Wisconsin Public Service Unions: Right or Wrong?

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Bull Sullivan

Wisconsin v. Wisconsin?

This article is not about Republicans or Democrats or Unions or Open Shops. It’s about the implications of a seldom heard phrase, perhaps now antiquarian, that seemed so important to the Founding Framers, “Social Contract.”

We have all read and heard multiple stories about the controversy in Wisconsin, about what is good, fair, necessary or evil. About who is right or wrong, moral or amoral, legal or criminal, the adverbs and adjectives fly of the page and out of the mouths of talking heads and commentators.

What I have not heard is a examination of the nature and condition of employment in the public sector in comparison to employment in the private sector.  While both sectors have employee benevolent organizations called unions, might there be significant structural differences in the nature of the employee relationship to management that differentiates the conditions of employment?

I would posit that there are, and further that the difference between the public and private unions is as great as that between unions and guilds, and presents a significant difference in the nature of and condition of employment. The difference in nature is as different as that of our notion of the “social contract” and a legal contract, and the difference is well worth exploring.

Why a reference to the “Social Contract?” Because it is relevant to the nature and conditions by which we Americans govern ourselves. Unions do not ultimately seek benefits, they seek governance; they wish to decide the conditions of their employment.

At its most basic, the “social contract” is the statement that the people have a natural right to select how they are governed. At its most basic, a legal contract is an agreement between parties to allow their mutual behavior to be governed by law.

 

PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNIONS:

The private sector is composed of businesses, primarily corporations, which accomplish the work necessary to sustain and grow the economy of our society. Corporations are legal entities which offer legal protection in return for equity investment. They provide a “corporate veil” or shield protecting investors from the negligent acts of a company’s employees, management and labor. That protection induces investment and creates the initial equity, or capital, of a business, allowing it to hire employees, managers and laborers, and create products that are offered for sale. Experience has shown that managers and laborers, while sharing a common employer, may have different expectations and goals, and may often sharply disagree. Employees may express their grievances individually to their manager, and the manager may or may not respond. Since the late 19th century, employees and managers have been involved in negotiating the conditions of employment.

Unions

A union representing employees in the private sector, employees of a corporation, has won the right to represent employee members, through a statutory vote of employees, in negotiations with the company’s management.  These negotiations are commonly called “collective bargaining” and the result, the agreement or contract, is a legally enforceable document. Collective bargaining agreements, as with most contracts, have conditions and a term. These conditions are not normally imposed on either party by the other, but are the result of a compromise between the parties on matters relating to wages, benefits, and working conditions. Unions’ state they are necessary because many corporations act solely in their economic self interest, that is, they seek at all times and in all situations to maximize profit

Profit is the excess capital a company generates beyond its cost of doing business, or overhead. Companies may invest this excess capital in themselves, in other companies or distribute it to management and shareholders. We call this process Capitalism

We see that the relationship between employees and management is an economic transaction, a contract, regulated by law.

At its simplest, a private sector union exists because employees have no voice in management, do not normally invest their excess capital (buy or own stock) in the business, and have no control of the decisions or intent of management. Employees band together to have greater leverage in attaining the greatest compensation from their work, that is the best wages, benefits and working conditions. In a practical way, individuals have much less ability to maximize their economic return for the work they accomplish; together, in a union, they increase their ability through negotiations.

When an individual stops working because of wages, benefits or working conditions, we say they have quit, or been fired.

When a union stops working because of wages, benefits or working conditions, we say they are on strike.

In the private sector, the primary leverage that a union exerts is the threat of a strike, a work stoppage that also results in a revenue stoppage for the company, that is, a potential loss of profit.

In the private sector, the primary leverage that a company exerts is the threat of closure, the shutting down of a facility, and the transfer of some or all tasks to another facility or even to an off-shore facility.  That means employees are laid off, or terminated.

In this simple description of labor relations in the private sector, it seems clear that employees have no recourse other than collective bargaining to see redress of grievances or to seek an increase in compensation for their labor.  There are other alternatives, such as ESOP’s or employee stock ownership programs, but as a general rule, employees have no other means of altering the conditions of their employment other than collective bargaining. This activity is most certainly an expression of a desire to govern themselves, a least in part. The resulting agreements are legally binding contracts governed by law.

 

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNIONS:

Public sector employment is the necessary labor to accomplish the desire of the people to govern themselves.  In America, it is a necessary outcome of the implementation of the Founding Framer’s notion of a “Social Contract.” When a people decide to govern themselves, as the colonists did in 1776, they assume the obligations to govern, and must decide on the means of governance.  In our representative democracy, we decided upon a Federal system, which created multiple layers of government. Our national government is composed of elected representatives and an elected executive. Our state governments are also composed of elected representatives and an elected executive. The governance of states is further subdivided into units composed of elected representatives.  These governmental structures do the work of the people, and the people who work for the government work for the people.

This is a very different structure from the private sector. Here employees are the agents of the governed, managed by elected officials, or their appointees. Here there exists no capital, no investment, no equity or stockholders. There is no profit, and no motive for profit.  Government is tasked with carrying out the will of the people, and taxes all citizens in various ways, to do so.

All the money spent by government is collected through taxation, even fees and fines are a form of taxation, and all debt owed by government, whether due now or deferred, will be paid through taxation.

It should be clear that government employees work for the people, and are paid by the people. The term most often used for them in the past was “Civil Servants” or as we now describe them collectively, the “Civil Service”

That begs the question, “Why are their government employee unions at all?”

In the past, even the present, corruption exists in government. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act  began a long process of eliminating patronage, establishing qualifications for public sector employees and preventing the termination of public sector employees with just cause. This Federal law, enacted in 1883, forms the foundation for current civil service protections, none of which exist statutorily in the private sector. The civil service acts subsequent to the Pendleton Act at first expanded the protections afforded government employees, but, for purely political reasons, Congress began restricting those protections beginning with the Hatch Act of 1938, and the politically motivated Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which reorganized the United States Civil Service Commission into the Office of Personnel Management, and all but promulgated the notion of Public Sector Unions. Of course, this Act was signed into law by who else, the great moralist and reorganizer, Georgia’s own populist President, Jimmy Carter.

In this act, and subsequent amendments and bureaucratic interpretations, called Federal Regulations, Congress returned to patronage in a grand form, payola by “negotiation,” and public sector unions became an entrenched institutions.

“Oh, they can’t strike.” The law does not allow work stoppages, and there is no patronage or nepotism allowed.  In fact all of the above has occurred, repeatedly, and the “sick –outs” of the current Wisconsin controversy attest to that.

Congress, to protect the re-election of its members, through laws allowing union contributions, has limited the constitutional rights of individual Federal employees, restricting their participation in political free speech, limiting their right to campaign to change their bosses through political activities while at work, and even limiting the right of some public sector employees to actively campaign when not at work!

It should be clear that the rise of Public Sector Unions is a direct result of the corrupt actions of elected officials, beginning with those in the Congress of the United States, who have used Public Service Unions as an unrestricted source of campaign funding and as a payoff to those special interest groups who “represent” the political will of union members.

Incredibly, these Public Service Unions, with their inflated wages and benefits, are stealing from themselves, as we the people of the United States are their actual employers.

We need to create an atmosphere of responsibility on the part of Public Service Unions to we, The People.  And we must make certain that those we employ are held in the highest regard and are the most competent, efficient and responsible employees in America.

 

MY OPINION AS TO A SOLUTION:

We must begin the process of restoring public service to its inestimable place of honor in the workplace.  We must create policies that lead to procedures which allow government to recruit the best and brightest Americans to help build a better America,

Their will be great debate about the ways and means Congress can achieve this, but it is clear that a system meant to protect the integrity of public service has become the system that allows the greatest abuse.

First, we must insist Congress repeal the Hatch Act, and all acts that impinge of the rights of all citizens to fully express their political views and participate in political activities outside the workplace. Americans, all Americans, must be free to be fully engaged in our vibrant political process, with the understanding that such speech may not interrupt the process of governing the country, and may not be disruptive to the conduct of government business. Congress should repeal significant portions of the 1978 CSRA and re-establish a Civil Service Commission whose purpose must be to assure that Federal employees are paid compensation, wages and benefits, equivalent to the private sector employee in the geographic region in which they live.

Second, we must insist Congress pass legislation that provides for mandatory criminal penalties for employees who are corrupt or coercive in their political activities. The public service employee must never be threatened with repercussion or rewarded with patronage. No American should ever be complicit in forcing their political views on any other American, and the re-established Civil Service Commission must be tasked with the obligation to see that any Federal employee found guilty of such action be immediately terminated.

Third, Congress must act to decertify all Federal unions, and deny federal funding to any State or local program that is subject to the rules of any public service union. States may continue to allow the participation of public service unions in their own affairs, but such unelected officials should not participate in the work of elected Federal representatives governing the United States America.

Fourth, Congress must pass legislation allowing the free employment of any citizen in any state for an open position for which they meet all qualifications, and must prevent the compulsory enrollment of any employee in an organized labor union. This is an appropriate and apt application of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and legislation should be carefully crafted to protect the rights of those who choose to be enrolled and those who choose not to be enrolled. Congress should insure private sector labor union members should have the right to vote on any policy which supports or expends funds on any hard or soft political activity; as union members, however, they must accede to the majority rule, or be allowed to resign from the union. Finally, Congress should insure private sector unions may negotiate for non union members only with their permission, and insure businesses may offer separate employment packages to union and non-union employees.

With comparable wages and benefits, fair and merit based employment practices, employment with 229 year old “Institution,” and the opportunity to serve our nation, there should be no reason why the Federal government, or any State or Local government should not attract and retain the best and brightest employees, dedicated to doing the people’s work, and doing it well

 

 

Posted in National Politics | 2 Comments

The Great Hope Scholarship Controversy of 2011…

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Bull Sullivan

…and 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015…

I have prepared this article for the benefit of so many who seem so uninformed regarding the constitutional and legislative requirements which regulate the eligibility and funding of the Hope Scholarship Program. It is not my intention to review the history of the enabling constitutional amendment, nor the history or particulars of the program.  What I am attempting to present is an overview of the revenue and funding requirements, as they exist today.

I am prompted by the facebook comments I have recently read, written by students of Kennesaw State University. I quote one without citation to preserve privacy, but I am prepared to cite if such is demanded.  I might add, I have seen similar comments in blogs written by students attending other University System schools.

“I can’t believe that the first thing Nathan Deal did as Governor was cut the HOPE scholarship by billions of dollars… Disgusting”

Governor Deal does not have the authority under the state Constitution to “cut” any funds from the Hope Scholarship budget.  See below, 1, 2, VIII, c.  The HS is not funded by general revenues or “taxed” revenues of the State, but by funds solely derived from the sale of lottery and gaming tickets, which funds can only be used as proved for in 1, 2, VIII, c, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.   The legislature created enabling legislation which provided for and required the expenditure of all lottery funds fulfill all constitutional requirements as are set forth in 1, 2, VIII below.

The revenue or net sales proceeds of each and every lottery ticket sold, along with that of any “game” ticket must be spent as required by the Constitution. Governor Deal can not cut any lottery funding, nor direct any lottery revenue to any other purpose. The Governor may, with legislative consent, direct the appropriation of funds in any ratio to any of the five specified funding requirements created by the State Constitution, and in fact the controlling legislation has been altered numerous times by Acts of the Georgia Legislature, and enacted by the signing of such legislation by several Governors.

The intent of the original legislation, an egalitarian entitlement for superior high school students, has been maintained in all successive enactments, and remains a viable and compelling motivation for academic achievement.

As in many states,  secondary education  has suffered from uncontrolled grade inflation, and each successive year has seen increased percentages of students who qualified under the legislative mandated academic requirements. The intent of the original sponsors was not to provide a tuition grant to all college or technical school bound students who were residents of Georgia and who graduated from a Georgia high school, but rather to incentivize or motivate superior students to apply themselves, and to attend Georgia public universities. However, with the collusion of educators, teachers and principals, representing “special interest” groups, student grades no longer reflect “superior” effort or intellect, but rather an ongoing attempt by educators to corrupt a “merit” based scholarship program into an “entitlement” program to provide funding for “average” students so they might also attend institutions of higher learning, regardless of their qualifications or achievement.

However “noble” the intentions of such educators, their subversive acts have had the effect of threatening the purpose, the merit based notion, of rewarding students whose achievement reflects a zeal to master secondary school academic topics and prepare themselves for further academic achievement. Simply put, as grade inflation has expanded so has the pool of “eligible” students, and yet funding has not increased sufficiently to allow full funding for all qualifying students.

The current funding requirements has drained the reserves provided for by the Constitution, and if left unaltered, the Hope Scholarship would have had no choice but to deny funding to many eligible students in the 2012 school year. That action, in and of itself, would be an infringement of the Georgia Constitution rights of those denied “eligible” students, and could precipitate a much more drastic, perhaps in some eyes, even draconian, revision of the enabling legislation. Such an action could open the door to a review of 1, 2, VIII and possibly allow the legislative introduction and ultimate passage of a constitutional amendment removing the existing lottery revenues from a dedicated fund into the general revenue fund of the State, as has often been proposed.

This occurrence, the constitutional amendment of the lottery program, has long been the desire of a disparate group of lobbyists and politicians who would use lottery revenues both to supplement the general fund and allow the defacto introduction of tuition entitlements, thus destroying a merit based scholarship program and replacing it with income based grants and loans available to any college bound student.

In the first case, supplements to the general fund would continue to allow legislators to expand state government, funding pet programs that mollify constituents, and benefit special interest groups; and in the second case, allowing funding of programs that provide direct state grants to all college bound students, without regard for academic achievement would serve to disincentivize academic scholarship and the enrollment of academically gifted students in state colleges and universities.

The Legislature and the Governor are to be commended for “saving” the Hope Scholarship program as was originally proposed, to reward motivated students, and for upholding and continuing this most successful program through legislation. After all, the Hope Scholarship is named for the acronym H.O.P.E, that is, Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally. Under the 2011 changes, high achievers, the superior students with  measurable achievement as  demonstrated by GPA and SAT scores, will continue to receive full tuition grant funding, with other qualifiers receiving 90 percent of full tuition. Please note that in lieu of the recent tuition increases the Board of Regents have approved, the actual dollar amount granted each student for tuition will remain the same or slightly increase for most students. Hope Scholarship grants for books and other fees will not be available.  This unfortunate result is not the work of the Governor and General Assembly; rather it remains attributable to the primary cause of increased financial pressure which has created this difficulty, grade inflation, which allows academically unqualified students access to Hope scholarship funds, and which rightly remains a subject of concern and controversy.

Only when Georgia’s elementary and secondary teachers and administrators begin to earn the wages we as citizens pay them, will we see an end to social promotion, nonexistent homework, chronic underachievement, deficient language and math skills, and the apathy that so consumes exhausted parents and over stimulated children today

A second and perhaps equally unjustifiable cause of the increase in the cost of tuition, fees and books is the aforementioned tuition increases approved by the Board of Regents.  Under the influence of administrators from the Chancellor and Institutional Presidents down to a well defined and politically influential “Band of Boosters” at each institution of higher learning, the Board has authorized the expenditure of funds far in excess of our state’s capacity to pay for them.

The Board of Regents remains unable to fathom the purpose of higher education, which is to educate our state’s citizens. They remain unconcerned that the effect of trying to create “perfect” higher learning environments: campus parks, buildings, research programs, student facilities and housing, can lead only to the economic exclusion of many qualified citizens and a burden of debt which attending students are made to pay. The goal of the Board of Regents should be to assure that every qualified student in Georgia will have access to education and training which will allow them to become productive citizens, and not be burdened with “educational “ loans made to pay for ever increasing tuition, book, fee and housing charges.

The fact is that an educated, productive work force would buy many more lottery tickets, remit greater sales and use tax revenues, and create a healthier and wealthier citizenry. Frankly, such a work force would solve many of the financial difficulties we face today. The Hope Scholarship is a highly visible lightening rod of education health in Georgia, and it is crucial to the future economic growth of the state.

Were students to be as concerned about the actions of their secondary educators, or the imperial behavior of the unelected Board of Regents, they might well have factual and important comments to make about those programs that so impact them.

Students, do you want more aid and assistance for your education?  Inform yourselves, educate your friends and vote!

Below is the text of the pertinent amendment to the State Constitution that contains the controlling language which enables the Governor and General Assembly to alter the conditions of the Hope Scholarship.

 

The Constitution of the State of Georgia

Article I. Section II. Paragraph VIII.

 

Paragraph VIII. Lotteries and nonprofit bingo games

(a) Except as herein specifically provided in this Paragraph VIII, all lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, and all forms of pari-mutuel betting and casino gambling are hereby prohibited; and this prohibition shall be enforced by penal laws.

(b) The General Assembly may by law provide that the operation of a nonprofit bingo game shall not be a lottery and shall be legal in this state. The General Assembly may by law define a nonprofit bingo game and provide for the regulation of nonprofit bingo games.

(c ) The General Assembly may by law provide for the operation and regulation of a lottery or lotteries by or on behalf of the state and for any matters relating to the purposes or provisions of this subparagraph. Proceeds derived from the lottery or lotteries operated by or on behalf of the state shall be used to pay the operating expenses of the lottery or lotteries, including all prizes, without any appropriation required by law , and for educational programs and purposes as hereinafter provided . Lottery proceeds shall not be subject to Article VII, Section III, Paragraph II; Article III, Section IX , Paragraph VI(a); or Article III, Section IX , Paragraph IV (c), except that the net proceeds after payment of such operating expenses shall be subject to Article VII, Section III, Paragraph II. Net proceeds after payment of such operating expenses shall be separately accounted for and shall be specifically identified by the Governor in his annual budget presented to the General Assembly as a separate budget category entitled “Lottery Proceeds” and the Governor shall make specific recommendations as to educational programs and educational purposes to which said net proceeds shall be appropriated. In the General Appropriations Act adopted by the General Assembly, the General Assembly shall appropriate all net proceeds of the lottery or lotteries by such separate budget category to educational programs and educational purposes. Such net proceeds shall be used to support improvements and enhancements for educational programs and purposes and such net proceeds shall be used to supplement, not supplant, non-lottery educational resources for educational programs and purposes. The educational programs and educational purposes for which proceeds may be so appropriated shall include only the following:

(1) Tuition grants, scholarships, or loans to citizens of this state to enable such citizens to attend colleges and universities located within this state , regardless of whether such colleges or universities are operated by the board of regents, or to attend institutions operated under the authority of the Department of Technical and Adult Education;

(2) Voluntary pre-kindergarten;

(3) One or more educational shortfall reserves in a total amount of not less than 10 percent of the net proceeds of the lottery for the preceding fiscal year;

(4) Costs of providing to teachers at accredited public institutions who teach levels K -12, personnel at public postsecondary technical institutes under the authority of the Department of Technical and Adult Education, and professors and instructors within the University System of Georgia the necessary training in the use and application of computers and advanced electronic instructional technology to implement interactive learning environments in the classroom and to access the state -wide distance learning network; and

(5) Capital outlay projects for educational facilities; provided, however, that no funds shall be appropriated for the items listed in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection until all persons eligible for and applying for assistance as provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection have received such assistance, all approved pre-kindergarten programs provided for in paragraph (2) of this subsection have been fully funded, and the education shortfall reserve or reserves provided for in paragraph (3) of this subsection have been fully funded.

(d) On and after January 1, 1995 , the holding of raffles by nonprofit organizations shall be lawful and shall not be prohibited by any law enacted prior to January 1, 1994. Laws enacted on or after January 1, 1994, however, may restrict, regulate, or prohibit the operation of such raffles.

 

Links to the complete text of the Constitution of the State of Georgia:

 

http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/constitution.htm

 

Links to enabling legislation enacted by the Georgia General Assembly:

 

http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=FULL&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&_m=02c5182aff39edfbb1e27239829c53da&searchType=&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAz&_md5=e927a156ab02d24a0cec3cdabd9d9d06&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=all

 

Posted in Georgia Education | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Great Hope Scholarship Controversy of 2011…

One Nation under God…

Posted on February 27, 2011 by Bull Sullivan

What we do not want is a theocracy; what we want is a democracy influenced by theology.

I find enormous controversy in the current press and in public opinion over the relationship between God and country. Even this sentence may be a source of contentious debate, should “God” be capitalized, or appear as “god?”  Similarly, should country be lower case, “country” or should it be capitalized “Country?”  In this series of essays, I intend to examine the nature and history of this tortuous relationship, with the counsel of your opinions, and a very specific and admittedly biased point of view which I hold dear and assert is true.

This issue is both current and incendiary because of the appearance of struggle between two of the world’s  major religious systems, or faiths, Christianity and Islam. Most reference sources posit that these two “faiths” are followed by over 50% of the world’s population.  As both faiths share a common Semitic text as a foundation, the Hebrew Torah, or Christian named Pentateuch or Islamic named Tawrat, it would seem that conflict between these faiths could be resolved with acceptance of divergent yet related points of view.

We must accept that such a reasonable resolution has not yet been reached, in fact, if anything we seem headed toward an inevitable, escalating feud between radicals of both religious persuasions. Our experience is that we are attacked by Islamic radicals seeking to impose their faith on our system of governance; their experience is that we seek to impose our system of governance on their faith.

In America, we are further assailed by a third petard, those who assert their is no place for any theology in governance. They allude to a “wall of separation” in America between church and State, most often in benign ignorance of our history.

Now we find ourselves at a point in our history where these three concepts of governance are fully met on the field of public opinion: Representative Democracy and the God of our Fathers; Theocracy and the God of Islam; and Participatory Democracy without god.

At this point I would like to stimulate discussion by flatly rejecting as absurd the notion that colonial America, the experiment of self-governance that flourished from Jamestown to Yorktown, was the product of an intellectual elite who were surely Deists, and whose quest for liberty was apart from any notion of an established religion and any belief in God.

Further, as a descendant of colonists, let me assert that the very notion of a cadre of “Founding Fathers,” wise and all knowing, who “brought forth liberty” in this land is an  offense to the memory of true patriots whose spurting blood and dismembered limbs is the only reason for our liberty, such as we know it today.  The myth of the “Founding Fathers” perpetuated by an elitist European educated and euro-adulating northeastern intelligentsia is at the heart of the decay of our experiment in democracy we so clearly observe today.

While it is true that many famous men wrote stirring words about liberty and freedom, only one man led the farmers, the millwrights, the coopers, the store clerks, the hunters and trappers, the gentry and mercantilists; only one man inspired the ill trained militias, the humble, the quiet, the poor, the common folk from the Eastern Shore, the men from the hard scrabble spines of the Allegheny and Appalachian, the men come down from the rock-rich moraines of New England settlements and up from the Piney Woods of the South’s alluvial plains; only one man was Father to a Revolution and to a Country.

There were no “Founding Fathers;” not even the most prosaic immigrant or child thereof enraptured by the potentious sound of words struck in liberty’s cause can place Jefferson or Adams or Madison on the battlefield;  none of these enlightened and eloquent wordsmiths ever knew the numbing cold of Valley Forge, none in their absence lost a crop or a wife or a child.  Yet every day these men’s friends and neighbors, gathering at shops and public houses and in magistrates courts would  poignantly speak aloud of such horrific sacrifices of their fellow countrymen as to stir the hearts and pens of these gifted men.  And as for claims, so often repeated today, that one or another was a “Deist,” not at all religious;  that they framed the most inspiring political words in human history without regard for such common christian beliefs as had been taught from colonial pulpits for a century and a half; such modern “sentiments” are found to be absurd by every measure of recorded American history.

These men, the greatest political theorists of western history, the very framers of our Constitution, repeatedly gave voice to the most commonly held expressions of influence Christianity offered, the fact that man was created by a supreme being, that societal law derived is derived natural law, and that all men are informed and inspired by the judeo-christian texts which form the canon of christian belief. To ignore the faith of a colonial people whose very education most often began by learning to read from the KJV Bible is to ignore the nascent influence which gave rise to the revolutionary spirit of those people. These were no longer Europeans, and they early on became English “colonists” in name only. I would assert that such a people as settled the Atlantic coast of the new world were by their adventurous nature and independent spirit inclined to disregard the customs and laws of their mother country, and were most willing to accept “Divine” guidance and assistance in the settling of a vast and often impenetrable wilderness. That guidance came from the reading of the “Holy Scriptures” and their belief in those teaching and the faith in God that His divine hand would protect and guide them.

Without the constraints, the propaganda, the tenets of a State established church whose teachings were promulgated to protect an established political order, and yet with the very best understanding of freedom free from the heel of tyrants, these colonists developed a sense of liberty directly synthesized from two sources, the Bible, and Nature, as expressed in the overwhelming panoply of landscapes, textures, and limitless opportunity the new world offered. For many,  for my ancestors, this world was the “promised land” and free of landlords and overlords, my people began to govern their own conduct and to establish a system of governance that was rooted in the needs and desires of the common people; not in the wants of the nobility as was seen in the Magna Carta.  The sense of owning property, the sense of possession of rights to define ownership, the very notion of a land free of tyrants and kings came from their reading of the Pentateuch, and belief in God; and their sense of the dignity and value of even the most common man came from the New Testament, from words quoted to come from the mouth of Jesus, the son of man, and son of God.

The American Republic is that institution that results not from the enlightened words of philosophers, nor from theories of political scientists, but from the mouth of the baptized, the never ending procession of individuals seeking to interpret God’s will for mankind in their own words, seeking to create a new Jerusalem, a new promised land.

Were there other secular, worldly  influences? Without doubt!  Those who wrote the founding documents were well educated in European thought, and well read in European literature, and well able to compose inspiring documents in prose which lifted the spirits of all men, even to this day. But never doubt that for the most part they were expressing the desires and hopes of common working men, and women,  friends and neighbors, whose  actions were not inspired by the framer’s words, but rather whose actions inspired the framers to find those words.

Those simple men and women, often the least among all in material wealth, brought forth both the wrath of God on the oppressor and the blessing of God on his chosen. Their deep and abiding love of God and belief in His new covenant sent them into battle with the British, and made way for the great Christian country which we are yet become, but must seek to become.

Our inspired framers were rallied to the cause of liberty not by European thinkers who conceived of liberty, but failed to give birth to it; nor by a rational ego that denied the existence of God, and asserted the rights of might and privilege, but by the zeal and sacrifice of christian believers through-out the colonies. They were Deists?  They did not believe in the God of Israel, nor in the divinity of the son of man? They saw no need to inform their beliefs, and conceive of liberty as a gift of God?

Could they have held such assertions when all those around them were praying for both life and liberty; when prayer to the divine opened every colony’s assembly; when one of the most radical patriots of the day proposed it was perfectly proper to allow all Virginians to choose the Christian church they would officially support, in lieu of the Church of England.

This is not to denigrate or minimize the contributions of those the academic elitists call “Founding Fathers,” for none of them ever claimed to be the equal of the one man the sobriquet fit. Each in his own way gave sustenance to the new nation, none gave birth. No, they are blameless in that generations of euroamerican intellects and academics and politicians have played to the crowd, banged the drum more loudly, paraded their need of a king, or superman, or hero before the huddled masses; none of whom rose up against their European masters, all of whom sought refuge in a flight across the Atlantic to Lady Liberty.

There is a point to what now may seem a digression, and that point is that we had only one “Founding Father” and by now you must know his name. What did George Washington write about God and Country? Read from his Farewell Address to his “Friends and Fellow Citizens:”

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Listen America to your Father.

 

 

Posted in National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One Nation under God…