Saturday, January 7, 2017

Does God Exist? You Bet He Does!

First, there is the argument from design. It simply states that whenever one sees something that is designed, one can deduce from that there was behind this “something,” a designer, a creator. Our world was obviously designed—thus…a Designer did it. 

Whenever one sees a moral quality to something in existence, there must be behind it, a moral author. Morals do not crop up spontaneously. That “something behind morals and the principles of right and wrong, good and evil” must be a moral Creator, i.e., God. Therefore, God must exist. 

An argument for the existence of God comes from Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. Dr. Kreeft has written:

“I’m going to argue for the existence of God on the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste; not merely substitutes for ‘I like’ and ‘I don’t like’.  “To clarify, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral; of course, they can. Just like theists can act immorally. 

“So, where do good and evil come from?

“Atheists commonly propose a few possibilities: evolution, reason, conscience, human nature and utilitarianism. None of these, however, can be the ultimate source of morality.

“Evolution?  Any supposed morality that is evolving can change.  If it can change for the good or the bad, then there must be a standard above these changes by which we judge them as good or bad. An example of this is that throughout human history, more powerful societies have enslaved weaker societies—and prospered.  That’s just the way it was, and no one questioned it. Today, we condemn slavery.  But, based on an evolutionary model, one that is ever changing, who is to say that slavery might be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not, therefore, right and good. If you can’t make that distinction between something being accepted and being good, then you can’t criticize slavery!  If you can see the distinction, then you are admitting to objective morality.

“Reasoning?  Whereas reasoning is a powerful tool to help us discover and/or understand morality, it cannot be the source of morality.  For example, criminals use reasoning to plan a murder, without their reasoning telling them that murder is wrong. And was it reasoning or something higher than reasoning that led those Gentiles to save the lives of Jews threatened by the Holocaust?  The answer is obvious: it was something higher than reasoning, because risking one’s life to save the life of a stranger was a very unreasonable thing to do. 

“Conscience?  Conscience, alone, cannot be the source of morality. Every person has his own conscience, and some appear to have none. Heinrich Himmler, commander of the brutal Nazi SS, successfully appealed to his henchmen’s consciences to help him do the ‘right thing’ in murdering and torturing millions of Jews and others.  How can you say that your conscience is right and Himmler’s was wrong if conscience alone is the source of morality?  Answer: you can’t.

“Human Nature?  Some people say that human nature is the ultimate source of morality.  But, human nature can lead us to do all sorts of reprehensible things. In fact, human nature is the very reason we need morality. Our human nature can lead some of us to do real evil, and all of us to be selfish, unkind, petty and egocentric.  We surely would not want to live in a world where human nature was unrestrained. Human nature cannot be a reliable source to tell us whether an act is good or evil—thus, moral or immoral.

“Utilitarianism?   Utilitarianism is the claim that what is morally right is determined by whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But, to return to our slavery example, if 90% of the people in a society get great benefit from enslaving the other 10%, would that make slavery right?  According to utilitarianism—it would.

“Now that we see where morality cannot come from, let’s see where it does come from.  What are moral laws?

“Unlike the laws of physics or the laws of mathematics, that tell us ‘what is’, the laws of morality tell us ‘what ought to be’.  But, like physical laws, they direct and order something, and that ‘something’ is right human behavior. But, since morality does not exist physically (there are no moral atoms, or cells or genes) its Cause must be something that exists apart from the physical world. That thing must, therefore, be above nature, i.e. supernatural. The very existence of morality proves the existence of something that is beyond nature and beyond man.  Just as a design suggests a designer, moral commandments suggest a Moral Commander.  Moral laws must come from a Moral Lawgiver.  That Source is God, the One Who has revealed Himself in His Word.

“So then, the conclusion of this argument is that whenever you appeal to morality, you are appealing to God, whether you are willing to admit it or not. You are talking about something religious, even if you think you are an atheist.” 

“When we discuss the existence of God, we define Him as a perfect Being, greater than anything else which can be conceived. If God does not exist, then the very name "God" refers to an imaginary being. This makes the definition of "God" contradictory, for to be real, to be living, to have power, is greater than to be imaginary. It is clear that I cannot even discuss the word "God", by definition, if He does not exist. I must conceive of Him as really existing in order for Him to be greater than anything else, for a God Who does not exist obviously cannot be greater than anything else.  "For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?  God forbid: Let God be true, though every man were a liar." Romans 3.4

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11.6”

Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, lived 1033-1109. Anselm devised a system of thinking that has since been named Scholasticism, which dominated the Medieval world for hundreds of years. Anselm’s greatest contribution to philosophy was his development of what has been called, the “ontological” argument.  (Ontology is the study of being and existence.) In Anselm’s own words, his basic proof of God’s existence rests in his statement that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." I do not pretend to be able to delve to the depths of all the things Bishop Anselm wrote and thought about this principle; but I can try to understand: The reasoning behind this principle is that there is nothing of which we can conceive that cannot be improved. In other words, there is no object or thought that cannot be replaced by something greater. However, there must come eventually, something that is at the end of improvement or created greatness. That “something” must be God, Himself. Therefore, He must exist.

Well…I hope I have convinced some of my readers of the truth of God’s existence. I pray His blessings on each of you!

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Federalism Returning??

In recent decades, Federalism, i.e., the equal sharing of legislative power between the national government and the states, has been greatly eroded by the advance of power vested in the various national governmental agencies. Many of these agencies are not under the control of the Congress or, even, the Executive—they seem to function autonomously. This has manifested an erosion of the system of checks and balances originally designed by the writers of our Constitution. The most blatant example of this take-over of power has been the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.

The President-elect, Donald Trump has nominated for head of this agency, Scott Pruitt, the Attorney General of Arizona. Mr. Pruitt has been known for his strong stand for states’ rights and limitation of power in the EPA. This nomination has infuriated the political left that wants more, not less, power in the agency. However, the EPA has greatly overstepped its powers in interpreting the governmental control given to it in the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Those three Acts were specifically designed to allow the EPA to set minimum standards, provide technical support, and engage in enforcement occasionally. These functions were designed by Congress to work together with the states to protect and use the benefits of a good environment. Nevertheless, the EPA has grossly overstepped its prerogatives and imposed on the states and the whole country, rules and regulations that interfere with personal liberties, local economies, and states’ rights. 

Under EPA supervision, and according to the laws referenced above, the states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans for handling environmental problems within their own boundaries. If those plans do not comport with national guidelines, the EPA is authorized to empower national guidelines of its own design. When the EPA does this, the action is the equivalent of a seizure of authority from the state. The agency took that authority exactly five times under the administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Since Barack Obama has overseen the national government, the EPA has grabbed control of state environmental regulations 56 times! This obvious over-reach of power by the EPA has made a strong statement to the states that Big Brother knows more about how states should be run than the states, themselves. This illicit power grab is one obvious manifestation of the progressive philosophy of the Obama administration which says, “Unelected ‘experts’ should govern Americans from the central government. Those experts should not be under the control of the Congress or of the people in general.”

Scott Pruitt has been a leader among states’ attorneys general opposing the EPA; and it is my opinion that he is exactly the one who should be placed in control of that agency—we need to bring back control of our states to our states.

This blog post was largely excerpted from an op-ed by Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal on 12-8-16.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

The Administrative State—A Republic No More

There are three important tenets of American constitutionalism:

1)    The first is the principle of non-delegation. If the separation of powers means anything at all, it means that one branch of government may not permit its powers to be exercised substantially by another branch.

2)    The second tenet is a corollary of the first: There may be no combination of functions or powers within a single branch. In other words, the legislative branch must stick to legislation; the executive branch must execute and enforce the legislation; and the judicial branch must judge the legislation and executive functions in light of the Constitution. There is to be no overlap in these functions.

3)    The third tenet of the separation of powers is the responsibility of administration to the republican executive. The government remains "wholly popular," in the words of Federalist 14, because those who carry out the law (administrators, under the traditional meaning of the term) are directly answerable to the President, who is elected. 

United States government is today inundated with a plethora of agencies that operate independently of the executive and congressional powers that created them. This large group of agencies is quite rightly called the fourth branch of government. In addition to its being part of the government, in the first place, the whole batch of agencies realistically controls more government decisions and enforcement than the conventional branches of government, e.g., the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary.

This gang of agencies, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the FTC (the Federal Trade Commission), the SEC (the Securities and Exchange Commission), and hundreds more have their origins in political thought that arose in the late 19th Century under the impetus of leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow.

Wilson, Goodnow, and others were reacting to the spoils system of appointing unqualified friends to government jobs, which had been going on since the 1820’s and the administration of Andrew Jackson.

Those leaders saw the Federal Government inundated with tasks that needed to be done (or…that the government desired to have done) and which were overburdening the elected officials of the government with administrative tasks. They also saw that many of these multiple tasks needed expert advice and management at the top of the bureaucracy. They believed the complexity of government mandated the creation of agencies headed by enlightened and well-motivated bureaucrats. They longed for a day when multiple government agencies would rule the nation through intelligent, thoughtful, benevolent, public-minded experts. They thought that agencies with leaders like that could rule the country better than it was being ruled along Constitutional lines. The ideas and organization of American Progressives were launched.

These ideas percolated through political minds for several decades. President Wilson used much of this new theory of government to manage his great task of motivating the U.S. population to fight World War II. During that war, President Wilson grabbed power at will. He set aside many Constitutional rights and privileges from the people. In fact, he acted much like an emperor or king in putting his ideas through.  He was extremely successful; Americans fought and 50,000 of them died sub serving the policies of President Wilson and, it must be admitted, the American people.

As a practical matter, however, the modern manifestation of Wilson and Goodnow’s ideas came with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which launched a large bureaucracy and empowered it with broad governing authority. Also, as a practical matter, the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, however, their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include legislative, judicial, and even enforcement functions. These powers are often exercised in a manner that is independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political forces.

Goodnow explained that this conception of administration was novel, considering as it did the sphere of administration to lie outside the sphere of constitutional law; indeed, this new conception is exactly what Wilson had given Goodnow credit for in 1894. He knew, as Wilson did, that such a concept was a novelty in the American political tradition. Modern administrative law, therefore, would take it for granted that the political branches of government had to cede significant discretion to administrative agencies.

In making his case for freeing administration from political influence, Goodnow did not speak of a strict or rigid separation between politics and administration; indeed, he noted that the boundary between the two is difficult to define and that there would inevitably be overlap. But this overlap seems to be in one direction only, in a manner that enlarges the orbit of administration; that is, Goodnow seemed to contemplate instances where administrative organs would exercise political functions but apparently did not contemplate instances of political organs engaging in administrative activity. He characterized the function of politics as "expressing" the will of the state, while the function of administration is to "execute" the will of the state; but he made clear that the overlap between politics and administration would come in the form of administrative agencies taking a share in "expressing" and well as "executing" state will:

The key to trusting administrators with the kind of discretion that Goodnow envisioned was his profound faith in the expertness and objectivity of the administrative class, just as it had been for Wilson. Administrators could be freed from political control because they were "neutral." Their salary and tenure would take care of any self-interested inclinations that might corrupt their decision making, liberating them to focus solely on truth and the good of the public as a whole.

For Goodnow, it is the connection to electoral politics that makes administrators corrupt, while the absence of accountability to the electorate somehow makes them pure. Politics, Goodnow explained, is "polluted" and full of "bias," whereas administration is all about the "truth."

Conclusion: The Legacy of Progressivism

A glance at the primary features of the modern state shows continuities between it and the main principles of Progressivism. In particular, the constitutional separation-of-powers structure that was designed to preserve individual rights and uphold the rule of law has been considerably weakened, and we can see the effects of Progressivism on the three key tenets of the separation of powers that were described at the outset of this essay. In essence, the separation of powers has been junked by Progressive ideas and the administrative branch.

The Supreme Court ceased applying the non-delegation principle after 1935 and allowed to stand a whole body of statutes that enact the new vision of administrative power. These statutes, to varying degrees, lay out Congress's broad policy aims in vague and undefined terms and delegate to administrative agencies the task of coming up with specific rules and regulations to give them real meaning. The executive agencies, in other words, are no longer confined to carrying out specific rules enacted by Congress, but are often left to themselves to determine the rules before seeing to their enforcement.

For example, securities legislation giving the SEC the power to proscribe the use of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors." The agency, on the basis of its expertise, and not Congress, on the basis of its electoral connection, is charged with determining the specific policy that best serves the "public interest." In another example, legislation on broadcast licenses directs that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) shall grant licenses "if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby."

More recently, the Supreme Court under William Rehnquist made clear that there would be no revisiting the abandonment of non-delegation. In the case of Mistretta v. United States, the Court upheld the statute that delegated to the U.S. Sentencing Commission the power to set sentences (or sentencing guidelines) for most federal crimes. If any case were going to constitute grounds for non-delegation review, it would have been this one. Congress created the Sentencing Commission as, essentially, a temporary legislature with no purpose other than to establish criminal penalties and then to go out of existence. But Mistretta simply served as confirmation that the federal courts were not going to bring the legitimacy of the administrative state into question by resurrecting the separation of powers.

Progressive liberalism has also succeeded, at least partly, in defeating the third tenet of the separation-of-powers framework by weakening the political accountability of administrators in the agencies and shielding a large subset of agencies from most political controls. Federal courts have recognized the power of Congress to create agencies that are presumably part of the executive (where else, constitutionally, could they be?) but are nonetheless shielded from direct presidential control. Normally, this shielding is accomplished by limiting the President's freedom to remove agency personnel. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, however, the Supreme Court overturned the President's removal of an FTC commissioner by reasoning that the Commission was more legislative and judicial than it was executive. More recently, it upheld the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, concluding that even an office as obviously executive in nature as a prosecutor could be shielded from presidential control.

These rulings reflect the acceptance of a key tenet of the modern administrative state: that many areas of administration are based upon expertise and neutral principles and must therefore be freed from the influence of politics. That such a notion has become ingrained in the American political mindset was evidenced by the near universal outrage expressed over the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in FDA v. Brown and Williamson. In this surprising exception to its standard deference for agencies, the Court ruled that before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could promulgate and enforce regulations on tobacco, Congress first had to pass a law actually giving the agency the authority to do so. The decision, which simply upheld the rule of law, was denounced because it would subject tobacco regulation to the control of the people's elected representatives in Congress, where tobacco-state legislators might derail it, instead of giving FDA scientists carte blanche to regulate in accord with their own expertise.

The acquiescence in the realms of law, politics, and culture to the concepts of delegation, combination of functions, and insulating administration from political control is explained by what legal scholars call the victory of "functionalism" over "formalism," or what political theorists might loosely translate as "pragmatism" over "originalism." Simply defined, a functionalist or pragmatic approach begins not with the forms of the Constitution, but with the necessities of the current age, thereby freeing government from the restraints of the Constitution so that the exigencies of today can be met. As one scholar argues, "Respect for 'framers' intent' is only workable in the context of the actual present, and may require some selectivity in just what it is we choose to respect." This sentiment, elevating expedience and efficiency over the separation of powers, was expressed very clearly by Justice Blackmun in his opinion for the Court in Mistretta: "Our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives."

The rise of the administrative state that is such an integral feature of modern liberalism thus required the defeat of the separation of powers as a governing principle, at least as it was originally understood, and its replacement by a system that allows delegations of power, combination of functions, and the insulation of administration from the full measure of political and legal control.

The above blog was excerpted from a paper by Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science at Hillsdale College and a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. The original paper was published by the Heritage Foundation Nov. 20, 2007.

The problems posed by the development of the administrative state is the prototypical problem described in the recent book by Jay Cost—A Republic No More and the Rise of Political Corruption.


Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The Administrative State—A Republic No More

American government has been markedly changed since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, who instituted the New Deal. A plethora of autonomous agencies have been organized and have served to manage governmental affairs without adequate executive or legislative supervision. Hundreds of these agencies are active today.

The rise of the administrative state that is such an integral feature of modern liberalism and Progressive policies has required the defeat of the separation of powers as a governing principle, as it was originally understood, and its replacement by a system that allows delegations of power, combination of functions, and the insulation of administration from the full measure of political and legal control.

I have written an extensive paper on this subject, which I am not going to post on my blog, because it is a bit too long for the usual reader. Anyone interested in this subject is welcome to write to me; and I will gladly send you my more complete description of this problem. My e-mail address is 

The problems posed by the development of the administrative state is the prototypical problem described in the recent book by Jay Cost—A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption. Mr. Cost has repeatedly pointed out in his book that our American polity has developed without adequate structural change to keep up with the functional requirements to justify these administrative changes.


Saturday, October 15, 2016

To Marry or Not to Marry

In our recent 59th annual high school reunion, Nancy and I heard a recurring anxiety among our friends: Those old friends of ours have made a common observation about their grandchildren. Young adults, who are in what has been called the millennial generation (18-31 years of age), are not marrying. They seem cut off from traditional social and spiritual values. They live to actualize their lives without any external guide posts to tell them what is right and what is wrong. They do not volunteer, go to church, pray, or vote, for the most part. (From Souls In Transition by Christian Smith)

The Pew Research Center reported in 2012 that 36% of millennials were still living at home with their parents. The explanation of this revolves around three factors: 1) Only 63% of these young adults were employed in 2012. This figure has decreased from 70% in 2007. 2) In the younger part of this cohort, many are still in college and live at home as a way to afford higher education. 3) The marriage rate is declining; only 25% of people in this age cohort are married. This figure is down from 30% in 2007.

Emerging adults live in a world that believes in individual autonomy, unbounded tolerance, freedom from authorities, the affirmation of pluralism, the centrality of human self-consciousness, a skeptical view of the advantages of human knowledge, and an instinctive aversion to anything “dogmatic” or committed to particular moral beliefs. These values do not build strong organizations or constructive families with children. It must be allowed that these young people emerging into adulthood are often tolerant of those who believe in the practical value of moral religion; but they are loath to adopt those values as having any transcendent qualities.

These manifest values have been adopted in the culture largely from modern-day Protestantism. The main line Protestant churches are experiencing falling attendance; but their philosophies are firmly established in the modern culture. For this reason, emerging adults see no reason to go to church to learn more about these attitudes. Truth and reality are considered unreal facts in the world of emerging adults. One thing that hampers them from adopting constructive attitudes is the slavish obsession imposed on them by the culture encouraging them to establish private material comfort and personal possessions—this seems to be primary driving force in the motivation of the millennial generation.

This generation seems well on its way of becoming the most educated generation in history.19% of young adults between 18 and 31 years of age have college degrees. In the next generation before them, i.e., those between the ages of 32 and 54 years of age (Gen X, or those children of the baby boomers), has earned college degrees 35% of the time. But, unfortunately, many of the millennials seem to prefer to participate in the drug or “hook-up” culture. (Incidentally, “hook-up” is a term that may indicate a wide variety of relationships—anything from casual conversations to sexual intercourse.) Devotion to this hedonistic way of life interferes with the establishment of marriage and family.

Getting back to my original point, the average age for marriage has increased since 1990. At this time the average female marries at age 27; and the average male marries at age 29. In 1990, women married at 23 and men at 26. This trend portends unfavorable things for families. As a physician, I have learned that the best age for a first pregnancy is in the early 20’s—there are far fewer complications of pregnancy when babies are born to women in that age bracket.

Marriage in the early 20’s makes for more happiness. According to the National Marriage Project’s 2013 “Knot Yet” report, the highest percentage of people ages 20 to 28 who consider themselves “highly satisfied” with their lives are married, as opposed to single or cohabiting. What’s more, the largest number of women who described their marriage as “very happy” tied the knot when they were 24 to 26. A 2010 study found that “the greatest indicated likelihood of being in an intact marriage of the highest quality is among those who married at ages 22–25.”

An analysis of American Community Survey data from 2008 to 2010 revealed that among men in their mid-30s, those who married in their 20s had the highest levels of personal income. Economists have found, in general, that married men earn more than single men — even when you control for other factors like age and education.

Couples who marry in their 20s tend to have more frequent sex than those who marry later. In a 2011 paper, Dana Rotz of Harvard University wrote that “a four year increase in age at marriage is associated with a couple having sex about one time less per month.” What’s more, married people as a whole have more sex than their single counterparts. The sooner you marry, the more time you’ll be spending between the sheets.

A 2012 study published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior found that married and engaged young adults reported lower frequency of drunkenness than those who are not in a serious romantic relationship. “Marriage and engagement likely carry with them a heightened sense of responsibility and obligation and a less active social calendar, which leads to less drunkenness,” the study’s authors wrote. Laying off alcohol has many health benefits, including weight loss, better sleep, better skin and a reduced risk of some cancers.

There is nothing to be gained from waiting a long time before marrying. Research says there’s no advantage to delaying marriage just for the sake of delaying it. A 2010 study by sociologists Norval Glenn and Jeremy Uecker states that “A 25-year-old person who meets an excellent marriage prospect would be ill-advised to pass up that opportunity only because he/she feels not yet at the ideal age for marriage. Furthermore, delaying marriage beyond the mid-twenties will lead to the loss during a portion of young adulthood of any emotional and health beneļ¬ts that a good marriage would bring.”

One thing I have learned about parenting and family building is that the best parents begin that journey in their early 20’s. Waiting until later for marriage does not help one’s adaptation to child raising.

Saturday, September 3, 2016


This article was forwarded to me by an ethnic German PhD, our former pastor in Del Norte, Colorado. It outlines a terrible situation in German medical facilities incident to Muslim immigrants.


Some more stuff media doesn't seem to want to cover

A female physician in  Munich, Germany sends a message to the World

*Yesterday, at the hospital, we had a meeting about how  the
situation here and at the other Munich hospitals  is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle the number of  migrant medical emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the main hospitals.*

*Many Muslims are
refusing treatment by female staff and we women are now refusing  to go among those migrants!  Relations between the staff and  migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend,  migrants going to the hospitals must be* *accompanied by police  with K-9 units.*

*Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB  and many exotic
diseases that we in Europe do not know how to  treat. *

*If they receive a prescription to the pharmacy,  they suddenly learn they have to pay cash. This leads  to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about  drugs for the children. They abandon the children with  pharmacy staff with the words:  So, cure them here yourselves!

*So the  police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also  the large pharmacies.*

*We ask
openly 'where are all those  who welcomed the migrants in front of TV cameras with signs at  train stations?' * *Yes, for now, the border has been closed,  but
a million of them are already here and we will  definitely
not be able to get rid of them.*

*Until now,  the number of unemployed in Germany
was 2.2 million. Now it will  be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely  unemployable. Only a small
minimum of
them have any education.  What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate  that one in ten is pregnant.  Hundreds of thousands of them have  brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated  and very needy.  If this continues and Germany re-opens its  borders, I am going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep  me here in this situation, not even for double the salary back  home. I came to Germany to work, not to Africa or the Middle East!*

*Even the professor who heads our department told
us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who has cleaned every day for years for 800 Euros and then meets crowds of young men in the hallways who just wait with their hands outstretched, wanting everything for free, and when they don't get it they throw a fit.*

*I really don't need this! But I am afraid that if I
return home, at some  point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans,  with their systems, cannot handle
this, then, guaranteed, back  home will be total chaos..*

*You -  who have not come in  contact with these people have absolutely no idea what kind of  badly behaved desperadoes these people are, and how Muslims act  superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.*

*For now, the local hospital staff have not come down with
the diseases these people brought here, but with so many hundreds of patients every day this is just a
question of time.*

*In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff
with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, who they'd dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died two days later, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The pediatric physician had to undergo surgery and the two nurses are recovering in the ICU. Nobody has been punished - what ???*

*The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we can
only inform you through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed the doctor and nurses with a knife?  Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurses face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he would have  gone straight to jail and later to court. With these people so  far, nothing has happened - WHY?*

*And so I ask ... where  are all those
greeters and receivers from the train stations?  Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their uncomplicated, safe  lives.* *If it were up to me I
would round up all those greeters  and bring them here first
to our hospitals emergency ward as  attendants !   Then in to one of the buildings housing  the migrants, so they can really look after them there  themselves, without armed police and police dogs, who, sadly  today, are in every hospital here in Bavaria.*

*Is this "situation" coming to your country ??? 


Thursday, August 25, 2016

The “Condition of America” Question

Are you sick of hearing about how America is going to the dogs in lots of ways? Well…so am I. But…the fact that it actually is doing just that must still be faced and dealt with in a constructive way.

An article in the Weekly Standard of 8-15-16 by Matthew Continetti under the title I have given above accurately points out the problems and suggests some workable, but secular, solutions. Death rates among middle-aged non-Hispanic White Americans between 1999 and 2013 have been increasing. The increase in death in this population has been positively correlated with suicide, liver disease and cirrhosis, drug and alcohol poisoning, and other related effects of drug and alcohol abuse. These correlations are all caused by behavioral practices in our population. The disturbing increases in the death rate have mostly been among those men who have had no college education. It has also been noted that real family income of people in the bottom half of the income distribution has not increased since the late 1960’s, further adding to the general discouragement in this population.

It seems to me, as well as to Mr. Continetti, that the distress being experienced in this poor population of White males is largely due to deterioration in the four character-building institutions of our society, i.e., the family, vocations, community, and faith.

FAMILY: More than 25% of our population lives alone. Men and women marry later in life and have fewer children. The percentage of children living at home with two married parents in their first marriage has fallen from 73% in 1960 to 46% in 2014. The explosion of single parenthood has coincided with the growth of means-tested welfare spending such as food stamps, housing assistance, cash payments, the earned income tax credit, disability insurance, and Medicaid.

VOCATION: For more than 60 years, the share of White American men between the ages of 25 to 54, or “prime-age men,” in the labor force has declined from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. This fall has been most pronounced among men without college degrees. The fall in workforce participation rates has been even more marked among African-American men.

The White House has ignored the obvious positive correlation between this fall in workforce participation and the diminution of the work requirement for welfare, as well as the relation between policies the government supports—increases in the minimum wage, unionization, and low-skilled immigration.

COMMUNITY: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that deaths from heroin overdoses increased 286% between 2002 and 2013, with a nearly 40% increase between 2012 and 2013.

The percentage of adults who volunteer for various community services dropped four points over the last decade.

Our citizens trust one another less and less. The Boston Globe reports “The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work in community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.”  

FAITH: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is increasing rapidly.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS? Continetti points out that one approach is more New Deal programs, but without overreach by the government. That is a pipe dream and nothing less than a myth. A recent book by Jay Cost, “A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption,” strongly implies that there is no governmental program which does not predispose to corruption. Politicians will always figure out some way to get around the interests of the people to line their own pockets with cash and insure their personal increase in political power.

The answers to the “Condition of America” is nothing other than the infusion of Christian principles and true Christian religion into our society. Without faith, America will continue on its same path. Christians need to have more influence in government and social affairs. Our government is doing everything possible to squelch Christian principles; and our two candidates for presidential office do not epitomize any Christian character. They are both godless power seekers. Our job at the present is unfortunately to pick out the one who is the least unrighteous and vote for him/her. If we elect to vote for neither, we will be effectively voting for the one most unrighteous.