God’s Work

Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church, John Allen, Doubleday, 2005, 403p.

There is no more controversial force in the Roman Catholic Church than Opus Dei.  Founded by Spanish priest Josemaria Escriva in the late 1920’s, the organization has spread throughout the Roman Catholic Church.  There is even an Opus Dei branch in Japan.

The organization is vilified by its detractors, praised by its supporters and misunderstood by everyone else.  Allen, a staunch Catholic but not a member of Opus Dei, tries to give a reasonable picture of the organization.  I think that he does a fairly good job.  He has engendered in me a kind of sympathy for the organization.

Allen spends a lot of time dealing with members and former members of the group.  It is always easy to find horror stories, and he does give some of those, but Allen goes beyond the superficial anecdotes to deal with the core principles of Opus Dei.

Those principles are not the least controversial.  The principles are nothing the typical Catholic priest or layperson would not recognize and agree with.  So why the controversy?  The cause is misunderstanding, ignorance, and some errors on the part of some members of Opus Dei.

The core principle of Opus Dei is “secularity”.  This is the idea that one is a Catholic in all areas of life.  One is to work in one’s profession with all one’s diligence.  One is to strive for excellence.  This not controversial, even non-Catholics can see the merit in this.

How then does this give rise to the strong feelings, the antipathy, against Opus Dei?  The charge of being a cult is usually the first one leveled at the organization.  It is not, but some of its practices for it upper lever members do cause some to question what is going on.  The members who live in Opus Dei residences are the major case in point.  The people, called numeraries, are required to live in celibacy and perform certain spiritual practices, disciplines.  In Catholic practice this is not unusual.  Many of the religious orders were founded on similar principles.  The numeraries are mere following a well attested path.

The two most controversial of the required disciplines of the numeraries are the using of a small rope whip and the wearing of he cilice.  The whip is used once a day while reciting a Hail Mary or Our Father prayer.  It is more of a reminder, a token really, of what Christ suffered rather than a serious flailing.  No bodily injury is expected, but a mortification.  It is an attempt to suppress sin.

The cilice is also not controversial in Catholic practice.  The cilice is a barbed chain worn on the thigh for two hours a day.  The barbs poke you to remind you of the suffering of Christ. Opus Dei buys the cilices from a group of Catholic nuns that are not related to Opus Dei.  The cilice Opus Dei buys is the one with only one row of barbs, not the two or three row models the nuns also sell.

Opus Dei does have legitimate status within the Catholic church.  It members include several bishops, two cardinals, and over a thousand priests.  The Pope granted the organization the status of Personal Prelature, the only one in the church.

Opus Dei members do not withdraw from the local diocese, rather they are still under the authority of the local bishop.  So are all the priests associated with Opus Dei.

Most members of Opus Dei are not numeraries.  The vast majority of members are supernumeraries.  These are Catholics who do not live in Opus Dei residences, but live on their own.  Often married, they practice the idea of secularity in their lives, trying to live out church teachings.

This is what Opus Dei says it is about.  The organization does not tell its members what to do, other than to obey official church teaching, or how to do it.  Rather, it insists that its members find their own way in life and apply their religion as they best think they can.  In matters of ethics and doctrine the organization stands ready to assist.

Allen give a detailed analysis of the organizations financial status.  The myth says that the group is wealthy, but the reality is that the U.S. branch is doing OK, but he UK branch is deeply in debt.

This financial analysis also indicates that the organizations reputation for secrecy is overblown.  Allen said that he had no trouble in getting the information for which he asked.  Organization officials were willing to talk to him on the record about all aspects of the organization and its activities.

Allen did not join the organization, but he does give the impression of respecting it.  If Allen tries to follow Escriva’s teaching of secularity, Allen’s Jewish wife may respect it as well.

Are You a Member?

The Survivors Club, Ben Sherwood, Grand Central Publication, 2009.  373p., index

Will you survive in an emergency?  What will you do?  Ben Sherwood explores the world of survivors.  Drawing from the experiences of survivors of such desperate situations  as the Nazi death camps and air plane crashes, the author seeks to know why some people survive and others don’t.

The reason some survive while others in the same situation in not the result of any one factor.  Dumb luck plays only a minor role in determining who survives.  Other more tangible factors are the key.  Most of these factors are under human control.

Survivors have many thing in common.  Regardless of the situation, those who survive disasters are those people who want to survive.  It is a odd fact that many people who could survive do not because they do not try to survive.  Sherwood cites a London, England subway fire in which many died because they did not simply walk out of the underground station.  Even more amazing, many people walked into the station despite the obvious smoke and fumes.

It is this kind of crazy behavior that Sherwood explains.  Not everyone can survive even if they did everything right. Some situations are hopeless for some people.  What can be done to improve the odds of survival is done by survivors.

A telling example related by Sherwood is that of a survival expert on a plane trip.  When seated, the man looked beneath his seat for the life preserver that was supposed to be there.  It was missing.  The man called the flight attendant, and she got him one.  The man suggested to the woman in the next seat that she check for hers.  She refused.  The attitude is that plane crashes are not survivable, so why bother?  She was not a member of the club.

Anyone who has flown on commercial airlines knows the emergency procedure demonstrations put on by the flight crew.  One also knows that most of the passengers ignore the demonstration.  Survivor club members do not ignore anything.  They pay attention and have a plan.  They know where all the exits are.  They have a greater chance to be part of the the 95% of airline passengers who do survive an airplane crash than do the inattentive.

Sherwood divides those who experience a disaster into a 10-80-10 percentage groupings.  The first are the 10% who know what to do and do it.  These are the key survivors.  The 80% are most of us, like the author, who don’t know what to do, have no plan, and tend to freeze in an emergency.  This is not necessarily a fatal condition if it does not continue.  People do overcome this.

The last 10% are the dangerous ones.  They panic and often make the situation  worse.  These people seldom survive and frequently prevent others from surviving.

The book offers a web site where you can go to take a test to see which of the five survivor types you are and how  many of the twelve survivor skills you have.  You need the code number from the book jacket, so us library borrowers are out of luck.  This is OK because luck has little to do with survival.

Why did I list the author in the 80% grouping?  He relates a incident that happened at his house when he was almost done writing the book.  At 2:30 am the house burglar alarm went off, waking the author and his wife.  They froze.  Overcoming this they called the alarm company.  They had to look up the number in the phone book.  The alarm company did not call them because the alarm company had the wrong contact information.  The alarm company  told them to lock themselves in their room.  Sherwood insisted the alarm company send the police.  Sherwood does not say why he did not call the police.  It turns out that all was well.  It seems that the kitchen door was not properly shut, and the wind blew it open.

I appreciate the author’s honesty.  He was not a club member, but what about you?

Behind the Bank

The Crimes of Patriots A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money, and the CIA, Jonathan Kwitny, W.W. Norton, 1987. 424 pgs, index.

How do banks begin?  For what purpose do banks exist?  Why use an obscure bank?  These question are seldom asked by most bank customers.  We tend to assume that all banks are much the same.  It is only a matter of convenience as to which bank to use.  There is a  lot more to banking than we know.  There is the operations of banks that we see, but beneath the surface there is in some banks operation that you are not allowed to see.

The Nugun Hand Bank was one such operation.  Founded in Australia by Frank Nugan, an Australian, and Michael Hand, an American, the bank was curious from its inception.  Kwitny, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, traces, what he can, of the banks origins, operations, demise, and aftermath.

The bank, it seems (no one knows for sure) was designed to enable people to evade taxes, evade currency export restrictions, and to launder money.  Almost all the bank’s operation outside of Australia were illegal.  Record keeping of deposits and loans often consisted only of a slip of paper kept in a file drawer.  The morning after Nugan’s 1980 suicide, the key officers of the bank went through the files and destroyed and carted off large quantities of records.  They didn’t need to hurry:  the police did not bother to show up at the offices until several days later.  This is just the beginning of a series of bungled attempts to investigate the bank.  There would be two more

Kwitny raises many questions regarding the bank:  Why were so many retired high ranking U.S. military officers involved as officers of the bank, yet they all claim no knowledge of the illegalities?  Why was the bank able to operate for so long and in so many countries without government authorities taking notice?  Why did so many depositors fail to file claims to try to recover some of their money?  What was the relationship of the bank with the Australian Intelligence and Security Organization?

These are all intriguing questions, but Kwitny does not answer them, at least not directly.  He hints at money laundering–the bank had a branch in the Golden Triangle are of Thailand–but doesn’t give the proof that shows the bank was actually helping the narcotics trade (although it is difficult to see why this branch existed, illegally under Thai law, if it was not to move around drug money.)  Kwitny also tries to implicate the CIA, saying the bank was a conduit for CIA funds.

The issue of the retired military officers is quite odd.  Were these men that naive?  Didn’t they investigate the bank and its principals before joining?  Why were they so willing to lend their names and prestige to this nascent operation?  Many of these men tried to lie their way out of any responsibility but changed their story when they were confronted with documents and, in one instance, a tape recording of a company meeting.

The bank was a magnet for former (?) intelligence operatives.  One especially colorful character was an expatriate American who operated a sleazy restaurant and bar in Sydney’s red light district.  There is nothing unusual about this until it is pointed out that the place is frequented by most visiting U.S. elected and appointed officials.  As Kwitny notes, no one goes the for the food.

The Nugun Hand Bank is a dead issue.  Nugun is dead–this was reconfirmed by an exhumation!–and Michael Hand has disappeared.  From my one internet search, it seems that Hand is still missing.  This may be the way everyone wants the situation to remain.

The book concludes with an after word by Earl Yates, USN (ret.)  Yates was President of Nugan Hand in the U.S.; the operation was nothing but a mail drop near Washington, DC.

I found the story interesting, but the unanswered questions are a major weakness in the book.  The book’s strength is to alert us to the sub rosa world of international banking.

Get in Line, Again

It is time to answer that all important question:  What will I do when I get my free government money?  Ok, it really isn’t free, and it really does not come from the government.  You pay for it in your taxes.  In fact, if the tax forms were honest, there would be a line indicating how much you had to contribute to fund everyone’s free money.  But tax forms are not honest; the politicians keep it that way, because if the forms were honest, you would be angry.  And the politicians might be unemployed.

The other day at work I told this story:  A man is handing out dollars.  You ask the man if you can have one, and he says, “Sure, just get in line.”  You do, and shortly you are handed a dollar.  You say, “Thanks.”  Now what do you do?  Put in you pocket and spend it later?

If you are a giant, mismanaged corporation with serious political connections what you do once you get that free money is get in line again.

Unconditional Election Means God is Sovereign

Having posted an essay regarding the issue of Total Depravity, I will now explain the meaning of the U in the Tulip acrostic.  The U stands for Unconditional Election.  The Calvinists emphasize the truth of God’s sovereignty when they speak of election as being unconditional.  It is to this doctrine that most who claim to be Christians object.  This teaching can be real argument starter.

The doctrine of unconditional election states that God is totally sovereign in regard to man’s salvation.  In a previous post I listed many questions that must be answered by those who deny unconditional election.

Election means choice.  We often hear the word used of political voting.  The Calvinists mean that God has chosen some to salvation in Jesus Christ and has past by all others, leaving them to the just punishment that their sins deserve.  It is always to be remembered that God does not chose some men from a world of deserving or at least neutral men.  God choses from among sinners.  These are people that have violated God’s law.

Election by God is a demonstration of His grace.  We must never forget this.  If God had not chosen any to life in Jesus Christ, there would be none forgiven.  All men would suffer the eternal punishment God gives to those who violate His law.

Much of the trouble people have with election is found in their view of grace.  Many people think that they deserve grace.  After all, God is fair.  It is just not right, they say, that God would prefer some to others.  When we look at this objection and the others raised by the opponents of election, we see immediately that they reflect a very shallow view of the Bible and of the God who wrote it.

If I were to give away dollars to everyone on my Christmas card list, does this mean that I am unfair to not include you on my list?  What if I gave the dollars to only half of those on my list?  What if I gave no dollars to anyone?  What right does anyone have to my dollars?  You cannot demand of me a dollar just because you did not get one.  You might think it is unfair, but it is not unjust.  Do you object if you received five dollars when all the others got only one?

Fairness is a human attribute based on the idea that everyone (or at least almost everyone) should get what everyone else is getting.  Life does not work that way.  It never will.  It is not fair that I was not born rich, good looking, and smart.  However, it is not unjust.  Fairness is very American; it is not very Biblical.  Fairness has nothing to do with God’s election, sovereignty does.  Paul address this objection on Romans 9:15.  Citing God’s words to Moses, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  Paul  continues the thought in v. 16 concluding that “it does not depend on man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”

It is God’s sovereign right to distribute and withhold His blessings as He desires.  God chose to bless Jacob, a liar and a cheat, and to hate Esau (Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:13). This sovereign right of distribution includes His gift of eternal life and forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ.  We may chafe at this, but without sovereignty in everything, God becomes a servant of His creation.  The clay dictates to the potter for what purpose the pot will be used.  Paul uses this analogy in Romans 9:20-21 when he says, “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why have you made me like this,’ will it?  Or does not the potter have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”  Paul concisely expresses the idea of God’s sovereignty:  the right to do as He pleases with His creation.

The Bible does teach election of individuals, not classes of people, to eternal life.  The doctrine of election does not mean that God chose believers in Jesus to be saved.  No, election to life in Christ means that God chose individuals to become believers in Jesus Christ.  The individual believes in Jesus because God in eternity chose that person to believe in Jesus.

We can see the truth of election in many biblical texts.  One of the most direct is John 10:26, “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep.”  In this text we see the state of natural, unregenerate man:  he does not believe because he is not a sheep.  He does not believe to become a sheep.  No, it is the characteristic of a sheep of Christ to believe, but it is a characteristic of one who is not a sheep of Christ not to believe.  Jesus was speaking of the miracles that He had performed in His Father’s name.  The people he was addressing saw the miracles but still did not believe in Him.  This is always the case with unregenerate man.  Until the heart of stone is transformed by divine power into a heart of flesh, the unregenerate man will never, can never, believe.

In John 6:37 Jesus says to those who followed Him because of the miraculous sign He just performed, “All that the Father give Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”  The elect are a gift of the Father to the Son.  There is no human effort involved.

It is maintained by some that by believing on Jesus one becomes “born again”.  In John 1:13, however, this idea is expressly denied.  Speaking of those who do believe in the name of Jesus, John writes, “who were born, not of the blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.”

There are other texts where the truth of election is stated: John 15:16, Acts 13:48, 2Thessalonians 2:13, Ephesians 1:4-5.

The doctrine of election is unconditional.  This is the U letter in the TULIP acrostic.  Just what does it mean by unconditional?  It means nothing in anyone makes anyone favorable to God.  We cannot earn God’s electing grace.  We cannot buy it with our good works.  We cannot even make God favorable towards us if we believe as He requires us to believe in His Son’s paying the price of our sins.  This is a shock to many people.  They think that God chooses those who have chosen Him.  It makes election after the fact.  These people think you can become elect by doing something, by believing.

The Bible does command all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.  The Bible nowhere says that all men have the ability to do so.  Remember, the Bible also commands us to be holy as God is holy.  This is admitted by all to be impossible.  So it is with believing to become elect; it is impossible.

Very frequently we hear the idea that God knows who will believe and who will not believe, but He does not foreordain these people to one or the other group.  Often Romans 8:29, “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son,” is used to support this view.  When we look, however, more closely at the text, we see that God is not speaking of foreknowing who would believe as the basis of election.  No, rather it is those whom He fore loved that He predestined.  This is how the word “know” is often used in the Scriptures.  It is used that way of Adam and his wife (Gen. 4:1).  Other examples are in Genesis 18:19, Exodus 2:25, Psalm 1:6, Jeremiah 1:5, Amos 3:2, Matthew 7:23, Galatians 4:9, 2 Timothy 2:19.

God’s mere foreknowing but not foreordaining does not escape the problem.  It is certain that God perfectly knows all things in advance of their occurrence.  This renders such events certain.  If a man is foreknown by God to believe unto eternal life, how can that man do anything but believe?  It is not possible for this man to do anything except believe.  To say, then, that God merely foreknow who will believe and makes His choice based upon this foreknowledge is no solution to the problem it seeks to solve.  Otherwise it would be as if Pilate having said, “I find no fault in this man,” ordered Jesus released.  The prophecy of Jesus’ death would have been unfulfilled.

It is not known why God chooses some to eternal life and does not chose others.  There is nothing commendable to God in those chosen.  Nor is there anything more worthy of condemnation in those passed by.  The choice is entirely God’s.  This is a cause for great humility and thanksgiving in those whom God chose to bestow His grace.  It is also a cause for hope.  Since salvation is exclusively the work of God, from beginning to end, we can rest in the assurance that God is going to fulfill His plan.  God does not make any mistakes.  “Those whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (Romans 9:30)

In the Garden It Grows

I planted a garden this year.  I have done this in previous years, but last year I gave up and did not plant anything.  But the weeds did alright.

Planting a garden in a suburban backyard is not usually a big deal, but it is in my yard.  My soil is lously: it is heavy with clay.  This is about as bad as it can be.  I have tried to remedy the problem by adding organic matter, i.e., my yearly crop of mostly maple tree leaves.  I have some tall, old maples that produce an abundance of leaves.  This does not seem to have much helped.

My backyard is also heavly shaded.  It is those maple trees.  They both help and hurt the garden effort.  I am not about to have the trees cut down: I keep the dog tied to one of them.

I really don’t have a lot of space, but I don’t have a lot of enthusasim for the whole garden gambit.  I admit I am a bit lazy when it comes to gardening.  I would like to spend more time and money on the project, but I am usually short of both.  So the garden just grows by itself once I have done the preleminary work.

I would not have bothered to do anything this year in the garden, but a woman in my church asked if I would like some heirloom tomato seeds.  It seems that she bought too many different kinds.  Those seed catalogues can be dangerously seductive.  I said, “Yes,” and I started on another yearly effort at the unlikely to be successful endeavor of The Garden.

I started the seeds in Styrofoam cups.  I was going to buy those peat pots they sell to start seeds, but I just never got to the store.  Besides, the Styrofoam cups were here, and that meant that they were free, my kind of price!

The seeds eventually sprouted, and I transplanted them to the garden patch I had prepared.  I had to dig out the weeds.  With the wet clay soil and the tangled roots of the weeds it was not an easy task, but we gardeners are tough.  I persevered.  (It is the Calvinist in me! Remember, this site is also about Reformed theology.)

I had also thinned out the chives.  I had inherited some of these and had bough some others.  Over the years they just kept growing and spreading.  We have eaten some of them, but we usually ignore them.  If you can’t grow anything else, try chives.  They keep on coming back.  I mow them in the fall during my last mowing of the year, and they come back afresh in the spring.

I also planted some potatoes.  I wanted to plant some of those Yukon Gold variety, but the store I went to said that they transfered all their seed potatoes to another store because they potatoes were not selling at my local store.  I then went to the grocery stores and tried to find Yukon Gold, but both stores did not carry them.  I settled for Russets.

I bought two potatoes.  I chose the ones with the most eyes.  You just have to cut out the eyes and plant that piece, so it did not make any sense to buy a lot of potatoes.  (Did I tell you I was cheap?)

I learned this from my uncle.  He was a really serious gardener. (I don’t know if he was cheap.)  His garden was the size of my entire yard, front and rear plus both sides.

Now I just have to wait.  I am the only one in the house that will eat fresh tomatoes.  This means more for me, if we get any.

The potatoes are enjoyed by everyone.  In the past the crop has been a small number of small potatoes, but the real fun was that they produced anything.  This is the real joy of gardening.

Since I am growing only tomatoes, potatoes, and chives, I do not have to put up the fence to keep out the wildlife.  Potato greens are poisonous, and the the animals do not like the tomatoes.  The chives give them bad breath.

Crisis and Leviathan, a Review

Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs, 1987, Oxford University Press, New York. 274 pages, end notes.

We all know that government grows larger.  We know that it expands not only its size, but it also expands its control.  It passes new laws.  It creates new taxes that we must pay and increases old taxes.  It is ever proscribing some action and restricting other actions.  It regulates everything.

What causes this expansion?  This is the central question of Higgs’ book.  He answers that question in the title.

Leviathan, from Thomas Hobbes, is the government, especially the national, central government.  Here in the United States we call it the Federal Government.  The term is especially descriptive: a huge monster that consumes all.  It is Higgs’ thesis that government at all levels, but especially at the national level, uses a crisis, real or imagined, genuine or contrived, to grow.

Higgs admits that this does not always explain every aspect of government growth, but it seems to explain the bulk of government expansion.  After surveying various theories of governmental growth, Higgs concludes that no other theory but his own gives a satisfactory explanation of the endless growth of government.

Higgs scheme works like this:  there some crisis, a war (this is especially good as people rally to the flag as at no other time. It is that patriot thing.), natural disaster, economic panic, etc., that requires, really just provides some cover for, government involvement.  Often people expect, if not demand, such actions by their government.  Government usually responds with alacrity.

But this sharp, sudden growth is not such that can be sustained once the crisis is over.  After all, wars do end and floods do recede.  So according to Higgs, the government does shrink back but not to former levels.  There is always more government after the crisis than before the crisis.

Higgs further demonstrates that in legitimate crisises the government is not very careful with the truth.  Since people are willing to tolerate the abridgment of their liberties for The Cause, this is a government’s golden opportunity to give the people that experience.  Government always does.  The lies and propaganda are an essential part of the process.

This Higgs says is why we have draft laws, why FDR could take people’s gold, and why the rationing of the Second World War was tolerated (it really only allowed the government to buy things at below market price, too bad you had to do without.)

These type of practices are not unique to any one administration.  Higgs shows that the Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson presidencies were all resticting liberty and raising taxes to further their power.  In the first two administrations and in the first half of FDR’s there was some protection offered by the Supreme Court.  But once the majority of its justices became Roosevelt New Dealers, it was government growth without restriction.

Read this book, and you can see the same gambits and strategy used today.  Only today we have an undefined, endless war on terror.  We have already seen the passage by a willing if, not complicit, congress of draconian laws restricting our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  We hardly hear a peep of protest.  It would be deemed too unpatriotic.

Higgs closes his book with a list of those alphabetic agencies that restrict so much of what we do.  How did we ever live without them?

Running a Con

It is political season. This means all the political tribes are out doing what we must endure: campaigning. In all this trite and predictable affair there are occasional moments of mirth. I don’t mean those unforgivable gaffs when a politician actually speaks the truth. No, I mean those times when a candidate gets caught in a lie.

New York’s own beloved junior senator, Miss Hillary, recently bestowed upon us such a moment when she related how she was under sniper fire during a trip to Kosovo while she was First Lady. This was said to bolster her claim to having more experience than her rival, Senator Barack Obama. While it didn’t add to her bona fides, it did add to her embarrassment when she was forced to recant when video of her landing at the airport showed her and her daughter casually walking from the plane and pausing for photographs by news reporters. No gun shots were in evidence.

This is a real problem with inexperienced con artists who are not well acquainted with the first rule of running a con: never tell an unnecessary lie. Hillary failed here. If her statements were true, they added nothing to her experience. If her statements were false, as they were proven to be, it is all risk for no gain.

This lie by Senator Clinton is all the more stupid because she should know that there is video tape of every minute of her adult life. Her statements about her experience are too easy to check for her to get away with an obvious lie. This is a violation of the second rule of running a successful con: never tell a lie that can be easily checked. It is amazing that someone who is supposed to be so smart does things that are so stupid.

To prevent further embarrassment, I recommend that all considering running for public office read Genesis chapter 3. It is the story of the successful temptation by the devil of Adam and Eve. Here the devil, whom Jesus called the “father of the lie”, shows how it is done. In the whole conversation there is only told one lie.

This is how to do it. So get with it, you scoundrels. The public deserves better than to see you lie about how you “misspoke”. There is no chance we will ever believe that you were merely mistaken and not trying to make things to look better for you than the truth. We know you are lying. This is the third rule of running a successful con: never tell a lie we will know to be a lie even if we can prove it. If it isn’t believable, shut up!

You have a grand family heritage to uphold. You great grand father began it in the garden of Eden and has continued his lying ever since. If you are going to run a con, at least get the basics right. You are children of the devil. You act like children of the devil.

Because if the Devil disowns you, we may have to take you.

Or you could simply tell the truth. Don’t embellish anything. Don’t make up anything. And don’t spin anything to your advantage. This will surprise and confuse people, but they may eventually come around to believing you and respect you. You might even get some votes from non-family members.

People are disgusted with the typical political candidates. People are willing to listen to what you have to say if they perceive you to be honest. Look at the minority party candidates. They can tell voters exactly what they stand for. These candidates are never elected.

Candidates like these will never be elected unless the system is changed. The system will not change until people running for office start to tell the truth and stop pandering to the voter’s base interests. It take some one. It takes you.

If you fail? So what? Are you that important? Will the world end if you don’t lie you way into office? Consider Jesus. From an earthly perspective He was a failure. Yet He now rests at the right hand of God. All power in heaven and earth has been given to Him. He will come to judge the world. This is something you will never be elected to. He told the truth.

This all comes to motives. What are you trying to accomplish? Jesus pleased God. You can do no less. So repent and start telling the truth.

Forced into Glory Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream

Forced into Glory Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream by Lerone Bennett Jr. Johnson Publishing: Chicago, 2000. 652 pages, index, bibliography.

The story of Abraham Lincoln is a familiar one. It is taught in our schools, memorialized on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and counted out with every penny. You know the story: Honest Abe freed the slaves with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation and delivered the Gettysburg address extolling government of, by, and for the people.

The only problem Bennett can find with the story is that it is all false, a myth carefully crafted by the court historians to perpetuate the myth of the greatness of Lincoln. Bennett exposes the lies about Lincoln by quoting the words of the man himself. The collected works of Lincoln form the basis of Bennett’s case against both Lincoln himself and the professional historians who have not dared to write against the America’s great president.

Bennett has an advantage over the professional (read tenured university professor) historians in that he is not a historian by profession but a journalist. He is an editor of Ebony magazine. This book grew out of a 1968 article he wrote for Ebony. The article caused a real controversy. The book, however, is being largely ignored. This is the standard tactic the history establishment uses to silence anything that threatens their near monopoly hold on history teaching.

This book should not be ignored. It should be read in every civil war history class. The book not only demolishes the myth surrounding Lincoln, it also exposed the clique of historians that should know, do know, but won’t tell the truth about Lincoln and his policies. Too many careers at stake? You don’t get the promotion, tenure, research grants, etc. if you go against the received truth.

Lincoln deserves to be exposed as the bigot and racist he was. Lincoln never had any intention of freeing the slaves. He only did what he did as a cynical political ploys to relieve the pressure he was feeling from the abolitionists. Bennett points out that during his tenure as a Illinois state legislator, Lincoln did nothing about the state’s “Black Code”, some of the most repressive such laws in the country. Lincoln constantly expressed his view that blacks were inferior to whites and were only good for menial tasks. When forced to consider emancipation, Lincoln worried about the effect upon the owners when deprived of their servants. Lincoln’s repeatedly proposed a gradual emancipation, one that would take 20 to 50 years! This was not a man that could be rightly called the friend of the slave.

Bennett’s analysis of the two major documents of the Lincoln administration, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address, shows that they are really empty shells. The former did not free any slaves, and the latter did not apply to non-white people. The Myth continues.

But Lincoln was more than just empty talk. He was also empty action. When one of his generals issued an order to not return runaway slaves to their masters., Lincoln countermanded it. Lincoln refused to use freed slaves as soldiers in the Union Army. In the Union controlled city of New Orleans, the Army used freed slaves as forced labor. When blacks were finally organized into Union regiments, they were paid less than their white counter parts. The commander-in-chief did noting to rectify these injustices.

Lincoln was not without compassion. He actually proposed that the slaves be deported to an Asian or South American country, with suitable climate, that would take them. Lincoln had his State Department ask countries to take them, but there were no takers to be found. Lincoln was finally dissuaded when he was told that even using the entire U.S. Navy and all merchant ships, the freed slaves could not be deported faster than those slaves remaining in the U.S. would give birth to new people to deport.

Forced into Glory is not without its flaws. Bennett’s tone is sometimes angry, sometimes caustic. He uses the phrase “lily-White” so often that it becomes trite as well as being racist. He tends to be repetitive in some areas.

Bennett also does not deal with any of the legal issues regarding Lincoln’s handling of slavery. There is no discussion about the legal legitimacy of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln, Bennett says, regarded the edict as a temporary measure that would become void once the war was settled. Nor is there any discussion about the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. It sound great to oppose slavery, but the President is bound to uphold the law, whether or not he likes it. If he can’t do this he, should not be President. If he doesn’t do this, he is subject to impeachment and removal from office. It is, of course, not Bennett’s purpose to raise these issues, but they are factors in the larger discussion, and the omission of a discussion of how Lincoln could have worked within the Constitution to further the cause of abolition is a weakness of the book.

Bennett does, however, note that there were a lot of thing Lincoln could have tried to do to change the existing laws but made no attempt to do them. Bennett totally rejects the excuse proffered by Lincoln apologists that Lincoln had to consider the possibility of session by the four border states slave states, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky. Bennett is right. What help the border states might to give to the Confederacy was already being given. There was not much to lose. Here Lincoln failed.

The constitutionality of session is not raised by Bennett. Bennett fails to realize that slavery, as vile and evil as it was, was a constitutionally protected right. Yes, the Constitution was a “White man’s” document, but it is the only basis upon which to act. Remembering this makes Lincoln’s idea of buying the slaves a much better proposal, unworkable unless the slave owner agreed to sell, than Bennett thinks.

But the book is worth the efforts of the author and will reward the reader with new understanding of Lincoln’s history and the historians who write Lincoln apologetics disguised as history.

Some Things That Are True

These are some sayings that I use at work to try to get across the point.  Even with this wit it is still a struggle.

1. Never confuse the word “should”with the word “do”.

2. It is not here until it is my dirty, calloused hands.

3. Think, plan, do is the only correct order.

4. It is cheap until you run out.

5. By the time you know you need it, it is already too late.

6. Never confuse methods, results, and excuses.

7. You can’t win unless you play good defense, but you can still lose if you do.

8.  No one complains if it doesn’t break.

9. Ignorance is fixable.

10. Learn from others: teach yourself.