He is Risen!

"Why seek ye the living among the dead?  He is not here, but is risen" (Gospel of Luke, chapter 24)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Happy Easter and may the blessings of the Lord fall upon you and yours.

Legislating from the Bench

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week on two cases concerning same-sex marriage.  The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is an appeal of a lower court ruling that determined California’s law banning same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, unconstitutional.  The second case, US v. Windsor, is an appeal of a lower court ruling that determined part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.  It seems every media outlet is covering the story and many are hoping the Court will address the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I hope the Court will do what our founding fathers intended them to do, uphold the Constitution and preserve the rule of law.   So whose responsibility is it?

The US Constitution does not give Congress the power to pass laws that define marriage.  That power is reserved, by the 10^th Amendment, to the states.  Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to pass DOMA.  The Court should not rule whether the language in the law is constitutional or not, since the Court does not have the power to enact such law. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it’s an important one; the Court should only rule on the constitutionality of Congressional actions, to rule on the constitutionality of the language goes beyond preserving the rule of law and delves into setting national policy.  That’s not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, but when it does, it often causes damage that is difficult to reverse.

In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled in Dredd Scott v. Sandford that “Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution.”  Chief Justice Taney based his argument on statements from one of the signers of the Constitution, not the words of the Constitution.  Furthermore, he ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in US territories, although Article IV of the US Constitution provides Congress with the authority to “make all needful Rules and Regulations.”

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court ruled that racial segregation (“separate but equal”) was constitutional.  In Korematsu v. United States, the Court ruled that sending US citizens of Japanese descent to internment camps during World War II was constitutional.  That is, the US government could deprive US citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process based on their race or ancestry.

I want the Court to preserve the rule of law and uphold the Constitution in this case, but I’m afraid that some of the justices will rule beyond their authority.  That’s because many of our federal judges have been appointed to the bench based, not on their legal expertise or willingness to follow the law, but on their political ideology.

Former Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Schumer, in a 2001 New York Times op-ed piece, declared that senators should approve or reject a federal court nominee “depending on three factors: the extent to which the president himself makes his initial selections on the basis of a particular ideology, the composition of the courts at the time of the nomination and the political climate of the day.”  Joseph Califano, Jr., an important figure in Democratic Party, stated in an August 2001 Washington Post op-ed piece entitled “Yes, Litmus-Test Judges”, that the Senate, when confirming a court nominee, should “take enough time to give these men and women the kind of searching review that their sweeping power to make national policies deserves”.

Judges should not make policy.  Yet, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made comments, prior to her appointment to the Court, about how her sex and ethnicity shaped her judicial decisions and that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.”  Justice Kagan, prior to her appointment, wrote that the Supreme Court should examine governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases. 

With the federal government willing to ignore the US Constitution more and more, we need federal court judges that abide by the Constitution and preserve the rule of law.  How do we ensure that?  Mark Levin, in his book Men in Black, provides several ideas.  Among these are term limits or a reconfirmation process.  Congress can implement a term limit or reconfirmation process by changing the law found in Title 28 of the US Code.  Second, we can contact our Senators and let them know that we want them to confirm judges, not policy makers.

The US Constitution put forth a system of checks and balances to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  Presidents, by appointing judges based on ideology, and the Senate, by confirming those same appointees, has not kept the Court in check.  They have, in effect, established a panel of policy makers who govern without the consent of the governed.

Manly Advice

I recently picked my daughter up from school. While waiting in a parking lot across from the school, I watched a group of teenage boys standing around smoking, cursing, and generally trying to act cool.  I know nearly every high school has a group of kids like this, but I wondered how these kids got here and where they were heading in the future.

I’m sure that for some their behavior is a rebellion against their parents, just as it was in my day.  And I believe that some will eventually grow up and become productive adults with kids of their own.  Given that nearly one in three kids in the US live without a father in the house (Washington Times, December 2012) many of these kids don’t have a strong male role model at home.  And, you sure won’t find a good male role model on TV or in the movies!

I related my observations about these kids to a colleague the other day.  My colleague asked me, “If you could talk to these kids for 15 minutes, what would you tell them?”  Good question.  I thought long and hard about what I would say.  If I had an opportunity to talk to these boys, here’s what I would tell them…

First, cursing in public and other rude behavior may make you appear cool to your friends, but you come across as a jerk to everyone else.  Being polite, courteous, and well-mannered will cost you nothing, but it implies a sense of class.

Second, Young ladies are NOT sex toys made just for your pleasure and should not be treated as such, regardless of their behavior.  You are not free to run your hands under their skirt or blouse or touch any part of their body without explicit permission.  No means no. Period.  Taking advantage of a young lady who is too drunk or stoned to say yes or no is rape.

Third, if you think you are man enough to have sex, be man enough to take responsibility.  You are responsible for protecting both you and your partner from pregnancy and STDs.  If you aren’t financially and emotionally prepared to be a father and support a child, you shouldn’t be having sex.  And at no time should you pressure someone to have sex.

Fourth, you are known by the company you keep.  If your buds are stoners, vandals, or other low-life types, then people will assume you are the same.  Be man enough to get a good high school education. Being stupid in school may appear cool to your friends, but without a good education, you’ll be a loser as an adult in a dead end job, on welfare, or in jail. 

Fifth, whether you like it or not, the world will judge you by your appearance.  Grungy clothes, weird hair color, piercings and holes in your ear lobes large enough for a small dog to jump through are likely to turn off a prospective employer.  Think twice before you get that piercing or tattoo. And remember, if your dress or appearance is dramatically different from everyone else don’t complain about the adverse attention you get.  First impressions are usually based on how you look and it takes a lot of effort to change a bad first impression.

Sixth, have a plan.  What do you want to be when you grow up? Is it realistic?  How do you plan to get there?  Will that job sustain a family? Whether you plan to go into skilled labor, get job requiring a degree (or advanced degrees), or plan to be a professional athlete, rock star, actor, etc., it will take effort, and in some cases, a good deal of luck, to achieve that goal.  It’s ok to have a dream, but have a realistic backup plan. Be prepared to work and pay your dues.

Seventh, be fiscally responsible.  Know how to balance a check book, never borrow more than you can pay back, and learn to control your money.  If the money coming in is less than the money going out month after month, you’ve got a problem. Find ways to stop spending more than you have.  Too many people are overwhelmed with debt because they can’t control their spending.  We cannot have everything we want.  And, sometimes saving up to afford something, like a new car, makes it mean just a little more to you and you will take better care of it.

Eighth, learn to clean house, wash clothes, and cook.  A man dependent on someone else to cook, clean, or wash is as helpless as a small child. Being able to do these things for yourself not only makes you more attractive to the opposite sex, but it may keep you from getting into a relationship out of need rather than desire.

Ninth, have a hobby.  Better yet, have a hobby that doesn’t involve electronics, or at least electronic games.  Read, play an instrument, garden, restore cars, hike, go camping, take up a sport, do something that exercises your mind, your body, or both.  It will make you more interesting to others around you.  It may also become your therapy when things in your life don’t work out as you planned.

Tenth, make a good first impression.  When introduced to someone, give them a firm handshake and look them in the eye.  A limp handshake is not masculine at all and not looking them in the eye is dismissive.  Speak clearly and don’t mumble.  Learn the art of small talk.  Awkward silence makes everyone uncomfortable.  I’m not saying this is easy, but with practice, it will become second nature.

Eleventh, your character, not your sexual orientation should be what defines you.  Be a man of good moral character such that when people describe you, they use words like honesty, kindness, integrity, and honor. Your sexuality shouldn’t be the most important facet of your character.

Finally, respect is not a right, but an earned privilege. It cannot be demanded and it is not given freely.  If you are not a person deserving of respect, that may cause you a lot of frustration.  Be respectable and more often than not, you will be treated with respect.

Investing in Your Future

Another great post from John Galt

There are dangers in our world today. Yeah, no kidding.  We can all agree that there are dangers, that we each have our own list, but what dangers worry you the most?  I fear for my old age years when the youth of today are making decisions that affect me.  For now, I can be scary enough, if necessary, to call them on their behavior and maybe even intimidate them into a few course corrections.  These are the kids that party and drive, text and drive, drop trash, flick cigarette butts, shoplift, speak in profanity,  and spend quality time playing videogames rather than getting either a life or a job.  I’m not talking the extremes of these behaviors, but many are present at least a little in the youth of today.  They are common complaints amongst adults.

So, the kids today are your problem, even if they aren’t the ones that sit at your table for dinner or ask to borrow your car.  It’s your responsibility to get involved with them.  We have hard-earned lessons to teach.  Don't back down when they roll their eyes when you speak.  And, don't expect a change overnight.  But, with persistence, you can bestow the virtues of courtesy, manners, proper language, writing skills, compassion and a sound work ethic.  Teaching moments aren't announced.  Many are the quiet moments in the car together, time spent in your presence with other people, and time just hanging out.  They are always watching, so are you a good example?  Do you take a call in the middle of a conversation with them?  If so, shouldn't you expect them to do the same?  So, turn down the volume of the TV, or better yet, turn it off during dinner and have a conversation.  Ask them what is on their mind.

My family has dinner together almost every night.  A luxury, in these busy times.  We talk politics, community issues, trends in our world, relationships, plans, hopes, prayers, and dreams.  I listen to what they say, engage in their debates, and champion their ideas.  I've made sure the kids know that they are part of their community and some of the responsibility lies with them.  They volunteer.  They are advocates for others.  They have plans to make the world a better place.  They are also teenagers, often overwhelmed with school, technology, and social issues.   There is a lot of mean in their world and technology makes it too easy for mean to invade every facet of their day.  As I have also told them since they were little that there is too much ugly in the world, so I won't have it in my house.  Be nice.  It has to start somewhere, so it may as well start here.

They face a lot of challenges.  Social pressures are greater than I remember at their age.  Maybe there was less division, mean and rudeness.  Maybe I was oblivious.  Maybe it just wasn't allowed.  Still, the kids remain hopeful that their world will overcome the current state.  Hope for a better day is a good thing.  Wanting to be an active participant in the path taken is even better.  So, talk to your kids and include their friends.  Share in a debate on issues that are important to them.  Be their champion.  Correct behaviors—theirs and yours—and be a good example.  Invest in your future by investing in theirs.

Lift the Fog

Where I live, the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies are the largest employers in town.  Practically everyone in the area is employed by a federal agency, federal agency contractor, or is related to someone employed by one of the two.  So, just about every conversation turns to sequestration and its effects on people and the local economy. 

Most people are bracing for an anticipated 20 – 25% loss of pay due to furloughs.  Many local, non-defense employers are preparing for a down-turn in the local economy by slowing or suspending hiring and taking measures to mitigate the impacts from a potential loss of revenue.  I was involved in a discussion concerning the local economic impacts, when one of the participants, whom I’ll call Bob (not his real name) wondered why the sequestration cuts were structured as they are.  I referred to a recent article by Dr. Thomas Sowell, Budget Politics, in which Dr. Sowell states that in politics, the items offered up for budget cuts are the items, if cut, are most likely to cause public alarm.  Because of the public alarm over the proposed cuts, the cuts quite often never occur and any meaningful cuts in wasteful spending don’t happen.  In this case, President Obama offered up cuts he believed to be so onerous that Congress would back away from any more budget cuts.

Another participant pointed out a Wall Street Journal article that reported that Republicans in Congress had proposed a plan prior to the beginning of the sequestration to allow the President to target the spending cuts toward low-priority programs, but ban any tax increases. However, the same article reported that President Obama threatened to veto it.  Bob was surprised to hear that, but even more surprised to learn that the sequestration idea originally came from the White House.  Bob just couldn’t understand why the President would play politics with budget cuts.

I had a hard time understanding Bob’s surprise.  I grew up in an era where people would vote a straight Democratic ticket, regardless of the character or competency of the Democratic candidate, so I comprehend that some people are blindly devoted to party ideology, both on the left and right.  However, Bob is not registered with any political party, so I don’t believe he’s a party idealist.    I think the problem is that Bob is incredibly naïve about what goes on in politics.

Now, Bob is a smart guy.  He has advanced degrees in technical fields, but admits he’s not interested in politics.  I am afraid he’s in a fog, naïve as to what goes on in Washington or how the voters in this country are slowly relinquishing power to the federal government.  What’s bothersome is that many American’s are just like Bob.

Our founding fathers entrusted us with a republican form of government, where the power of government is derived from the people.  The US Constitution defines the roles and responsibilities of the Federal government, but there is nothing that outlines the roles and responsibilities of we, the people.

Ask someone about good citizenship and you’ll likely hear about the rights and duties of a citizen, such as obeying laws, paying taxes, serving on a jury, and voting.  Some may even mention community service or service in the armed forces.  But, the duties and responsibilities of US citizenship go beyond that.

Good citizenship requires an understanding of our government, its purpose, how it operates and what it’s doing. It requires us to be educated on important issues and to keep our elected officials aware of our viewpoints and concerns.  The purpose of the Federal government is not to provide us with food, clothing, shelter, or fund our lifestyle.  It’s not the responsibility of government to protect us from hazards and misfortunes and it’s not supposed to redistribute wealth or try to make life fair.  Its purpose and its power are enumerated in the US Constitution.  It’s a good idea to read it and know what it says.

Get an understanding of how Congress works.  The US House of Representatives has a great website to learn about Congress and the legislative process (http://www.house.gov/content/learn/).  Also learn about “earmarks”, “riders”, and “pork-barrel legislation”, actions that legislators sometimes take, often deceptive in nature, to fund projects and programs that serve local or special interests and not the country as a whole.

Monitor what Congress is doing.  Both the Senate and the House websites (www.senate.gov and www.house.gov) have links to Congressional activities and schedules.  The Library of Congress’ website has a link to current legislation summaries and status (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php)

Educate yourself on the issues.  Talk to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers about the issues.  Listen to candidate debates and know their positions on legislation and federal issues.  Know which issues can be addressed locally and which are national issues.  And remember that some of the issues are not the responsibility of the Federal government.

Become a critical thinker, capable of using reason, observation, and reflection to decide on a course of action or belief, especially given the overwhelming amount of information available, for which much of it is biased in one direction or another.  Critical thinking is required to determine whether the claims and statements from Congress, the President, and other leaders are true, false, partially true, or simply misleading.

Communicate with your elected officials.  Emails and letters to Congress and the President; letters to the editor of the local newspaper; and signing petitions are all good ways to let officials know your viewpoints.  Don’t be afraid to tell them how they should vote on pending legislation.  And let them know you are paying attention and willing to vote them out of office if they don’t do their job.

Good citizenship requires involvement beyond voting and community service.  To maintain a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, we have to be engaged, educated, and involved.

President Obama said, “If people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.“ Get out of the fog and get involved.  The country is depending on you to be a good citizen.

Baby-Faced Soldier

I traveled through the Dallas-Fort Worth (Texas) airport recently.  Because it is a major hub, there are lots of people moving through the airport.  Still, I noticed that a number of the travelers were servicemen and women.  I've seen them before in my travels, but what struck me this time was how incredibly young they all appear.

The obvious youth of one young airman in particular, really grabbed my attention.  He looked like a child, not old enough to shave, certainly not old enough to be in the military.  As I watched him walk past, I realized that he probably isn't more than a year or two older than my teenaged son.  Are we really sending babies off to defend our country?

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, of the nearly 1.4 million serving in the US armed forces, almost 1 in 5 are between the ages of 18 and 21. Barely old enough to vote and not old enough to buy a beer, these kids have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

Enemies come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.  It seems not too long ago, an enemy was easy to identify.  In war, he wore a uniform and was a member of the adversary’s armed forces.  But I wonder who today’s serviceman’s biggest enemy is; the one who holds the bullets or the one who controls the budgets?

After the First World War, the size of the US military dwindled through budget cuts and isolationist foreign policies that assumed diplomacy and negotiation would solve all grievances and avoid armed conflict.  Such policies allowed aggressors such as Germany, Italy, and Japan to violate standing treaties and invade Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and Manchuria without fear of armed conflict.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the US military ranked behind Bulgaria’s and Romania’s militaries in size.  When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US forces in the Philippines were still armed and supplied with World War I-era equipment.   Thanks in large part to the industrial might of America and the American armed forces, the Allies triumphed over the Axis powers.  But the cost was an average of 416 American lives lost per day during the nearly four years of combat.

The invasion of South Korea by the North Korean army in June, 1950 caught the US by surprise and by August, 1950, US and South Korean forces had nearly been pushed into the sea at Pusan by North Korean forces.  Chinese intervention in October, 1950 again caught US and United Nations (UN) forces by surprise.    US and UN forces were nearly overwhelmed and President Truman declared a national emergency, resulting in the activation of National Guard and military reserve units to fight in Korea.  After two years of stalemate fighting along and around the 38^th parallel, North and South Korea agreed to an armistice.  Taking three years to fight-to-a-draw cost US forces 45 lives per day.

The Vietnam War experience, for servicemen, could best be summed up by the quote,” We the Unwilling, Led by the Unqualified, Are doing the Impossible, For the Ungrateful”.  President Johnson escalated the US involvement in Vietnam, aided by a Congress willing to give him unilateral power to conduct full-scale war based on an alleged second attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.  Unclear objectives, underestimation of the enemy, loss of public support at home, and military decisions made by politicians in Washington instead of military commanders on scene led to over 58,000 deaths.  In spite of the scores who served in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese captured Saigon in April 1975 and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.  The US policy of containing communism in Indochina failed because of poor leadership at the highest levels.

 In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, we have been involved in a global war on terror.  Although our troops are no longer actively engaged in combat in Iraq, we still have troops in combat in Afghanistan.  Since 2011, we lost over 6,000 lives and nearly 42,000 were wounded.  Yet, The Heritage Foundation reports that, because of decisions by Congress and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, much of the equipment used by military personnel, such as armored personnel carriers, helicopters, and tactical aircraft, are older than the servicemen and women who use them.

In September, 2012, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and four members of the diplomatic mission were killed.  An investigation report on the attack declared "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

As part of the debt ceiling crisis fiasco in 2011, the White House suggested a compulsory set of budget cuts that would go into effect if Congress failed to produce deficit reduction legislation totaling $1.2 trillion in cuts.  These cuts, known as the “sequester” and scheduled to begin on March 1, 2013, reduce the federal budget by $85 billion.  Half of the reduction comes from cuts in defense spending and half comes from cuts in nondefense, discretionary spending.

The Wall Street Journal points out the defense budget is less than 20% of the federal budget, but absorbs half the sequester cuts.  The Journal also points out that from 2008-2013, defense spending increased 11%, but over the same time period, total nondefense discretionary spending increased by 16.6 %.  That 16.6% includes an increase in Department of Transportation, for example, spending by 66.8% over the same time period.

Many presidents in US history have sent soldiers into battle and political decisions have cost soldiers’ lives.  We should know better.  Yet, it appears that Obama is more than willing to play politics with the military to try and force Republicans to raise taxes.  As The Wall Street Journal, says, “This fits Mr. Obama's evident plan to raid the military to pay for social programs like ObamaCare.”

While this round of cuts will not affect the number of troop deployments or troop paychecks, there is no certainty that the President and Congress won’t do so in the future.  But upgrades to military hardware and research and development of new technologies will be cut—those technologies intended to protect our soldiers in the field.   If we are willing to send baby-faced soldiers to defend the United States, we should not allow leaders to play politics with the support and welfare of our armed forces.  Nor should we elect officials who are willing to do so.  Our servicemen and women deserve so much better.