History

United States

Wayne — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:00:23 -0400

Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution starts:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (emphasis added)

Notice the plurality used to reference "United States". The United States are not the federal government but the 50 sovereign states themselves. The United States are not synonymous with the federal government. The United States are a federal collection of otherwise free and independent states.

In this country a "state" is wrongly perceived as what other nations would call a province. Properly understood, a state is a nation and not a province of a larger nation. Federalism, then, is akin to a tightly bound (say, via treaties) group of nations. In our case, federalism is a group of nations bound by the Constitution, our version of a comprehensive international treaty. Our culture needs to recover this mentality that the United States are not a single nation but a federation of nation-states.

When seen in this light, the fedgov loses much of its power. The reason for Constitutional limitations become clear. The intent of the Commerce Clause is made obvious. This is not one great nation, although its unity provides a kind of economic power as if it were one. (This is why the E.U. tries to imitate [badly] our federalism.) The states are free to be quite different from one another. They are free to withdraw from the federal "treaty", too (Lincoln's immoral enslavement of the states notwithstanding). Assuming federal membership is desired, the Constitution is designed to bind the states together enough that they won't fight among themselves, threatening the desired federal unity, but it is not designed to override state sovereignty or force membership in the federation.

Did the Constitution include the seeds of its own destruction? In addition to its plural "United States", the Constitution also uses the singular term "Union". By Lincoln's era, this singular Union was elevated beyond that of the plural States. No longer was it a federation of sovereign states; it was viewed by many as a singular union whose provinces were utterly subject to the federal [sic] government. Being the military victor, the Union took center stage, and the United States thereafter became a singular entity conflated with their federal government. And it's been downhill ever since.

The very simple act of keeping the United States plural can further the cause of freedom and federalism as our Founding Fathers designed. (Pardon the alliteration.) I've been using the term fedgov to mean the federal government, but in truth, the fedgov is not federal at all. The fedgov is the domestic enemy of freedom and state sovereignty. It is a perversion of what once was a federal government, a weak government designed only to help the independent States support each other. Take a page from the Leftist playbook by changing the definitions of common terms. However, rather than perverting the terms, we are restoring them to their proper meanings. Educate others on the terms and their real definitions. After a couple generations of culture shift back toward truth, we may yet reclaim freedom for these United States.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1652

Mussolini on democracy

Dave — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:35:35 -0400

I decided to participate in Voxiversity III^*, which is a study of Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. In the comments after the first "class" (for lack of a better word), someone posted pieces of an essay written by Benito Mussolini containing his (Mussolini's) definition of fascism. Part of this essay contained some rather acute observations of democracy:

Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

I am in no way endorsing fascism, but I find it fascinating that an individual could be so wrong about the ideas he supports yet so right about the system of democracy. "Collective irresponsibility," indeed.

^*If anyone is interested, I highly recommend participating in Voxiversity III. I have read Liberal Fascism already, and I can attest that it is well worth the money and effort. The Voxiversity format provides motivation to stay current with one's reading as well as a forum in which to participate in discussions and get questions answered. It still early in the sequence, so it is not too late to begin.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1641

Elijah's Ascension

Dave — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:40:14 -0400

I recently read Shocked By the Bible^* by Joe Kovacs. In its pages, I found an interesting claim. It involves the ascension of Elijah, described in 2 Kings, chapter 2. Kovacs' claim is that Elijah was not translated directly to the third heaven to be with the Lord, as is commonly held. Instead, he was merely transported to another part of the world, there to live out the rest of his years. I would like to examine part of the evidence for this claim.

Kovacs points out that Elijah's ascension to "heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) does not necessarily refer to the place where God lives (after all, ישוע (Jesus) Himself stated that "no one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven" in John 3:13), but could merely refer to the earthly sky. He also cites other Scriptural examples where the Lord bodily transported people from one place to another (e.g., Acts 8:39-40, Ezekiel 3:11-15). However, the most interesting piece of evidence is the one I want to describe in detail.

Kovacs cites a letter written to Jehoram, king of Judah, as evidence that Elijah was still on earth. Kovacs claims that this letter, described in 2 Chr 21:12-15, was written after Elijah's ascension. Now, chronology and dates in the Bible can be difficult to establish; having said that, the following analysis seems to indicate that Kovacs is correct.

The period we are examining is that of the divided kingdom, which means that Israel and Judah each had its own king. We begin in 2 Kings, chapter 1, when Ahaziah is king of Israel. At this time, we know that Elijah has not yet ascended, because he prophecies Ahaziah's death. When this prophecy comes to pass, Jehoram, brother of Ahaziah, becomes king of Israel.

Now, 2 Kings 1:17 makes a somewhat confusing statement that will require some explanation:

So Ahaziah died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. Because he had no son, Jehoram became king in his place, in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehosaphat, king of Judah.

This verse mentions two people named Jehoram. The first is Jehoram, son of Ahab, brother of Ahaziah, who inherited the throne of Israel when his brother died. The second is Jehoram, son of Jehosaphat, who was king of Judah. There is another unusual statement here, which is that the date that Jehoram acquired the throne of Israel is given as the second year of the son of the king of Judah. Normally, dates are based on the reign of the current king, which was Jehosaphat. This particular date is accceptable (if a bit unorthodox) because Jehoram was at this time co-regent of Judah, along with his father. The verse does state clearly that Jehosaphat was still the king of Judah, and some other passages will confirm this. Jehosaphat's son, Jehoram, will become king of Judah later, and we will look at this as well.

These events are described in 2 Kings 1. As mentioned above, Elijah's ascension is described in 2 Kings 2. Since Elijah is mentioned in chapter 1, we can be certain that the events of chapter 2 occur after Jehoram becomes king of Israel. Elisha inherits a "double portion of Elijah's spirit" (2 Kings 2:9; see also 1 Kings 19:16) and becomes a prophet in Elijah's place.

We move on to 2 Kings, chapter 3, where events related to a Moabite rebellion are described. King Jehoram seeks the aid of Jehosaphat, king of Judah. Along with the king of Edom (who is not named), they go out to fight the Moabites. Unfortunately, the route they chose does not provide any water for seven days, and they are in dire straits as they draw near to the battle. They then seek the aid of Elisha, who intervenes on their behalf. The intervention provides them with water and delivers the Moabites into their hands.

We now move to 2 Chronicles, chapter 21, which describes the death of Jehosaphat. When he died, his son Jehoram became sole ruler of Judah. After the death of his father, Jehoram solidified his position as king by murdering his brothers, as well as others who might have a claim to the throne (2 Chr 21:4). Finally, we find the letter from Elijah, which was written to Jehoram, king of Judah, in 2 Chr 2:12-15. In this letter, Elijah excoriates Jehoram for, among other things, murdering his brothers.

Let's put all this together. The letter must have been written after the murders, which took place after the death of Jehosaphat. We know that Elisha's ministry had already begun while Jehosaphat was still alive. Finally, we know that Elijah's ascension was the event that triggered the beginning of Elisha's ministry. It therefore seems clear that the letter was written some time after Elijah's ascension.

On this basis, I find Kovacs' claim credible. I am not certain that we can dogmatically agree with Kovacs' interpretation of John 3:13 (consider the case of Enoch; cf. Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5), but a more liberal interpretation of that verse does not preclude Kovacs being correct about Elijah.

^*For the record, Shocked By the Bible is not all that shocking if you have actually read the Bible. The book was written for so-called Christians who receive their Bible knowledge second- and third-hand, from the pulpit as well as church and cultural tradition. If you haven't read the Word and you want to know what is really there, you can pick up Kovacs' book and you will probably learn a few things. However, you will be much better served if you pick up an actual Bible, open it, and start reading! (And don't stop until you finish it. Then, start again.)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1624

Then and Now

Wayne — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:23:36 -0400

Sabers are only now rattling in response to the prolonged tyrannies of the fedgov. State legislatures' resolutions, "tea parties", etc., are merely the beginnings of popular groans against corruption and totalitarianism. As intellectually and morally retarded as our society is, I wonder how long it will take before such impotent grumblings grow to calls for secession and then to rebellion and revolution.

Was the evolution of Independence so appallingly slow the first time 'round? From the Boston Tea Party to the Revolution was less than two years. From the Tea Act to the Tea Party was only six months. The Boston Massacre (where British troops slaughtered a handful of colonists) was in 1770. The Sugar Act in 1764 and the Stamp Act in 1765 certainly upset many colonists, but there was no rebellion. It was ten years to open warfare from these two Acts. Then, with the Information Age centuries in wait, it still didn't take long to move popular opinion toward freedom, individual liberty, and independence.

Might today's "tea parties" be comparable to yesteryear's outrage over the Sugar and Stamp Acts insofar as citizens' responses are concerned? Should we expect another revolution in ten years, as there was then? I think not. Today's government abuses against the people—I don't mean the legislative abuses but the armed ones—are ancient history (e.g., Ruby Ridge 1992, Waco 1993) and still ongoing (e.g., YFZ Ranch 2008), yet the Boston Massacre preceded rebellion by three years and open warfare by only five. The abuses today are arguably worse than they were then, certainly the legislative and usurpative abuses, and the fedgov is far more intrusive and pervasive in all facets of life now as compared to the king's abuses then. Still, the people merely gather to grumble. How much longer will we endure our slavery before we throw off such government? Or does our culture now lack spiritual righteousness, the intellectual ability to discern freedom from slavery, and the moral fortitude to do that which is required?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1594

Dinosaurs' Demise

Wayne — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:06:06 -0400

Naturalists—those religious fanatics who invent all kinds of wacky "theories" in futile attempts to deny the historical truth recorded in the Bible—have again had their stupidity flaunted before the world. The asteroid-killed-the-dinosaurs fantasy has again failed to pan out. The impact crater in Mexico is predating the mass extinction by a long time. (Of course, their methods for measuring geologic time scales are totally screwed up, but that's another matter.)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1571

Rome's Demise

Wayne — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:52:56 -0400

As we watch the power-grabs of the Executive Branch, we see the power of Congress declining. Even in the war in Iraq, Congress failed to exercise their Constitutional authority—nay, duty—to declare war, preferring to delegate it to the President (illegally, of course). I see article after article, column after column, describing how the Chief Executive and his minions are leaving Congress out of the business of running the nation [into the ground]. One of the latest escapades is the warning to LEOs that the likes of me may be home-grown terrorists. Congress was completely out of the loop on this publication. Why does all this look so familiar?

As Congressional power wanes in favor of Executive usurpation (not that Congress itself hasn't usurped most of its power), I am reminded of the decline of the ancient Roman Republic and its Senate. It devolved quickly into the Empire with Octavius reigning supreme. Of course, several civil wars preceded Octavius, and for ending them, he was welcomed. Leading to these civil wars were class clashes, unconstitutional power-grabs, and rampant government corruption, all awash in economic decline and runaway socialism.

If we continue to follow Rome's example, we should soon expect various forms of civil war (perhaps labeled as "domestic terrorism" and "right-wing extremism" by the nearly all-powerful State), the people willingly and stupidly allowing more power to be centralized in the Executive Branch as they are bribed with other men's property and the promise of peace, the decline of the Constitutional Republic (and the rule of law), and the emergence of the American Empire, complete with our own dictator euphemistically still called "President", I expect. If the insane worship of the unconstitutional usurper, Obama, is any indication, the people will welcome our coming dictator just as Rome welcomed Octavius and the Empire.

I wonder which is worse: ignorantly repeating history to our demise, or being aware of the same while just as fated.

That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; and also of the later things which will occur, there will be for them no remembrance among those who will come later still. Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1563

God Will Provide

Juliana — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:58:17 -0500

When George Muller was younger, he started going to church, even more than just once a week. Those sermons really spoke to him. He started praying all the time, for things like food, and money. When he cut off all ties between himself and his father, he had to get money somewhere. But he had no job, or even any offers. So he decided to pray for God’s help in finding a job and making money for food and bills. Then, a miracle happened. George found a job and a Christian partner as well. He married Mary soon, and they were on their way to be missionaries. George decided that he needed God, and God had come. Maybe he could bring God to other places, too. So George went all around, telling people about God, and blessing them in many ways. One day, in a place called Bristol, George met a little girl on the street. She was an orphan, with no family except her brother. That changed him even more. He decided to start an orphanage. But the small family at home needed money, too, and could barely afford dinner. So George prayed hard that they would get the money some how. They did get it. People started bringing food to him and money for the orphanage. They never had too much trouble again. Because of all these miracles God had brought George, he knew that He would always provide, just like so many times before.

So remember, God will provide!

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1475

Lincoln's hypocrisy

Dave — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:22:41 -0500

Walter Williams does an excellent job of exposing the hypocrisy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1436

Indians to Illegals

Charla — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:11:10 -0400

"What comes around, goes around." "You will reap what you sow."

I've been pondering both the history and future of our country, and I cannot help but wonder if we are reaping what we've sown. I'm not talking about how our Declaration and Constitution were created by God-fearing men who believed that the Bible should be the moral compass of our country's framework.

Before that, how did our country get started? Foreigners traveled across the sea to discover a new world and ended up here. They liked it so well that eventually, the "white man" overtook the American Indians who already inhabited this land. The Indians were relegated to their reservations and small parts of land. One could say we "invaded" their lands. The Trail of Tears comes to mind. In our ("white man") effort to create a God-fearing nation, we conquered and overtook those who already lived here.

Now, we have illegal immigrants flooding over our borders, eating our food and using our healthcare system for free, apparently overtaking our lands. They want to establish their cultures and holidays as a norm here. They want others around them to validate their existence in our land by making their language a national language. There seems to be no end to what they want.

This to me looks surprisingly similar to what we did to the Indians hundreds of years ago.

We claim we have a right to this country because we founded it on God's word and His principles. But did we really have that right to begin with? Could there have been a better way to live with the Indians instead of basically destroying them?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1192

History Channel

Wayne — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:25:14 -0400

I was once a fan of the History Channel. Recounting history without bias is a challenge, to be sure, but they seemed to do this reasonably well. For the last few years, though, their programming has been increasingly politicized, slanted to deliver a particular message. Programs are increasingly anti-Biblical, even if it means twisting plainly observable facts. They often lump Islam in with the Biblical traditions, as if it were somehow related (or at all legitimate). Their treatment of the so-called Civil War has also grown more favorable toward the Northern States, ignoring the South's desire for restored freedoms. Laced throughout most of their shows these days is an indoctrination to Evolution and Old-Earth fantasy--it's surprising where this drivel shows up. While there can be a scientific component to history, it seems History Channel's masters (A&E, ABC, NBC, Hearst) prefer delusion to fact and a priori conclusions to scientific method when they create their programming. Perhaps it's fitting that the History Channel is now history, as far as I'm concerned.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1103