Socialism and a Tale of Two Countries – What Will We Do?

In his 2019 State of the Union Address, President Donald Trump said, “America was founded on liberty and independence – not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free… America will never be a socialist country.” Republicans in the chamber cheered the remarks and the political right lauded the President for weeks after as the confirmed, and now certified, champion of conservative values they had already told us he was.

Around that same time, Americans were being shown pictures of empty store shelves in Venezuela and told it was the result of socialism. Threats of possible military intervention were being made as a means by which the U.S. might rescue the people of Venezuela from the horrors of socialism and the deprivation resulting from its draconian, totalitarian, central control. Continue reading “Socialism and a Tale of Two Countries – What Will We Do?”

Qasem Soleimani, Iran, and the Rule of Law

As with most political issues, there are those who praise the United States assassination of Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, and those who decry it. And, as per usual, the division is mostly along party lines, with some calling it wise, virtuous, and a necessary act that will prevent war with Iran, while others call it foolish, evil, and an unnecessary act that will lead to war with Iran.

What is also as per usual is the fact that most are merely arguing for or against the act, but few are asking questions and even fewer are discussing matters of principle and the rule of law. My friend, Jake MacAulay, of the Institute on the Constitution, was the first that I’m aware of to actually drag the U.S. Constitution into the debate in his weekly commentary.

The first questions that Christian people committed to honoring God, upholding the U.S. Constitution, and maintaining the rule of law must always ask are, 1) What does the word of God say? 2) What does the U.S. Constitution say? 3) What will limit the power of government and maximize liberty? To fail to ask these three questions is to throw ourselves open to Godlessness, lawlessness, and tyranny. Continue reading “Qasem Soleimani, Iran, and the Rule of Law”

Why Did the Dow Hit 25,000?

A few days ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 25,000, setting a new all-time record high for the U.S. stock market. As they are wont to do, the experts are speculating and opining as to what it all means. Some think this is good news, some think it’s bad, some believe it can continue, some believe it’s the boom before the bust.

Does the Dow’s breaking the 25,000 barrier really mean the economy is better than it’s ever been? Does it mean we’re all richer now? Was the market stagnated until Trump came along and breathed life into it, causing us to ascend to new heights of economic ecstasy? Or, could it be that the more things change, the more they stay the same, and that the Dow reaching 15,000, then 20,000, and now 25,000 was inevitable?

Most conservatives will no doubt revel in the current upward trend, taking it as token evidence that Trump and the Republicans are the saviors of the American way of life, single-handedly rescuing the economy from the financial doldrums imposed by eight years of Democrat rule. However, I have a different perspective. Continue reading “Why Did the Dow Hit 25,000?”

Endorsements and the Effect of Compromise

Thumbs-Up.jpgWhen we give our endorsement to someone or something, we intrinsically connect ourselves to the object of that endorsement and to the values which it embodies, thus lifting – or lowering – ourselves to the level of the entity we have endorsed.

When we give our endorsement to something moral and virtuous, we elevate ourselves. Our names and our reputations partake of the honor inherent in the object of virtue with which we become associated, and which we acknowledge as representing the righteous standard. Even if our own conduct does not currently embody all of the virtues of the object of our endorsement, our decision to embrace that higher standard will ultimately draw us upward into increasing conformity to it.

Conversely, when we give our endorsement to something of lower morals, or which lacks virtue, we diminish ourselves. Our names and our reputations partake of the dishonor inherent in the object with which we become associated, and which we condone as representing an acceptable standard. Even if our own conduct currently embodies greater virtues than those of the object of our endorsement, our decision to embrace that lower standard will ultimately draw us downward into increasing conformity to it.

You cannot remain on a higher level of virtue than that which you choose to endorse. When you give your endorsement, you make the object of your endorsement the measure of your virtue.

Continue reading “Endorsements and the Effect of Compromise”