Gambling on Neutrality

Share

Neutrality has been the fallacy of people through all ages of time. They think or perhaps more accurately hope that by staying out of the fracas they can avoid any of the pain and reap all of the benefits. As the government of this nation repeats the errors of every other government throughout time, people should realize that there are no conscientious objectors. Somewhere, on both sides, there is someone thinking that if you are not with us you are against us, and they will hold you accountable for the sins of others around you.

The great principle on which our civil society exists is the freedom to choose. One forgotten freedom of the First Amendment is free association as long as that organization does not infringe upon other rights or threaten to undermine the Constitution. You can choose; you must choose. It need not be today, but there are tens of thousands of folks joining the NRA not because they own guns or like them but because they believe they one day may want that right or require it. At the same time, the enemies concentrate that hatred on people who advocate the Second Amendment because they claim those advocates are predominately white and stupid. They have already said you are racists. They have already made you the enemy unless you agree lock, stock and barrel with them.

History is replete with examples of people who mistakenly believed that everyone could be Switzerland without realizing how Switzerland maintains their neutrality. Switzerland is one of the most mountainous nations on earth and populated by a people who are all required to learn to use a weapon and to own one, not unlike the 13 Colonies prior to 1776. Just because you are not doing anything doesn’t afford you protection. When the Goths sacked Rome, they killed people at random including the women and children, the rich and the powerful; they were just there to get paid. When the British marched on Concord, they shot people in the back on the porches of their own homes despite the fact that their victims were complying with the order to disperse. In the end, women and children are not protected because they may grow up to challenge the conquerors. And before people of differing melanin contents than I protest, the savagery of Africans against subjugated women knows no comparison in my ancestry. Only the Aztecs were more savage. The best defense against evil people with guns is for good men to arm themselves in kind.

Neutrality is a huge gamble. In many ways it resembles a Russian Roulette in which they hope that the round in the gun of the invading army will be one who does not decide they are guilty by association. It will depend. You might be fortunate to see the mutual deference depicted in Saints and Soldiers where Deacon and Rudi both spare each other, but that’s unlikely. It’s possible that the British Officer will only want to quarter his troops in your home and not take any other liberties. Colonel Chamberlain knew that when he received the mutinous 2nd Maine deserters he could shoot them, but that if he did he could never return to Maine, and so he opted against it. Perhaps as in Saints and Soldiers Airborne Creed the Fallshirmjaeger Commander will treat your wounds until the armor arrives to relieve you. Not everyone is so lucky. The civil war was the last time when people could expect to surrender and be treated fairly, but even then it wasn’t always the case.

More often than not, the opposite is true. When the Mayor of Innsbruck was forced to greet the Nazis and opted against the salute, he was shot dead on the spot by the SS. Look at Captain Blood wherein Peter Blood is condemned to the block and then the plantation not because he was part of Monmouth’s revolution but because he treated men who were. Those who are not for them will be against them. Then there is The Scarlett Pimpernel, where you could be condemned to the guillotine just for not being a “friend of the republic” even though history has shown us that Robespierre was a tyrant. During our Revolution we were fortunate because the British army was largely commanded by gentlemen who abode by the rules of war. The enemy today is different; they care nothing for you or the people hurt by their schemes. Largely they lack the collegiate congeniality of Chamberlain and the courtliness of Cornwallis, choosing instead the savagery of Sherman.

The time to choose is soon upon us. It is not about left or right, up or down. It is about Tyranny or Liberty. You can either join with those who are for freedom or you can be the enemy of freedom. The enemies of freedom will not give you a pass. They will kill your sons, enslave your daughters, raze your homes to the ground, take all your goods, and leave you bereft like the British did to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Switzerland is an abnormality. You can be denounced at any time, not just for hiding Anne Frank, but for knowing who is hiding her or not accurately inquiring or because you are neighbors with the family secreting her. Your churches, the pins on your lapel, and your civic memberships will not protect you when the army comes through. Their job is to kill people and destroy stuff, and they do a smashing job at it. Tanks do not discriminate. They drag down the innocent with the guilty, and no reason is given or needed.

Disney depicts this in a way that speaks truth. Captain Hook tells the lost boys that you can join up and become a thief and pirate or walk the plank. The choice is up to you, but there is no middle ground. In fact, if you were there during the Great War, that was the worst place to be- in no man’s land! Not choosing is a choice. If you are actively advancing a thing or towards a thing or idea, then it is what you have chosen. Declaring a major differs greatly from taking classes that will complete the requirements. Maybe you’ll be lucky. Maybe the roulette will land on 2 in green, but it’s very unlikely. Now is the time for choosing while you still have a choice.

What's In a Name?

Share

Apparently, I have been given a nickname by my students. They have decided to call me Professor Plumbum because I talk about lead all the time. Lead comes up frequently because of stability, its utility against radiation, and because of its electronegative properties. Even in Biology, I mention it because it's a potent metabolic inhibitor. Lex Luthor would be proud.

Leading Questions

Share

As a freshman in college, I had to take a statistics course. Our final project was a presentation in which we were to show how we had used the tools we learned to draw correlations. My professor gave me a high grade because I did something he had never seen before. I presented our research and then declared that there was insufficient data to show that the variables were correlated in any way whatsoever.

Polling, statistics, and the like do not usually work that way. the reason for that is simple. Someone pays them to do a poll, and people don't like to pay for something only to find out that it wasn't relevant. We like to feel that our work, our lives, our efforts produce useful work, and so sometimes we will strain at gnats and swallow camels in an attempt to find correlation where none really exists.

You see, the problem lies in how you ask the question. I learned that not everyone understood the question the way I asked it. Halfway through data collection, I had to scrap all of my data and ask the question differently. I could have chosen at that point to ask questions that would create a consensus based on either how the subjects interpreted the words or based on how I interpreted their responses. I did neither, but just because other people call themselves objective doesn't mean they are. All of my classmates, every single solitary one of them got up and told our professor that they could show correlation. He didn't buy any of their claims. He tore every one of their conclusions apart. Mine was the lesson he chose to leave with them as the semester ended. I was embarrassed; I was a freshman.

It was strange to finish an entire semester's worth of work and find that none of my data was relevant. The true relevance was that sometimes things are not related or correlated or causative. There are other variables at work that set up a circumstance, and so we can color the perception of those we poll or those from whom we collect data to a certain predetermined conclusion. In medicine, we call this the placebo effect, where we tell people they are being treated, and some of them respond as if they were even though they are taking a sucrose pill. Our media now is not really full of reporters; they are mostly people who are desperate to be relevant, and so they carefully select words or terms or conditions that will create a result they can report.

Years ago, I started the Journal of Negative Results because there is no place certain to acknowledge "wasted" efforts that show us what cannot be done. We waste a great deal of time and effort repeating work already done by others but of which there is no record. We waste a great deal of time and money hacking at the leaves of evil rather than the roots, mostly because the leaves are easier to reach and more noticeable when destroyed. That is true wasted effort. Each of our failed attempts, like the 39 combinations tried before WD-40 was produced or the 7 combinations tried before Preparation H or the 1000 filament types Edison found would not work in his light bulb, get us closer to what will work because they follow true scientific process. I have told my students for years that "Science never proves anything. It removes all other possibilities until only the truth remains."

I wasted a great deal of time in graduate school working on something that other people already knew was a red herring. Nobody reported the truth, and so I wasted part of my life, my finite time on earth, repeating a false premise. They are playing a dangerous game in Washington, in the media, by trying to say that the wheel is bad and should be discarded. If it works, why throw it away? Yet, that is what they do with our Constitution. Why do they do it? Because they are more interested in being right than what is right. That is fallacy, because the truth was true long before we started looking for it.

Most of their politicking on the fiscal cliff, gun control, and the like are leading questions. It's so safe now that the criminals, drug pushers, and psychiatrically affected are off the streets that they can take guns away from law-abiding citizens. They are designed to lead us to accept, embrace, and acknowledge their preconceived notions. That's not leadership. That's herdsmanship. Leading questions ask us about the best value that preserves our values and gives us the best chance to acquire more value. The Blue Chip Party is not interested in improving you; their policies are designed to preserve what you have. The trouble with that is that it never works. You are either actively working or subject to entropy. You can act or be acted upon. Which one you chose to be is a leading question of our time and one you must ask yourself.

Living in the Future

Share

The real reason, whether they want to admit it or not, that we’re discussing the fiscal cliff is because people make plans based on the future rather than on the present. A few years ago, I remember the Department Chair coming in and telling me that they were cutting back and that I was on the list of layoffs because I was not vested. “I hope you weren’t counting on that money continuing to come in,” he somewhat inarticulately told me. “No sir, “ I replied, “I only rely on the money that’s already in my account.” Unfortunately, far too many people project their current status indefinitely into the future and spend money they do not yet and may never have. Even worse, almost all of our elected officials are that kind of people.

In essence, we try to borrow money from our future selves. This fiduciary flaw propelled title loan and payday loan and similar companies not only to survive but to expand, as we enjoy now and pay later, hoping that when the bill comes due we’ll have the money to pay for it. Problem is that we continue to spend money between now and then rather than saving it. A friend of mine said the other day that it’s better to sock it away in savings, prepaying yourself in monthly installments so that you can pay in cash. At least that way, although you may have to wait, you don’t have to pay a whole lot more than it’s actually worth and you know you can afford it.

One chief cause for failure and unhappiness in this world is trading what we want most for what we want in the moment. Concomitantly, one key to success is to practice some delayed gratification. You see, eventually, in making withdrawals from future earnings, you find that there is not enough money to pay back those loans let alone purchase things that you need when the future and present merge. Your needs and wants and interests will change at least somewhat over time, and that thing you absolutely must have now will seem very petty in the future, when you realize you traded 48 hours of your life for an electronic gizmo that you destroyed because you sat on it incorrectly.

Ironically enough, this is how politicians create so-called surpluses. They project spending and earnings into the future, without regard for changing circumstances or turnover of Congress, and talk about what “might have been”. Who can say what might have been? Yet, they are prophets about everything that paints them in a good light, and any naysayers are negative Nellies or right-wing radicals. The only real surplus is when, after all the checks come in and all the bills go out, you have money left over before the next fiscal year begins. Surpluses do not last longer than that.

Today’s financial duress comes because long ago, people distal to us in space and in time decided to borrow from us to pay for their whims. Tomorrow, the Congress may repeat that mistake and double down on all of these pyramid schemes and borrow from our children and theirs. Eventually, someone must pay the piper, and it would be arrogant and foolish of us to assume that we will not be the generation to which the bill comes due. We have serious challenges today, and it would behoove us all to follow the Chair’s advice and not count on continuation of cash flow. Who knows what might happen between now and then? Fiscal futures are risky business, and when I want to know about them I don't ask lawyers for solutions. You want solutions? Ask a (bio)chemist.

When you focus on the problem, sometimes it's hard to clearly see the solutions. I am not in the business of problems. I came to make solutions.

Run on Our Guns

Share

A friend of mine reported absolute pandemonium from the gun show today. People waited hours in line to get in, spent hours on the phone for background checks, and overpaid by at least 50% for substandard merchandise on fear of Feinstein’s gun ban. Much of the sentiment was repeated from person to person, but it wasn’t about any kind of apocalypse. The people were afraid of their government. People should never be afraid of their governments.

I think this is an artificial run on guns. If I were Feinstein, I would have had my rich husband buy up a bunch of gun stock, announced the ban, and then raked in the dough as thousands of desperate citizens voluntarily handed over their money in a panic. What I think will happen is that this will die down and then it will happen again in a few years. That will allow the elites to make far more money off us than it will to put us under tyranny. Why steal from us when they can set up a situation in which we voluntarily hand them our money? If you’re going to buy something now, buy bullets, otherwise you might as well go out and buy a big wrench, because guns are only a tool by which to propel bullets, without which they are only good as a truncheon.

When Obama bans guns, if he does, he will do so suddenly and without warning. There will not be a bill out of Congress. He has shown thus far great disdain for the fact that Congress “interferes” with his plans, so I expect him to sign an executive order and skip Congress entirely. He views the Constitution as an impediment.

People are afraid of this government. They are talking riot and insurrection, which are unbecoming of citizens whose rights are still even marginally protected. Some Americans forget that the talks with King George lasted for over a decade before the states reluctantly revolted, even after blood had several times been shed by the British. Last I checked, the government hasn’t been killing citizens let alone locking them up. Our answer is to resist evil with whatever other means remain to us before we result to any kind of weapon besides words. While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words shall always retain power, and with enough people behind them the right words can change the world- We the People. Remember that this government also fears us.

I have heard all week people who are in positions of power talk about how the ban will not actually go into effect. Mostly, I suspect Feinstein did this to appeal to her base. Many Democrats equate action with accomplishment, that if the government is doing something it has achieved something, no matter how nonsensical that notion may be. On the other hand, I will not be surprised to discover if it ever comes to light that Feinstein made a ton of money creating a run on guns. What politicians threaten to do carries a great deal of weight, so sometimes all they must do is feint in order to get the reaction they like, and then they can back off and seem reasonable as they line their pockets when they are the least reasonable among us.

If I'm wrong, I will eat my words. They have done this before. I know it seems dire. If it mattered that much to you, then why didn't you throw the incumbents out of office and turn over the government to the GOP? You get the government you deserve, and Republics turn to despotism when the people are incapable of governance by any other. If you really want to do something about it now, repent, and secure the protection and inspiration of the Almighty to tell you where to go, what to do, when to go and how to act. Only He will chart you a course that ultimately leads to a land of promise. No politician ever has managed what God promises us. He is the strength of my arm and my arms. I will buy tickets to His gun show...

Here is Our Answer

Share

I watched last night the Mel Ferrer/James Garner adaptation of Sabatini's "Scaramouche" and found an unexpected link to the events of the last week. When I saw that Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee thinks the best response to Sandy Hook is to turn in your guns, I had a memory flashback that I will now make public. I have been, as was the Marquis De Maisne in aforementioned film, challenged as respects my rights. Others are calling for the murder of gun owners (paradox anyone?). With all due respect, the Congressman can bite my shorts.

In the film, the Marquis informs Scaramouche/Andre Moirot that he will defend his rights with his sword. Of course, they didn't have as many guns back then, and as a gentleman, the Marquis would not have used one in most circumstances. It reminds me of when, while working for Wal-Mart, an associate suggested my life should be forfeit because of my religious affiliation. He stood, that member of the warehouse administration, and suggested that every member of my Faith should be put to death. I looked at the head of HR and a handful of others who I knew were members of my Faith in positions of responsibility in their respective congregations. They turned away, hoping to hide their Faith. The speaker went on to talk about how they should send out killing teams two by two like we send out men to proselyte, not to save our souls but to slay our bodies. Nobody acted, and so I stood up, and said, to my everlasting conviction, "You are welcome to come to my house any time. I will introduce you to my two friends- Smith and Wesson." The room emptied. To this day, nobody at that Wal-Mart warehouse has ever said anything to me about my faith or my life being forfeit.

The Sandy Hook disaster is bad. The Obama administration insists on using it as part of a campaign to strip away our rights. They have talked for days about how we don't "need an assault rifle"; but it's not a Bill of Needs. They have used it as a platform for campaigning, for politics, and for self-aggrandizement. The bodies of the dead were still lying in the school in their gore as Gore and Helgenberg and Feinstein and Reid joined the chorus with Obama trying to take away our guns. Some of those people are, like another recent anti-gun Democrat, hypocrites who carried guns. They think nothing of denying us the right to carry weapons with which to defend ourselves whilst they are surrounded at all times by armed guards. They fear us. That's a good thing.

If ever our rights are threatened, here is our answer. It is not sedition or rebellion or revolution. It is in the Declaration. "When a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and establish new safeguards for their future security, laying its foundations in such principles and organizing its structure in such form as shall seem to them most likely to affect their safety and happiness." Consequently, I am petitioning the governor for permission to organize a company of Militia as per NRS 412:026 in the State of Nevada so that when they come for my guns I can say, "I am militia" and deny them any right. Militia weapons always belonged to the militia member, and I will use every cent I have to fight them in court before I let them take the guns I own.

Their campaign against guns betrays their ignorance. They do not even know what an assault weapon is. Feinstein's original ban was done by looking through pictures for guns that looked menacing. They ignore that these kinds of things happen all the time, but that the worst among them do not involve guns- 1926 bombing and 2012 massive stabbing in China. They do not know why we carry guns. They have not read Clayton Cramer's books. I have. Their ignorance of history also shows that they think we are saps who do not know that disarming the public leads to suppression or that in the wake of Hurricane Sandy (interesting- hurricane and shooting with similar names...) people in New York, where it is illegal to own a gun, took up baseball bats, hockey sticks, and the like to defend themselves because the police were absent. Furthermore, criminals disregard the law, so criminals will always find guns. IN fact, China partnered with Venezuela to start making AK47s in OUR OWN HEMISPHERE just this week. The laws just tell criminals where to strike, where they can count on the least resistance. If gun control really worked, why did Fort Hood happen? Military installations have the highest security anywhere, but let's not talk about that because it might offend a Muslim. Nobody worries about upsetting a Mormon because we don't blow up people when we don't get our way.

Whenever our rights are threatened, here is our answer: LIBERTY. It is in the strength of our arm, our arms, where, however weak we may be, together we are many. Obama is unifying us all right, against government. He would do well to remember the Men of '76 and that, when the government comes for our shot and our powder, Patriots will meet them on the Green.

Choose Your Own Adventure

Share

The worth of a soul is great in the sight of God. That’s what motivates my individual effort on behalf of the people with whom I interact. Now, if I’m doing more than half the work, it’s not help, so I’m not a pushover, but I have friends who can testify that when they needed something they could call on me. You see, I have learned that the most important things in our life are not things- they are people. Particularly this time of year, just like Charlie Brown reminds us, Christmas is all about the people who mean something in our lives.

While we talk about those who mean something to us, the world at large continues its campaign to cheapen the individual. They talk about people as numbers rather than names, as groups rather than individuals, by their vocations rather than their contributions. You see, whenever we need help, helicopters don’t fly themselves, dollars don’t magically fly into our accounts, and books don’t explain themselves to us. All of those inanimate objects are made useful because they are put to use by people in a positive way.

Rather than consider that you are worthy because of what you can do, some people try to measure your worth based on what you can help other parts of society do. As a teacher, I find myself measured frequently according to that very criterion, but when I floss my teeth, I do not think about the roads, bridges, or people who have nothing to do with floss. I think of Levi Parmly who popularized it as a way to clean out teeth. He wasn’t helped by a road or bridge, and maybe his friends actually got in his way or tried to dissuade him, and if so his individual worth has nothing to do with collective worth. They like to talk about how individual salvation is tied to collective salvation; ask them who must sacrifice to pay for Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler, and they don’t have an answer. They ignore those people.

While the world measures us by what we accomplish they simultaneously dissuade us from trying to accomplish anything. They rack and stack us according to our job titles, our cars, the neighborhoods in which we live, the clothes we wear, and many other outward signs. Then they resent us for our success and think we should give that to other people who have not done anything special except to exist, nevermind how many of them are “accidents”. By telling someone that they are owed something for no other reason than that they exist, you in essence cheapen work and alter the way in which we measure a thing’s value. Their class warfare arguments exist to balkanize us so that we will turn to them, so they can play the part of the impartial third party while they suck both sides dry. I guess that’s why so many of our leaders are lawyers, because they seem to learn that more thoroughly than any other profession.

Rather than recognize the fact that you can do great things, they measure our worth based on a comparison basis. CS Lewis warned of how this is related to pride, pointing out that “It is comparison that makes us proud, the pleasure of appearing to be the best. So many of the measurements are set up on a sliding scale that reflects our insecurities, from the number of women we have conquered to the brand of our car, and instead of thinking about what we share as people, we think about how we stack up compared to people we do not know or like.

When we get right down to it, there is only one you. You need not go out of your way trying to be unique. Be you; do what you do. There are things for you to do that nobody else can do as well as you, and because of that, you are of great worth. Tolkien taught us that even the smallest person can change the world, and in the lives of the people you know, you may change their world. You built that, and even if it is small, it exists, and that means it mattered to someone somehow. In many ways, life is really like those old choose your own adventure stories. Sometimes we choose paths we do not like, and sometimes we can go back and try something else, but in everyone's life there are both challenges and triumphs. In the end, there is a way that leads to a good ending, and perhaps even better or best. You have to turn the pages, choose to which page you will turn, and then decide what to do when you get there. Nobody can do that for you. That choice is up to you. Yes, your worth can be great, and what you become is mostly up to you.

To Save ALL Men

Share

Like many of you, I am saddened by today’s shooting massacre in Connecticut. President Obama will probably say it’s a time for “introspection”, and I agree with him although not for the same reasons. He will talk about, like he did at the time of the last domestic shooting, how we need to consider how we are at fault, about these children, or about how if he had a son it would look like Trayvon. I think it’s a time to consider based on our reactions where we really are this year as we prepare to make goals in 2013.

So far this morning, I have seen my facebook and twitter feeds awash with violent reactions to the violence. All sorts of disparaging remarks have been made about the shooter, about him getting his due “if there is a hell”, and the like. I think this tells me far more about the people who feel this way than it tells me about the shooter, particularly as more details come out about him. If he really is autistic, has Aspergers, or something else, then I am inclined to pray for him, because he will probably remember this in eternity even though if those details are true it might not be his fault.

We are quick, too quick, sometimes to point out the weaknesses in others. Drawing attention to the mistakes in others does nothing to strengthen yours. All it does is deflect. It comes across as extremely self-righteous, which is perhaps the great plague of our age. We are proud, so proud that we do not pray to God to forgive us but rather pray that He will punish those we do not know or do not like. I think we completely miss the point of Christ if that is our attitude.

All of us have sinned and as such fall short of God's glory. All of us needed the Savior's sacrifice to have any hope for anything except for "death, hell and the devil". Christ came to save ALL men, not just the ones who loved him back. Why else would he forgive the Romans who crucified him with the plea, "for they know not what they do"? In his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote the following warning:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. --Romans 12:19

The law of the land would have dealt with this man if he were still alive. Now that he is in God’s presence, the matter of his guilt is no matter to us. What remains to us is to make useful work of what remains and take care of those who were hurt physically and emotionally by his actions. Furthermore, Christ has admonished us in latter days what our true responsibility is.

Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. –D&C 64:9-10

Years ago, I learned a poem which warns against harboring resentment and anger. Turned inwards, it is an unconquerable enemy capable of damaging us beyond our poor power to repair. The angry can only find peace through Christ. I know that intimately.

As we consider this tragedy, remember there is another tragedy unfolding in the form of our reactions to the choices of another. We ascribe evil adjectives to his motives because we do not know the facts. Even the wise cannot see all ends. I think we do the shooter, the innocent victims, society as a whole, and ourselves most especially a disservice if we deny Christ the power and opportunity to save the shooter from his guilt and error as well as the victims and the survivors from their own. Christ came after all to save ALL men, not just our friends, families, and neighbors. As we celebrate His birth in just over a week, let us remember that, and then the deaths of those poor children will have been wise, because they will have brought us closer to Christ.

"In order to really believe in the power of the atonement, we must all leave room for the possibility that Saul can become Paul." -me

Denying the Christ

Share

Our modern morality claims that the what is all that matters, without regard for motives, or it just assumes the motives are good. One of the students that works in the gym said that if Hitler gave away enough money to help the suffering she would consider him paid in full for the millions of Jews slaughtered at his order. Contrarily, evidence suggests that for the continuance of civil society that it is evil to believe that what we do matters more than why, that it is possible for a man to redeem his past mistakes on his own.

This is why some people are allowed, at least in the mind of popular opinion, to commit crimes against the civil society and get away with it, because they are philanthropic. Nevermind the degree of their crime or the fact that they draw attention to their good deeds in order to distract us from the evil they do. Contrarily, they disallow some because they do not pay enough to the poor or needy or whatever special interest group they sustain.

Essentially in this diabolic plan, they believe they can save themselves. They believe that you can pay your debt and build up a positive balance. That’s not how it works, even in the legal system. A felon, even after he pays his debt to society, is still regarded and remembered, at least by law enforcement, as a felon for the crimes he committed. This is why men like Bill Clinton and Tim Allen can be forgiven; despite their immoral conduct, they entertain us and do good, and so some choose to regard them as if all things are forgiven.

In essence, these people believe that you can pay for your own sins. They believe that it is possible for a debtor who has no assets, no credibility, and no worth, to pay off his own debts. The sale of indulgences has so inculcated itself into our society, that men now believe it’s simply a matter of making sure your good deeds outweigh the bad ones, and you can buy your way into good graces with gods and men regardless of your motives, regardless of your character, and regardless of the consequences of your past. They believe that we can save ourselves.

What need have these people for a Savior? They would deny Him, not because they deny His existence per se, but because they deny the need for Him, His help, and the fact that all men are lost without Christ. They turn to Mary and Oprah for their exemplars, without recognizing that, however good these people might be, they are still mortals and as such fallen examples. There are no paragons among us. All of us need Christ.

Despite their claims, the self-proclaimed elites among us do not really care about the people. They care about themselves. They think it is possible to exalt themselves. They think an ax can lift itself. They think that a debt can pay itself off, because we have forgotten about debtor’s prisons. Perhaps it’s because we can continue to earn money that we think we can pay a debt and make ourselves as we were before we became felons. Their plight is dire, because they deny Christ, even as He is desperate and ready to help them.

Arrogant to 'The Law'

Share

Years ago I applied for a job with the Nevada Highway Patrol. The interviewing officer seemed surprised at my answer to why I was an ideal candidate. Normally people talk about their degree in criminal justice or how much they rode along or something of that sort. I told him that I had striven all my life to obey, honor, and sustain the law, and when he asked me to justify why that qualified me, I asked him, “Don’t you want people who follow the law to be the ones who enforce it?” This betrayed my naiveté, and I have since learned that the laws are protections not against others but from ourselves.

On the way to work each morning and in almost every instance where I drive, I see all sorts of violations of the social contract. I pass very few people. In the last week, I have been in two near collisions because the car in front of me suddenly slowed when he saw a policeman. Frequently, cars would pass me and then try to squeeze over in front of me or other people, risking causing collisions. They are too important. They cannot wait. It is very selfish.

I believe this arrogance when it comes to the law is one reason why so many things are wrong in our world. Yesterday, Mark Levin described liberalism as the philosophy of hypocrisy, because we have Tim “Tax Cheat” Geithner and Al “Not So” Sharpton advocating that the rich need to pay more taxes when it is well known that both of those individuals are in violation of tax laws. So many people want government to give them things they have not earned. I think Romney was wrong about the 47% comment. I think he was wrong about the number, and it may be much higher. I have read stories that it costs $168/day per family on welfare, which means that some families on welfare take home more pay than I do because welfare benefits are not taxed. I read another analysis that you can do better on welfare after taxes than being productive. How does that make sense? The law says that you reap what you sow, but some people insist on reaping what I sow.

So many people, particularly in the public sector, are jealous for themselves rather than for society. They may talk of shared sacrifice and collective salvation and skin in the game, but if you look at them, they talk one way and live another. Back during Nevada’s budget crisis, I wrote the governor and told him to trim the fat and lay off people in education, knowing I could lose my job. I have taken since coming to work in my employ an effective 20% cut in pay (it’s officially only 5%, but with increases to our retirement, health care, etc., it rises quickly higher than that). Contrast that with Hostess where some employees refused to take any paycut, resulting in a 100% cut in pay for everyone at the company. You see, unlike some teachers and firemen and police officers, I realize that whereas society can survive without me, I cannot have a job without them. I remind my students every semester that I am there because they are there; without students there is no need for professors.

Our world today is marked by so much selfishness. Some of the voices who cry the loudest for compassion are the most selfish among us. You see, the truly charitable are charitable where nobody can see them or when they think nobody is watching. Sometimes we notice, but often they escape our gaze. It has always been the hypocrites who do things to be seen of men, called out by Jesus because they will disfigure their faces and rend their robes and appear unto men to fast. I remind you of the story of John Weightman who had a dream in which he was surprised to discover that, despite his many charitable deeds in life, because he had taken credit for them his mansion in heaven was rather small. They do so to be puffed up in their chests and to gain favor with men, but as they ignore The Law, they have their reward already, and there is nothing in the fall of mortality for them to harvest.

The law of the harvest says that men reap what they sow. You cannot live poorly and receive good gifts. Santa is not fooled. God is not fooled. You may fool men, but we are the only system in the universe of which I am aware that is allowed to temporarily do useless work. Eventually the scales must be balanced and each must pay for what he has decided to become. I have written often about the difference between doing and being, and Christ taught us that, particularly in this season of ‘gifts’, a man who giveth a gift because he must is treated as if he gave nothing at all. Be giving and forget the gift, forget yourself, and he who loseth his life shall find it. That is what The Law taught us. Wise men follow The Law.

The Godless among us do not like that there is any power higher than their own will. I am surprised they are willing to bow to science, because that acknowledges that there are scientific laws that govern the universe. They want what they want to be what is, and so they publish as “facts” things that substantiate their preconceived notions. Then they do all they can to make people dependent on and looking towards government and the people who serve there, a lot like a woman I once knew in Austria. This they do because it’s about them, not about you. It’s about their egos. Obama doesn't like religion mayhap because in his mind as ‘messiah’ god and government have become one. "I'm Barack Almighty. My will be done!" In my experience, most of the people who reject faith or change congregations do so because they place their will over God's. They openly defy God by ordering Him around the universe and then take offense when He does not obey their commandments. They desire to command God rather than be commanded by Him, and they mostly hurt themselves. They are arrogant to The Law, and I fear for them when the day of judgment comes.

It has been written that he who obeys the laws of God need not fear the laws of man. Those who defy the laws of man are probably not submissive to the laws of God, for God has asked us to honor, obey and sustain the law when it is just and brave and true. For that reason, whenever I hear talk as I did last eve of insurrection and rebellion and secession, I advise them to rethink their passions. I understand their feelings, but they are ignorant of the extent that precipitated the movement of 1776, and we are nowhere near that level of abuse of the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. In the end, they will hurt themselves. Christ came to save the penitent, but if you have no need of a Savior, why would you turn to Him? You cannot save yourself, justify yourself, or cleanse yourself. In the end, the law requires that every man reap what he sows, and only those who partner with Christ have hope for a happy ending.