Author: Rob Purdie

Born on the high sea and later raised by wolves, Rob (who was known as JoJo the Dog Face Boy) was rescued from the circus by his wife. They have three children.

“Oppenheimer”

Our first home was Melbourne, Florida. It was sleepy little area on the east coast of the state. But it was a stone’s throw away from the Kennedy Space Center. In fact, it was the early space program that had brought my wife’s family to the area.

While we still lived there, we discovered East Tennessee. Early in our child-raising days, we made the decision that the Appalachians was where we would spend our later years.

After considerably hunting, we selected the town of Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Before we arrived in Oak Ridge, I had a nodding familiarity with the town. I knew it had been one of the multiple sites the U.S. government had used during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb in what was called the Manhattan Project.

Once I arrived in town, I immersed myself in local history organizations and in local discussion groups. And what I felt was disturbing.

From the library to the museums to the schools, there was at least a subliminal – often rising to overt – sense of shame about the town’s role in developing the world’s first atomic weapon that had literally ended the most destructive war in human history.

Of course, I’d understood the origin of this self-righteous guilt was buried among the scientists of the Manhattan Project itself.

Leo Szilard, Oppenheimer’s senior partner, was paradoxically the man who, along with Albert Einstein, wrote the famous letter to President Franklin Roosevelt that ultimately initiated the Manhattan Project . . . AND Szilard also organized and submitted a petition to the U. S. government – signed by 70 Manhattan Project scientists (almost ALL of whom were working out of Oak Ridge) – recommending restrained use or even NOT using the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war.

As I learned more of the historic and embedded nature of Oak Ridge’s self-righteously arrogant collective guilt, I came to recognize its inherent connection to communism. While the enemies that caused the Manhattan Project’s initiation were fascists, it was communists living in the free Western world who were called upon to do the work.

It was Oppenheimer’s familiarity and apparent comfort with these “fellow travellers” that proved to be his undoing.

In the film, director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan portrays Oppenheimer’s eventual blackballing as a martyrdom orchestrated by Admiral Lewis Strauss (not coincidentally, a lifelong Republican), rather than the fully justifiable result of Oppenheimer’s own naivete / hubris / arrogance / blindness / social ineptitude. Choose all that apply.

Nolan is blatantly political in the painting of his characters. He portrays Ernest Lawrence (inaccurately) as an ideological opponent of Oppenheimer. While Lawrence did assist the Eisenhower administration in later nuclear research and negotiations, he largely opposed Cold War nuclear development and publicly stated such on more than one occasion.

A more puerile issue that has developed around “Oppenheimer” is the sex scenes.

Like many of the facets of the Manhattan Project under Oppenheimer’s sphere of responsibility, it was no secret that the man himself was a womanizer who engaged in multiple sexual affairs before and during his marriage. The more prolonged of these affairs was with a woman named Jeanne Tatlock, a psychiatrist and communist exceptionally portrayed by Florence Pugh.

Because the sex scenes were adequately telegraphed in the film – and because I was seated between two women whom I did not know, nor do I believe knew one another – I afforded myself permission to avert my attention (judging from the audible responses, the rest of the theater did not share my qualms).

Because I did not see them, I cannot comment on the sex scenes beyond saying that their inclusion and immediate impact to the story appeared relevant to assessing Oppenheimer’s character.

Christopher Nolan is a very technically talented filmmaker. He is also, like most entertainment industry power brokers, an idealogue. His use (misuse?) of this film to further a pro-leftist, anti-conservative narrative comes as no surprise to me . . . nor should it surprise anyone who pays even nodding attention to such things.

There are multiple magnificent acting performances in “Oppenheimer,” not the least of which is Cillian Murphy as the title character. Capturing the great physicist’s arrogance and self-loathing would have been a challenge for any actor. Murphy provides his character with the combination of these things that makes the man seem more of a natural occurrence than he was. The result is that, whether we like him or not, we see J. Robert Oppenheimer as a human being.

Emily Blunt, utilizing Nolan’s script, makes Kitty Oppenheimer admirably gruff – only half of which was true of her in life. And Robert Downey, Jr., again within the bounds of the director’s screenplay, gloriously paints Strauss as the repulsive political animal Nolan desires.

The most accurate and heroic character in the film is portrayed by Matt Damon.

His Gen. Leslie Groves is brilliant, occasionally emotional and unwaveringly committed to the Manhattan Project . . . exactly as the man was in life. Since I have moved to East Tennessee (and even before), I have been persuaded that there are two men who are under-credited for their roles in the program. One of them is Gen. Leslie Groves, whom Damon brings back to life with dignity and strength.

The other man who is given short shrift regarding his role in the Manhattan Project is then-Lt. Col., ultimately Maj. Gen. Sir Kenneth Nichols. He is the most egregious victim of Nolan’s hatchet in this film. The moderate talent of Dane DeHaan takes the brilliant, likable, diplomatic chief planner of Oak Ridge and turns him into a greasy used car salesman who uses the very Atomic Energy Commission that Nichols himself helped create into Christ’s “brood of vipers.” Shameful. Untrue. Wrong.

I’ll let those be my final words on Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.”

J. Robert Oppenheimer poses in front of the mantle at the Alexander House in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 1946. A copy of this photo currently sits upon the mantle of the refurbished Alexander Guest House, which is now an elder care assisted living facility.

Slavery

I had a disturbing encounter with some very dear friends earlier this evening. These friends are intelligent, passionate and principled, They do not, in my experience, take serious matters lightly, nor vice-versa.

So, when the discussion came up regarding the recent trend within the United States military (and, specifically, within the United States Army) of renaming military installations, I was initially surprised at their opposition to such decisions.

The practice of re-naming (or naming) military institutions after Confederate military personnel began in the early 20th century with the rise of “Lost Cause” rebel sympathizers. These individuals sought to reframe the southern position for war in the 1860s as one of “states rights” or economics rather than a white supremecist position to support and advance race-based slavery. It was purely political on their part. The military conceding to these people was justified by the bases in question all being in former Confederate territory and the United States Army seeking recruits and local good will.

Fort Benning (Georgia), which currently bears the name of the moody-yet-capable Confederate general Henry Benning, is suggested to become Fort Moore in honor of Vietnam-era Lt. Gen. Hal Moore (author of “We Were Soldiers Once – And Young”) and his wife, Julia (Julie) Moore, who was the driving force behind United States Army uniformed casualty notification teams.

Fort Bragg (North Carolina), for the time being, still bearing the name of the moderately effective rebel general Braxton Bragg, will hopefully be renamed Fort Liberty.

Fort Gordon (Georgia) is currently named after John Brown Gordon, a man who achieved battlefield notoriety largely upon his ability to attract bullets like a magnet. It will hopefully be re-named Fort Eisenhower upon which no further explanation for its namesake will be required.

Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia) is named for Ambrose Powell Hill, popular, fun and wounded more with venereal disease than he ever was with bullets, and possibly one of the few Confederate military generals to have never owned a slave. It will be renamed Fort Walker, in honor of Mary Walker, a Union volunteer who was denied enlistment but served as a medic, POW and ultimately the nation’s first (and, still, only) female Medal of Honor recipient.

Fort Hood (Texas) is named after John Bell Hood of Kentucky, a man whose promotion to general of the Confederate Army of Tennessee was called by Pulitzer-prize winning historian Bruce Catton, “probably the single largest mistake that either government made during the war.” It is suggested to be named Fort Cavazos in honor of Korean War and Vietnam War veteran Gen. Richard Cavazos, a native Texan, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. Twice. In two separate wars.

Fort Lee (Virginia) is named after Robert E. Lee, the poster child for the causes of the American Civil War. It’s suggested that it be named Fort Gregg-Adams after two Army veterans of some merit, Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams.

Fort Pickett (Virginia) is named after Major General George Pickett. Alone among the remembered military leaders of the Confederacy, the last graduate of West Point in 1846, he was popular, fun and tenacious. Regrettably, he also murdered 22 United States Army prisoners. It is to be renamed Fort Barfoot in honor of Tech. Sgt. Van Barfoot who earned the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in Italy during World War II.

Fort Polk (Louisiana) is NOT named for former President James Knox Polk (who served as a cavalry captain in Tennessee), but rather named for rebel general Leonidas Polk whose largest positive characteristic was that he was viscerally hated by fellow Confederate Braxton Bragg. It will likely bear the name Fort Johnson in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Henry Johnson, who, during World War I, in what often degenerated into hand-to-hand knife combat, fought off a German ambush.

Finally, Fort Rucker (Alabama) bears its name for rebel officer Edmund Rucker, who can claim fame as having been ransomed from a Union prison camp by the man who would later found the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest. It will be named Fort Novosel in what maybe one of the most understated honors ever bestowed. Michael Novosel was an Army veteran of World War II, Korean War (as a USAFR colonel) and Vietnam War (as a CWO4), where he would ultimately earn the Medal of Honor for making 15 trips into a hot fire zone in his UH-1, rescuing 29 SVA soldiers.

There are absolutely NO circumstances that have been suggested by the Pentagon wherein the traitorous individuals for whom southern, former rebel territory bases were named aren’t more appropriately named for American military heroes.

As the discussion with my friends progressed, it came to light that the objection was more to the perceived yielding to current political pressures than it was to the actual names of the facilities themselves. I made clear that my support of changing the nomenclature of these military installations was solely based upon my visceral, passionate hatred of the Confederacy.

Ironically, the political environment of the United States of America immediately following the end of the Civil War was largely unsympathetic to the rebellion itself. For obvious reasons, northern citizens held regionally based antipathy toward the former Confederate states.

But, it should be noted, many within the southern states themselves were unhappy with former Confederates. The state of Tennessee, for example, voted in 1861 to remain within the Union. It was that state’s governor at the outbreak of secession, Isham G. Harris, who ignored the outcome of the public vote and allied the state with the rebellion. In that decision, Harris brought much bloodshed and destruction upon the Volunteer State which, had he followed the plebiscite, would have been minimized or eliminated.

It needs to be restated that the bases in question are all located in former Confederate states. These locations were named (or in most cases RE-named) for rebel leaders because of the military’s desire to improve recruitment in these areas and to improve PR among local communities.

These locations did NOT receive their names because the particular individuals bore any nobility of character or contributed to development of the nation which they all betrayed.

This fact, however, led to a deeper discussion regarding the actual motives and prosecution of the American Civil War itself.

Col. Ty Seidule, former Chair of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, summarizes the cause of the American Civil War in a brief YouTube presentation through Prager University.

He is in error regarding the votes of secession not being close (as we have mentioned, Tennessee citizens actually voted to remain within the Union, although he is likely only referring to representative votes among state legislatures). All his other points in this video are historically and factually accurate.

In the interest of candor, I should say that I am a historical and political conservative. Along with this, I am an originalist in American constitutional interpretation. It is a proven fact that Black Americans are progressively achieving higher levels of recognition in the United States, as well as equal justice under law (this final point has seen the pendulum pursuit of justice swing wildly out of hand, in some cases).

Obviously, both our government and our citizens must remain vigilant to ensure equal applications of law and justice with no regard for race of any kind.

This said, history clearly demonstrates that the foundation of this country ignored in its charter, the Constitution of the United States of America, the obvious, self-evident truth “that all men are created equal.” It did so by allowing the southern colonies to continue to practice and advance “the peculiar institution” of race-based slavery despite the northern colonies being willing to eliminate chattel slavery as it was a moral evil and an obvious violation of the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence itself.

While slavery was established by the British (and also advanced by the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French and others) in what would become the United States, the British Empire itself outlawed chattel slavery on February 23, 1807, a full 54 years prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War over the continued practice and advancement of slavery.

So, having made the moral compromise that continued to imprison innocent humans for labor based solely upon the color of their skin, the United States had exchanged its existence for what would become the freedom and lives of around 4,000,000 people.

Should this compromise have been made? If it hadn’t been made, it is unlikely that the United States would have come into existence. What the world would have looked like without America, is a question that arises out of this. Is there ever a good time to intentionally make a moral compromise?

Goodbye, World’s Best Cat.

From the day I met her, I wanted her to be mine.

At the time, the only pets I’d ever had were dogs. I liked dogs. I even loved a few dogs. They’re loyal and consistent. Dogs live by a pattern and have favorite things and even favorite people.

Cats, though, are, well, cats. They live without attachment to pattern. Most times, they’d just as soon ignore you as to look at you. Generally, cats are equally indifferent to humans, whether you live in the same house with them or not.

But, Jaina was different . . . so very different.

She welcomed people. She loved attention. Even when she acted like she didn’t (see photo above).

When Laura moved to New England and Jaina moved in permanently with us, we initially tried to leave her at home in the care of our son, Robbie, while we went to Chattanooga for my annual “Christmas comittment.”

Unfortunately, Robbie and his wife took the opportunity to shave our cat. Not really. Sort of.

As it turned out, when we got back from Chattanooga, Jaina had developed a noticeable bald spot on her stomach. I mean, VERY noticeable. After repeated accusations and denials, we learned that some cats, when under duress, will lick themselves to the point of removing their fur.

Jaina had shaved herself.

This past year, upon returning, she started exhibiting some more serious issues. We took her in to see our veterinarian who gave us some bad news.

Jaina was in the final stages of kidney failure.

There were extreme steps that we could take, we were told. But the condition was irreversible and ultimately terminal. Based upon the results of her blood tests, the vet said the end could be any time.

So, we knew we weren’t going to pursue any of the extreme treatments just for the sake of getting a little more time. And the trauma and frequency of the treatments would seriously impact her quality of life. We settled in, waiting for the end, and decided to make her comfortable, happy and spoiled for her last days.

Those “last” days turned into weeks. The weeks turned into months. Almost five months, to be exact.

Jaina lived five of the best months of her life at the end. She was more active and entertaining in those months than ever. She would hide in closets.

Once, after a protracted search and near panic from both Susan and myself, we found her in the kitchen on top of the cabinets with her back pressed against the ceiling. Another time, all we could hear was meowing. Finally, after having eliminated every other possibility, we discovered she’d wedged herself behind the microwave.

Of course, she could have gotten out by herself. She just wanted to show off.

One recent Christmas, our son-in-law, Shane was given a tartan plaid blanket. Since it was too bulky to pack into luggage for a return flight to New York City (or because he didn’t really like it – he’s hard to read sometimes), he gifted it to Jaina. She did not hesitate to put it to good use.

I laid her to rest early this morning between the rose bushes in our yard. I cut out a section of her blanket and it served as her burial shroud.

When I left her to rest this morning, I tried to sleep. That wasn’t possible. I got up and told her goodbye. I loaded my Christmas suits into the truck and drove to Sevierville to take them to the cleaners. I’d hoped that the beautiful rive down 321 would help.

Just before I sat own to write this, I had been sitting in the truck in tears for about an hour with the realization that this will be the first time I’ll have entered this house without her.

Love you, Crazy Kitty.

Trump

I don’t particularly like Donald Trump.

I did not vote for him in 2016. I chose to write in Ted Cruz. But I voted to re-elect Donald Trump in 2020. It was the final U.S. federal election in which I will participate.

As I explained to a family member at the time, I did not vote for individual people. Instead, I voted for the candidate who most closely mirrored my personal ideologies.

I did not know enough, politically, about Trump in 2016, so I didn’t vote for him. He was vague on some issues that were important to me. He had failed to commit on a stance to certain points.

I knew Ted Cruz. I had researched him. I had met with him. I had spoken with him. So, I voted for him despite the criticism that I was “throwing my vote away.”

In 2020, Mr. Trump had an effective track record as president. And, even though he was not a good human being, he was running against a worse human being whose mental capacity was questionable. The United States chose to elect a horrible human being with questionable mental capacity.

And that was how such matters work. So be it.

Today, however, the United States of America ceased to exist.

What today has proven, unlike any other time in American history, is that the power of government can – and will – be turned against people who disagree with that government. The problem isn’t just that is sets a disturbing precedent. That is a given.

No, the real danger here is that there is no point at which this process can be expected to stop. Logically, from the time a former president is indicted by his political opponents, those opponents can only escalate their persecution. And, further, those opponents can only rationally act in like manner once they have regained power.

What the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has done is the bidding of a political sponsor instead of following the law. It cannot end here, no matter what verdict is issued by a kangaroo court.

This was the Rubicon.

Just as Julius Caesar’s crossing of that tiny creek in central Italy meant that there was no turning back to the Roman Republic, so too does Bragg’s decision mean that the American republic is dead.

We cannot return to a time when political ideas were simply differences of opinion. Instead, we must attack our opposition at every turn, whether they are in power or not. Only the elimination of those who disagree with us can be pursued.

Compromise is for the weak. Understanding is for the loser. Victory to the merciless and brutal.

Two-hundred and forty-seven years. It was a good run.

Reading

I’ve been a reader for as long as I have memory.

This isn’t to claim some superhuman status. Clearly, there was a time in my life when I couldn’t read.

But, reading or being read to as a small child is present in many of my vivid recollections. There are photographs of my mother reading to me on a window seat in our early home in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. I remember my father reading American Heritage articles to me as a boy. My grandmother was an elementary school teacher who read to all of her grandchildren regularly.

Reading, however, is – or, rather, can be – a gateway drug. No. In fact, it should be a gateway drug.

The act of reading should lead to thinking. And thinking should lead to writing. And all of it is communication. So, whether the thinking leads to writing or speaking or art or anything else, it’s all a link in the chain that starts with reading and writing.

Cave paintings in Lascaux, France are an example of prehistoric, pre-alphabetic communication (i.e.; writing/reading). The drawings of prehistoric cattle (aurochs), deer and horses are estimated to be as much as 20,000 years old. Recent prehistoric art discoveries in Indonesia are more than twice as old as Lascaux, strongly suggesting that a human need to communicate through such mediums is innate.

As a reader, I, personally, became a writer. This obviously isn’t a universal pattern among readers. One would hope that at least thinking results from reading. But it’s neither a requirement nor guarantee. The same is true of writing as it relates to reading.

Some writing isn’t necessarily based upon thought. As the cave art of Europe, Indonesia, Australia and around the world demonstrates, humans sometimes simply choose to communicate the world around them. Before it became an obscene profession, modern humans called this “journalism.”

When the cave paintings of prehistory were etched, there was no culture attempting to censor their creator. The artists were free to depict a deer in the manner they interpreted a deer. Sure. It’s possible that someone named Og mumbled “It not look like deer to me.” But, critics are a natural outgrowth of thought. And they should be.

What is recent and alien and damaging to the freedom that reading and writing and thought require to survive is an uncritical condemnation of ideas.

Having an opinion is not a right. It’s like a navel. We all have them from birth on various subjects.

But simply having an opinion doesn’t mean the opinion has merit. The painting may not look like a deer to Og (“Grog, the antlers are perfect! How can you say it doesn’t look like a deer?!”), but unless we can logically and reasonably explain our dislike (“”Cuz me think legs too skinny; and deers’ necks look like giraffe’s,”), then our ideas about the writing – or art – themselves are invalid (“Me not know . . . me just no like it.”)

That’s not an idea. It’s an opinion

All ideas are not equal. But they cannot be dismissed simply on the merit of “we don’t like it.” This is a hallmark of modern thinking. Simply dismissing or prohibiting discussion of a particular thought or idea based upon the preference of an individual or group is antithetical to freedom.

Ideas must be heard, discussed, defended and reasoned over. Then, after that process, ideas can be dismissed. And, the process and discussions can be written, saving humans from repeating said process and allowing the species and its development to continue more readily.

Humans must zealously protect the freedom to write, read and think openly. Some ideas, if unchallenged, can have painful outcomes. But that pain is mild and incomparable to the pain an idea can produce once it is banished from discussion.

The light of truth and discussion cause darkness and deceit to fall away.

Conclusion

I will endure

I will survive.

Until I don’t.

Then, I will return Home to the One Who created me.

I long for that day. But I cannot choose it. And its arrival is certain above all other truth.

When others look back on my life, I hope they acknowledge I stood firmly in my principles.

I’ve failed in multiple regards in life. But I have things that I hold sacrosanct which I defend and protect. God, let those things be obvious and let them belong to You.

Humanity

Being human means our whole existence takes place in the presence of two important truths.

1). You were made by God.

2). You rebel against God.

These two things are true of you. They’re true of me. And everyone else who has ever come out of their mother’s womb (except One . . . we’ll get to that).

Whether or not a person believes in God has no effect on the truths. They are always there. They are always real. The two truths don’t move, change nor waiver. Whether you accept the truths yourself does not impact their reality. Not accepting them, however, is an example of the second truth – rebellion against God. This is because God not only determines what truth is and is not, He is Truth.

Now, not believing in God is actually not the only way humans rebel against God. Many of us who proclaim to both believe and follow God are equally guilty of rebelling against God as is the most devout atheist.

So, what can humans do? We were made by a God who we can’t see and Who both knew and expected us to rebel against to His direction. It’s a classic catch-22. There’s no way out. And this is just the logical conversation. When we get into the depth of theological discussion on “what did God know and when did He know it?” . . . well, then we get into the Law and observances. We’re damned no matter what.

Until . . .

A catch-22, by definition, doesn’t allow for a successful resolution. But God, knowing the two fundamental truths that we live under, also designed a safety net to the condemnation, a backdoor to the matrix. And HE was the resolution.

Jesus Christ saw all the rebellion from His position in eternity. Everyone of our sins were visible to Him before He accepted the mission to suffer death, brutality and humiliation in exchange for every . . . single . . . one of us. He knew some of us would accept His suffering and sacrifice. He knew some of us would figuratively (and, in some cases, literally) mock His actions and spit upon Him.

He also knew that even some of those who accepted Him and His actions on their behalf would continue to rebel even within their rescue from condemnation.

But He did it anyway.

So, the two truths of humanity, two truths that combine to create free will, are both fulfilled and circumvented by God Himself. They are no more or less true because of His salvation of us, just as the condemnation is no more or less real because of our denial.

Both in music and in theology, two different things can be true at the same time.

Hope

I’m a Christ-follower. I’m using that term here because the phrase “Christian” has become so watered down and shallow that it means nothing. People use it the same way they use “American” or “hero”.

All three of these words used to have a shared, recognized meaning in our culture. But we no longer have a shared culture, so we shouldn’t be surprised that our words have no shared meaning.

A “Christian” was once defined as “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.” But there is no longer a shared definition of Christianity itself. Christians can believe Jesus Christ was divine, a third component of the Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Or, Christians can believe that Jesus was a good teacher, a wise man who led by example and taught love. Both definitions are equally prevalent in our culture.

An “American” was once defined as “a native or citizen of the United States.” While the law created the idea of birthright citizenship, that was not always the case. And, with recently attempted legislation, residents and citizens of any country will be considered American by their presence within the borders of the United States.

A “hero” was once defined as “a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.” Over time, our culture has used hero to describe everything from firefighters and police who entered the World Trade Center on 9/11 to grocery store employees who showed up to work.

These are a very few examples of something I discussed in my previous entry: control and manipulation of the language. When a particular ideological group controls the means of communication, ultimately that group will control the language and how it is applied.

Recent civil unrest has served to highlight the growing divides in American society. As the nation’s breakdown accelerates, the impact of its Judeo-Christian culture has almost disappeared completely.

So, those of us who rebel against the group in question must invent our own terms to accurately identify our thoughts and conditions.

Hence, Christ-follower. One who follows Christ. It does not refer to a church or denomination. Rather, a Christ-follower is led by a historical, spiritual and supernatural figure. This makes reinterpreting terms more difficult (although, certainly not impossible).

The difficulty with the current state of the United States of America is that many of us are at varying points. Like Kubler-Ross’ stages, many of us are just now entering the first stage: denial. We believe that the United States is still a perfectly healthy and functional political entity. There’s nothing wrong with a little division, they say. Diversity is good. The government is just trying to keep people safe by lockdown. Rioting and looting can be a sign of a positive change.

This thinking is denial.

But, what makes this stage dangerous in a national death as opposed to the death of a person is that the denial when facing geopolitical entities can gravitate toward a false and dangerous nationalism. I say this as one who went through this phase about 18 years ago.

Americans – and I include myself in this group – once had a tendency to blend their nation and their God. And this is very reasonable given the clear Judeo-Christian influence upon our founding. Thomas Jefferson was clear in the Declaration. There was a Creator. Representative, republican government was established in the Bible in the book of Judges.

But, as reasonable as it may appear on the surface, it is wrong. God, the Creator, Providence . . . whatever Its name . . . stands above nations. He judges nations. He does not favor any man or nation or race over another. So, by claiming that America had an inside track to God, we – I – helped pave our own destruction.

Christ is a personal savior. When we called the United States of America “a Christian nation,” we were being untruthful. A nation cannot be “Christian.” It’s like looking at an inner city parking garage and saying “That’s a General Motors parking garage” when you know full well there will be Toyotas and Fords and Hyundais and Dodges parked in it as well. Unless you’re willing to stand at the gate and bar entry to all other brands, your parking garage will never be a “General Motors parking garage.”

And that is particularly difficult to do if your parking garage is 3,800,000 square miles.

Unlike cars, however, people all have the same creator. And there is only one Savior for them. We will not likely turn all of them into Christ-followers (although, that is the hope). What the United States of America tried to do was to foster that environment by which the greatest number of people would have the greatest level of liberty to pursue their highest dreams. And in that, they might turn to their Creator in thanks and humility, seeking the salvation we all need.

It worked. But only for a while.

We failed in myriad ways. America didn’t eliminate chattel slavery. We withheld the vote from women. America replaced the roles of churches with government and people became greedy. We slaughter millions of babies every year and claim it’s a “right.” We used religion as a stick rather than a carrot in human sexuality.

These were our failings. Gradually, we overcame or are overcoming all of them.

But Satan does not build upon the triumphs of God’s people. Instead, he cultivates their failures.

When we hear black Americans claim slavery or racism give them the freedom to violate God’s commandments, we are hearing the voice of Satan.

When we hear women claim that they are oppressed by a system that favors and supports them, a system that Jesus Christ Himself made possible and achievable, we are hearing the voice of Satan.

When we hear Americans claim that the slaughter of innocents through abortion is a “human right,” we are hearing the voice of Satan.

When we hear people say that sexuality is equal to love and that they are free to do as they choose with bodies that were given to them by God, we hear the voice of Satan.

And, finally, when we hear ourselves say that we are better than any or all of the sinners above who are following the voice of Satan, we become the voice of Satan.

So . . . where does this leave us?

The United States of America was – and, for the time being, is – a wonderful experiment. It was driven by one of the greatest empires in human history, the British Empire, which did more to spread the Gospel than any culture before it. When the American colonies rebelled against the Crown, they were fulfilling the promise of that same empire from as far back as Magna Carta.

But, as the sins of the father often follow the son, the United States’ sins continue to haunt us. America has spread the Gospel to the stars. The Bible has been read by Americans on the surface of other worlds.

And none of this makes the United States of America a “Christian nation.” Such a beast does not exist, cannot exist. We are no different than any other nation. No better, no worse. We are as prone to rise or fall as China or India or Russia or Zambia. In fact, some may say our fall may be more assured precisely because of our spiritual history (that’s a topic for a different day).

The point to all of this is this: I see the coming collapse of the United States of America not as an insurmountable human tragedy, although it is indeed tragic. The world will become a more dangerous, less prosperous place without the stability America has provided.

In that danger, however, amid the poverty that will wash over the world (including America) in waves, there will be God. He will be reaching out to people. Individual people. To protect them. To provide for them. To comfort them. Just as God has done since Eden fell, just as Jesus has done since he was born, just as the Holy Spirit has done since the Universe began.

And in that, I place my faith and all my confidence. Not in a flag. Not in an anthem. Not in a government of men. Not in the United States of America.

But, rather in Christ. And in Christ alone.

Divided

In the United States right now, there’s a lot of talk about unity. It’s mostly coming from people who consider themselves “conservative” and some people who believe themselves to be “independent” or “moderate.”

It’s important to understand that ideological labels, particularly political ones, are only functional in a society that has shared values. When people are rooted in similar belief systems or political systems, they can have some ideological deviation from one another. This is achievable because any and all parties have a measurable faith in the system in which they are all rooted. The shared Judeo-Christian heritage of people such as John Adams and Patrick Henry afforded the freedom of expression to atheists and deists such as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin. Here were differing ideologies uniting around a concept of nationhood and liberty.

Leftists and anarchists seldom concern themselves with unity. This is because leftists succeed by destroying free systems, or by making such systems smaller. They then build their own totalitarian systems. In some few cases, these totalitarian systems can be benevolent and briefly functional. But they are never free systems that protect personal liberty.

So, when we hear leftists and/or Democrats claim that we need “unity,” generally what they’re truly claiming is that you must think like they do. Your personal ideas and values are irrelevant to their goals.

In a similar, but slightly varied vein, Republicans and conservatives (and even a few moderates) cry that “American values” should unite us. But these same people have historically been wishy-washy about exactly what those “American values” contain. What’s worse is that they remain very foggy about defining them even now.

What has happened in America is that we are not united. Unity is nothing more than a quaint concept, a memory left over from our history when unity was a requirement for national survival . . . and, by extension, personal survival and liberty.

The political labels we discussed earlier are somewhat dangerous because they do offer a division. At their root, however, none of them takes precedence over actual being an American citizen.

During the early 1900s (not coincidentally, around the same time the un-American idea of an income tax arose), the dramatic rise in immigration to America created some social upheaval. Among these changes were the practice of identifying immigrants by their country of origin. Terms like “Italian-American,” “Serbian-American,” “Polish-American,” etc. came into popular use.

President Theodore Roosevelt addressed the inherent danger of such thinking:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

It should be qualified that like many politicians of his day, Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. He advocated for the income tax and government seizure of private land, both notably un-American ideals. So, maybe his words above are nothing more than political rhetoric.

But, let’s take them at face value.

If he’s right, then putting a word and hyphen in front of “American” to describe oneself is disloyal at its very core. It supplants the adoptive nation – the United States of America – with an immediate precedence and loyalty to one’s prior country. That’s not only foolish, but dangerous. Yet, Teddy Roosevelt, in his single most obvious concession to traditional Americanism, lost the fight. And American immigrants and their families for generations would be “German-Americans” or “Welsh-Americans” or “Scottish-Americans.”

Theodore Roosevelt tried to make a point about the deleterious impact that maintaining national identities outside of a solely American identity would have. Most Americans ignored him . . . and, in part due to that lack of attention, the United States is collapsing.

This bad fish went from frying pan to fire when, during the 1960s through today, we began hyphenating not based upon nationality, but rather upon skin color and ideology.

Almost universally, there is nothing African about black Americans. They did not come from Africa anymore than I came from Scotland. Yet, in the 1980s and 1990s, certain political interests in the black community manipulated a willing media and political class to begin using the term “African-American.”

This was a social test. The manipulation of the American psyche had begun. Using political identity as a tool for division proved effective during the 20th century immigration waves. And, as the United States began a new millennium, the tool of division would be ratcheted up.

Soon, we had “Gay Americans” incorporating sexual preference into political identity. And political identity is superior to identity as an American. The fact that race and sexual preference are totally dissimilar characteristics means nothing politically. The two were equated by those social elements that could advance themselves through division. And the more divisions that could be created, the more efficiently the United States of America could be fractured.

White Americans are separate from black Americans. The two groups do not share similar experiences. One group is privileged; the other oppressed. To question such a position is to be regarded as racist. But, only if you are white. Because black Americans cannot be racist. And through the historical cudgel of chattel slavery, black Americans claim superiority over Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans.

Hispanic Americans are separate from Asian, black and white Americans. They are superior through their native status to the North American continent. Hispanics are la raza . . . the race.

And Asian-Americans are superior to Hispanic, black and white Americans through their suffering as slave and low-wage labor in the American west and internment camps during World War II (another deviant Roosevelt brainchild).

Gay Americans are separate from heterosexual Americans. The two groups are polar opposite. One group is dominant and fascistic; the other oppressed. To question these conditions is to be regarded as a “homophobe.”

Finally, even as the flames of September 11, 2001 still burned, the hyphenation went to its deepest extreme.

Previously, the hyphens were inserted with nationalities or races or behaviors. These things could be clearly defined by borders or traits or actions. But now, the hyphens went to something more nebulous, an unquantifiable element that has no tangible threads to pull or skin to touch – ideology.

Islamic-Americans are separate from other Americans, They have been oppressed by the prejudice of 9/11. They are persecuted for their religious faith. To question their commitment to the Constitution and the United States of America is, to use the phrase that was created, “Islamophobic.”

One of Orwell’s enduring lessons (1984) was that control of the language is tantamount to controlling thought. And controlling thought is mandatory to controlling a population (Animal Farm).

There are all kinds of Americans. Black. White. Gay. Straight. Hispanic. Asian. Scottish. Polish. Islamic.

But some Americans are more equal than others. And they’re divided, too

Fait accompli

fait ac·com·pli/ˌfed əkämˈplē,ˌfād əkämˈplē/ noun: fait accompli; plural noun: faits accomplis

a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.

________________________________

The phrase is from the French and probably originated around the mid-19th century. That’s fitting (or, as the French themselves may say, apropos). It was around that time that the government in France changed with the same degree of frequency usually reserved for cheap transistor radios. The monarchy was overthrown. Then the republic. Then Napoleon. Then the next republic. Then the next Napoleon . . .

You get the point.

A tumultuous period of governmental overthrows in 19th century France led to mass executions and economic collapse as politicians sought to establish themselves as “necessary” to the French people’s existence and happiness. The French claimed to be inspired in their motives by the success of the new nation, the United States of America.

The great majority of Americans don’t realize it, but the fait accompli of their lives is the disappearance of their liberty, both personal and political.

They have no option but to accept it. Their parents and grandparents sealed their fate with tolerating income taxes and praising Social Security and accepting dozens of illegitimate, unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions without so much as a whimper.

Liberty is a funny thing. Unless someone is willing to fight for it, it dies. And, sometimes, that death is brutal and slow. Places like Hong Kong and Venezuela take a long time to kill liberty because it was really only a seedling concept in those places.

Fighting for liberty doesn’t always mean death to the individual fighter, although that is possible. And it’s a price someone must be prepared to pay for the successful defense of liberty. Defending liberty, however, can mean something as tempered as speaking at a meeting or writing a letter. These are options Americans have that other nations like Cuba and North Korea will never experience.

But, America is different. It was founded on liberty bedrock. The holes were drilled and the pillars were sunk straight into it. Liberty was so deep a part of the United States that citizens didn’t believe it could ever be separated.

What we have learned is that regardless of the foundation, the inhabitants of a house can destroy it from the inside. And they have. We have.

We – and by “we,” I mean “me” – rolled over passively at the disgusting and ridiculous suggestion that we/I were “killing grandparents” with COVID-19. We donned masks to shield ourselves when we knew full well it was useless. We didn’t question the information being fed to us despite the fact that the FIRST obligation of freedom is to educate yourselves.

Now, we have masked mobs raging the urban streets, unidentifiable through tools the government itself mandated. They murder and kill as indiscriminately as coronavirus ever did, probably more so. Their outrage is as false as the pandemic that was forgotten the moment they threw the first conveniently-placed brick.

As Americans, we had traditionally been united by our mutual love for liberty. That is to say, our desire to remain unoppressed by a government – ANY government – was shared by every American of every political orientation. Democrats wanted collective money with local authority. Republicans wanted local money with collective apathy. Both concepts were untenable and wrong.

So, here we are in 2020. Everyone wanting the government to “do something’ . . . “fix this.”

It can’t. It is the Frankenstein American citizens created. It is only capable of more destruction. We place feeble chains on our monster, yet we ask it to do more for us. And when it breaks those shackles and runs amok in our cities’ streets, we act betrayed or outraged.

Americans disgust me. I disgust me.

The United States of America is dead. Fait accompli.