Left Mississippi a few days ago. The plane ride wasn’t half-bad. It started poorly—the 767 had engine problems, so despite waking up at 2am, we didn’t take off until 4pm that day. That ride was a bit crowded, but I had decent company. And I slept.
We had a layover at JFK international airport. We weren’t allowed in the airport proper with our weapons, so we had to stay sequestered in our own terminal. When we were given leave to roam about the airport, we had to leave folks behind to watch the weapons. Thanks Bloomberg, you statist, immature, sexually and emotionally stunted hoplophobe. I have a God-given right to self-defense anywhere and everywhere I go. Simply because I’m in your crime-ridden city and you don’t trust your own citizens (or subjects, shall I say?) enough to allow (as if you can, in an act of noblesse oblige, amend or abridge the Bill of Rights at your whim) them to protect themselves (and you don’t really want them to- let’s face it, you and your ilk wish to rule over a nation of children- with you as the loving progressive parents) doesn’t mean that I- a free man by action and choice- must submit myself to your immoral laws.
Pig.
Anyhow, I really have to alter my opinion of New Yorkers. I admit to being prejudiced towards them. When we started to travel around the airport, I reflected to my medic that we were unlikely to be singled out in a positive fashion in New York; to wit, I said to him, “Hey Wooz- I bet you five dollars that we don’t get one ‘thanks for your service’ while we’re here.” He absolutely agreed, and refused to take a losing bet. Not ten minutes later, some thin and weathered fellow pulling a rolling suitcase stopped us both and shook our hands. “Thank you for everything you do for our country.” I stood corrected. However, we both agreed, he was likely from somewhere else.
Sometime later, Wooz and I headed to McDonalds to grab a bite to eat. We were standing in line when some quick-talking lady with an obvious New York accent offered to buy our dinner. “I know you guys are headed over and I want to do this for you,” she said. So that’s two for two, I guess.
A couple of observations about JFK airport: The prices. A 20oz drink from a vending machine is $2.75. A hamburger from Mickey D’s that costs 89 cents in Kentucky costs $2.39 at JFK/New York. My Southern Chicken sandwich meal cost $7.89 on the menu. When I asked if they had a dollar menu, the cashier laughed- laughed! What a horrid place. I realize that people will argue ‘cost of living’ and all that. But you have to factor in taxes. In fact, the taxes levied in an area directly affect the cost of living. Same thing with minimum wage- which, by the way, (and this is a fact backed by the numbers) hurts the lowest income demographic, and in that demographic, hurts blacks the most, and in the black community, hurts teenage males worst of all.
The point of all this is to imagine what the cost of living in New York would look like if there was no minimum wage, and the city’s taxes were limited. Or, and this is a handy solution to the whole “IOT keep New York running you have to smother the people in taxes!” argument. What if each borough was taxed separately, and according to the mean income of that borough? That way, those who want to live in a Manhattan penthouse would have to shoulder directly their share of the financial burden for Manhattan, allowing the people in the poorer sections of the city to avoid paying for the astronomical expenses of downtown; IOW, they would be directly taxed for the amount they use, and no more.
Another thing about JFK. There was an EL Al (the Israeli airline) flight stopped over in town, and there were a bunch of Jews running around there. One thing I noticed: You would see the hottest Israeli girls pushing baby carriages next to really subpar Israeli guys. Like, seriously. Ugly. I’m an average (possibly below average) American male. Compared to these guys, I might as well be a bodybuilder or a Greek God. Bear with me here. Based on the cross-section of Israeli guys displayed in JFK, an average-looking American guy could seriously head over there and clean house. Probably be beating the women off with a stick. You heard me gents. Go forth!
After JFK, we went to Leipzig Germany—home of Johann Sebastian Bach. Then to Kuwait- population 2.5 million; 1.4 million of which are non-Kuwaiti, predominantly Catholic Filipino. That’s a religious/race war waiting to happen, since 1) Muhammad declared (and therefore Muslims believe to the death) that the Arabian peninsula would forever be a peninsula on which Allah alone would be worshipped, and 2) because of that, Kuwait and other peninsular nations have dhimmi laws which practically outlaw all other faiths. (And CAIR whines when the star and crescent isn’t displayed next to nativity scenes…)
So we’re sitting in Kuwait, wasting time. It’s pretty cushy here, which I don’t like. Too many fast food chains; too many places to waste money (huge PX, Harley-Davidson/Ford store, etc.) I wish I could go back to a FOB like Orgun-E. Nothing but barracks, an MWR, and and a chow hall. But I’m not deploying to Afghanistan again. And the new ROE for Afghanistan requires the enemy to engage in “hostile action” even if US troops have positive identification (also known as PID) before they can be engaged. Can’t win a war that way—so I won’t even have the option of visiting Afghanistan as a tourist. And I did kinda want to.
Finished reading Hosea. Awesome, awesome book. The more I read the Bible, the more smitten I am with God’s love for us. The basic outline of the book is that Yahweh tells Hosea to take a prostitute named Gomer as his wife. This story of the relationship between Hosea and Gomer mirrors the one between Yahweh and his people. I’m not sure, having just finished reading it, how much of the unfaithfulness God speaks of Israel actually applies to Gomer vis-a-vis Hosea, but its still great. Listen to chapter 11, where God is talking about his people:
When Israel was a child, I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called my son. But
The more I called Israel, the further they went from me[…]
It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them
By the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them.
I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love;
I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them.
God speaks of the wayward Northern Kingdom as if they were a beloved son—can you see a giddy toddler being taught to walk by its father in verse three, his fingers gently holding up his child “by the arms”? It’s a beautiful picture also in verse four. “I bent down to feed them.” I see a loving Daddy with a tiny spoon in his hand, feeding that same toddler; now wiping the excess off his child’s chin. It is with such images in mind that verse five: …will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent? And six: Swords will flash in their cities… and put an end to their plans—sound less like a judgment (although that’s what it is, we mustn’t forget) and more like a heartbroken father that can see the coming pain their wayward child is too blind to see.
But look at verse eight now:
How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, O Israel?[…]
My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and
Devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
The Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.
Yahweh recalls the past, and His love wins out over judgment. He saves Israel from the consequences of their actions “For I am God, and not man”—by his supernatural power. In a way, this can be a foreshadowing of that ultimate act of love: the work of Christ upon the cross. Through Christ’s death we were saved from the consequences of our actions. Eternal death, according to Paul in Romans chapter 3. He goes on to say, in verse 25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
How could God do this? How was it possible for God to allow Christ to pay this price for us? Because “I am God, and not man.” Good enough for me.
Back to Hosea. You know, I really want to get to know these people better. There are so many unanswered questions about the people involved. Did Hosea love his wife when he was commanded to marry her? Did his heart break when he held little Jezreel (or Lo-Ammi or Lo-Ruhamah) and thought “This is not my child”? Gomer was a prostitute. How often did she ply her trade? Did people watch Hosea walk down the street and say “That poor, poor man. Why is he still with Gomer? He certainly deserves better”? How did he react to other people’s pity or scorn? What was running through Gomer’s mind when she cheated on him? Did she enjoy sex for sex? Was she broken, somehow, on the inside? Did she love Hosea at first, or only at the end? How in the world did Hosea work up the nerve to stride into where Gomer was “working” and buy her back? What did Hosea think of the God who allowed him to feel this pain? He spoke the word of the Lord; surely there was some other way to get the point across? How often did Hosea sit in a dark corner of his home, away from the kids, away from prying eyes, and pour out in tears the hurt he must have felt?
There is much omitted about who Hosea was and the circumstances of his life. But there is enough there to paint a brief but vivid picture. Hosea was a man of remarkable moral strength. He was obedient, if nothing else. And I like to think that he had faith—that the God who could redeem and heal the people of Israel was big enough to redeem and heal his wife. I sincerely hope Hosea had his “happily ever after”, don’t you?
------------------------
+++AWESOME QUOTE+++
“Therefore I am going to now allure her;
I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her.
There I will give her back her vineyards,
And make the Valley of Trouble
A door of hope.
There she will sing as in the days of
Her youth,
As in the days she came up out of
Egypt.”
- Hosea 2: 14-15
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Learning Love
So, I’m getting ready—still—to go over to Iraq. Any time now… :)
I want to explain what God is doing in my life. Cause it is incredible and awesome. You see, I’ve been out of the loop concerning my relationship with God for quite some time now. Granted, I had my moments—and they usually included getting hurt really badly by people I care deeply about—but they weren’t permanent changes, just moments of being in touch with God.
So God wasn’t really getting what he wanted out of me: a relationship. I was the friend who came by to cry on His mighty shoulder, taking comfort in His presence, and when He had picked me up, I merrily treated Him like crap and went off on my way. (I didn’t realize all of this until very recently. I had been that “lifesaving flotation device” before for other people, but never thought that what others did to me, I was doing to God.) Sure, I called him my Father; called him my Savior—but my actions didn’t line up with what I professed. Like a husband who beats his wife and then tells her he loves her, there was a disconnect between what I said and what I did; between who I claimed to be and who I really was. (I’ve recently begun to understand the vital nature of belief+action, and how the two relate. More on that later.)
I think, being a Puritanical, honor-bound male, I tended towards legalism. I know I tended towards legalism- I think that was the reason. I have always valued honesty, loyalty, keeping your word, working hard, treating others fairly, all of that. And all of those are good and decent things. But if you pay attention, you will notice all of those things have something in common.
Do you see it? Look a little closer, and think.
All those positive traits I listed are either 1) actions, or 2) dependent on action. (They also are displayed by action, but so is everything else. As I will explain in a later post, humans are physical creatures. Therefore, they manifest everything physically. To the degree that something isn’t displayed in action, it isn’t believed. Oops, I’m digressing…) So of course, if my morals emphasize action, I would find myself slowly drifting towards legalism.
I once explained to a friend (speaking of another friend who disparaged Mosaic Law) that sometimes I liked the Law, because it was a last ditch safety net. Even though my entire body and fallen nature screamed to do something, I held back *because I knew it was wrong*. Spoken Like a true Pharisee, eh? The Law can point toward righteousness, but it cannot lead there. It took me falling to my lowest depths before I realized how ethereal that safety net was.
I started reading God’s Word, and praying a little bit. And then I read a really cool book. It’s called “So You don’t Want to go to Church Anymore.” And yeah, it was fiction, but there was still a bit of truth in there. What really struck me about the book was how the authors, through the protagonist’s conversations with a guy named John, emphasized- over and over- God’s love and the relationship He sought with every single one of us. About halfway through I put the book down and picked up my Bible. I went to the Gospels, and I reread John. And the love of this amazing man, Jesus, who was also God, seemed to leak through every single syllable. I lost count of how many times John mentioned love*, or used the “L-word”. (Hehe.) Only a God of love would heal the lame and give sight to the blind. Only a God who sought every single one of us like a husband seeks his bride would talk with a Samaritan polyamorist, or tell the adulterous woman “I don’t condemn you. Go, and don’t sin again.” Only a God who loves us enough to get His hands dirty would willingly walk to the Cross. Of the Crucifixion, John says “Having loved His own who were in the world, He now showed them the full extent of His love.”
As I read all this, I finally understood with my heart that my sins were forgiven. I had the knowledge, but one can know something and never act on it. I had always carried around in my mind a personal scorecard- good deeds vs. bad deeds- and I would unconsciously grade myself every day. Looking back, how could I not be silently miserable? Even the times when it seemed I pulled ahead, that was only a brief respite before my legalistic heart was pulled back into sin. When you compete against your own ideal- or God’s, for that matter- you can’t win.
What came after that realization was a hunger. A hunger to know this God that had forgiven me, who wanted to be my best friend. My little flame of faith picked up strength and began roaring, growing into an actual fire. I started praying and reading my Bible- things I had done before, things that on the outside looked the same as it always had- but with a difference. You see, my heart had shifted. I was doing the same actions, but with new motivations.
And it’s awesome. I prayed to God that He would keep revealing Himself to me, and that I wanted to chase Him with everything I had. Also, I began to understand (slowly) that If I pursued Him with all of my heart, everything else would begin to fall into place. I loved others, but instead of trying to love them under my own power, as I had been doing for so long with mixed results, I began letting Christ love them through me.
So I’m forgiven. And so are you. And Christ earned forgiveness for us because God wanted to know you and I intimately. If you honestly pursue Him- if you wrap yourself in His love- you will find yourself becoming a better person. Not through action, though your actions will change to show others the love you feel. But a better person than you could ever become on your own. And you might discover, like I did, that the person you are becoming is the person you wanted to be all along, but you didn’t know it.
(* Wouldn't that be cool? To go through the original Greek and count how many times the word "love" appeared in John? I certainly think so.)
--------------------------
"God doesn't ask us to sacrifice our dreams in the coventional sense. He doesn't throw them away. He gives them back to us, redeemed."
I want to explain what God is doing in my life. Cause it is incredible and awesome. You see, I’ve been out of the loop concerning my relationship with God for quite some time now. Granted, I had my moments—and they usually included getting hurt really badly by people I care deeply about—but they weren’t permanent changes, just moments of being in touch with God.
So God wasn’t really getting what he wanted out of me: a relationship. I was the friend who came by to cry on His mighty shoulder, taking comfort in His presence, and when He had picked me up, I merrily treated Him like crap and went off on my way. (I didn’t realize all of this until very recently. I had been that “lifesaving flotation device” before for other people, but never thought that what others did to me, I was doing to God.) Sure, I called him my Father; called him my Savior—but my actions didn’t line up with what I professed. Like a husband who beats his wife and then tells her he loves her, there was a disconnect between what I said and what I did; between who I claimed to be and who I really was. (I’ve recently begun to understand the vital nature of belief+action, and how the two relate. More on that later.)
I think, being a Puritanical, honor-bound male, I tended towards legalism. I know I tended towards legalism- I think that was the reason. I have always valued honesty, loyalty, keeping your word, working hard, treating others fairly, all of that. And all of those are good and decent things. But if you pay attention, you will notice all of those things have something in common.
Do you see it? Look a little closer, and think.
All those positive traits I listed are either 1) actions, or 2) dependent on action. (They also are displayed by action, but so is everything else. As I will explain in a later post, humans are physical creatures. Therefore, they manifest everything physically. To the degree that something isn’t displayed in action, it isn’t believed. Oops, I’m digressing…) So of course, if my morals emphasize action, I would find myself slowly drifting towards legalism.
I once explained to a friend (speaking of another friend who disparaged Mosaic Law) that sometimes I liked the Law, because it was a last ditch safety net. Even though my entire body and fallen nature screamed to do something, I held back *because I knew it was wrong*. Spoken Like a true Pharisee, eh? The Law can point toward righteousness, but it cannot lead there. It took me falling to my lowest depths before I realized how ethereal that safety net was.
I started reading God’s Word, and praying a little bit. And then I read a really cool book. It’s called “So You don’t Want to go to Church Anymore.” And yeah, it was fiction, but there was still a bit of truth in there. What really struck me about the book was how the authors, through the protagonist’s conversations with a guy named John, emphasized- over and over- God’s love and the relationship He sought with every single one of us. About halfway through I put the book down and picked up my Bible. I went to the Gospels, and I reread John. And the love of this amazing man, Jesus, who was also God, seemed to leak through every single syllable. I lost count of how many times John mentioned love*, or used the “L-word”. (Hehe.) Only a God of love would heal the lame and give sight to the blind. Only a God who sought every single one of us like a husband seeks his bride would talk with a Samaritan polyamorist, or tell the adulterous woman “I don’t condemn you. Go, and don’t sin again.” Only a God who loves us enough to get His hands dirty would willingly walk to the Cross. Of the Crucifixion, John says “Having loved His own who were in the world, He now showed them the full extent of His love.”
As I read all this, I finally understood with my heart that my sins were forgiven. I had the knowledge, but one can know something and never act on it. I had always carried around in my mind a personal scorecard- good deeds vs. bad deeds- and I would unconsciously grade myself every day. Looking back, how could I not be silently miserable? Even the times when it seemed I pulled ahead, that was only a brief respite before my legalistic heart was pulled back into sin. When you compete against your own ideal- or God’s, for that matter- you can’t win.
What came after that realization was a hunger. A hunger to know this God that had forgiven me, who wanted to be my best friend. My little flame of faith picked up strength and began roaring, growing into an actual fire. I started praying and reading my Bible- things I had done before, things that on the outside looked the same as it always had- but with a difference. You see, my heart had shifted. I was doing the same actions, but with new motivations.
And it’s awesome. I prayed to God that He would keep revealing Himself to me, and that I wanted to chase Him with everything I had. Also, I began to understand (slowly) that If I pursued Him with all of my heart, everything else would begin to fall into place. I loved others, but instead of trying to love them under my own power, as I had been doing for so long with mixed results, I began letting Christ love them through me.
So I’m forgiven. And so are you. And Christ earned forgiveness for us because God wanted to know you and I intimately. If you honestly pursue Him- if you wrap yourself in His love- you will find yourself becoming a better person. Not through action, though your actions will change to show others the love you feel. But a better person than you could ever become on your own. And you might discover, like I did, that the person you are becoming is the person you wanted to be all along, but you didn’t know it.
(* Wouldn't that be cool? To go through the original Greek and count how many times the word "love" appeared in John? I certainly think so.)
--------------------------
"God doesn't ask us to sacrifice our dreams in the coventional sense. He doesn't throw them away. He gives them back to us, redeemed."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
So I’m at Mob station, getting ready to head to the sandbox. I’m excited—about getting over there and past this bullshit, but also about coming home at the end of it and doing the things I want to do.
I’m doing my best to “Let Silence Reign” in that situation; Buttercup is… well, to be honest, I don’t really know where her heart is, and anything I say would likely be too bitter and hurtful to do any good. Silence is golden; but sometimes it is also holy. I did remove her from my Facebook friends, and I suppose I ought to explain that. I wasn’t because I was angry at her, or I hated her, or I never wanted to talk to her again. It was because when I would log on after several days offline, there would be her face and her name sitting there on my home page—each one like a knife twist in my heart. So I removed her from my friends.
I miss her. But not like the “I’ve been rejected forever” type of missing. More like “My friend died awhile ago” type. And I’m sure she would say the same, that she isn’t the woman that I once loved (as if love was confined to a certain moment, and not an aging, growing thing as well!) and that that person was dead. My response to that would be that my Savior can raise the dead—it’s his speciality.
-------
Been reading Boston’s Gun Bible. Man, what a great book. Seriously. I can’t wait to get home and build my .308 AR-15. Boston has a great chapter on how Liberty types are often all talk. Its great. His basic argument is that if you don’t own a battle rifle and practice with it often, you don’t take liberty seriously. Here’s a quote:
“On April 19, 1775, the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord didn’t stand around quoting Locke to the Redcoats. They didn’t sit there and shout “No initiation of force!” No, they shot them—well and often—all twenty miles back to Boston.”
I’m doing my best to “Let Silence Reign” in that situation; Buttercup is… well, to be honest, I don’t really know where her heart is, and anything I say would likely be too bitter and hurtful to do any good. Silence is golden; but sometimes it is also holy. I did remove her from my Facebook friends, and I suppose I ought to explain that. I wasn’t because I was angry at her, or I hated her, or I never wanted to talk to her again. It was because when I would log on after several days offline, there would be her face and her name sitting there on my home page—each one like a knife twist in my heart. So I removed her from my friends.
I miss her. But not like the “I’ve been rejected forever” type of missing. More like “My friend died awhile ago” type. And I’m sure she would say the same, that she isn’t the woman that I once loved (as if love was confined to a certain moment, and not an aging, growing thing as well!) and that that person was dead. My response to that would be that my Savior can raise the dead—it’s his speciality.
-------
Been reading Boston’s Gun Bible. Man, what a great book. Seriously. I can’t wait to get home and build my .308 AR-15. Boston has a great chapter on how Liberty types are often all talk. Its great. His basic argument is that if you don’t own a battle rifle and practice with it often, you don’t take liberty seriously. Here’s a quote:
“On April 19, 1775, the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord didn’t stand around quoting Locke to the Redcoats. They didn’t sit there and shout “No initiation of force!” No, they shot them—well and often—all twenty miles back to Boston.”
Friday, December 4, 2009
So I was on Mars...
So I was working on my cogitator the other day. I opened the holy slot so that I could insert the dataslate-- and behold, the interior of the feed tray was defiled! Reciting prayers to the Omnissiah, I checked for further flaws, and finding none, I submitted a request for a new dataslate port. Chanting the Canticle of Swiftness, I waited. Within two solar cycles it had arrived!
I, being a humble adept, feared that my inexperience would further injure the machine-spirit. It was with that in mind that I approached my local Tech-Magos. Together, we lit the incense and chanted prayers of supplication to the cogitator's machine-spirit. Speaking the Litany of Unbinding, we performed the Rite of Removal-- taking the corrupted port from the innards of the cogitator. We chanted the Litany of Inclusion as we inserted the new dataslate port into the machine.
We ran holy diagnostics, fulfilling every step of the the proper ritual to ensure proper placement and connection. I whispered prayers to the machine-spirit and the Omnissiah for correct operation, as the cogitator rebooted.
It performed flawlessly! The Magos and I offered our praise to the Machine God that my cogitator could be brought back to perfection!
--------------
My computer broke and I took it to Geek Squad to fix it.
I, being a humble adept, feared that my inexperience would further injure the machine-spirit. It was with that in mind that I approached my local Tech-Magos. Together, we lit the incense and chanted prayers of supplication to the cogitator's machine-spirit. Speaking the Litany of Unbinding, we performed the Rite of Removal-- taking the corrupted port from the innards of the cogitator. We chanted the Litany of Inclusion as we inserted the new dataslate port into the machine.
We ran holy diagnostics, fulfilling every step of the the proper ritual to ensure proper placement and connection. I whispered prayers to the machine-spirit and the Omnissiah for correct operation, as the cogitator rebooted.
It performed flawlessly! The Magos and I offered our praise to the Machine God that my cogitator could be brought back to perfection!
--------------
My computer broke and I took it to Geek Squad to fix it.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Updating?
I guess I might try blogging it all out this time around. It would give me something to do, and lemme vent-- cuz, folks, these kids is retarded.
You know, the hilarious thing about the Army? You kinda forget how idiotic it is until you are in the belly of the beast again. For example:
Today, May, Cantrell, and I left the Armory on a mission after lunch to take Cantrell to the doctor's office for his appointment. We ran to Best Buy to see if Geek Squad could help me with my broke optical drive: more about that later.
Anyways, we make it back to the hotel with Cantrell, who is appropriately drugged to the gills. We depart to our respective rooms and I, after some unpacking, prepare to take a shower. The time was now 3:15 pm. Naked, and practically in the shower, I get a phone call from May: we are required to go back to the Armory, for the day was not over yet.
We get back to the Armory at 3:45. They let us go home at 4:15.
Logic: the Army has never heard of it.
You know, the hilarious thing about the Army? You kinda forget how idiotic it is until you are in the belly of the beast again. For example:
Today, May, Cantrell, and I left the Armory on a mission after lunch to take Cantrell to the doctor's office for his appointment. We ran to Best Buy to see if Geek Squad could help me with my broke optical drive: more about that later.
Anyways, we make it back to the hotel with Cantrell, who is appropriately drugged to the gills. We depart to our respective rooms and I, after some unpacking, prepare to take a shower. The time was now 3:15 pm. Naked, and practically in the shower, I get a phone call from May: we are required to go back to the Armory, for the day was not over yet.
We get back to the Armory at 3:45. They let us go home at 4:15.
Logic: the Army has never heard of it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A little something...
I was reading this today, and I feel that it is a comment that needs to be heard, especially today. From the greatest President we never had (Eat it, Ann Coulter):
---------
"We have all heard much throughout our lifetimes, and seen little happen, on the subject of high taxes. Where is the politician who has not promised his constituents a fight to the death for lower taxes-- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?(...) Talk of tax reduction has thus come to have a hollow ring. The people listen, but do not believe...
... I suspect this vicious cycle of cynicism and failure to perform is primarily the result of the Liberals' success in reading out the discussion of the moral principles with which the subject of taxation is so intimately connected. We have been led to look upon taxation as merely the problem of public financing: How much money does the government need? We have often been led to ... forget altogether the bearing of taxation on the problem of individual freedom. We have been persuaded that the government has an unlimited claim on the wealth of the people, and that the only pertinent question is what portion of its claim the government should exercise. The American taxpayer, I think, has lost confidence in his claim to his money.
(...)
Government does not have an unlimited claim to the earnings of individuals. One of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possesion and the use of his property. And a man's earnings are his property as much as his land and the house in which he lives. Indeed, in the industrial age, earnings are probably the most prevalent form of property. It has been the fashion in recent years to disparage "property rights"-- to associate them with greed and materialism. This attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom. It is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man. How can a man be truly free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of, but are treated, instead, as as part of a common pool of public wealth? Property and Freedom are inseparable: to the extent the government takes the one in the form of taxes, it intrudes on the other.
...But having said that each man has an inalienable right to his property, it must also be said that every citizen has an obligation to contribute his fair share to the legitmate functions of government.(...) The size of the Government's rightful claim-- that is, the total amount it may take in taxes-- will be determined by how we define the "legitimate functions of government." With regard to the federal government, the Constitution is the proper standard of legitimacy: its "legitimate" powers, as we have seen, are those the Constitution has delegated to it... when the federal government enacts programs that are not authorized by its delegated powers, the taxes needed to pay for such programs exceed the government's rightful claim on our wealth.
...What's a "fair share"? I believe that the requirements of justice here are perfectly clear: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more... the idea that a man who makes $100,000 a year should be forced to contribute ninety per cent of his income to the cost of government, while the man who makes $10,000 is made to pay twenty per cent is repugnant to my notions of justice. I do not believe in punishing success. To put it more broadly, I believe it is contrary to the natural right to property to which we have just alluded-- and is therefore immoral-- to deny to the man whose labor has produced more abundant fruit than that of his neighbor the opportunity of enjoying the abundance he has created.
... The graduated tax is a confiscatory tax. It's effect, and to a large extent its aim, is to bring down all men to a common level. Many of the leading proponents of a graduated tax frankly admit that their purpose is to redistribute the nation's wealth. Their aim is an egalitarian society-- an objective that does violence both to the charter of the Republic and to the laws of Nature. We are equal in the eyes of God but we are equal in no other respect. Artificial devices for enforcing equality among unequal men must must be rejected if we would restore that charter and enforce those laws.
One problem with regard to taxes, then, is to enforce justice-- to abolish the graduated features of our tax laws; and the sooner we get at the job, the better."
- Barry M. Goldwater
---------------------
I think most of you will catch the relevance of what Senator Goldwater was referring to, and how it applies to America today. Of course, some of the numbers have changed over time. For example, under our current President (who was caught on film saying "I want to spread the wealth around"-- the very words Goldwater used to describe supporters of graduated taxes) people whose incomes are $100,000 and above now pay 95% of the federal income, and Americans who makes less than $15,000 pay nothing to the government. The inequities have not been resolved. If anything, they have grown since 1964.
Some might find it odd for Senator Goldwater to refer to taxes and taxation in moral terms, but he is absolutely right. Historically, Americans have seen the tax issue in a moral light since the colonial period. The Intolerable Acts, The Stamp Act, the Tea Act-- all of the furor around these issues stemmed from the English insistence that the Americans' wealth, as British subjects, was to be regulated as Parliament and the King saw fit-- and from the Colonial belief that each American had a right to the fruit of his own labor. For Obama supporters (or even simply big government supporters) to claim that the "people" or the government has a greater claim on someone's property than that person does, is to say that the American Revolution was immoral, and that "the last, best hope of mankind" is based on flawed ideas of greed.
---------
"We have all heard much throughout our lifetimes, and seen little happen, on the subject of high taxes. Where is the politician who has not promised his constituents a fight to the death for lower taxes-- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?(...) Talk of tax reduction has thus come to have a hollow ring. The people listen, but do not believe...
... I suspect this vicious cycle of cynicism and failure to perform is primarily the result of the Liberals' success in reading out the discussion of the moral principles with which the subject of taxation is so intimately connected. We have been led to look upon taxation as merely the problem of public financing: How much money does the government need? We have often been led to ... forget altogether the bearing of taxation on the problem of individual freedom. We have been persuaded that the government has an unlimited claim on the wealth of the people, and that the only pertinent question is what portion of its claim the government should exercise. The American taxpayer, I think, has lost confidence in his claim to his money.
(...)
Government does not have an unlimited claim to the earnings of individuals. One of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possesion and the use of his property. And a man's earnings are his property as much as his land and the house in which he lives. Indeed, in the industrial age, earnings are probably the most prevalent form of property. It has been the fashion in recent years to disparage "property rights"-- to associate them with greed and materialism. This attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom. It is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man. How can a man be truly free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of, but are treated, instead, as as part of a common pool of public wealth? Property and Freedom are inseparable: to the extent the government takes the one in the form of taxes, it intrudes on the other.
...But having said that each man has an inalienable right to his property, it must also be said that every citizen has an obligation to contribute his fair share to the legitmate functions of government.(...) The size of the Government's rightful claim-- that is, the total amount it may take in taxes-- will be determined by how we define the "legitimate functions of government." With regard to the federal government, the Constitution is the proper standard of legitimacy: its "legitimate" powers, as we have seen, are those the Constitution has delegated to it... when the federal government enacts programs that are not authorized by its delegated powers, the taxes needed to pay for such programs exceed the government's rightful claim on our wealth.
...What's a "fair share"? I believe that the requirements of justice here are perfectly clear: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more... the idea that a man who makes $100,000 a year should be forced to contribute ninety per cent of his income to the cost of government, while the man who makes $10,000 is made to pay twenty per cent is repugnant to my notions of justice. I do not believe in punishing success. To put it more broadly, I believe it is contrary to the natural right to property to which we have just alluded-- and is therefore immoral-- to deny to the man whose labor has produced more abundant fruit than that of his neighbor the opportunity of enjoying the abundance he has created.
... The graduated tax is a confiscatory tax. It's effect, and to a large extent its aim, is to bring down all men to a common level. Many of the leading proponents of a graduated tax frankly admit that their purpose is to redistribute the nation's wealth. Their aim is an egalitarian society-- an objective that does violence both to the charter of the Republic and to the laws of Nature. We are equal in the eyes of God but we are equal in no other respect. Artificial devices for enforcing equality among unequal men must must be rejected if we would restore that charter and enforce those laws.
One problem with regard to taxes, then, is to enforce justice-- to abolish the graduated features of our tax laws; and the sooner we get at the job, the better."
- Barry M. Goldwater
---------------------
I think most of you will catch the relevance of what Senator Goldwater was referring to, and how it applies to America today. Of course, some of the numbers have changed over time. For example, under our current President (who was caught on film saying "I want to spread the wealth around"-- the very words Goldwater used to describe supporters of graduated taxes) people whose incomes are $100,000 and above now pay 95% of the federal income, and Americans who makes less than $15,000 pay nothing to the government. The inequities have not been resolved. If anything, they have grown since 1964.
Some might find it odd for Senator Goldwater to refer to taxes and taxation in moral terms, but he is absolutely right. Historically, Americans have seen the tax issue in a moral light since the colonial period. The Intolerable Acts, The Stamp Act, the Tea Act-- all of the furor around these issues stemmed from the English insistence that the Americans' wealth, as British subjects, was to be regulated as Parliament and the King saw fit-- and from the Colonial belief that each American had a right to the fruit of his own labor. For Obama supporters (or even simply big government supporters) to claim that the "people" or the government has a greater claim on someone's property than that person does, is to say that the American Revolution was immoral, and that "the last, best hope of mankind" is based on flawed ideas of greed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)