it stuck in their heads, but would have a new understanding of how something works, and why.
The democrats require an uneducated, ignorant electorate to have any chance of moving their agenda forward. The conservatives have to have an educated electorate who understands the consequences of different approaches to an issue to win. The schools have not educated, and our society doesn't watch the news, doesn't read the paper, and has almost no understanding of economics, history, civics, or politics. How can we hope that they will understand our message unless we package it in fun 30 second jingles? It is worth a try.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Tea Party Candidate???
A recent poll suggests that a unnamed Tea Party candidate would beat an unnamed Republican candidate for president if election was held now. The most important message in that poll was more people chose the Tea Party and GOP combined than did the Democrat, however, in a three way unnamed race the Tea Party and GOP split the votes giving the Democrat the win.
This is exactly the dynamics that a third party candidate gives to a presidential race, and for that matter a Congressional and Senate race. It splits those who most agree and gives the candidate that the least voters agree with the win.
The most recent examples were the 1992 election where the wild card of Ross Perot, the populist independent candidate who would have been the darling of the Tea Partiers. It ended with Clinton getting 43.01% of the vote, George H.W.Bush with 37.45%, and Ross Perot with 18.91%. Those who voted for Perot would have overwhelmingly gone Bush if Perot wouldn't have been in the race. Clinton won reelection with less only 49% as Perot still carried a little over 8% in 1996 as well.
The end result of a third party candidate can be dire to America. In 2012 it would mean another term for Obama and his regime. Back in 1840 a third party candidate may well have caused the Civil War.
James Gillespie Birney, a slaveholder from Kentucky, who converted to abolitionism. He, like many religious converts, became a zealot for his cause. He gave up a lucrative law practice in Alabama to become an agent of the American Colonization Society, which supported political actions to end slavery and resettle freed slaves in Africa and the Caribbean. After he freed his inherited slaves, Birney began to publish an abolitionist newspaper, the Philanthropist, in Cincinnati and became executive director of Garrison's American Anti-Slavery Society. In the presidential elections of 1840 and 1844 he was the candidate for the Liberty Party, which advocated the abolition of slavery by moral persuasion and political action.
His third party candidacy in 1844 was particularly significant, because he drew enough popular votes to allow the Democrat candidate, James K. Polk, to win the election, defeating the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. An adroit politician and master of the art of compromise, he was known as "The Great Compromiser." Clay was a slaveholder who was dedicated to the Union and looked for an end of slavery. Ironically, he might have been the strong president who could have found a political solution to end slavery, and ending the very thing that caused the Civil War seventeen years later.
Third parties may have good people in them, they may have great intentions, but they never win, and often cause great loss to America.
This is exactly the dynamics that a third party candidate gives to a presidential race, and for that matter a Congressional and Senate race. It splits those who most agree and gives the candidate that the least voters agree with the win.
The most recent examples were the 1992 election where the wild card of Ross Perot, the populist independent candidate who would have been the darling of the Tea Partiers. It ended with Clinton getting 43.01% of the vote, George H.W.Bush with 37.45%, and Ross Perot with 18.91%. Those who voted for Perot would have overwhelmingly gone Bush if Perot wouldn't have been in the race. Clinton won reelection with less only 49% as Perot still carried a little over 8% in 1996 as well.
The end result of a third party candidate can be dire to America. In 2012 it would mean another term for Obama and his regime. Back in 1840 a third party candidate may well have caused the Civil War.
James Gillespie Birney, a slaveholder from Kentucky, who converted to abolitionism. He, like many religious converts, became a zealot for his cause. He gave up a lucrative law practice in Alabama to become an agent of the American Colonization Society, which supported political actions to end slavery and resettle freed slaves in Africa and the Caribbean. After he freed his inherited slaves, Birney began to publish an abolitionist newspaper, the Philanthropist, in Cincinnati and became executive director of Garrison's American Anti-Slavery Society. In the presidential elections of 1840 and 1844 he was the candidate for the Liberty Party, which advocated the abolition of slavery by moral persuasion and political action.
His third party candidacy in 1844 was particularly significant, because he drew enough popular votes to allow the Democrat candidate, James K. Polk, to win the election, defeating the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. An adroit politician and master of the art of compromise, he was known as "The Great Compromiser." Clay was a slaveholder who was dedicated to the Union and looked for an end of slavery. Ironically, he might have been the strong president who could have found a political solution to end slavery, and ending the very thing that caused the Civil War seventeen years later.
Third parties may have good people in them, they may have great intentions, but they never win, and often cause great loss to America.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
There is a storm brewing, more and more there are those who are calling for nullification by their state against the rules being written in Congress under Obama. Emotionally, I completely understand and on principle find agreement in telling them to stuff their UN-Constitutional power grabs. However I caution be very careful what you wish for.
Wal-Mart and other sporting goods stores are finding it difficult to keep ammunition on their shelves as people nearly meet the trucks and purchase it to stock up their home supplies. There is an undercurrent advocating, or at least preparing for a new civil war in America. If articles written in Europe are to be believed the Obama Administration is taking it seriously and preparing for it as well, if not instigating it. Again, I caution be very careful what you wish for.
As difficult as it is to watch an out of control political class run roughshod over the will of the people, and our Constitutional liberties, we need to work within the system to change it. Our opponents are not allowing themselves to be restrained by our Constitution, they have open contempt for it, and see it at most a hindrance to be ignored. We have to go no no further than the words of our current president that our Constitution is "nothing but a list of negative rules." He has surrounded himself with like believes who have even written books on how our Bill of Rights needs to be dismantled and rewritten. Cas Sunstein wrote "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever." This parrots Obama's own words quoted a few years ago. Obviously We The People are under an assault of our Liberty and Rights unlike anything we have seen before.
Let's look at the history of the idea of Nullification. What is nullification? It is the theoretical right of a state to suspend the operation of a federal law within it's boundaries. It goes back to the very beginning of our Republic, after the loose Articles of Confederation had proved ineffective. Although the states definitely feared a tyrannical central government, they had agreed to yield certain powers to the federal government under the Constitution. The principles of nullification was supported by many of the founders, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. It has also been used by slavery opponents as a justification for failing to enforce the fugitive slave laws, which compelled the return of runaway slaves.
In 1828 a reluctant John Quincy Adams signed the largest tariff in American history at the insistence of Northern merchants, who wanted to protect their products by making European imports more expensive. This enraged the South, led by John Caldwell Calhoun, who holds the unusual distinction of being Vice President under two consecutive terms of John Quincy Adams, and then Andrew Jackson. Jackson and Calhoun were extreme political rivals, and became dueling politically over the issue of federal power.
Calhoun labeled it the "Tariff of Abominations." An angry Calhoun anonymously wrote an essay in 1828, "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest." Calling the tariff "unconstitutional, oppressive and unjust," he began to lay legal groundwork for the right of the states to "nullify" federal laws. In 1831 Calhoun made a clean break with Jackson, publicly issuing an address that made it clear he stood with the "nullifiers." In 1832 he became the first man to resign from the Vice Presidency, leaving when he won a seat from South Carolina in the Senate.
On November 24th, 1832, a South Carolina state convention issued an Ordinance of Nullification, which declared "null, void, and no law" the high protective tariff. President Jackson was not amused. He wrote to one of his generals, "Can any one of common sense believe the absurdity that a faction of any state, or a state, has a right to secede and destroy this union and the liberty of our country with it; or nullify laws of the union; then indeed is our Constitution a rope of sand; under such I would not live...The union must be preserved, and it will now be tested, by the support I get from the people. I will die for this union."
Jackson threatened to send fifty thousand troops to enforce the tariff in the port of Charleston when he said, "Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur this guilt?" The Governor and legislator of South Carolina stood defiant and called for ten thousand militiaman to repel any "invasion" by federal troops. America was on the verge of civil war. Faced with the prospects of warfare over the tariff, Calhoun joined forces with Henry Clay to reconcile the claims of South Carolina with those of the federal government. The results were the Compromise Tariff of 1833 which gradually reduced tariffs until 1842. The South Carolina convention repealed the Ordinance of Nullification, and both sides claimed victory. However, the point remains that whenever questions of states' rights came up, they had been solved through compromise, at least until the Civil War, and since.
The "threat" of nullification may be effective. The actual attempt would be suicide for not only those who promote, their state, and the union. It is much like the use today of "going to the media" in a dispute with a company. Until you actually do, it can be very effective in intimidating those in the company to soften their stance in a dispute, however, after it is done, there is no longer any motivation to do so, and everyone loses.
When I hear rumblings of a new Civil War, I wonder if those speaking have any idea of the terror, death, and pain that the last one caused. There were at least 618,000 who were killed in battles during our Civil War, records are not sure what the total numbers might have been. In the Civil War there were more or less defined boundaries and the combatants wore different uniforms under the guidance of military leadership. If things deteriorate into Civil War today, it wouldn't look anything like that, it would be much more like the French Revolution with no clear lines, no uniforms, just a national melee, where 40,000 people died during the "Terror" in just a few months. The alliances were to different political alignments who were intermixed throughout society, this is where we would be today.
We are greatly divided politically today, it is a time of great strife, but we need to focus on coming together and taking our nation back at the ballot box in 2010. We need to come together under one unified party to turn back the Democrat attack on our Constitution. Of course if Obama and the Democrats would suspend that election, all bets should be off.
To close, let's hear from one of our great leaders Senator Daniel Webster's speech in January of 1830 as the nullification process was heating up.
"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hand over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below... While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart - Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
I wouldn't want to put it to the test today, I am not sure we have men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster who are so respected by both sides of any issue to stand in the gap and bring us back together.
Wal-Mart and other sporting goods stores are finding it difficult to keep ammunition on their shelves as people nearly meet the trucks and purchase it to stock up their home supplies. There is an undercurrent advocating, or at least preparing for a new civil war in America. If articles written in Europe are to be believed the Obama Administration is taking it seriously and preparing for it as well, if not instigating it. Again, I caution be very careful what you wish for.
As difficult as it is to watch an out of control political class run roughshod over the will of the people, and our Constitutional liberties, we need to work within the system to change it. Our opponents are not allowing themselves to be restrained by our Constitution, they have open contempt for it, and see it at most a hindrance to be ignored. We have to go no no further than the words of our current president that our Constitution is "nothing but a list of negative rules." He has surrounded himself with like believes who have even written books on how our Bill of Rights needs to be dismantled and rewritten. Cas Sunstein wrote "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever." This parrots Obama's own words quoted a few years ago. Obviously We The People are under an assault of our Liberty and Rights unlike anything we have seen before.
Let's look at the history of the idea of Nullification. What is nullification? It is the theoretical right of a state to suspend the operation of a federal law within it's boundaries. It goes back to the very beginning of our Republic, after the loose Articles of Confederation had proved ineffective. Although the states definitely feared a tyrannical central government, they had agreed to yield certain powers to the federal government under the Constitution. The principles of nullification was supported by many of the founders, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. It has also been used by slavery opponents as a justification for failing to enforce the fugitive slave laws, which compelled the return of runaway slaves.
In 1828 a reluctant John Quincy Adams signed the largest tariff in American history at the insistence of Northern merchants, who wanted to protect their products by making European imports more expensive. This enraged the South, led by John Caldwell Calhoun, who holds the unusual distinction of being Vice President under two consecutive terms of John Quincy Adams, and then Andrew Jackson. Jackson and Calhoun were extreme political rivals, and became dueling politically over the issue of federal power.
Calhoun labeled it the "Tariff of Abominations." An angry Calhoun anonymously wrote an essay in 1828, "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest." Calling the tariff "unconstitutional, oppressive and unjust," he began to lay legal groundwork for the right of the states to "nullify" federal laws. In 1831 Calhoun made a clean break with Jackson, publicly issuing an address that made it clear he stood with the "nullifiers." In 1832 he became the first man to resign from the Vice Presidency, leaving when he won a seat from South Carolina in the Senate.
On November 24th, 1832, a South Carolina state convention issued an Ordinance of Nullification, which declared "null, void, and no law" the high protective tariff. President Jackson was not amused. He wrote to one of his generals, "Can any one of common sense believe the absurdity that a faction of any state, or a state, has a right to secede and destroy this union and the liberty of our country with it; or nullify laws of the union; then indeed is our Constitution a rope of sand; under such I would not live...The union must be preserved, and it will now be tested, by the support I get from the people. I will die for this union."
Jackson threatened to send fifty thousand troops to enforce the tariff in the port of Charleston when he said, "Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur this guilt?" The Governor and legislator of South Carolina stood defiant and called for ten thousand militiaman to repel any "invasion" by federal troops. America was on the verge of civil war. Faced with the prospects of warfare over the tariff, Calhoun joined forces with Henry Clay to reconcile the claims of South Carolina with those of the federal government. The results were the Compromise Tariff of 1833 which gradually reduced tariffs until 1842. The South Carolina convention repealed the Ordinance of Nullification, and both sides claimed victory. However, the point remains that whenever questions of states' rights came up, they had been solved through compromise, at least until the Civil War, and since.
The "threat" of nullification may be effective. The actual attempt would be suicide for not only those who promote, their state, and the union. It is much like the use today of "going to the media" in a dispute with a company. Until you actually do, it can be very effective in intimidating those in the company to soften their stance in a dispute, however, after it is done, there is no longer any motivation to do so, and everyone loses.
When I hear rumblings of a new Civil War, I wonder if those speaking have any idea of the terror, death, and pain that the last one caused. There were at least 618,000 who were killed in battles during our Civil War, records are not sure what the total numbers might have been. In the Civil War there were more or less defined boundaries and the combatants wore different uniforms under the guidance of military leadership. If things deteriorate into Civil War today, it wouldn't look anything like that, it would be much more like the French Revolution with no clear lines, no uniforms, just a national melee, where 40,000 people died during the "Terror" in just a few months. The alliances were to different political alignments who were intermixed throughout society, this is where we would be today.
We are greatly divided politically today, it is a time of great strife, but we need to focus on coming together and taking our nation back at the ballot box in 2010. We need to come together under one unified party to turn back the Democrat attack on our Constitution. Of course if Obama and the Democrats would suspend that election, all bets should be off.
To close, let's hear from one of our great leaders Senator Daniel Webster's speech in January of 1830 as the nullification process was heating up.
"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hand over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below... While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart - Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
I wouldn't want to put it to the test today, I am not sure we have men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster who are so respected by both sides of any issue to stand in the gap and bring us back together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
