The Political Spectrum Has Significantly Shifted

Our Founding Fathers had a very different political spectrum than the one commonly referred to by the media. Today’s media has a spectrum of right wing (conservative extremism) and left wing (what they endorse). Our Founding Fathers had a different political spectrum–it had anarchy at one end and tyranny at the other end. Their goal was to create a government midway between the two. Today the tyranny of the left wing goes mostly ignored (lawfare against political opponents, suppression of free speech, censoring information, etc.). but any standard held by a conservative is regarded as a threat to our democracy (we are a republic–not a democracy).

On Saturday, Newsbusters posted an article that illustrates how ridiculous our media has become.

The article reports:

Washington Post associate editor and New York Times columnist freaked out on Friday’s PBS NewsHour at the news that Republicans selected Mike Johnson to be the new Speaker of the House by portraying him as a “far-right” religious extremist out to impose “Christian nationalism” on the country.

Noting Johnson’s relative obscurity, Capehart (Jonathan Capehart at The Washington Post) predicted, “And the more information we find out about him and the more information the American people find out about him, the more I think they’re going to be uncomfortable, from his pushing for a national abortion ban, to introducing legislation for a federal so-called Don’t Say Gay Bill, his comments on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.”

Just for the record, as a Christian, I do not support a national abortion ban. Legally, a national abortion ban would be no different than Roe v. Wade–it would be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

The article concludes:

Brooks (David Brooks, writer for The New York Times), again declining to live up to his billing as Brooks and Capehart’s conservative half, agreed with his liberal colleague, “You know, for me, the bad news about Johnson is the wing of the evangelical world he emerges from.”

Elaborating, Brooks explained, “And so, for example, one of the people he’s praised is a pseudo-historian named David Barton. And Barton has been — has a powerful bloc in a subculture of the evangelical world that has been arguing, falsely, that our founders never believed in separation of church and state, that Thomas Jefferson was an ardent Christian who wanted to make this a Christian nation.”

One doesn’t have to defend the anti-historical view that Jefferson, who cut portions out of the Bible he didn’t like, was an ardent Christian to defend the larger point. As for Johnson, Brooks proclaimed, “he is coming from a world where Christian nationalism is very much in the air. And so that’s got to be concerning if he’s coming from this world.”

Nobody who freaks out about “Christian nationalism” ever seeks to define it. Is it just being pro-life or forbidding elementary school teachers to talk about sexual orientation and gender ideology as Capehart mentioned earlier? Mostly, it is just a phrase people like Brooks throw out to scare voters.

John F. Kennedy, Jr., would not have been welcome in today’s Democrat party–he would be considered radically conservative!

What Seems Good Isn’t Always Good

We need to think about the things Congress is codifying into federal law. The Tenth Amendment says:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Theoretically the states are the government laboratories–the places where policies can be tried and if they are successful, copied by other states. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that concept. When Florida led the country in prosperity and in success in handling Covid, most other states ignored their example. While California is experiencing major energy problems due to rushing too quickly into green energy, some states are considering following suit. While some states with high taxes and bloated governments are losing population to states with more sane fiscal policies. the high tax states are making no effort to rein in their governments. Those high tax states will continue to suffer the consequences of their policies (unless the federal government steps in to help them, which would be a mistake). You don’t give an alcoholic beer money–you let him suffer the consequences of his actions. Subsidizing states that overspend does nothing to solve the problem. The federal government has become expert at overstepping its legal bounds.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed HR 8404. This bill is called the Respect for Marriage Act. It federalizes approval of gay marriage. It also has some language in it about bi-racial marriage, but that it not what it is about. The language about bi-racial marriage is an attempt to link the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. They are not the same. I really don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I also don’t want to see anyone denied their rights because of their sexual orientation. Actually, I don’t need to know anyone’s sexual orientation. However, traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman, whatever race or races are involved. There is a danger here of churches being forced to perform ceremonies that go against Biblical teaching. That infringes on the First Amendment. It would be much simpler for the federal government to stay out of marriage (except for tax purposes) and leave the matter up to the states. If you are gay and choose to get married, move to a state that allows gay marriage.

There is no reason for the federal government to get involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a church sacrament. If the federal government wants to establish civil unions for tax purposed only, I believe they have that authority under tax laws, but they do not have any authority to interfere in a church sacrament.

Some Unintended Consequences Of Federal Government Overreach

Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee in Raleigh, North Carolina. There were a number of items discussed–the Read to Achieve program, Charter Schools in North Carolina, the Founding Principles Act, and the complications in hiring substitute teachers caused by the implementation of ObamaCare. Yes, ObamaCare has made it more difficult for schools in North Carolina to hire the substitute teachers they need. Why? Because ObamaCare requires that every person working thirty hours a week be given health care.

ObamaCare requires that health benefits be extended to non-permanent full-time employees in North Carolina who traditionally have not been eligible for coverage under the State Health Plan. ObamaCare also complicates things for retired certified teachers covered under their retirement health plans. If they are substitute teaching more than 29 hours a week, they have to be covered by their employers and are no longer eligible for their retirement health care benefit.

There were two suggestions made for legislative options that would solve this problem, but my point is this, “How is it that the federal government created a problem for a state that has to be solved with a new state law?” What is the federal government doing saying anything about a state’s health care policies? The shortage of substitute teachers in North Carolina is only one of many reasons we need to rein in the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From Healthcare to Common Core, it is time to get the federal government out of the states.