The Shutdown is About Spending, Not a Wall

The shutdown is not the result of a border wall or no border wall. It is the result of decades' worth of reckless government spending and (thankfully!) appropriations laws that have sunset clauses in them and force Congress to reconvene and re-approve spending. If people lament the government shutdown, there's a simple solution to preventing one in the future: tell their congressperson to CUT SPENDING.

We can grieve with those who are going without pay right now.

We can show them some kindness and grace when they seek assistance.

But what we cannot do is acquiesce to the federal government's dangerous, out-of-control spending. Our national debt sits at just under $22,000,000,000,000 and continues to climb. The average taxpayer debt is a whopping $179,500, over double or even three times the median annual income for a family of four, depending on which measure you use. One recently elected congresswoman even proposes an additional $40,000,000,000,000 (40 TRILLION) in federal spending to sprinkle the magic fairy dust known as "free healthcare" for all. This is sheer madness!

Taken at 3:36 PM CT, January 23, 2019

We've grown up all our lives hearing that "money doesn't grow on trees", but because the USD is a fiat currency backed by nothing but the federal government's IOUs, it can print bills at the Treasury as if money does grow on trees. "Monetizing debt", as the printing and circulation of many new bills is called, does not solve the problem of excessive debt and creates more problems by inflating the value of the currency so that it becomes worth less. Think Zimbabwe's introduction of 10 and 100 Trillion dollar notes.

Another version of this kind of TOP. MEN. thinking that we're so blessed to have in Washington results in "quantitative easing", which is a fancy way of saying stimulus spending. The key, as you'll notice, is that the word spending is in the proposed solution, so it becomes rather obvious that they don't seek to address the $22 trillion dollar elephant in the room. Besides government bailouts of failing companies and industries, stimulus spending can take the form of direct transfers of wealth from one group to another. But every time, the government is borrowing money from the future to pay for things now.

I've made the mistake of thinking I could borrow my way out of debt. "Well, maybe if I refinance these credit cards onto a new credit card I can tackle the debt more efficiently..." But the root problem was my out-of-control spending. By God's grace, my wife and I have cut our expenses drastically and in the last 22 months have paid off over $100,000 in debt (largely my law school loans). And we've done this while maintaining charitable giving to our church and elsewhere at over 10% of our budget! It's not out of the realm of possibility to cut spending, but it does require sacrifice and patience.

"But the government is not like a family!" protest the Keynesian dolts. "Different measures are necessary to correct this particular issue!"

Well, I agree that the government is not like a family. For starters, it is not the government's role to provide parental guidance on issues of what to eat, what to wear, or where we can go. Nor is it the government's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and education for its citizens. Perhaps if the American family began to do more of those things for itself, there would be less demand for the government to step into such a role.

But I will vehemently disagree with the mindset that what works for individual families cannot work for a government. Contrary to popular opinion at the time, following the 2008 recession Iceland bucked all "too big to fail" theories and cut spending in order to address many of its systemic economic issues. 10 years later, Iceland has recovered nicely, while countries like Greece that continued their spending sprees have not even begun to recover. There was a bit of stimulus spending in Iceland, so it's far from the ideal in my opinion; but it's no coincidence that cutting spending and actually tackling its foreign debt head on has paid huge dividends for the small island nation.

A final note regarding President Trump's tax cuts from last year: The chattering class hasn't stopped talking about how the tax cuts have added to the deficit. There's nothing inherently wrong with tax cuts, though, which is nothing more than returning to the people the wealth that was generated by and belongs to them. The deficit problem stems from failing to cut spending to correspond with the reduction in tax revenue. This is what so many people miss, largely because they do not see wealth as a creation of the private sector but as something that belongs to Uncle Sam (and by extension as members of a privileged class of insiders, them).

So please stop buying what the beltway media, Congress, and the Trump administration are selling: this shutdown is not about a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. That's a convenient bargaining chip to gin up support among voter bases, but neither party nor their lapdogs in the media could care less what happens at the border if the coffers are reopened. If you have any question about the oligarchic collusion between the parties, read Walter Karp's eye-opening book Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America. It's to their benefit for us to keep fighting each other over a border wall, a "dust-up that wasn't" outside the Lincoln Memorial, or any number of other culture clashes, so that behind the scenes they can continue to bankroll the military industrial complex, insurance companies, and other special industries.

Was Jesus a Refugee? And If So, Does It Matter?

It seems this tired trope--Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were refugees, something something Trump is LITERALLY HITLER--has gotten dragged out more this year than in other years. Notably, our up-and-coming Congresswoman Emeritless, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted out "Merry Christmas to everyone... (including refugee babies in mangers + their parents)".

(How funny, I thought it was just a couple weeks ago that she revealed she was actually Jewish all this time, but here she is wishing a Merry Christmas. How queer...)

She is patently wrong in this tweet, as Joseph and Mary were returning to his hometown to report for the census, thus, they were legal residents of Judea. When people rightfully push back on her narrative (and some others, wrongfully), she tweets out a 2017 article by America Magazine to support her position: "Were Jesus, Mary and Joseph refugees? Yes." Oh, well then... case settled, I guess, right?

Not exactly.

In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we read the story of the “Flight into Egypt” in which, after the birth of Jesus and the visit from the Magi, an “angel of the Lord” comes to Joseph in a dream and warns him to leave Bethlehem for Egypt. Why? Because King Herod was planning to “seek out the child to destroy him.” Mary and Joseph do leave, along with Jesus, and, according to Matthew, make their way into Egypt. Afterward, King Herod slaughters all the male children in Bethlehem under two years of age.

Agreed. Jesus was born in his homeland and the Magi (wise men) tipped off Mary and Joseph to King Herod's plans, so following the warning of the Lord's angel, they escape to Egypt. But there are some details missing in the above account that have to be filled in by the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2:

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”),

24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

So we have at least eight days after Jesus's birth, and probably as many as 40 days after his birth (Leviticus 12:2-4: a woman must wait 33 days after circumcision of her son to be ceremonially clean to enter the sanctuary). We also see that Mary brought "a pair of doves or two young pigeons" as her sacrificial offering, meaning that Joseph was too poor to afford a lamb (Leviticus 12:8). This strongly implies that the Magi, with their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, had not yet visited the young couple. Further, Matthew 2:11 says that the Magi came to the "house", where they worshiped the new king. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was still living in a stable by the time the Magi visited, despite myriad Nativity scenes to this day depicting such a scene.

Next, using the UN High Commissioner on Refugees' definition of "refugee" (is there a more legitimate definition than that?!), Ocasio-Cortez's super credible source says:

The Holy Family, as Matthew recounts the story, was fleeing because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “membership in a particular social group,” in this case people with young children living in Bethlehem. I am not sure how you could get any clearer than that.

(emphasis added). But what does the Bible say? In Matthew 2:13-15, Scripture clearly states that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to hide (most likely to Egyptian-held Gaza) until after Herod's death, when they returned to their home country. So was this brief stint in Egypt enough time to warrant the designation of refugee upon Jesus and his earthly parents? Here, I think the better definition is the one for internally displaced person, found on the same page as refugee:

An internally displaced person, or IDP, is someone who has been forced to flee their home but never cross an international border. These individuals seek safety anywhere they can find it—in nearby towns, schools, settlements, internal camps, even forests and fields. IDPs, which include people displaced by internal strife and natural disasters, are the largest group that UNHCR assists. Unlike refugees, IDPs are not protected by international law or eligible to receive many types of aid because they are legally under the protection of their own government. (emphasis mine)

Obviously God does not need to make arbitrary distinctions between refugees and internally displaced persons, although He does draw a clear distinction between His followers' place in Heaven and their time here on earth ("I am a sojourner of this earth, hide not your commandments from me!" Psalm 119:19; "To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces..." 1 Peter 1:1). But because Egypt was under Roman rule at that time, I think it's disingenuous to say that Jesus fled Roman-held Judea to hide out in Roman-held Egypt. That would be akin to someone running away from Oregon to hide out in Georgia... hardly a "refugee" by the modern meaning or usage of the word. In fact, the author concedes this very point:

Did Joseph and Mary apply for official refugee status? Of course not. Those kinds of regulations were most likely not in effect. There may not have even been any borders at the time. . . . Egypt, which came under Roman control in 30 B.C., was outside the jurisdiction of Herod. Egypt had been the traditional place of refuge for Jews both in biblical times and in the Maccabean era when the high priest Onias IV fled there. (emphasis added)

He admits that there were "no borders" and both places were under Roman control, and yet he doubles down in the very next sentence, saying "Thus, we see a family fleeing to a foreign country out of fear of persecution." So which is it? A foreign country, or a Roman territory?

So why does any of this matter? The simple answer is that it doesn't, and I freely admit that. We should love our neighbors as ourselves, and sometimes that means offering refuge to those who are suffering. But the stronger, more nuanced answer, is that if the political Left wants to use the Bible to justify their pet policies or accuse the Christians--not even the political Right--of being hypocrites, then they had better be prepared to have four (or more) fingers pointing back at them. After pointing out that Jesus was a refugee, the common tactic is to quote Matthew 25, Jesus's famous parable about the sheep and the goats:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’" (emphasis added)

You see, Jesus calls blessed those who invited the stranger in, therefore, we must invite all refugees seeking asylum in, too. However, the Left always neglect to read the entire parable. In verse 40, Jesus continues,

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" (emphasis added).

Jesus says that those who helped "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" helped him. Who are his brothers and sisters, then? Jesus's brothers and sisters are the children of God, "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17). "[To] all who did receive him, to those who believed in [Christ's] name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." So if the Left wants to make the argument that we should accept all Coptic Christian refugees, or persecuted believers in China, then I think they'd have a lot more support (not that some of the Central Americans migrating up aren't Christian). Christians are called to love their neighbors, certainly, but this particular precept in Matthew applies to how Christians treat other Christians. 

By using the Bible to justify their preferred policy position, the Left ultimately undermines their argument because they have an incomplete understanding of Scripture, let alone who God is. Their constant appeals to "helping the poor" sound noble--of course, history shows again and again that the steps that could alleviate the poor's status are maligned by the Left--but the Bible is meant for individual relationship with God, not a recipe book for a political caste to pick and choose from as they see fit. Given, I firmly believe that if everyone surrendered to the will of God and lived out the truths of the Bible, earth be a utopia, but Scripture also makes clear that just won't happen. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." (Romans 1:18-19). The truth isn't just "out there", it's been fully revealed, yet people suppress and reject it for their own vainglory and power-seeking. 

Justice and Mercy are the Path to Resolution in Kavanaugh Hearings

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." - Micah 6:8 NIV

In the midst of controversy over the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, we would do well to remember the prophet Micah's instruction to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. God's chosen people had lost their way, holding up unrighteous men and women as pillars of society and worshipping the false gods of the Canaanite people. As we enter the third week of #ConfirmationGate, we resemble the lost and misguided nations of Israel more than the constitutional republic of America.

We are not seeking justice; if we were then accusations of wrongdoing would be made publicly and hearings would be held to derive the truth. Instead, we have secret accusations, public posturing, myriad denials, and the delay of hearings. Justice isn't in the punishment, but in the process: the Lord administers justice perfectly, for he "[does] not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great," but judges all fairly. We must strive to do the same. 

Our society doesn't love mercy, for if we did, the sins of a person's distant past would not be drudged up to condemn him now. Likewise, we would not rush to condemn a woman's account of assault as false or malicious. This doesn't mean that "time heals all wounds." In fact, time has no such power. Only forgiveness, through the loving sacrifice of one's right to restitution, can heal those wounds. Instead, we have partisans drawing arbitrary lines in the sand that demand retribution for our enemies and absolution for ourselves.

Finally, we are most certainly not walking humbly with the Lord. If we were, then we would not create such high stakes for a Supreme Court nomination. We would not place our hopes in the outcome of judicial decisions or elections. And we would not drape ourselves in the faux patriotism of a flag or the cultural security blanket that our skin color provides.

Walking humbly with the Lord means recognizing that He is the creator and giver of all life. When we admit that God is everything, it resets our metric for what is important in life. We stop looking elsewhere for fulfillment and gratification. And because we bear His image, He is the source of all our dignity. We shouldn't need the approval of another, let alone the highest court in the land, to make us feel accepted. Finally, His faithfulness through the ages reveals that all hope resides in His promise of redemption, fulfilled through the life of Jesus Christ on earth, His death on the cross, and the resurrection.

Act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord. This is what a hurting nation must do. 

Rights vs. Privileges

In law school, my Constitutional Law professor asked us to define the word rights, as in "What are the rights we possess?". As an intellectual exercise, it is a worthwhile one, even if often times the courts and legislatures in our country fail to differentiate the two. Still, I think that the distinction is not only possible, but necessary. 

Rights are God-given and inalienable. In other words, we are born with them (or some might even argue, conceived with them, but that's another topic for a different post) and they cannot be taken away from us. The Declaration of Independence recognized some of those rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and the U.S. Constitution enumerates others. But neither of those documents grants us the rights that we possess by virtue of our birth on this earth.

Privileges, on the other hand, essentially amount to permissions granted to us by government. When the government affords us the ability or authority to do something, it can also take it away. Thus, when we receive our driver's license, we are subject to the whims of the state on whether we can keep it. 

These two distinct concepts are often conflated intentionally to muddy the waters, but there's a simple way to differentiate between the two. A right is incapable of jutting up against another right. Privileges don't have that, ahem, privilege. To illustrate this point, consider the right to free speech. My right to speak extends as far as I can stretch it, up until the point where it would interfere with your right to speak. Thus, I cannot use my right to free speech to silence you, nor can you use your right to silence me. We can both speak at each other and not accomplish a whole lot, but we are both still free to speak.

On the other hand, a privilege that is often branded as a right is health care access, specifically to prescription birth control. When the Department of Health and Human Services provided an exemption to numerous companies that held sincere religious or moral objections to providing birth control for employees, people shrieked at the shift in policy. But as the government giveth, so the government taketh away. The very requirement that companies provide birth control to employees was a government privilege enacted through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is more commonly known.

One of the high-minded debates that goes on in law schools and other academic circles, then, is what happens when rights run up against privileges? And today, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear those very arguments. This is "the gay wedding cake" case, as it's colloquially known. However, the stakes in this case make it abundantly clear: "[it's] not about the cake."

This case pits the freedom of conscience embedded in our nation's founding against the government-granted dignity provided by anti-discrimination laws. For proof of the former, look no further than the thousands of people who fled England and Europe in pursuit of religious freedom to found America. For the importance of the latter, we can look to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. In other words, no matter the outcome of the case, this nation stands to lose a large part of its identity.

A lot of people say that we have to think and speak and act a certain way. Whether it's believing that everyone stand for the national anthem, or the idea that a bakery open to the public ought to bake a cake for same-sex ceremonies, the central theme appears to be that a person’s thoughts and opinions are no longer his own. To think differently is to be intolerant. And tolerance above all else has become the end goal for many in society. Nonconformity is the new pariah, and there are plenty of Joseph McCarthys out there to cast aspersions on those who will not tow the lion.

It's easy to say that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is wrong and is simply using religion to discriminate. But people with such a simplistic view of the situation do not understand the battle going on within Phillips's conscience when he has to tell a gay couple he cannot make a custom wedding cake for them. The Bible tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourself (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-34). But the Bible also tells Christians to live apart from sinful desires and to put on our new selves in the image of God (Ephesians 4:17-24). And for many Christians, although same-sex marriage is now a legal reality in the United States, it is still a sin against God (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). Therefore, forcing someone to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony by baking a cake--a symbolic and edible representation of the union--is to force that person into celebrating a sin, and thereby violate his or her conscience.

In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot force students to pledge allegiance to the flag (much to the chagrin of many Republican politicians today, I'm sure). The Court's reasoning is something that can serve as a beacon of hope amidst this tidal wave of social tolerance washing over us:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Our dignity does not lie in the privileges granted to us by government, or on the misguided hope that we can have our cake and eat it too. Trusting in government to provide us with dignity will only set us up for a greater fall down the road, when it's no longer convenient for us to be dignified. Instead, we should find our sense of worth in the rights that God bestows on us from birth. Only when we recognize the value that He sees in us will we begin to see the value in each other, and that cannot be given to us by government.

A Pyrrhic Undefeated Season

My alma mater, the University of Central Florida, had an undefeated regular season, won its conference championship in double overtime, and sits at #12 in the CFP rankings. (No love for a non-P5 team; bah-humbug!) Amidst all of the celebrating, however, our head coach got plucked away by Nebraska, so a lot of alumni are lamenting that loss, while others are cursing him because of the unfortunate timing of the news of his departure dropping while we were still in playing Memphis.

But there's a far more shocking story to come out of UCF than the loss of our head coach and his staff. Donald De La Haye lost his football scholarship because the NCAA forced him into a take-it-or-leave-it situation: continue making YouTube videos that have generated some money for him, or play football. The option to do both was not on the table because it threatened the cartel the NCAA has over the monetization of its slaves... er, student athletes.

So naturally, I posted that article to the Facebook page that discusses all things UCF athletics. And although there was some mild support for my post or sympathy for the player, most of the reactions fell in the range of "don't bring down our high" to "he traded his free speech for a scholarship"; as if a constitutionally protected freedom could be bartered in such a way. I believe that the university has not only the moral obligation to reinstate De La Haye's scholarship and stand up for him against the NCAA, but also a constitutional duty to do so as a public university. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not shed their right to freedom of speech simply because they have entered the schoolhouse doors. 

Contract law contains the doctrine of "unconscionability." This doctrine allows courts to render a contract unenforceable because the terms of the contract so overwhelmingly favor one party over the other that it shocks the conscience. One of the key factors of unconscionability is whether one party had vastly superior bargaining position. UCF, acting as a proxy for the the NCAA's regulations, stood atop a mountain of bargaining power compared to De La Haye, a kid born in Costa Rica who was sending some of the revenue from his YouTube channel to help family there. The NCAA's restrictions on monetizing videos based on an athlete's "reputation, prestige, or ability" forced De La Haye to sign away his right to express himself in his role as a football player when he accepted a scholarship to play for UCF. Forcing De La Haye to sign away a constitutionally-protected right so he could receive a monetary stipend and tuition--things he earned by his athletic prowess--strikes me as a grossly unequal exchange. Meanwhile, UCF and the NCAA continue to make money off the blood, sweat, and backs of men and women in athletic programs around the country.

As it turns out, De La Haye decided to leave college football behind him and continue his endeavors with his YouTube channel, Deestroying. But it never should have come to him being forced to choose one over the other. Stories like his are the reason my university will never receive a dime from me. True story: I quit my Chicago-area alumni chapter board this past summer because the school forced me to contribute financially despite the hours I volunteered to promote its brand and image. And I told them that I have serious misgivings about donating money to a public university that does not value free speech.

Not a dime. The only financial gift I've ever made to UCF, which the alumni association found "unacceptable." 

UCF's 1400 acre campus has only nine designated "Free Assembly Areas" that people must meet in if they want to hold political rallies or events (University Regulations, UCF-4.2093(12)). The university has also codified into its campus regulations the constitutionally suspect "fighting words" doctrine (UCF-4.2093(6)(f)) as well as the heckler's veto (4.2093(8-9)). The former has been drastically limited by Supreme Court cases National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011), to the point the doctrine is almost meaningless. (Consider, for a moment, that the very statements Walter Chaplinsky yelled at his arresting police officer in the "fighting words" case were "You are . . . a damned Fascist," something we hear regularly these days.) And the heckler's veto has no place on a public university campus that purports to value integrity, scholarship, and community.

Overall, reading De La Haye's story yesterday amidst the conference championship left a sour taste in my mouth. Sure, the school will get some recognition for the victories its football team had this season. But in putting its fealty to the almighty NCAA above the rights of its students, I can't help but feel that this 12-0 season deserves an asterisk next to it.

The Responsibility of Democracy

It should go without saying that the president (or congressmen) should not threaten the speech rights of U.S. citizens, whether they be NFL players, left-wing news organizations, or right-wing speakers. It should go without saying, and yet, depressingly, it needs to be said.

But government actors are not the only ones who bear the blame in the current devolution of civil discourse. We, the people, have fostered this cultural malaise by failing to hold our elected leaders accountable to their designated roles--i.e., upholding the Constitution--and instead demanding that they provide the cure to all of society's problems that the republic was never designed to fix.

Josh Barro's piece in Business Insider makes the bizarre claim that government should actually try to, you know, govern. At least it only sounds bizarre when we are so accustomed to government standing in loco parentis for us. Barro says that voters brought this on themselves somewhat when they ignored legitimate questions of policy--think Trump's border wall--and turned them into identity crises. He goes on to propose that Making Politics Boring Again^TM could prove to get elected officials to focus on things they can actually fix rather than bogged down by those they cannot.

I followed Barro's premise for the first half or so of his piece, but I disagree with his assessment that the solution to mismanaged government is better (read: more!) government. Barro misinterprets a root cause of political unrest as a symptom. He fails to recognize that politicians are reflecting the rising culture wars not simply to appeal to voters, but because it removes the pressure of government from themselves. The political parties thrive when the citizenry becomes more polarized. It allows them to whip their bases up as a front while pulling strings together in the background.

Therefore, the solution is not to further involve government in settling our differences, but to take the role of responsibility upon ourselves to demand change from within. If you're mad that your neighbors don't like you because of your sexual orientation, take it up with your neighbor, not your state commissioners. If you think the world is going to shit because no one believes in God or says "Merry Christmas" anymore, then pray for the world in your home and in your church; don't attempt to legislate morality. If you watch sports as an escape from reality and wish people would stop politicizing it, then stop celebrating the use and appearance of military force in the form of pregame flyovers and paratrooper drops. And if you want to sell your message that #BlackLivesMatter and police violence must stop, then it's time to realize that police exist to enforce laws and calling for more laws and regulations only provides more avenues for violence.

The first three words of the Constitution tell each and every one of us who is in charge of this nation. It is not some man--or someday, woman--who sits in an oval office in a white house. It is not 535 men and women who pat themselves on the back about the monumental thousand-page laws they pass but cannot bother to read. It is not even nine men and women in black robes who have the lifetime responsibility of reading and interpreting those thousand-page laws.

No. The power did, does, and always will reside with WE, THE PEOPLE. In his famous "Spirit of Liberty" speech in 1944, Judge Learned Hand revealed the importance of remembering that liberty starts and ends with us, and if we do not have the courage to protect it, nothing else can or will:

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . . While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

Take up the mantle of liberty, friends. Do not let it die by the hands of those in power. Do not let them whittle down your resolve. Stand firm in knowing that the United States government derives its power from you, and therefore must answer to you. Resist oppression and abuse of power. Do all these things, and before the end is nigh, we might just save this country.

The Cost of Civilized Society

Imagine this: you've worked hard the last two weeks and finally the moment arrives when you get paid for your efforts. You start to think about the things you'll do with your earnings. Sure, you have some bills to pay, but you worked a few extra hours, so maybe you'll make an extra payment on your mortgage, or maybe you'll treat yourself to a nice dinner or save some for that camping trip your friends are planning. 

Before you can barely walk out of the bank with your cashed earnings, someone approaches with a gun, demanding you give him money. "Don't worry," he assures you. After all, he's only asking for about a sixth of your paycheck, and better yet, he's going to do great things with it.

First, he tells you, he's going to give about a third of the money he takes from you directly to your neighbor Paul, but not before funneling it through a convoluted system so that Paul actually receives less than the amount taken from you. You start to wonder why you can't just pay Paul directly, but your assailant tells you that Paul had to do the same thing when he was working, so it's only fair that he takes your money now.

Next, he tells you that he's going to use a few dollars of what he takes to support local artists, television shows and businesses. Before you can object--because you already support these people on a semi-regular basis--the man holding you at gunpoint tells you that the support must come from him because these particular artists, television shows and businesses are critical to your very existence. He informs you that without his generosity, these artists, television shows and businesses may cease to exist. 

You open your mouth to try to argue against his circular logic, when the man tells you that he's going to take the remaining money and attack some people you know in the next city over, Jordan and Georgia. He's going to hurl large bombs and send a bunch of his lackeys over to shoot at them. You ask why he is attacking them and the man says "they are a threat to your safety."

You find it hard to believe Jordan and Georgia want to harm you. Just last month you had them both over for dinner and everything was fine. The man has pulled out a small calculator and is punching in numbers. He finishes his calculations and shows you the total, demanding you pay him that amount immediately. You want to respond, object, do anything to stop him, but ultimately you hand over a sixth of your paycheck; after all, he's the one with the gun. 

You ask the man what you did to deserve this, but he just laughs and says, "That's the cost of living in a civilized society."