Freedom Requires Moral Citizens

I know of people who contend that the road to America’s re-adherence to constitutional principles of government isn’t through the ballot box, but through the collapse of the Federal Government. I contend that the make-up of the Federal Government and their current style of governance isn’t the problem; it’s only a symptom of the problem. America’s collective proclivity to shun traditional religious influence is the problem, plain and simple. Until this problem is fixed, the demise of our Federal Government will only result in the birth of another one equally or more corrupt.

James A. Garfield, 20th President of the United States, offered the following which has the ring of truth to it:

“… the people are responsible for the character of their Congress [and Executive Branch].

“If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

I would expand this to say that America’s greatness is suffering not only because Americans failed to aid in controlling the political forces, i.e. were excessively apathetic, but more so because selfishness, greed, and immorality have spread widely across the Fruited Plain. America is walking away from God.

Our experience in America today validates John Adams' assertion that,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And James Madison's,

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

Our citizens have not always rejected religion. Cleon Skousen's book 5000 year leap discusses Alexis de Tocqueville's observations of our young nation in 1831.

"The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately, the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion." (Pg 80).

Skousen explained Tocqueville's observation that the American clergy, while wholly separated from the government "collectively had a great influence on the morals and customs of public life. This indirectly reflected itself in the formulation of laws and ultimately in fixing the moral and political climate of the American commonwealth."

"Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever cease to be good, America will cease to be great." (Pg 84).

Unfortunately, America has been spiraling into the ignorant, debased condition Tocqueville described in the populations of unbelievers in Europe. A major factor in America’s collective rejection of virtue has been a concerted secularist campaign to re-label good bad, and bad good. In a Heritage Foundation speech, “How Modern Liberals Think”, Evan Sayet described perfectly the growing cult of "indiscriminateness". The strategy has been to make morally inclined people believe that,

"...indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated… In order to eliminate [discrimination] the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."

I.e. we cannot tolerate any morality or religion in our public life because it results in someone saying certain public behaviors are WRONG and those who uphold such behaviors will be discriminated against. The ironic aspect of the cult of indiscriminateness is that advocates of morality end up being highly discriminated against for their beliefs.

We can see the success of this campaign around us. Sin is denounced increasingly less often and year after year the accepted standards of behavior in America sink lower. The declining civility in our society and the corresponding decreases in liberty are the fruit that this seed of indiscriminateness has brought forth.

In an online forum, Gary Jeffryes insightfully posted,

“If we choose pleasure over morality, morals decline. When morals decline, and the number of people participating in immoral activities increases, the number of people willing to hold politicians and educators responsible for their actions declines, because people who are immoral are disinclined to hold other people to a moral behavior, though they may gossip about it. They may gripe about it, but when it comes down to the crunch, the will do nothing about it because that requires righteous judgment and the unrighteous are less willing to condemn their own kind, but eager to condemn the righteous who's behavior is a shining light.

“So the immoral masses keep reelecting the same immoral politicians and things continue to decline as one group feeds the corruption of the other.”

The solution to re-secure our lost liberties is in more preaching, more faith based testimony, more exhortation to virtue and righteous living. Our nation must collectively return to our Creator, begin to obey His laws, and love our neighbors as ourselves. On these laws “hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22:40).

If the majority again begins to live the Golden Rule, they will not accept legislators or presidents whose governance results in harm to others, when said governance is exposed for what it is (ballot box choices). They will pull their own weight and not attempt to live off the backs of their neighbors. They will eschew government entitlements and those who would deal them out. They won’t need excessive regulation to do the right things. They will eliminate the poor around them through voluntary acts of service and charity.

The solution in heaven is the same solution that we must pursue:

Revelations Chapter 12:

"7 And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. … 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony”.

Health Care - Promoting the General Welfare

From the Center For Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). “The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational organization that seeks to advance the discussion and development of patient-centered health care.” (CMPI Website)




Our founders framed our government and intended it to be a limited government, recognizing as George Washington cautioned that government is “force” and “like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The video above aptly illustrates the dangers of governmental involvement in free society. Unfortunately, many politicians point to the general welfare clause of the Constitution as justification for expanding government into increasingly more areas of our lives, the latest attempt being a national health care system.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (read here)

In 1792 while arguing against a bill sponsored by general welfare government expansionists, James Madison provided the historical context of the general welfare clause. A Founding Father himself, his authoritative remarks refute any notion that the general welfare clause was intended as a “catch all” authority for government to do anything it deems as good for the population in general.

"There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated [government expansion to promote the general welfare], must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

"The language held in various discussions of this house [House of Representatives] is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body [Congress]. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted." (read more here)

Citizens, whenever government presents a governmental solution to problem sets in our society, please consider the realities presented in the Health Care Hoops video when deciding whether or not to support it.

Congressman Moran on Declarations of War

I have been engaged in dialogue lately with fellow conservatives, mostly third party and independent types, on the Constitutional Party Platform on Defense. Among other things, I took issue with the allegation that the President of the United States assumes authority the Constitution does not give him to deploy forces without a declaration of war from Congress. To summarize my argument, it takes special appropriations to fight a war and Congress makes those appropriations (not to mention passes resolutions authorizing the use of force), therefore there is no illegal assumption of authority. Shame on Congress if they don’t declare war, but our separation of powers remains intact. During the debate, I shared the following account with them. I recommend that everyone share it with their own congressional representatives.

Congressman J. Moran (KS-R) was a guest speaker on January 13, 2009 at the Command and General Staff College. He spoke for attribution, unlike the majority of our guest speakers. During Q&A, one of the students stood up and asked (paraphrasing), “Is congress ever going to declare war again or are we going to keep fighting without ever declaring war?” (The last time the United States declared war was World War II.)

His response was very thoughtful. First, he laid the background for his answer with a discussion on the role of the Commander in Chief (CIC). He admitted that the Constitution is not definitive on exactly what authority the CIC of the Army has and by no means are congressional representatives in agreement on their opinions. If the Army is not going to do anything until congress declares a war, there is not a need for a CIC, the generals just take the Army to war after congress declares it. There are members of congress that think the executive branch has authority to do something with regards to troop movements, the limits just aren’t clear. In the end, there is a struggle between the two branches of government to find a balance.

Then he gave a very candid and seemingly sincere (he is a politician after all!) answer to the question. He admitted that no one in congress wants to declare war because it is politically unpopular. It is easier to just let the executive branch be responsible. He elaborated on this a bit and then told us of some soul searching that he has done over the course of the “Iraq War”. He was one who voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq and has mulled that decision over in his mind quite a bit since then. He concluded that he would never again vote for an authorization to use force. He will either do his Constitutional duty, pushing for a declaration of war, which commits the entire nation to the cause, or not.

Fellow student, MAJ Richard Wellman gave a rundown of Congressman Moran’s visit in a blog, which included the following:

“He stated that he felt Congress has been remiss on how it handles its constitutionally mandated authority to declare war. The representative feels that Congress should make the hard decision to declare war instead of taking the easy way out by just authorizing the President to use force in the open-ended manner that has been occurring under the Bush Administration.”

Find a complete rundown of Congressman Moran’s comments here.

I think Congressman Moran came to the correct conclusions and has made the right decision. It certainly is consistent with our Divine Constitution. Only time will tell if he follows through or succumbs to political pressures. Regardless, I think all of our representatives owe us introspection on their own congressional involvement in recent “wars”. Maybe Representative Moran’s example can begin a congressional migration back towards adherence to constitutional standards and authorities. We should all urge our respective representatives resolve now to approach the next war in like manner.

[Originally published at redstate.com]