France had just succumbed to Hitler’s panzers at the banks of the Meuse River, where the Germans swept to victory with little challenge.  

France had fallen.  How could this debacle have happened? 

It had its roots in pacifism. 

Between WWI and WWII, the German people were dispirited.  Their economy was in a downward spiral induced by the fall of American banks in 1929 and the reparations they were forced to pay after WWI.  In addition, their quest for national prestige had been rudely interrupted when they lost the first world war (commenced when a Bosnian Serb assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, heir to the empire).  As penance for their Neaderthal ways, the Germans signed a non-aggression treaty with their neighbors on the Continent and England.  The treaty subjected Germany to loss of a substantial amount of land, payment of reparations, a prohibition on annexation of other states, and a decrease in military forces.  The parties also signed a pact by which all would draw down their weapons and demilitarize.  The Treaty of Versailles fostered a desperate hope, carried by the toothless League of Nations, as well as people throughout Europe, that there would be no more war.  

And so, in the aftermath of WWI, an isolationist mood prevailed.  Charles Lindburgh and Joseph Kennedy were at the forefront of the complacency in America.  Their overly optimistic view undermined our national security, and the American public rallied behind public figures who had no stomach for another fight and lacked the vision to secure a real peace.  (Reagan’s “Trust but verify” would have come in quite handy here). 

As the decade wore on and the governments of Europe became populated with appeasement-minded men, Hitler rose to power in Germany with the promise that he would restore the country’s right to rule the world and recoup its losses.  Unchecked by countries which hoped against hope for continued peace, der corporal enthusiastically built up his military in direct violation of the treaty.   Those who were willing to see, saw.  The rest turned a blind eye.  While Hitler abolished democracy in his country, induced conscription, and strengthened his armaments, the world sighed and looked the other way.    

In its first offensive, the German army invaded Poland and not one country  in Europe lifted a hand to stop it.  The consequences of their indifference would soon confront them.  Czechoslovakia was next.  Then came Scandinavia, which had done its best to remain neutral.  France couldn’t be far behind and indeed, was defeated soundly and promptly by Hitler’s forces. 

These days, the soaring rhetoric of liberal politicans has convinced many Americans that the road to true peace depends upon putting down our weapons, hollowing out our military, and placing our trust in madmen whose life’s mission is to destroy our nation.   History proves otherwise.  When are we ever going to learn?  Their premise involves a high degree of moral ineptitude and naïveté, since ignoring basic human nature is what usually gets us into these predicaments.  

There are two important lessons here.  Democrats in congress are hoping the American people will forget and move on, never learning the truth about who’s responsible for our current economic mess.  But unless we analyze our past mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them in future.  

The other lesson is this:  Just because you’re a pacifist doesn’t mean your enemies are.

Ever heard of a kakistocracy?  It’s government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.  

If there were such an organization in our country, who do you suppose would be a member?   

Don’t make the mistake of thinking the answer depends on what your individual political preferences are.  Keep in mind that truth is truth no matter who is involved, no matter what year it is, and no matter what the prevailing whims of the general population may be.  Truth, in fact, is timeless.

It doesn’t matter how well the person communicates the idea, if it’s a bad idea.  It doesn’t matter how white their smile, because a smile can’t make something true.  If the messenger is wrong, he’s wrong.   

Here’s a piece of truth for ya:  Some people should not be allowed to govern because, 1) they are not qualified and, 2) they don’t have principles.  

Those who approach everything in life from a Christian worldview have an easier time understanding the implications inherent in embracing right and rejecting wrong.  Without these firm convictions, we bob and weave our way through life hoping for the best, grasping at half-truths, and arriving at good decisions by a process of hit and miss.  The manifestations are apparent in people who refuse to take responsibility for their own mistakes, who delight in the misfortune of their opponents, and who participate in cheating the electoral system.   

This stuff about principle matters, folks, and it doesn’t matter only in certain areas of our lives.  Principle is important at church, at work, and in relationships.  Our principles guide decisions about whether we can afford a certain car.  They help us to decide how much to pay for our clothing.  The same mental processes are used in deciding whom to befriend and why. Principles of truth must also be used when deciding whom we should vote for.   

If we don’t want to be ruled by a kakistocracy, each of us needs to habitually make principled decisions, even in the area of politics.  We should ask ourselves:  Do I side with the person who makes a stand for innocent lives, or do I follow the other person?  Do I stand with the person who has served his country well, or do I stand with the person who shows distain for it?  Do I stand with the person who talks about principles, or the person who lives them?  This isn’t rocket science, you know.   

A Christian worldview sees actions through the lens of timeless truths.  It recognizes that politicians are mortal, and they cannot bring us lasting world peace no matter what they say or do.  They will either bring temporary peace through strength, or they will bring war by appeasing the enemy.  

This worldview knows that mankind is not inherently good, only God is good.  Christianity shows us our real nature (which is sinful) and guides us to the right way of living (by turning our selfish desires over to Christ and allowing him to turn us into creatures that are acceptable to God).  Within these parameters, then, what we know must matter more than what we feel.  Guided by historical facts and not hysteria, the mature Christian can move through life confidently because he knows that no matter what the outcome, he has committed himself to God’s hands, and God will always make things right for those who believe in Him.

Fear not, unprincipled reader.  When you make wrong choices based on false hopes and dreams, you just might get your way.  

For awhile. 

But you will always pay a price.  The price may turn out to be living under the thumb of a kakistocracy.

So.  Miss Sarah did just fine up there in St. Louis at the VP debate, didn’t she?  The fact is, of course, a matter of chagrin to major news networks, who were not permitted the luxury of editing out her good responses and showing only the gotcha moments.  Poor Katie, poor Charlie, poor Gwen: they couldn’t control her image, because the debate was broadcast to the world in real time.  This means Sarah Palin had a chance to show what she was really like to at least 70,000 Americans, who were able to decide for themselves who she is and what she’s about. 

And people liked what they saw, winks and all.  Turns out Sarah Palin is a bright, articulate, accomplished woman who can stand up to a career politician and shame him with a smile.   

On Thursday night, Sarah Palin proved that she can relate to average people because she’s an average, hard-working American herself.  She also showed that it’s possible to make a real difference by applying practical life lessons to achieve high goals.  This hockey mom proved her bona fides by running for her first office in an attempt to make things better for her kids.  She got noticed, and was eventually appointed as a state ethics commissioner who oversaw oil company activities.  She was mayor of a small town before being elected governor, and proved to the people of Alaska (larger than Texas and California together) that she is a leader who knows how to get things done.  Oh yeah, and she’s also raising four kids.

This is in contrast to both Obama and Biden, who prefer talk to action.   Biden, known for his yakability in congress, couldn’t best her in Thursday’s debate because she was allowed – finally! – to show her natural gift for cutting the crapola and stating her case in plain old English.  What a breath of fresh air! 

Senator Joe Biden, who has served in Washington D.C. for over 20 years, has proved that he is a Common Man by … riding the Amtrack to work every day from his home in Delaware to the District of Columbia?  Folks, how many common people do you know who can afford to take the train between work and home every day?  Did you know that the cost of his daily round-trip ticket is close to $200?  Do you know any average electricians, teachers, nurses or administrative assistants who can do that?  Me neither. 

To prove his mettle as an average joe, Senator Biden said during the debate that he talks to his constituents at a diner in his town “where I spend a lot of time.”  Oh, say it ain’t so, Joe!  The diner to which he referred closed in 1990.  This giant lie, easily verifiable, was ignored by his adoring fans in the press, who prefer to spend their time parsing every impression ever uttered by anyone in Alaska who has so much as seen the woman in person. 

What about the whopper he tried to sell us when he denied that Obama said he would sit down without preconditions and talk with the leaders of rogue nations?  Folks, the moment is memorialized on tape, and a quick review of film shows that Obama said in his July debate that he would indeed talk to Ahmadinijad without preconditions.  And he meant direct president-to-president conversations, and not the State Department schmoozing normally done before rising to the level of the head honchos.  How do I know this?  Because the questioner asked him specifically to repeat his answer. 

So let’s see – with Biden and Obama we get pontificating, prevaricating, pseudo-intellectuals who prefer to spout hypotheticals when faced with decisions.  On the other hand, we have Palin and McCain, who have shown courage under stress, integrity when faced with corruption, and authenticity as all-American icons.  Oh dear, tough choice. 

I’m a rebel at heart.  When two lawyers tell me I should trust them, my first instinct is to wonder why they would need to tell me I can trust them.   I have to see more than a college degree to know that the person is qualified to be the leader of the free world.   Instead, I look to maverick out-of-the-box thinkers with proven track records and verifiable accomplishments.  People like that deserve the green light, and I plan to give it to them in November. 

Apparently, he believes it’s more important right now to stay in campaign mode and issue statements and press briefings.  He compulsively points out to everyone in hearing range that he made the first phone call to the McCain campaign to suggest issuing a joint press statement.  He said yesterday that “if you need me in Washington, call me.”  (There’s that savior complex again – “If you get into really serious trouble, call me, and I’ll ride up on my white horse at the last minute to save you all.”)  This morning he tauted his rival by saying that John McCain “shouldn’t be scared to confront me” in debate.  

Oh please.  First of all, John McCain, with his actual war experience and 20 years as a US senator going against special interests, has faced far more formidable opponents than a lightweight one-term senator from Illinois.  And if the Democratic nominee thinks all these gestures make him appear statesmanlike, he needs to think again.   Making joint statements in the middle of a crisis is not dealing with the crisis.  Making sure that everyone within hearing range knows that I MADE THE FIRST TELEPHONE CALL! is not statesmanlike nor does it give the appearance of leadership, it’s shrill and self-serving. This whole thing is not about him, and it’s not about his campaign, and it’s not about taking credit – it’s a test of the greatness of our country and it’s institutions, and the premises upon which it is based.  

Contrast all this talk and posturing to McCain’s boldness:  Believing that politicking is not the appropriate way to deal with a crisis, he immediately issued a statement to wit:  This is not the time for talk, it’s a time for action.  He’s absolutely right:  It’s time to roll up the sleeves, do the hard work of thinking, analyzing and proposing solutions, and then negotiating with contentious colleagues to create a plan that will work.  It’s a time for being responsible for a solution that’s best for the country and not just a chosen few.

When something happens that requires a mature and serious response,  McCain’s first instinct is to place inconsequential matters in the background where they belong, and focus on pitching in to do the hard work it will take to achieve a solution.   Obama’s first instinct is to call to everyone’s attention to an early-morning phone call in which he suggested making a joint statement.  Real presidential stuff there, don’t you think?  Instead of reaching across the aisle (a claim he makes often but without factual basis) to actually create real solutions, his first instinct is to issue tepid statements to the press about the importance of keeping a scheduled debate on world affairs.  Remember this, folks: contrary to Democrat party values,  character matters.  It always has, and it always will.   Their version of character is making sure the race goes on so they can win the White House back, no matter what. 

I’m not sure what’s behind this, except perhaps a truly immature longing to be the center of attention.  Maybe Obama the Candidate is scared that when the FBI concludes its investigation into the inner workings of the mortgage houses that perpetuated this mess, they’re going to uncover some serious connections between him and the people who headed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  On the other hand, maybe this is just another manifestation of his anemic response to real work – we certainly haven’t seen evidence to the contrary.

Once upon a time, about 15 years ago in a magical place called America, a body called congress, led by self-important people called Democrats, bullied private banks into creating two government-sponsored monsters named Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Under the pretext of feeling sorry for the poor, they accused banks of redlining (deliberately witholding loans from risky applicants) and shamed them into creating something new called the sub-prime market, devoted to giving mortgages to people who had little or no credit. They called this act “compassion.” 

As years went by, the banks, to remain solvent, started bundling these loans and selling them to other lending institutions.  Just to make sure that banks would continue to make the risky loans, a funny-looking attorney general named Janet Reno used the full power of her office in the Clinton Administration to intimidate those who were hesitant to pursue the Democrat agenda.  After all, votes were at stake! 

Eventually, a man named President Bush and another man named Senator McCain both realized that these risky loans were not a good way of doing business and that it could lead to financial disaster.  In 1991 and then again, a few years later, they tried to call attention to the bad things that were being done at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, (which are now privatized) and implement changes, but the heads of these agencies prevailed upon their Democrat friends in congress to block legislation that would have brought about acceptable business practices.  (How nice for them! They were making millions of dollars personally, and passing campaign contributions and loan “opportunities” along to their friends).  Democrats in both houses of congress called President Bush a racist for opposing their “compassion,” and refused to consider any reform efforts by Senator McCain.

Eventually, of course, people to whom the loans were made found that they couldn’t afford their ballooning payments and they began using credit cards to pay for necessities.  Oh dear.  That didn’t work, so they took out home equity loans.  Uh oh, that didn’t help either.  So they tried to sell their houses, hoping the bloated price would cover all their debts.  But the pesky market just wouldn’t cooperate!  The cost of housing started to tumble because there were too many houses for sale and not enough people to buy them (a normal free-market correction that stabilizes prices).  People who were hoping that the sale of their home would bail them out of their troubles found themselves holding a mortgage they could not pay.  The good employees at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae realized what was happening, but they falsified records to make it appear that they were operating in the black.  It’s kind of like when you break a toy and leave it for some unsuspecting boy or girl to come along and find. 

Now, it’s true that the American public was going to suffer the consequences of these actions, but fear not!  Congressmen like Henry Waxman, Chris Dodd, John Conyers, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama were all handsomely rewarded for their loyalty to their friends at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  So do not feel badly for them, boys and girls!  They will not be hurt at all from the fall of these two giant institutions.

What happened to all those people who, having willingly signed for mortgages that they could not afford, defaulted on their loans?  Why, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not be left holding the bag.  It is the lowly taxpayer – you and I – who will end up bailing them out.  Or, as Senator Joe Biden calls it, “being patriotic.”

Liberals, who think they have a monopoly on the attributes of “caring” and “compassion,” should have jumped at the chance to save their country from the coming storm.  But so deeply embedded at the money trough were Democrats, that they supported their cronies in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac instead, ignoring the pain that would eventually be felt by the American public. 

You see, for liberals, social justice means that everyone is “entitled” to “things.”  If one person has more than another, liberals get all prissy and begin enacting laws designed to force workers into sharing their toys with children who didn’t earn them.  This, to liberals, is what compassion looks like. 

But what happens if the people who do the working decide one day that they’re tired of supporting everyone else in the kingdom?  What if they decide that they’ll just stamp their foot and refuse to continue working and working and working for less and less and less? 

I’ll tell you what happens, boys and girls:  People who own businesses close them when there is no profit or incentive to keep them open.  And when a business closes, it means the people who worked there are out of a job.  If people don’t have jobs, they can’t afford to spend their money on things like restaurants or birthday presents or new cars, so the businesses that sell these things have to close because there are no customers.  Also, it is impossible for people without paychecks to have savings accounts, so banks have less money to loan to people who want to start businesses and create jobs.  Well.  You can see how this goes.  Just like a merry-go-round, it keeps spinning and spinning until everyone gets so dizzy they don’t know which way is up and which way is down. 

So there, dear readers, is our tale about how one thing always leads to another.  We don’t know yet exactly how it will end but we do know this: whenever this story is told in the land of the liberal Democrats, they must always change the names and put masks on the faces so people won’t realize who the real culprits are.  In fact, they wish this whole story would just go away and not get told by anyone. 

But now it’s too late, because you already know.   Well, sweet dreams boys and girls.  

If you can.

I also have deep admiration for Thomas Sowell, economist, writer, and former Yale professor. He has a knack for explaining economics and the application of its principles in a way that even someone as math-challeneged as I can understand. In contrast, Robert Reich’s socialist rantings about minimum wage never made any sense to me.

Also on my personal “most admired” list is Shelby Steele, the historian who looks impartially at our past and writes about it with care and passion. There’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose clear mind and integrity should be used as a model for all aspiring lawyers. There’s Michael Steel, the former Maryland lieutenant governor, whose reasoned positions on the proper role of government should be included in college texts. There’s also Tony Evans, founder of the Urban Alternative, and Dallas pastor and teacher, whose biblical messages on society and relationships have inspired me and millions of others.

You may have heard in passing about Frederick Douglass, the former slave and abolitionist whose intellect stunned and shamed his contemporaries; and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose prescient letter from a Birmingham jail still gives me goose bumps because of its eloquence and substance (inconveniently for current-day activists, he was a – gulp – Republican, and you can bet your bottom dollar that’s one salient point never mentioned in liberal speeches). But you might not have heard of former ambassador Alan Keyes, who has yet to be bested by anyone with whom he has debated, black or white.

These are all distinctive men and women with impressive credentials; they’re role models for all Americans of every color who dream of living a good and successful life in America, and their names should be included on those February Black History Month lists of luminaries. The only name I ever see is MLK, because the politicians on the left have claimed him as one of their own. But the politics of these men and women were and are conservative, and most belonged to the Republican Party, so you won’t hear much about them. If you do, the coverage will be negative.

It is shameful that these black public figures are condemned by their contemporaries for their divergence from liberal philosophies. (The Democratic Party slogan – “We believe in diversity. Unless your views are different from ours.”) These conservatives are shunned by colleagues, are told they’re “acting white” (which, apparently, must be something really bad), and are ridiculed for their political views. Their achievements are dismissed or ignored by members of their own race, by liberals, and by the media.  Golly, if tolerance is such a lovely, world-changing experience, how come it’s not in full motion when liberals are discussing black conservatives?   

It is a disgrace that marginal and dubious characters like Angela Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson are celebrated, while people like the ones mentioned above are derided for their convictions and their courage, and undervalued as important contributors to our national heritage. When the next Black History Month rolls around in February, I’ll be watching, as always, to see if these competent, and extraordinary individuals will be celebrated by our country. But I won’t hold my breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Steele
http://www.tonyevans.org/site/c.feIKLOOpGlF/b.2017593/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes

Driving through my neighborhood yesterday en route to the bank, I saw a mother and  son on a morning walk.  As I drew closer, the mother gestured toward the side of the road to make sure I saw the turtle that was moving toward the middle of the street.  After I’d slowed down and passed them, I looked in my rear view mirror and saw the mother pick up the turtle and place it safely in the grass. 

I drove away turning the scene over in my mind.  Funny, isn’t that just like what God does for us?  He sees his children walking into a dangerous situation:  Sometimes he picks us up with his unseen hand and places us out of harm’s way.  Sometimes, perhaps because we need to learn a lesson, he allows us to experience the fruit of a poor decision. 

A good father instructs his children, guides them, encourages them, and when necessary to build their character, corrects them.  People who refuse to believe that a God of love would punish poor behavior show a profound lack of understanding about the nature of fatherhood and the attributes of our Lord. 

Interpretation of the Bible is not meant to be performed within the context of our secular culture.  In other words, in this age of pragmatism where “sophisticated” people believe that truth can mean something different to everyone, the Bible is frequently looked at as a loose collection of bedtime stories about a colorful character named Jehovah.  But it isn’t.

What if there really is a God who, as the Bible recalls, created the world as a good space, created man in the image of himself.  And what if man, using the free will given by God, rebels and brings evil into the world?  What if it’s true that God then sent his only son to live here and die here in our place so that justice could be served?  If it’s all a hoax, then we can do what we want, unrestrained by conscience or moral obligations.  Any good we do wouldn’t matter because nothing lasts – everything ends at death.  But if what the Bible says is true, the paradigm must change.

I accept that God is a personal being who loves me, and that every action I take is either drawing me closer to or away from him.  The Bible has become the basis upon which my entire life is built, so I cannot compartmentalize my faith to please those around me. It isn’t something I take out on Sunday mornings and put away the rest of the week, because it’s more than simply a religion; it’s life.  Among all the world religions, Christianity is the only one in which God reaches out to us first.  All others require some sort of work on the part of humans before experiencing the promises made to them.  Not so with the God of the universe.

When we believe that God loves us and we commit to living out his plans for us, certain changes will inevitably occur.  We’ll start to look at things through God’s perspective rather than the world’s.  We’ll begin to care about things we didn’t care about before, and we’ll realize that some of the things that we thought mattered, don’t really matter at all.  We all have an earthly father, but we will come to know and understand God as our holy father who takes care of us and nurtures us and loves us unconditionally. 

My father in heaven does indeed, like the mother lifting the turtle from the roadway, care for his children.  That knowledge changed my life and brought me a joy that passes all understanding, and I pray you will discover that joy, too. 

• Freedom of speech and the press,
• The right to assemble, to petition, and the right to religious freedom;
• The right to keep and bear arms;
• The right not to have troops quartered in your home;
• The right to reasonable search and seizure;
• The rights of due process, eminent domain, and a speedy trial;
• The right to civil trial by jury;
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment;
• Protection of rights already retained by citizens;
• and the right of states and people to derive their own powers.

How about a right to transportation? Nope. Equitable pay? Not found (although I’ve heard rumors it’s somewhere in the Democrat Party Platform). A house of your own? Uh uh. Take an hour to read these brilliant documents and you’ll be in for some surprises. And some treats. I’ll make it easy for you:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

The truth, seldom acknowledged in today’s atmosphere of temporary fixes and go-along-to-get-along politics, is that our country’s constitution guarantees its citizens (not visitors, just citizens) three things: the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. It doesn’t even guarantee happiness, just the pursuit thereof. So what are we to make of all this talk about our government’s obligation to provide time off from work and automatic raises and free health care?

If you’re indolent and want someone else to provide everything for you, or if you’re a politician appealing to the most debased level of human nature in exchange for votes, you’ll say that the constitution is a “living document.” What’s that supposed to mean? It means that if they can con enough people into believing our constitution was meant to be changed whenever suceeding generations disagree with it, then they can alter it to accommodate whatever whims certain people have in mind. Instead of a revered, world-changing document, it’s treated like a poorly-worded contract with multiple loopholes.

Folks, if you really want free guaranteed extended vacations, health care, and all the other “rights” a self-respecting, law abiding citizen would earn through hard work and perseverence, I have a suggestion – emigrate to one of those European countries the liberal intelligensia are always citing as models of enlightened civilization. You’ll receive plenty of “free” perks in those countries. But just so you know – they’re the ones struggling to keep up with us. Their taxes are substantially higher than ours. The unemployment rate of the European Union hovers around 7.3% on average, (ours is currently 4.8%). To get decent healthcare in a timely manner, you’ll have to wait for it even if you have a life-threatening illness. You’ll get that 6-week vacation in the Azores, but at the expense of an economy that is sagging in productivity. Lately, they’ve started rethinking their immigration policies, though. Turns out their rising numbers of Islamic immigrants are making absurd demands and causing turmoil.

The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity. Now I know where American liberals came up with their ideas about multiplicity. Well, we see how well it works, don’t we?

Laus Deo, readers. Until next time.

 And why is that? 

I think it’s because deep inside of everyone is the certainty that there is more to this life than what we see right now; and if there is, am I on the right side of the argument? 

Christians believe the assertions made by Christ that he was the only son of God, and that he came to die in our place for the sins we commit against God. He also said that if you refuse his invitation to live for him by living for yourself, then buddy, you’re on the wrong side.

Uh oh. This creates a quandary because all humans just want to live by their own rules. We don’t want anyone telling us what to do. And if we do something mean or selfish, we want it to be hidden. We try to prevent others knowing about our darkest desires and if they do discover them, we make excuses or pretend that everyone else is doing them too, so they’re really okay.

But God operates differently from mankind. He sees all. He knows everything you’ve ever done, every thought you’ve ever had. Try as we might, we cannot hide from Him.  When we live our lives as though he doesn’t matter, we are bound to go wrong because there is a missing component. In other words, a car that is intended to run on gasoline is not going to perform well or go far if you put Clorox in the tank. Sesame oil, fruit juice, and filtered water won’t work either. Humans were created to run on God. Without him, we run on a God-shaped tank that won’t be satisfied by anything.

Hard work won’t suffice, being nice to other people isn’t enough, and writing checks to the church won’t get your right with God. God is aiming for that personal relationship with every human being, and it has to start with giving up our own will to follow His instead. That’s a tough one, because all the messages around us, from school lessons to TV advertisements, tell us to be captain of our own ship and indulge our sense of entitlement.

But because He allowed everyone to make up their own mind about Him, the issue of heaven and hell will be decided by each us alone. Hmm. Do I choose to accept the invitation to live for God rather than myself? If so, I shall have peace of soul. Life may have its bumps and bruises, but God will always be there to help me through them. If we don’t accept his invitation, life may seem to go well at times, but there will always be that missing link, and there will never be true peace because deep in the back of our minds, we know, we know, that something is terribly wrong and we’re not equipped to fix it.

In the end, the believers will go to live in heaven with the one they loved in life and to whom they turned over control. Those who refused the invitation go to hell. Why? Because if they didn’t want God when they were living, they certainly won’t appreciate him when their life is over. Hell is total separation from God. I really hate the fact that some very nice people have made that choice, but it’s their decision to make. 

The choice requires careful thought. Do I really want to give control of my life to someone I can’t even see? That’s where faith and logic step in. Millions of people throughout history died terrible deaths because they believed in Him. Archeologists have shown that events in the Bible really happened. And I have experienced firsthand the changes that only he brought to my life. 

Nope, there won’t be breakfast in hell. And there will be no second chances, either. But God is in heaven with Christ, his son. And when I see their faces for the first time, I cannot imagine the tremendous relief that will flood my soul. Christ came and died to set me free from myself, and the joy that comes with it is better than anything this world has to offer.

“Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line – and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?” – Jesse Helms, 1959  

There’s a wonderful poem by Henry VanDyke that goes like this:

Tis fine to see the old world, and travel up and down
Among the famous palaces and cities of renown,
To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,
But now I think I’ve had enough of antiquated things.
So it’s home again and home again, America for me!
My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be,
In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

I never appreciated the poem more than when I returned to the United States after living in Europe for several years. I literally wanted to bend down and kiss the sweet Carolina soil when I emerged from that long plane ride. I very nearly did so, too, but propriety kept me from impetuousness. 

It wasn’t that I hated living overseas. As the poem says, there are picturesque villages and captivating mountains and stores with interesting objects in them. People there have charming customs. The food is delicious. Hey, in Germany you can actually take your dog with you into restaurants! In Greece, there are those wonderful statues everywhere of Greek men! 

But America is the land of freedom and opportunity and second chances. Ours are the most generous people in the world. (And yes, statistics prove it every year with boring regularity).  We’re known all over the globe for our warm smiles and hospitality.  We have so much to give and we like sharing it with others. So why do some people think America is a land of hate and denigration? 

That’s an interesting question. When I was a teenager, I had an argument with my father over my desire to live in Sweden because, I said, it was a more ‘tolerant’ country.  He was disgusted when I told him that I didn’t see what was so wrong with Socialism and Communism. He, a man who spent all night in the shark-inifested waters of the Coral Sea when his ship was sunk by Japanese during WWII. He, who lived the real-life story of The Sand Pebbles, rescuing missionaries in Communist China. I’m ashamed now of my disregard for his service and patriotism. But I’m older now, and I have seen the power of sacrifice for God and country. Back then, I was a selfish, ignorant little jerk who thought the world should revolve around her. 

Others made sacrifices for our country, too. Did you think the signers of our Declaration of Independence from England just walked away from the deal without a scratch? Historical documents prove otherwise. In signing the declaration, they were committing treason against the king of England and knew that he would retaliate. Most of them had a lot to lose. They had families, property, businesses; but as one delegate from Rhode Island said when he signed the document, “my hand trembles, but my heart does not.” 

We are a young country, but for over 200 years men and women have died for something greater than themselves. They died for freedom. Because of them, we don’t live under the tyranny of another nation. Each of us has been fortunate enough to be born into a country that is filled with promise, where each person can decide his or her own destiny. Young, immature girls of 15 who live pleasant lives in modern homes may not understand that gift, but millions of people all over the world understand it and grasp for it and die crossing oceans on overcrowded boats to get it. 

When I was young, I thought men who smoked reefer and flashed peace signs and talked about “going back to the farm” were cool. Nowadays, my heros are men who don’t make excuses but go out and work to support themselves; men who freely enter the military and who serve uncomplainingly in hostile countries to keep the bad guys from coming over here; men who look into the future and make hard, unpopular choices for the good of our country; men, real men who have dreams and work hard to bring those dreams to fruition. They don’t depend on anyone else to do things for them – they shoulder their tasks and do what needs to be done. Men like these made our country a great and prosperous nation. God willing, there will be more generations of men and women who take seriously the personal sacrifices of those who went before them, and they will carry the torch of freedom into the future. 

Oh, it’s nice to see the old world all right. I still like to travel, but I’m under no silly illusions about government being the best arbiter of what’s good for me. We are an imperfect nation only because we are imperfect people. But there is still no other place as wonderful on earth as the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Fly the American flag high today, and be proud of what our country stands for.  We are a beacon of light and freedom for all the world.  May that freedom never die and that light never be extinguished.