The Oath of Faith

·         The Oath of Allegiance:

"I hereby declare, on oath,

that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

One of my fondest memories surrounding a formal occasion is from the Naturalization Ceremony held at Monticello near Charlottesville, Virginia on July 4^th, 1976. President Gerald R. Ford administered the “Oath of Allegiance” to nearly two dozen people who wished to be citizens of the United States of America. It was a thrill to witness an event so inspiring on the Second Centennial Anniversary of the “Declaration of Independence” at Thomas Jefferson’s home. Later that afternoon my little family and I stood curbside on a street in Charlottesville watching a parade which featured Queen Elizabeth as the honoree. It has been more than 35 years since that memorable day. My two children are adults with children of their own, but I continue to recall many aspects of that day. Pomp and ceremonies however are not enough to preserve the essence of a nation. The country those new citizens pledged to support and defend no longer exists.

The new citizens lived in various lands around the globe, but they knew about America. Perhaps a family member had preceded them to our land, or they watched and read the news for their impressions of our country. Maybe the rumors and gossip that floated through their villages, town and cities filled them with hope and a dream for freedom and opportunity. They found a way to come here. After several years of laboring and studying they took the test and swore the oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America.....their NEW country that they chose.

When they left their native lands, they stepped out on faith. They chose to pursue freedom and opportunity. They tore up their roots and followed their dreams for liberty. A few years after that 1976 ceremony President Reagan described America as a “shining city on a hill.” He described a place where the glowing embers of liberty could be nourished to become the fires of freedom. It is so different now. The government that the Constitution of the United States brought forth has become a dangerous threat to our liberty and an enemy of our personal prosperity. The shining hill described by President Reagan has been perverted and converted to a new Mount Olympus for the political elites and their favored friends.

In theological circles when someone distorts the faith, we call it heresy. When self-serving career politicians, their corporatist sycophants, and statist fellow travelers twist their oaths of office and their constitutional obligations to their own benefit and power, we must call that treason and corruption. Neither God Almighty nor the Constitution of the United States invests them with the power or the authority to micro-manage my life....or yours.

The elitists who believe that they know more than we do about how our lives should be lived are corrupt and flat out wrong. Our liberty has been submerged beneath a tide of too-big government, and our freedom is drowning in a sea of regulation and legislation. Because of their oppressive meddling, our nation is at the brink of collapse. Because of their insistence that they know best, we are struggling to survive. Because of their cupidity and our stupidity, we may have squandered our chance for that shining city on the hill.

Thirty-five years ago a young man, his young wife, their six-year-old daughter and their infant son observed a monarch from a nation from which our country declared its independence two hundred years earlier. The majesty and power of her throne and her country has dwindled over the centuries to become little more than a memory. I pray that my children and grandchildren can someday stand on a curbside in an American city and witness the formerly powerful symbols of those who have stolen the dream. Maybe I should say....those who have mortgaged the dream. The faith and hope of those new citizens from 1976 must be restored again. The shining city on the hill must glow again. Liberty and freedom must rule again.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    

 www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tuesday and Wednesday evenings-6:00pm to 7:00pm on

                1370 WSPD,   www.wspd.com

Charlie's One-year Plan

According to data from the World Bank, the 2010 Gross Domestic Product for the United States of America was 14.5824 trillion dollars. By the end of 2011 the national debt for the U.S.A. will roam in the neighborhood of $16.8 trillion. As you probably know, the GDP represents the value of every product and service generated in the country for that year. So, it is obvious that our debt exceeds the value of everything produced in our country by every company and person for an entire year. Clearly this is not an economically healthy situation unless you are a scofflaw who intends to default. There are numerous plans floating in the air that purport to deal with our abysmal debt situation so I thought….”Why not me?”

Every other plan that has been suggested has some glaring flaws. They may enter a “glide path” to solvency which means, in fact, more debt, increased spending and larger government. Even the golden-boy guru of the GOP, Paul Ryan, introduced a plan that includes all of those weaknesses. Senator Pat Toomey has the sanest approach from among the political class. His proposal would have generated a small surplus by the tenth year of its enactment. The profligate Senate with the uninspired leadership of Harry Reid voted to reject the Toomey measure. That figures. Why endorse a serious attempt to remedy the situation? It would be totally out of character for the “greatest deliberative body of the world,” and for a gaggle of 100 self-serving ego maniacs.

Charlie’ One-Year Plan

As with most plans that have some legitimacy, mine has more than one step. The first is to dedicate the entire national GDP to debt retirement for one year. This plan would include the shared sacrifice that President Obama continually demands because there would be NO resources for food, fuel and other staples available to any citizen, any resident or any visitor in the United States of America. So if we can tough it out for one complete year, we will have nearly enough money to pay off the entire debt. But wait, there’s more.

How do we operate the government if our entire production income is dedicated to debt you might ask? It’s simple. The first thing we do is categorize all government beneficiaries and recipients as “employees.” In one swift blow we have eliminated every entitlement, welfare and subsidy program in the federal portfolio. We then tax our new employees just like the government loves to tax everyone else, and we create a new revenue stream for operating the overgrown glob of government. Of course, we’ll need more money to pay our new “employees.” Isn’t it great that government works so well?

Annexing Canada would be the next logical step in my one-year plan to fiscal solvency. The Canadian GDP of $1.574 trillion would cover most of our essential government services. Our friendly neighbors to the north would have to share in our 52-week sacrifice because if we absorbed their entire national product, no one could eat, drive or participate in normal daily life. Everyone knows that a robust United States is oh so good for Canada’s well being so asking them to share in our mutual misery shouldn’t be too difficult. Obviously, our obligation to the environment and the health of the planet would require that we shut down Canadian oil production. That would have a negative impact on GDP so we must seek another source for generating the income to operate the government.

Invading Mexico may seem extreme at first blush, but it is the most logical piece of our fixit puzzle. There is an amazing symmetry to our invading Mexico because many of their citizens have been invading us for decades. Also by absorbing their GDP of $1.040 trillion, we may recover a portion of the funds that have been systematically sent to Mexican residents by their relatives in the United States. Again, we would prohibit petroleum extraction which would diminish the GDP significantly but the remainder would provide just enough with our previous amounts to fund the government.

Some might argue that my plan would lead to a starving and impoverished country after one year, but I would counter with “all the other plans would yield results that are similar and would take ten years! My plan would also eliminate most of the debt whereas ALL the other proposals increase it.” My plan provides the statist’s dream that the career politicians have been so diligently seeking. Only big government is funded, all energy production is eliminated and the people are totally dependent on government “compassion” and government jobs for their existence.

Satire, sarcasm and cynicism have been tools that I have used in the past, and I may have employed them again. It’s up to you to decide. The nature of your reactions or responses will determine for me the height of your discernment and the depth of your intellect. This one-year plan is as sensible and as realistic as the ones proposed by the career politicians….and the pain wouldn’t last so long.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com or www.littlestuff-minoosha.com

 

Consistency of Character

Consistency of character is something that not many of us can claim. We all want to be viewed as people who can be relied on to do the right thing time after time. Unfortunately most of us can recall instances where we failed to come through when someone or some occasion needed our strength and our assistance. Even without the descriptor of character attached, consistency is difficult to accomplish. For those of us who are parents we have often second-guessed our inconsistent guidance for our offspring. Consistency is a highly-valued trait in professional sports….with limitations…. a consistent .100 hitter will find himself consistently re-assigned to a lower league. Consistency is a valued attribute when it is productive or represents a favorable behavior. Consistent character in the lofty world of national politics is truly rarified air. The term “flip-flop” has more social relevance today for chameleon-type politicians than for flimsy footwear.

It is time for a mea culpa. Back in my ultra conservative GOP days I thought Ron Paul was a somewhat looney nagger. His constant harping about the Constitution and the abuses by the Federal Reserve seemed quaint but somewhat far-fetched…..a little “out there” if you know what I mean. But time and circumstances have moved us all “out there” as we realize that Dr. Paul’s predictions were “spot on.” The unconstitutional forays into “never never land” by Congress and administrations have resulted in a massive, intrusive, expensive and inefficient government. The secret manipulations by the Fed when added to the known digital creation of money from thin air have led to the value of our currency becoming debased while the specter of runaway inflation haunts us. Ron Paul has understood the gaping faults within the Federal Reserve for a long time, and we ignored him.  The current knock on Congressman Paul from his detractors involves his foreign policy positions. They accuse him of being an isolationist, or naïve…..or “wacko.”

The title of this piece is “Consistency of Character,” and if one is to be faithful to the Constitution, one must be consistent regarding domestic policy, foreign policy and government-citizen interactions. As I have written in previous columns, the United States Congress has not DECLARED war since December 8^th, 1941. Consistent constitutional adherence would not permit the multitude of military actions that we have pursued during the past 70 years. To praise Dr. Paul’s constitutional integrity regarding the size and scope of government while condemning his constitutional foreign policy stance is both hypocritical and self-serving. If Dr. Paul’s critics want him to become a flaming interventionist who spends trillions of dollars and countless lives, they should amend the Constitution to allow for frequent willy-nilly military operations against every perceived threat, real and potential, with a minimal legislative or constitutional justification…..rather like we have been doing for seven decades. The chief reason that no war has been declared in all that time despite our being in nearly constant conflict for the entire period is that Congress and the presidents have lacked the political will and courage to take a recorded stand. Cowardice should not be rewarded…..nor tolerated.

Now, regarding Mr. Paul’s specific stand on Iran and the nearly universal gnashing of teeth and wailing about his unwillingness to initiate aggressive military action against the Iranians, in a previous column (“Do Something”—8/19/2011) I identified several nations that are legitimate threats to the security of the United States. That number has increased with the events in Libya. That nation is on the verge of anarchy with tribal, regional and ideological factions all vying for power. At stake is the broad range of weapons of mass destruction that have been sequestered throughout the country. Those armaments are particularly vulnerable for acquisition by groups committed to terror. Iran certainly is a threat…a considerable threat with no air force or missile delivery system …but to focus on the potential of Iran without watching the reality of other threatening countries would be….could be…a disastrous oversight.

Dr. Paul thoroughly understands that fixation on the enemy du jour could lead to a devastating consequence for our nation. He believes in a strong defense and a powerful swift response if any nation directly challenges our people. Those who would dismiss Congressman Paul as a serious contender for the presidency because of his foreign policy views are hypocritically disingenuous. It is radically hypocritical to laud Mr. Paul’s steadfast consistent compliance with the Constitution while decrying his constitutional position with regards to international ventures and military action. It is disingenuous to insist that the only true leaders are those who violate the Constitution by sending our armed services personnel into harm’s way while playing the role of chicken hawk cowards who are unwilling to go on the legal record to justify their actions.

Consistency of character is a commodity that is rare in the halls of political power. Honesty and integrity are also in short supply. For those of you who are or may know someone who is a serious follower and believer of faith, you may be aware of how some people like to ridicule believers and poke fun at their faith. It is similar to someone like Dr. Paul who takes his oath of office seriously but is the target of derision by those who claim to support the Constitution. There are three valid remedies to this situation: amend the Constitution, stop falsely claiming to support it, or engage in a serious examination of Dr. Paul’s positions in the light of constitutional awareness. If you, yes You, truly want a restoration of constitutional government for our nation, you must perform your due diligence and request that other candidates stop claiming to be followers of the Framers while they pursue their interventionist world-policeman and unconstitutional foreign policies. Let’s be consistent.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Listen in to 1370 WSPD radio on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 6:00pm to 7:00pm. www.wspd.com

Con-promise

Some things are vastly over rated. Atlantic Coast Conference football is not good enough to merit an automatic BCS (Bowl Championship Series) bowl appearance for the conference champion. Rap music is over rated. We might describe it as monotonic anti-social indecipherable blather. Certainly, “Reality TV” is over rated. It is rarely true reality and barely qualifies as television….definitely not as entertainment television. Most political compromises are over rated. They are crowned with the mantle of wise accommodation, when in fact, they do little to achieve real goals or address pressing problems. In many cases the compromise may erect barriers to a satisfactory solution. A true compromise involves two directions of seemingly equal value that are bound and trimmed to provide a satisfactory workable solution for the advocates of each path. In my personal view the critical operative word is “satisfactory.” Too often political operatives adopt a compromise merely to put off the arduous task of arriving at the best answer to a vexing problem.

Compromise is never a good option in matters of principle. Where the underlying principle is intact, compromise may be necessary regarding an amount or a time frame to reach agreement among the parties. But compromising on principle is a losing proposition. When one yields on a matter of principle, one is, in effect, admitting that the principle has no value. Negotiations become browbeating and bullying because one side recognizes that the other has surrendered the moral high ground of principle. Compromising on matters of preference is a good approach in marriage, partnerships and ad hoc social encounters. We have all witnessed amazingly bullheaded people who had a “my way or the highway” attitude about unimportant matters. We should not ever confuse that immovable personality disorder with someone who stands his or her ground for a principle. There’s a Kenny Rogers classic called “The Gambler,” and one of the verses includes “know when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.” Always “hold” for principle, but be willing to “fold” on minor matters.

Now comes the big question of the day: Are most career politicians capable of detecting the difference between a principle and “small potatoes?” Is it possible that their arrogance is so great that they view everything, or at least most things, as unworthy of defending? It must be a flaw in the psyche of most career politicians that causes them to ignore or minimize some of the most basic principles of good governance. For them “the deal is the thing,” and they can smugly approach the cameras and crow about what a difficult process they endured while arriving at a ‘solution” that “serves the best interests of the American people.” In their feeble little ego-centric minds runs the following refrain: “Whew! That’s over for now. Time for drink.” How about drinking some hemlock, Clowns? Cut the DEAL and cut outta there….that’s no way to run a country.

Many politicians run for office while professing the love and loyalty for the Constitution. They glibly discuss the Founders and the Framers as they extol the wonders of our glorious democracy…..huh? Democracy? No wonder they appear so eager to ignore principles while engaged in the business of the nation. Democracies are popularity contests. Examine any statewide issue that’s on the ballot. Advertising, posters, troops of supporters or opponents appearing on radio and television attempt to convince the voters that their position is the best one. The purpose is to amass the greatest sum of votes on Election Day. In a Republic, on the other hand, citizens elect representatives to perform two major services. The first is to represent the people of the district or state and prevent their isolation or abuse by the Federal Government or other states. The second responsibility is to thoughtfully and fairly weigh the desires of the district or state versus the overall good for the nation. Elected officials are presumed to use their calculating powers for weighing the nation-district advantage….not to support noxious and costly proposals that aid their re-election prospects but subvert what is preferable for the country. This dynamic explains the prevalence of “pork” in so many legislative initiatives. Politicians sought favor with various constituencies using “other people’s money,” without measured consideration about the impact of such appropriations on the nation’s fiscal health. All “pork” spending is compromising. “I’ll vote for yours, if you vote for mine.” Principles are absent, and we get “bridges to nowhere” and projects that should be adopted locally.

People especially political types who refuse to compromise on basic principles are usually characterized as “obstructionists.”  Their strong stance slows or stops the unprincipled compromise from going through. If the rhetoric becomes more heated, we often hear terms like “ideologue,” “extremist, “ or any number of unflattering terms designed to weaken the holdout’s resolve as well as to activate his or her constituents’ pressure. One shouldn’t bend when critical questions are being decided. Holding to principle, standing firmly with the Constitution of the United States, and weighing every vote or decision on the scales of Liberty are absolutes. There is no nearly principled stance, no almost-Constitutional position, and definitely no approximately-free approach to Liberty. The debate should never be about the wisdom of a certain absolute because they are foundational and vital for the rebirth of our republic. Any other position, any nuanced compromise of principle condemns us to the quicksand of socialism and the quagmire of irrelevancy.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com            or            www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Heard Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo, Ohio

www.wspd.com