Two of the President's top health care advisors...in their own words:
First, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.
Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (more)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Grassroots or Astroturf?
A good question raised over at American Spectator. Namely, if opponents of Obamacare are astroturf, then why don't they have better signs? And how come all of the pro-Obamacare demonstrators have official-looking , professional made, pre-printed, signs? Hmm......
Just Who Is HCAN?
Just who are the Health Care for America Now thugs that were arrested in St Louis for attacking protestors? Turns out they, like many of the the left wing radicals, are all George Soros shills....
From FrontPage Magazine:
A rising chorus of discontent – more a citizens uprising – shows Middle America’s deep suspicion of President Obama’s health care reform proposal. Average citizens have voiced their disapproval at townhall meetings hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter and HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Rep. Tim Bishop, and staffers of Sen. Claire McCaskill. In a burst of passion-envy, Chris Matthews asked on Monday night’s Hardball, “Where the Hell are the people who want health care, the poor people out there…the union people? Where are they? I haven’t seen one placard, let alone one protest demonstration, for health care.”
In fact, tens of thousands of people have rallied in the nation’s capital supporting the president’s health care reform plan, including the controversial public option. However, national momentum is not with them, because they are, to use Nancy Pelosi’s phrase, “Astroturf.” These demonstrations were organized by Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a new “national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care.” Most of its component organizations have two things in common: they have no experience or expertise in health care, and virtually all received large, tax-exempt grants from far-Left billionaires like George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Like the “grassroots” movement for campaign finance reform a decade ago, the public demonstrations for health care reform are largely a Soros-financed operation.
Former Governor Howard Dean announced HCAN’s mission on the first night of the annual “America’s Future Now!” conference (formerly the “Take Back America” conference), hosted by the Campaign for America's Future in June. Dean pledged to spend up to $82 million to advance socialized medicine. HCAN rallied 15,000 people in D.C. in April, 10,000 more in June, and with state affiliates like the Maine People’s Alliance, hundreds more in state capitals in July. A searchable database of upcoming spontaneous demonstrations can be found here.
However, a closer look at its members shows it is less a “grassroots” organization than a series of interconnected left-wing pressure groups united by a collectivist ideology and, for most, a common donor.
Among the 21 members of its steering committee are ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress. CAP, headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, was created with Soros’ money as a counterweight to the Heritage Foundation. In 2007 alone, Soros’ charity, the Open Society Institute (OSI), gave CAP $1.75 million in 2007 and approved additional grants totaling $1.25 million. Soros personally gave millions to MoveOn.org before the 2004 elections, and he has funded ACORN, the most notorious practitioner of election fraud in the nation. (read more here)
From FrontPage Magazine:
A rising chorus of discontent – more a citizens uprising – shows Middle America’s deep suspicion of President Obama’s health care reform proposal. Average citizens have voiced their disapproval at townhall meetings hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter and HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Rep. Tim Bishop, and staffers of Sen. Claire McCaskill. In a burst of passion-envy, Chris Matthews asked on Monday night’s Hardball, “Where the Hell are the people who want health care, the poor people out there…the union people? Where are they? I haven’t seen one placard, let alone one protest demonstration, for health care.”
In fact, tens of thousands of people have rallied in the nation’s capital supporting the president’s health care reform plan, including the controversial public option. However, national momentum is not with them, because they are, to use Nancy Pelosi’s phrase, “Astroturf.” These demonstrations were organized by Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a new “national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care.” Most of its component organizations have two things in common: they have no experience or expertise in health care, and virtually all received large, tax-exempt grants from far-Left billionaires like George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Like the “grassroots” movement for campaign finance reform a decade ago, the public demonstrations for health care reform are largely a Soros-financed operation.
Former Governor Howard Dean announced HCAN’s mission on the first night of the annual “America’s Future Now!” conference (formerly the “Take Back America” conference), hosted by the Campaign for America's Future in June. Dean pledged to spend up to $82 million to advance socialized medicine. HCAN rallied 15,000 people in D.C. in April, 10,000 more in June, and with state affiliates like the Maine People’s Alliance, hundreds more in state capitals in July. A searchable database of upcoming spontaneous demonstrations can be found here.
However, a closer look at its members shows it is less a “grassroots” organization than a series of interconnected left-wing pressure groups united by a collectivist ideology and, for most, a common donor.
Among the 21 members of its steering committee are ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress. CAP, headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, was created with Soros’ money as a counterweight to the Heritage Foundation. In 2007 alone, Soros’ charity, the Open Society Institute (OSI), gave CAP $1.75 million in 2007 and approved additional grants totaling $1.25 million. Soros personally gave millions to MoveOn.org before the 2004 elections, and he has funded ACORN, the most notorious practitioner of election fraud in the nation. (read more here)
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Rallies
I don't know if you have had a "chance" to see these clips the Liberals are putting out. (BTW, I haven't seen anyone wearing swastikas)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTBkxvBq88
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KI1NBrxXBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2a2momdss8
Or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ
Obama's approval rating has sunk to 50%; his index is at -8%. I think that is why they (Democrats, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, etc.) have turned up the rhetoric. I know it is hard for them to imagine that anyone would ever question them.
When I go to the rallies, people I talk to are like me. They have never done this before. They have sat on their butts and now are absolutely fed up! However, we have no one to blame but our apathetic selves. We sit on our butts and complain and argue with each other, but we have never confronted our "representatives" with pointed questions, and then, have the audacity to expect them to answer the questions!
I took an oath when I joined the USN that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", well I got out 21 years ago, and it time to stand up and do it again. The oath didn’t expire 21 years ago. What are you prepared to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTBkxvBq88
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KI1NBrxXBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2a2momdss8
Or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ
Obama's approval rating has sunk to 50%; his index is at -8%. I think that is why they (Democrats, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, etc.) have turned up the rhetoric. I know it is hard for them to imagine that anyone would ever question them.
When I go to the rallies, people I talk to are like me. They have never done this before. They have sat on their butts and now are absolutely fed up! However, we have no one to blame but our apathetic selves. We sit on our butts and complain and argue with each other, but we have never confronted our "representatives" with pointed questions, and then, have the audacity to expect them to answer the questions!
I took an oath when I joined the USN that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", well I got out 21 years ago, and it time to stand up and do it again. The oath didn’t expire 21 years ago. What are you prepared to do?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Whitehouse Is Looking For Snitches
Over at the Whitehouse.gov blog we have this little tidbit:
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions...
For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. ...
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
For the record??? Um, which record would that be?
Perhaps, its this record from Newsbusters, a complete transcript of what candidate Obama told folks at SEIU's New Leadership Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007:
As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
Newsbusters also provided links to the complete video of what candidate Obama said that day and the complete transcript.
Or perhaps these Democrats admitting that what they would like to see is for private insurance to go away.
The Administration's response, the same response it has had for the Townhall meeting's protesters, has been to attack. Across the country real people have been raising their concern at the attempt to ram another spending bill down our throats without even giving the bill a read. Concern abounds that the "tweaking" of a good healthcare system in need of a scalpel, has been replaced with a needless overhaul and the attempt to eliminate or minimize private insurance and replace it with a government run behemoth that like medicare and Social Security before it will lead to increased taxes and bankrupt programs.
So what has been the government's "hope and change" response to sincere concerns? Ridicule.
Now I have no illusions about these matters. I know full well that partisans are amongst the crowd, liberals have done this for years, but to dismiss valid concerns as "angry mobs" is to prove the accusation of desperation and being out of touch.
Finally there is this from Townhall, which sums it all quite nicely:
"...I hope I'm not the only one who is uncomfortable with the White House asking people to report instances of what the administration deems "disinformation," or to "flag" dissension and people who challenge the administration's assumptions about what its plan for a government-run health care system would look like.
Perhaps we should all go and "flag" the videos of Obama himself talking about how much he wants a single-payer system. Disinformation from his own mouth. Should we "flag" links to reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that say this plan's cost is beyond astronomical? So much "disinformation" coming from those awful nonpartisan budget analysts!
Give me a break, Obama. People don't like snitches, but no one likes a liar.
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions...
For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. ...
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
For the record??? Um, which record would that be?
Perhaps, its this record from Newsbusters, a complete transcript of what candidate Obama told folks at SEIU's New Leadership Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007:
As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
Newsbusters also provided links to the complete video of what candidate Obama said that day and the complete transcript.
Or perhaps these Democrats admitting that what they would like to see is for private insurance to go away.
The Administration's response, the same response it has had for the Townhall meeting's protesters, has been to attack. Across the country real people have been raising their concern at the attempt to ram another spending bill down our throats without even giving the bill a read. Concern abounds that the "tweaking" of a good healthcare system in need of a scalpel, has been replaced with a needless overhaul and the attempt to eliminate or minimize private insurance and replace it with a government run behemoth that like medicare and Social Security before it will lead to increased taxes and bankrupt programs.
So what has been the government's "hope and change" response to sincere concerns? Ridicule.
Now I have no illusions about these matters. I know full well that partisans are amongst the crowd, liberals have done this for years, but to dismiss valid concerns as "angry mobs" is to prove the accusation of desperation and being out of touch.
Finally there is this from Townhall, which sums it all quite nicely:
"...I hope I'm not the only one who is uncomfortable with the White House asking people to report instances of what the administration deems "disinformation," or to "flag" dissension and people who challenge the administration's assumptions about what its plan for a government-run health care system would look like.
Perhaps we should all go and "flag" the videos of Obama himself talking about how much he wants a single-payer system. Disinformation from his own mouth. Should we "flag" links to reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that say this plan's cost is beyond astronomical? So much "disinformation" coming from those awful nonpartisan budget analysts!
Give me a break, Obama. People don't like snitches, but no one likes a liar.
Option E
You'll have to go over to CMR and read the comments to figure out what option E is. While you're there you can read how the new "death" care bill would increase abortions and have the tax payer foot the bill:
I don't for one second believe Obama is stupid but there is of course a third option which America Magazine is likely unwilling to face which put plainly is that Obama is a big fat liar. I'm talking like the kind of fat that needs to be taken out of his house by a crane kind of fat. That's the amount of big fat liar I think Obama actually is.
I mean, doesn't the logic work out quite well? Hmmm...Obama talks about lowering the number of abortions but the bill he pushes has abortion in it and would likely increase the number of abortions. So I'll leave it up to you to put your answer in the combox:
Obama is:A) A big fat liar
B) A weak executive
C) Politically stupid
D) All of the above
I don't for one second believe Obama is stupid but there is of course a third option which America Magazine is likely unwilling to face which put plainly is that Obama is a big fat liar. I'm talking like the kind of fat that needs to be taken out of his house by a crane kind of fat. That's the amount of big fat liar I think Obama actually is.
I mean, doesn't the logic work out quite well? Hmmm...Obama talks about lowering the number of abortions but the bill he pushes has abortion in it and would likely increase the number of abortions. So I'll leave it up to you to put your answer in the combox:
Obama is:A) A big fat liar
B) A weak executive
C) Politically stupid
D) All of the above
Monday, August 3, 2009
Israel Is Nervous and Iran Is Ready To Build A N-Bomb
Like so many campaign pledges, Obama's pledge of "commitment to the very best relations with Israel" have quickly fallen by the wayside. Friction between the two countries has caused both domestic consternation as well as hostility within Israel itself:
...While nearly 80% of American Jews voted for Mr. Obama, that friction has been visible enough to propel him to meet with American Jewish leaders recently to reassure them about his policies. But last month, despite those reassurances, both the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League issued statements critical of the president’s handling of Israel....
...But the Obama administration has managed to win the mistrust of most Israelis, not just conservative politicians. Despite his great popularity in many parts of the world, in Israel Obama is now seen as no ally. A June poll found that just 6% of Israelis called him “pro-Israel,” when 88% had seen President George W. Bush that way. So the troubles between the U.S. and Israel are not fundamentally found in the personal relations among policy makers. ...(WSJ)
The Obama Administration has done nothing to reassure Israel in the face of Iranian intransigence concerning its nuclear program preferring instead to concentrate on the Palestinian question:
...in fact following a highly ideological policy path. Its ability to cope with, indeed even to see clearly, the realities of life in Israel and the West Bank and the challenge of Iran to the region is compromised by the prism through which it analyzes events.... (WSJ)
Thus, in the face of intelligence assessments that indicate that Iran is merely "waiting for the Ayatollah's order," to begin building a nuclear weapon that it has promised to use against it, Israel will have no choice but to take its own action.
...Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.
The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader....
...should Ayatollah Khamenei approve the building of a nuclear device, it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead. The Iranian Defence Ministry has been running a covert nuclear research department for years, employing hundreds of scientists, researchers and metallurgists in a multibillion-dollar programme to develop nuclear technology alongside the civilian nuclear programme.... ( Times)
Word in Israel is that, should talks fail, an attack upon Iran may come as soon as October.
...While nearly 80% of American Jews voted for Mr. Obama, that friction has been visible enough to propel him to meet with American Jewish leaders recently to reassure them about his policies. But last month, despite those reassurances, both the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League issued statements critical of the president’s handling of Israel....
...But the Obama administration has managed to win the mistrust of most Israelis, not just conservative politicians. Despite his great popularity in many parts of the world, in Israel Obama is now seen as no ally. A June poll found that just 6% of Israelis called him “pro-Israel,” when 88% had seen President George W. Bush that way. So the troubles between the U.S. and Israel are not fundamentally found in the personal relations among policy makers. ...(WSJ)
The Obama Administration has done nothing to reassure Israel in the face of Iranian intransigence concerning its nuclear program preferring instead to concentrate on the Palestinian question:
...in fact following a highly ideological policy path. Its ability to cope with, indeed even to see clearly, the realities of life in Israel and the West Bank and the challenge of Iran to the region is compromised by the prism through which it analyzes events.... (WSJ)
Thus, in the face of intelligence assessments that indicate that Iran is merely "waiting for the Ayatollah's order," to begin building a nuclear weapon that it has promised to use against it, Israel will have no choice but to take its own action.
...Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.
The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader....
...should Ayatollah Khamenei approve the building of a nuclear device, it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead. The Iranian Defence Ministry has been running a covert nuclear research department for years, employing hundreds of scientists, researchers and metallurgists in a multibillion-dollar programme to develop nuclear technology alongside the civilian nuclear programme.... ( Times)
Word in Israel is that, should talks fail, an attack upon Iran may come as soon as October.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Constitution: The Remarkable Gift of Heaven
Something I received from Earl Taylor, Jr. of the NCCS I wanted to share in its entirety. I think it is very timely. The country is clearly at a crossroads and the Secular-Progressives are doing their best to steer us in the wrong direction.
I hope this means as much to you as it did to me. A bit of history.
It is interesting that in our day when powerful forces are seeking to stretch the Constitution to almost unimaginable limits in order to gain more power over the people, in the Founders day it was just the opposite. As the Constitution was passed from the convention in 1787 to the states and the people for ratification, there was fear among some that the Constitution, even with all its limited, balanced, and strictly delegated authority, would destroy some of the rights of the people. Some feared it gave too much power into the hands of federal officials and that it would not protect the people enough!
The Constitution provided that as soon as nine states had ratified it, the new charter could begin operating. New Hampshire was expected to come up for a vote in June, 1788, and would be the ninth state to ratify. However, there was fierce opposition to the Constitution in that state. It was said that this new national government would rob the people of all their basic rights as citizens of New Hampshire .
In his book, The Majesty of God's Law, Dr. W. Cleon Skousen describes the incredible effort in that state to ratify the Constitution in light of these fears. He wrote:
The likelihood of defeat was so threatening that the legislature and state officials were called into a solemn assembly where they listened to one of the greatest political sermons in the history of the United States. The speaker was Reverend Samuel Langdon, and he called his talk: "The Republic of the Israelites -- An Example to the American States."
A Vote for the Constitution Is a Vote for the Bible
Taking a strong biblical -- but non-denominational -- stance, Reverend Langdon quoted Moses from his great last sermon to the children of Israel . In this final discourse Moses had declared in Deuteronomy 4:5-8, that God had given them the greatest system of law in existence. Then he went on to say:
"When first the Israelites came out from the bondage of Egypt , they were a multitude without any other order than what had been kept up, very feebly, under the ancient patriarchal authority.... Yet in the short space of about three months ... they were reduced into ... civil and military order.... Able men were chosen out of all their tribes, and made captains and rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens: and these commanded them as military officers and acted as judges in matters of common controversy."
Reverend Langdon pointed out that from this point on the structure of the government of Israel began to take on many aspects which had their counterpart in the Constitution of the United States . They had a senate of seventy select men, also a general assembly where all the tribes were represented.
It was also significant that Moses installed an elaborate system of courts where the people could obtain justice or be required to repair any damage to another's property or compensate a person who had been wronged.
God's Law under a Theocracy Provided Justice and Efficiency
Reverend Langdon continued:
"A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws.... But God did not leave a people -- wholly unskilled in legislation -- to make laws for themselves. He took this important matter into his own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tablets, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them ... a complete code of judicial laws... . They were not numerous ... but concise and plain and easily applicable to almost every controversy which might arise between man and man, and every criminal case which might require the judgment of the court .... the judicial laws were founded on the plain immutable principles of reason, justice, and social virtue, such as are always necessary for civil society. Life and property were well guarded, and punishments were equitably adapted to the nature of every crime. In particular, murder stands foremost among capital crimes, and is defined with such precision, and so clearly distinguished from all cases of accidental and undesigned killing, that the innocent were in no danger of punishment and the guilty could not escape."
A God-centered Society Can Attain Superlative Excellence
Reverend Langdon said:
"Let us now consider the national worship which God established among this people on which their obedience to the moral law very much depended.... For unless they paid constant reverence and homage to their God, agreeable to his nature and will, they would soon break loose from all other obligations to morality.... How unexampled was this quick progress of the Israelites from abject slavery, ignorance, and almost total want of order to a national establishment perfected in all its parts far beyond all other kings and States: from a mere mob to a well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast."
Then Why Did They Lose it All?
Reverend Langdon felt the United States could learn an impressive lesson from this rise and fall of a great nation after being so highly favored by God. In explaining the reason the Israelites lost it all, he said:
"They never adhered in practice ... to the principles of their civil polity.... They received their law from God, but they did not keep it. They neglected their government, corrupted their religion, and grew dissolute in their morals, and in such a situation no nation under heaven can prosper."
A Prediction and a Promise to America
The same thing could apply to America . Reverend Langdon continues:
"Instead of the twelve tribes of Israel , we may substitute the thirteen States of the American union and see this application plainly offering itself, viz . That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles by which all that liberty is secured which people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will and perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhering faithfully to the doctrine and commands of the gospel and practice every public and private virtue."
Then came Reverend Langdon's promise with a warning:
"By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations; whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed and contemptible."
God's Hand Clearly Manifest in American History
Reverend Langdon did not want Americans to miss the dramatic demonstration of God's influence in the events of recent years. He said:
"The God of heaven hath not indeed visibly displayed the glory of his majesty and power before our eyes, as he came down in the sight of Israel .... Nor has he written with his own finger the laws of our civil polity, but the signal interpositions of divine providence in saving us from a powerful irritated nation ... in giving us a Washington to be captain-general of our armies ... and making us twice triumphant over numerous armies ... and finally giving us peace with a large territory and acknowledged independence; all these laid together fall little short of real miracles and a heavenly charter of liberty for these United States."
God's Minister Makes His Final Plea
Reverend Langdon seems to have realized that he might never have another opportunity to say what God needed to have said to these American leaders. He therefore spoke with both courage and boldness as he opened his heart to give them the advice of a loving and deeply concerned religious leader:
"Preserve your government with the utmost attention and solicitude, for it is the remarkable gift of heaven. From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and all the higher powers of government.
"Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish the public welfare.
"Beware of such as are cunning rather than wise; who prefer their own interest to everything; whose judgment is partial or fickle, and whom you would not willingly trust with your own private interests.
"When meetings are called for the choice of your rulers, do not carelessly neglect them or give your votes with indifference ... but act with serious deliberation and judgment, as in a most important matter, and let the faithful of the land serve you.
"Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators; for how can you expect good laws to be made by men who have no fear of God ... and who boldly trample on the authority of his commands?... If the legislative body is corrupt, you will soon have bad men for counselors, corrupt judges, unqualified justices, and officers in every department who will dishonor their stations...."
"Therefore be always on your guard against parties and the methods [of] unworthy men, and let distinguished merit always determine your vote. And when all places in government are filled with the best men you can find, behave yourselves as good subjects; obey the laws, [be] cheerfully subject to such taxation as the necessities of the public call for. Give tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor [is due] as the gospel commands you.
"Never give countenance to turbulent men, who wish to distinguish themselves and rise to power by forming combinations and exciting insurrections against government. For this can never be the right way to redress real grievances...."
"I call upon you also to support schools in all your towns, that the rising generation may not grow up in ignorance.... It is a debt you owe to your children and that God to whom they belong...."
"I call upon you to preserve the knowledge of God in the land and attend to the revelation written to us from heaven.
"If you neglect or renounce that religion taught and commanded in holy scriptures, think no more of freedom, peace, and happiness...."
"May the general government of these United States , when established appear to be the best which the nations have yet known, and be exalted by uncorrupted religion and morals! And may the everlasting gospel diffuse its Heavenly light and spread Righteousness, Liberty , and Peace through the whole world."
New Hampshire Casts its Critical Vote
At the very next meeting of the state legislature -- June 21, 1788 -- the people waited breathlessly to see if the sermon of Reverend Langdon had diminished the opposition.
It had, but not overwhelmingly. The vote was 57 to 46 in favor of ratification of the Constitution. A switch of six votes would have reversed the outcome. (from The Majesty of God's Law , pp. 451-456)
America must again decide for the Constitution - and the Bible
Do we not face the same decisions in our day? As powerful forces seem to want to separate America from the stability and firm foundation of our Constitution and from our religious heritage, it is our hope that Americans will rise up and proclaim with Reverend Langdon: "Preserve your government with the utmost attention and solicitude, for it is the remarkable gift of heaven."
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
I hope this means as much to you as it did to me. A bit of history.
It is interesting that in our day when powerful forces are seeking to stretch the Constitution to almost unimaginable limits in order to gain more power over the people, in the Founders day it was just the opposite. As the Constitution was passed from the convention in 1787 to the states and the people for ratification, there was fear among some that the Constitution, even with all its limited, balanced, and strictly delegated authority, would destroy some of the rights of the people. Some feared it gave too much power into the hands of federal officials and that it would not protect the people enough!
The Constitution provided that as soon as nine states had ratified it, the new charter could begin operating. New Hampshire was expected to come up for a vote in June, 1788, and would be the ninth state to ratify. However, there was fierce opposition to the Constitution in that state. It was said that this new national government would rob the people of all their basic rights as citizens of New Hampshire .
In his book, The Majesty of God's Law, Dr. W. Cleon Skousen describes the incredible effort in that state to ratify the Constitution in light of these fears. He wrote:
The likelihood of defeat was so threatening that the legislature and state officials were called into a solemn assembly where they listened to one of the greatest political sermons in the history of the United States. The speaker was Reverend Samuel Langdon, and he called his talk: "The Republic of the Israelites -- An Example to the American States."
A Vote for the Constitution Is a Vote for the Bible
Taking a strong biblical -- but non-denominational -- stance, Reverend Langdon quoted Moses from his great last sermon to the children of Israel . In this final discourse Moses had declared in Deuteronomy 4:5-8, that God had given them the greatest system of law in existence. Then he went on to say:
"When first the Israelites came out from the bondage of Egypt , they were a multitude without any other order than what had been kept up, very feebly, under the ancient patriarchal authority.... Yet in the short space of about three months ... they were reduced into ... civil and military order.... Able men were chosen out of all their tribes, and made captains and rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens: and these commanded them as military officers and acted as judges in matters of common controversy."
Reverend Langdon pointed out that from this point on the structure of the government of Israel began to take on many aspects which had their counterpart in the Constitution of the United States . They had a senate of seventy select men, also a general assembly where all the tribes were represented.
It was also significant that Moses installed an elaborate system of courts where the people could obtain justice or be required to repair any damage to another's property or compensate a person who had been wronged.
God's Law under a Theocracy Provided Justice and Efficiency
Reverend Langdon continued:
"A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws.... But God did not leave a people -- wholly unskilled in legislation -- to make laws for themselves. He took this important matter into his own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tablets, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them ... a complete code of judicial laws... . They were not numerous ... but concise and plain and easily applicable to almost every controversy which might arise between man and man, and every criminal case which might require the judgment of the court .... the judicial laws were founded on the plain immutable principles of reason, justice, and social virtue, such as are always necessary for civil society. Life and property were well guarded, and punishments were equitably adapted to the nature of every crime. In particular, murder stands foremost among capital crimes, and is defined with such precision, and so clearly distinguished from all cases of accidental and undesigned killing, that the innocent were in no danger of punishment and the guilty could not escape."
A God-centered Society Can Attain Superlative Excellence
Reverend Langdon said:
"Let us now consider the national worship which God established among this people on which their obedience to the moral law very much depended.... For unless they paid constant reverence and homage to their God, agreeable to his nature and will, they would soon break loose from all other obligations to morality.... How unexampled was this quick progress of the Israelites from abject slavery, ignorance, and almost total want of order to a national establishment perfected in all its parts far beyond all other kings and States: from a mere mob to a well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast."
Then Why Did They Lose it All?
Reverend Langdon felt the United States could learn an impressive lesson from this rise and fall of a great nation after being so highly favored by God. In explaining the reason the Israelites lost it all, he said:
"They never adhered in practice ... to the principles of their civil polity.... They received their law from God, but they did not keep it. They neglected their government, corrupted their religion, and grew dissolute in their morals, and in such a situation no nation under heaven can prosper."
A Prediction and a Promise to America
The same thing could apply to America . Reverend Langdon continues:
"Instead of the twelve tribes of Israel , we may substitute the thirteen States of the American union and see this application plainly offering itself, viz . That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles by which all that liberty is secured which people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will and perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhering faithfully to the doctrine and commands of the gospel and practice every public and private virtue."
Then came Reverend Langdon's promise with a warning:
"By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations; whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed and contemptible."
God's Hand Clearly Manifest in American History
Reverend Langdon did not want Americans to miss the dramatic demonstration of God's influence in the events of recent years. He said:
"The God of heaven hath not indeed visibly displayed the glory of his majesty and power before our eyes, as he came down in the sight of Israel .... Nor has he written with his own finger the laws of our civil polity, but the signal interpositions of divine providence in saving us from a powerful irritated nation ... in giving us a Washington to be captain-general of our armies ... and making us twice triumphant over numerous armies ... and finally giving us peace with a large territory and acknowledged independence; all these laid together fall little short of real miracles and a heavenly charter of liberty for these United States."
God's Minister Makes His Final Plea
Reverend Langdon seems to have realized that he might never have another opportunity to say what God needed to have said to these American leaders. He therefore spoke with both courage and boldness as he opened his heart to give them the advice of a loving and deeply concerned religious leader:
"Preserve your government with the utmost attention and solicitude, for it is the remarkable gift of heaven. From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and all the higher powers of government.
"Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish the public welfare.
"Beware of such as are cunning rather than wise; who prefer their own interest to everything; whose judgment is partial or fickle, and whom you would not willingly trust with your own private interests.
"When meetings are called for the choice of your rulers, do not carelessly neglect them or give your votes with indifference ... but act with serious deliberation and judgment, as in a most important matter, and let the faithful of the land serve you.
"Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators; for how can you expect good laws to be made by men who have no fear of God ... and who boldly trample on the authority of his commands?... If the legislative body is corrupt, you will soon have bad men for counselors, corrupt judges, unqualified justices, and officers in every department who will dishonor their stations...."
"Therefore be always on your guard against parties and the methods [of] unworthy men, and let distinguished merit always determine your vote. And when all places in government are filled with the best men you can find, behave yourselves as good subjects; obey the laws, [be] cheerfully subject to such taxation as the necessities of the public call for. Give tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor [is due] as the gospel commands you.
"Never give countenance to turbulent men, who wish to distinguish themselves and rise to power by forming combinations and exciting insurrections against government. For this can never be the right way to redress real grievances...."
"I call upon you also to support schools in all your towns, that the rising generation may not grow up in ignorance.... It is a debt you owe to your children and that God to whom they belong...."
"I call upon you to preserve the knowledge of God in the land and attend to the revelation written to us from heaven.
"If you neglect or renounce that religion taught and commanded in holy scriptures, think no more of freedom, peace, and happiness...."
"May the general government of these United States , when established appear to be the best which the nations have yet known, and be exalted by uncorrupted religion and morals! And may the everlasting gospel diffuse its Heavenly light and spread Righteousness, Liberty , and Peace through the whole world."
New Hampshire Casts its Critical Vote
At the very next meeting of the state legislature -- June 21, 1788 -- the people waited breathlessly to see if the sermon of Reverend Langdon had diminished the opposition.
It had, but not overwhelmingly. The vote was 57 to 46 in favor of ratification of the Constitution. A switch of six votes would have reversed the outcome. (from The Majesty of God's Law , pp. 451-456)
America must again decide for the Constitution - and the Bible
Do we not face the same decisions in our day? As powerful forces seem to want to separate America from the stability and firm foundation of our Constitution and from our religious heritage, it is our hope that Americans will rise up and proclaim with Reverend Langdon: "Preserve your government with the utmost attention and solicitude, for it is the remarkable gift of heaven."
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)