I think the man protest not enough—Steyn is too modest in his assessment as the party-pooper. After reading After America I looked for a way to get out of the funhouse we call the United States of the twenty-first century. But no exit exists.

Steyn paints a picture of America Norman Rockwell wouldn’t recognize—an America bloated on government largess and anorectic on individual liberty. He declares that the good old USA is no long good health—that her number is up . . . that she is in danger of dying from arteriosclerosis from all the government junk food consumed over the past eighty years. The toe tag, as depicted on the book’s cover, is filled out and awaits Uncle Sam’s corpse—that is unless America decides to go on a crash diet from government graft and starts eating from the fruit of liberty.

But it’s what happens after America’s demise (if and when it comes) that interests Steyn. After America is not a pleasant place. Not unless you’re an Islamist or a Chinese Communist. Using imperial England as a template, who after losing world dominance gave way to Americanism, so imperial America will give way to an increasingly powerful ideology built on the (often dead) backs of conquered peoples and an increasingly powerful economy built on the burdened backs of cheap labor and, ironically, an economic system America seems hell-bent on casting aside for the ever new (old) ideology of socialism.

It’s been a joke that America children ought to learn Mandarin Chinese in school. In Steyn’s world, after America, this is no joke. Nor is it a joke that shrinking individual liberty in the face of government mandated feel good multiculturalism will lead to a more persistent Islamization in America as it has in Europe.

America can survive many attacks from without. But America cannot survive the many attacks from within—neither can freedom around the world. Liberty has already given way to statism and is poised to succumb to a growing Islamism in Canada (the place of Steyn’s birth) and in Europe.

If America falls then freedom falls.

What will become of the world after America? In Steyn’s After America the answer is simple . . .

The dark ages.

Security and freedom are mutually exclusive. Those who want to hold liberty and security in the same hand want something that never can be. You can either have the one or have the other, but you cannot have both. To gain the one is to lose some or all of the other. As Benjamin Franklin put it: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What we’re discovering in our day is that the average citizen doesn’t want to be free, he wants to be safe.

It wasn’t always this way. From the founding of the country, in the 1770s, until the early 1900s, the desire for individual freedom trumped the desire for state supported security. However, beginning in the nineteen-teens to the present, and especially in the last half-century, the desire for state supported security has trumped the desire for individual freedom.

The debate over universal healthcare, for example, serves as an timely illustration of the battle between freedom and security. The fight revolves around two questions. First, can the federal government compel a citizen to purchase healthcare insurance, even if he can’t afford it or doesn’t want it? If the answer is yes, then the citizen is limited in his freedom regarding healthcare decisions and is no longer free to spend his money as he sees fit. But the state feels better because he is “safe.”

The second question is: can the federal government compel religious institutions to provide contraceptive and abortive related services for their employees, even if doing so violates the religious convictions of those institutions? If the answer is yes, what are we to make of the prohibition clause in the First Amendment? This is why the Catholic Church is protesting this mandate as a violation of their First Amendment right — that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religious conscience].”

It remains to be seen how the dust will settle over the healthcare dustup. But if the Supreme Court affirms the power of the federal government to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance and religious institutions to provide services antithetical to their convictions, then we will have paid a high price for supposed state security . . . we will have paid it with the loss of our liberty, not only for ourselves but also for our posterity.

Donny was a little too sappy for my tastes, and I always had a good chuckle when Donny and Marie sang “I’m a little bit country. I’m a little bit rock ’n roll.” A little bit was right! Comparing Donny Osmond to rock ’n roll is a little bit like calling shrimp “jumbo”—it just never measured up. But I must confess, there was one song of the Osmonds that I did like: “One Bad Apple.”

One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl.

Oh, give it one more try before you give up on love.

One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch girl.

Oh, I don’t care what they say,

I don’t care what you heard.

I don’t know whether one bad apple will spoil teen love but I do know if you had a barrel of apples and one of them was rotten it wouldn’t take long to ruin the whole bunch. This much is true: small things can produce big consequences and a little bad can spoil a lot of good. The apostle Paul put it like this: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Galatians 5:9). And the foolishly wise King Solomon put it thus:

Dead flies in perfume makes it stink,

And a little foolishness decomposes much wisdom. (Ecclesiastes 10:1 MSG)

In other words: a little folly will foil a lot of wisdom. And this is true when it comes to leadership. In Ecclesiastes 10, Solomon turns his pen to the four qualities of a foolish leader. And while each of these qualities seem trivial, like a bad apple in a barrel or a dead fly in the perfume each one can spoil a nation, a business, a school, a church, and a home.

First, a foolish leader is an angry leader.

Solomon had already written that “anger resides in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastics 7:9). That is to say a fool keeps anger in his heart—he nurtures it and treasures it. This is not to say that the wise never get angry. But the anger of the wise is always appropriate—anger expressed at the right things, at the right time, and in the right manner. No one demonstrated righteous indignation better than Jesus—when He cleansed the temple or when He was outraged at what evil had done to His friend Lazarus. He got angry, but His anger was always under control. Jesus didn’t let anger take up residence in His heart—He didn’t treasure it; He didn’t nurture it.

Powder kegs are exploded by small sparks, likewise foolish leaders are set off by tiny things. If and when this happens don’t storm out, which only throws gasoline on an already smoldering fire, but keep your calm and composure and counter with gentleness.

Second, a foolish leader is an absent-minded leader.

An old military saying that captures leadership in a nutshell: “There are three types of leaders: Those who make thing happen; those who watch things happen; and those who wonder what happened.”

That last type of leader is the absent-minded leader.

It seems like such a little thing to keep your head in the game as a leader, but those who wonder and wander about, who don’t really know what’s going on in the organization, who don’t know the people and the culture can usually make frightful decisions.

Absent-minded leaders—those just not clued in—tend to be bad judges of character and tend to make sloppy and lazy decisions. In the run up to World War II, when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin and his government was away for a particular weekend and wasn’t to be disturbed about what Hitler was doing, Winston Churchill supposedly quipped: “[Parliament] takes its weekends in the country while Hitler takes his countries in the weekend.” In fact, it was a joke during the Chamberlin administration that Hitler and Mussolini always invaded during the weekends because the absent-minded Chamberlin and his cabinet of boobs just couldn’t believe that the little mustachioed man from Germany would do such a thing.

Third, a foolish leader is an adolescent leader.

There is nothing but trouble for a nation, for an organization, or for a home whose president, leader, or father is immature—who is unprepared to lead. And double woe on that nation, organization, and home whose vice president, management, or mother is also immature, who are unconcerned about the wellbeing of the nation, organization, or home they lead. Their only concern is for themselves. Like self-centered and selfish teenagers, these leaders look only to ingratiate themselves so they might enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Adolescent leaders are ground-listeners and poll-takers, swayed by peer-pressure. Churchill said in a speech shortly after war with Germany began:

Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature. I see that a speaker at the week-end said that this was a time when leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture. . . . There is only one duty, only one safe course, and that is to try to be right and not to fear to do or say what you believe to be right. That is the only way to deserve and to win the confidence of our great people in these days of trouble.

Fourth, a foolish leader is an ambition-less leader.

Ambition is a dirty word to many because it smacks of overweening pride. Ambition certainly can refer to a burning desire for fame or power, but it can also refer to a burning desire to achieve something for the glory of God and the good of others. And when leaders desire this later ambition they desire that which is noble. But not so the fool.

Leaders with no drive, no innovation, no enthusiasm—who are unwilling to risk—will find their organizations lagging behind and losing their best and brightest employees to the competition.

It’s been said that a ship in port is safe, but that’s not what ships are built for. The foolish captain, the ambition-less captain, is merely playing captain if he never sets sail.

Ambition-less leaders want the rewards of leadership—the travel, the food, the wine, the money, the position—but don’t want the responsibilities of leadership—the risk-taking and the decision-making. Ambition-less leaders what guarantees. But there are no guarantees in leadership. Ambition-less leaders believe that money is the answer to all societal, governmental, and organizational evils. But more times than not creativity and vision is the answer to all societal, governmental, and organizational evils. But ambition-less leaders will never cast a vision or call for creativity. And this is just plain foolish.

It only takes a little folly to foil a lot of wisdom. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. One dead fly can spoil the whole perfume. And one foolish leader can spoil the whole nation, organization, or home.

Adapted from Derrick G. Jeter, “The Qualities of a Foolish Leader,” a message delivered to Coffee House Fellowship at Stonebriar Community Church, April 15, 2012.

So says Kurt Cameron, of 1980s “Family Matters” fame, in his new movie Monumental. Citing examples of cultural and political sickness—increases of divorce, teen pregnancy, crime, taxes, and national debt—Cameron asks what we can do to heal our nation. The answer he discovered is found in history—particularly the history of the Pilgrims.

Cameron traces the journey of the Pilgrims from Scrooby, England to Leiden, Holland to Plymouth, America. It was in Plymouth that Cameron found the answer to America’s sickness—on a little known monument in the middle of a neighborhood. The monument is a tribute to our Pilgrim forefathers. Upon the monument are five depictions of the ideas which made America free and prosperous. And, according to Cameron and his movie, can make us free and prosperous again.

On top of the Forefathers Monument is a statue of faith, holding a Bible. Buttressed at her feet are statues of Morality, Law, Education, and Liberty. As told in Monumental, one reads the monument from top to bottom and then around the base beginning with Morality. There is much to admire in Cameron’s prescription for America. I came to a similar conclusion reading the Founding Fathers in my book O America! There is also must to admire about the quality of the film itself. It is visually interesting with a well written and historically accurate script (with a few exceptions on minor points).

But one major drawback diminishes the impact of the movie. Cameron poses the issue of whether the Founding Fathers were really deists and atheists as many teach and believe or whether they were Christians. This is a question requiring its own file and Monumental give it short shift. Cameron comes down on the side of the Christian founding argument, and to prove his point enlists the support of who he calls “the leading expert” on the founding generation, David Barton. I know of a number of historians, Christian and otherwise, who would be surprised to hear this. But nonetheless, Barton’s involvement in the film, though small, is a controversial choice. Among practicing historians (again, among Christian and non-Christian), Barton is known more for finding historical “evidence” to support his histrionics than he is for looking at historical evidence as it is and letting it lead to reasonable historic interpretations.

Cameron’s movie would have been the stronger if he’d left the founding question alone or if he’d left Barton alone . . . or both. But Barton is the darling of evangelicals and homeschoolers. I’m the one and have been the other, but better historians are available and could have done justice to the film in a more thoughtful manner. Instead, as is typical of Barton, the audience was met with historical bromides.

This criticism is in no way should prevent anyone from seeing the film. Cameron has put forth a worthy exposé on what America has forgotten and what America needs to remember. And if he is able to persuade enough Americans to remember and live out the principles of the Pilgrims then he would have done something truly monumental.

It always seemed to me that Clinton didn’t like being president—he didn’t respect the presidency. That’s to say, he liked the privileges and perks of the presidency more than the power of the presidency. That’s not to says that Clinton was anti-American. He was simply pro-Clinton. This is not exactly true of Barack Obama. I think Obama likes being president and the power it brings. But he doesn’t respect the presidency—it’s history and traditions. Does this make him anti-American? Not necessarily. Other presidents haven’t always respected the traditions and history of the American presidency. But with Obama we have something hitherto unknown in the presidency—a president who is post-American.

Dinesh D’Souza, in The Roots of Obama’s Rage, posited the theory that what motivates Obama is the anti-colonialism of his Marxist father. The desire to throw off European-style governing models, like the constitutional republicanism of the United States (at least at its founding), in favor of a more centralist and controlling model like Communism is, according to D’Souza, at the root of Obama’s governing philosophy. Mark Levin fundamentally agrees with D’Souza when Levin calls the President a Marxist. I think there is much truth in the D’Souza/Levin anti-colonialist/Marxist language. But these are stark sentiments for one who seems so subtle and smooth. We think of Marxists as militant—revolutionary. And while it’s true that Obama desires to be a revolutionary figure—a transformative president, as he’s styled himself—he doesn’t fit the stereotype of a revolutionary. Therefore, I think Mark Steyn’s treatment of Obama as a post-American president comes closer to describing Obama’s motivation than anything else. Steyn wrote in After America: Get Ready for Armageddon:

Many Americans quickly began to pick up the strange vibe that for Barack Obama governing America was “an interesting sociological experiment.” . . . He would doubtless agree that the United States is “the place on earth that, if [he] needed one, [he] would call home.” But he doesn’t, not really: it’s hard to imagine Obama wandering along to watch a Memorial Day or Fourth of July parade until the job required him to. That’s not to say he’s un-American or anti-American, but merely that he’s beyond all that. Way beyond. He is, as John Bolton says, post-American. In his own book on the president, Dinesh D’Souza argues that Obama is defined by his father’s anti-colonialism. Speaking as an old-school imperialist, I find him exactly the opposite: in his attitude to America, Obama comes across as a snooty viceregal grandee passing through some tedious colonial outpost. He’s the first president to give off the pronounced whiff that he’s condescending to the job—that it’s really too small for him and he’s just killing time until something more commensurate with his stature comes along. When he lectures America on the Ground Zero mosque or immigration, he does not speak to his people as one of them. When he addresses the monde, he speaks as a citoyen du for whom the United States has no greater or lesser purchase on him than Papua or Peru. There is an absence of feeling for America—as in his offhand remark to Bob Woodward that the United States can “absorb” another 9/11. During the long Northern Irish “Troubles,” cynical British officials used to talk off-the-record about holding casualties down to “an acceptable level of violence,” but it’s eerie to hear the head of state take the same view—and about a far higher number of fatalities. As the 3,000 families who had a huge gaping hole blown in their lives whether another 9/11 is something you want to “absorb” rather than prevent.

But why be surprised at the thin line between Obama’s cool and his coldness? Jeremiah Wright (his race-baiting pastor), Van Jones (his Communist “green jobs” czar), William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (his hippie-terrorist patrons) are not exactly stirred by love of country, either. . . .

With hindsight, this is what drove both the birthers and the countering cries of racism. Detractors and supporters alike were trying to explain something that was at first vaguely palpable and then became embarrassingly obvious: it’s not so much that he’s foreign to America, but that America is foreign to him. Outside the cloisters of Hyde Park and a few other enclaves, he doesn’t seem to get America. Not because he was born in Kenya or wherever, but because he’s the first president to be marinated his entire life in a post-modern, post-American cultural relativism. What’s worrying about Obama is not that he’s weird but that he’s so typical of much of the [elite]; in that sense, his post-Americanness is all too American. [1]

Obama told us he was beyond the confines of country when he was running for the presidency in 2008. Of course he didn’t use these words, but every indication, for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear, pointed to the fact nonetheless. Simple things, that some took as too trivial to worry over, told us that America’s hold on Obama was tenuous at best. For the longest time he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. Wearing one doesn’t make you a patriot any more than failing to wear one makes you a traitor. However, when Obama was asked why he didn’t wear the pin he became defensive and brought up the patriotism argument—that other’s shouldn’t question his patriotism and that a piece of jewelry on one’s suit does not a patriot make. During times of the National Anthem he often failed to place his right hand over his heart. But the key to unlocking Obama’s post-Americanism came in Germany when he spoke at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin:

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as candidate for President, but as a citizen—a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. . . .

Later he said,

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more—not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. [2]

What does it mean to be a citizen of the world—to be a global citizen? Isn’t that just another way of saying that you have no affection for a particular place and people . . . that you are beyond parochial patriotism . . . that you are post-American? And if it doesn’t then I don’t know what it means.

[1] Mark Steyn, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2011), 146–48.

[2] Barack Obama, remarks at the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, Germany, July 24, 2008, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/obama.words/ (accessed March 26, 2012).

Most of us learn the secrets of leadership—for better or for worse—from the leaders in our lives. Perhaps this is why Dallas businessman Fred Smith wrote: “If you have a choice, always work for either the best or the worst boss, for from the good ones you learn what to do and from the bad ones you learn what not to do. From those who are mediocre, you learn practically nothing.”

When I was in graduate school I took a leadership course from Howard Hendricks. He said something, during one of the many lectures and brown bag gab sessions of that semester, which I’ve not recovered from: “The greatest crisis in the world today is the crisis of leadership. And the greatest crisis of leadership is the crisis of character.” Hendricks uttered those words in the Fall of 1989. I would only add that the crisis of character is the crisis of wisdom. And what was true more than twenty years ago is just as true today. For the leaders of today must have had mediocre bosses yesterday—they learned practically nothing from them and so the crisis continues.

But what was true twenty some-odd years ago, and is true to a great extent today, doesn’t have to be true tomorrow. We can answer the crisis of leadership and learn to be wise leaders if only we’ll learn from the best leaders available. And the ancient sage, Solomon, is not a bad example to follow in many regards.

Solomon understood that leadership isn’t, ultimately, about intelligence. Leadership is about wisdom. He also understood that you can be head smart and heart stupid. But because leadership is about people, wisdom—discernment—is required. Intelligence is only required if you’re dealing with things. In his book Ecclesiastes, Solomon outlines five qualities of a wise leader.

First, a wise leader sets a clear course.

A wise leader knows where the ship is tending and why it is moving in that direction. Wise leaders don’t allow their organizations, their families, or their nations to drift. They set out a clear course and move in that direction with purpose.

A good leader doesn’t have to understand how to perform every task in an organization. Though it wouldn’t hurt to have some general idea of how to perform those tasks, we shouldn’t expect leaders to become experts in every possible hands-on activity in the business. This isn’t what we want of our leaders. What we want our leaders to set a clear course and convince others to take the journey with them. That is, they should explain why we’re doing what we’re doing. They should be vision casters.

Second, a wise leader wears a cheerful countenance.

Few things are more contagious in a leader than realistic optimism, a sunny disposition, and good sense of humor.

After his election to the presidency, but before he was sworn in, an advisor to Abraham Lincoln suggested a certain someone for a cabinet position. When Lincoln heard the man’s name he responded, “I don’t like the man’s face.” To which his advisor replied, “But sir, he can’t be responsible for his face.” Lincoln wisely answered: “Every man over forty is responsible for his own face.”

How great would it be if our leaders had yes faces—blessing faces—instead of no faces—cursing faces? Would that change your attitude about work? Would that change your attitude about government? Would that change your attitude about church? Would that change the attitude of your family if you carried around a yes face—a blessing face?

Third, a wise leader possesses a tactful tongue.

Effective leaders are those rare individuals who possess the verbal skills to move hearts and minds—and in so doing, chance families, businesses, and nations. But more than persuasive eloquence is needed to become a wise leader. Tact is necessary.

Webster’s defines tact as “a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense.” Another way of saying it is “civility.” And we could sure use more of that in our public and private discourse.

It’s true isn’t that the tone set in the work place by the words spoken by the boss makes a hugh difference in your attitude toward your work and your employer? This is equally true by the tone set in your house by the words spoken and how they’re spoken to your children. My mother use to tell my father when he was angry not to talk at us but to talk to us. It makes all the difference in the world. And a wise leader understands that.

One practical way you can apply a tactful tongue, whether at work or in the home, is in how you praise and punish those under your leadership. As a general rule: praise in public and punish in private.

Fourth, a wise leader embodies a serene spirit.

Wise leaders, especially in the midst of difficulties, have a keen sense of timing and procedure to keep things in perspective. In other words, wise leaders know what needs doing, when it needs doing as pressure mounts.

Wise leaders have an independent intuition—this sense of timing and process—but they practice it with serenity. Wise leaders aren’t running around like Chicken Little just because the sky is falling. Wise leaders work the problem with calm and in so do bring calm to other.

Finally, a wise leader keeps a humble heart.

Good leaders remember that they are finite. Wise leaders know they can’t control the wind or put off the day of death or suddenly bring peace in the heat of battle. This is important for the leader to keep in mind. It’s especially important for the Christian leader. We should never forget the One who gave us our positions of leadership and who allows us to continue to lead—Christ. Never forget that in the cradle Christ humbled Himself, and on the cross He humiliated Himself.

Adapted from Derrick G. Jeter, “The Qualities of a Wise Leader,” a message delivered to Coffee House Fellowship at Stonebriar Community Church, March 4, 2012.

That’s what’s been going on over the past few weeks of political discourse. Ever since Kathleen Seblius’s announcement, in early February, that religious institutions had until the summer of 2012 to comply with the Health and Human Service mandate to provide FDA-approved contraceptives and abortifacients, the Obama administration had become anaphylactic trying to defend itself against anti-Constitutional overreach. Then, almost as a fluke, Sandra Fluke came along. A Georgetown Law student and “reproductive rights” advocate, Fluke virtually overnight brought back the Obama administration from the brink and turned the tables on feckless Republicans and conservative.

In a brilliant stroke of chutzpah and mendacity, the Democrats plucked Fluke from obscurity and made her the centerfold of a new narrative—one no longer focused on the First Amendment and religious liberty, but one focused on women’s hearth. How did they accomplish such a feat? As Cathy Cleaver Rose outlined in her Wall Street Journal article, “Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate,” the House was to hold hearings on the First Amendment and the HHS mandate to religious institutions. Congress usually looks for two types of witnesses: “experts” and “victims.” Experts are typically lawyers or law professors who explain the Constitutional authority (or lack thereof) of a new law or mandate and the potential legal fallout of passing such a law. Victims are the living illustrations of why such a law is necessary.

When Fluke was called by the Democrats to appear as an expert before the House Oversight Committee, the Republican majority rejected her appearance as an expert. But at the behest of Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats convened their own committee hearing where Fluke now testified as a victim. In her testimony she claimed that the average law student at Georgetown had to pay $1,000 a year to purchase contraceptives—an amount obviously meant to pluck the heartstrings of an unsuspecting public to “feel” for those poor, unfortunate, female law students at Georgetown.

Setting aside the facts that her claim is an exaggeration of the real cost of birth control, that poor Ms. Fluke is attending an Ivy League law school, and that both she and the Democrats have a progressive political agenda, the bogus testimony of Fluke before a bogus hearing was no fluke—it’s intent was to change the national conversation. And due to the like of Rush Limbaugh (and others) the fluke that was Sandra Fluke worked out beautifully for the Democrats—the discussion hasn’t been about the First Amendment, it’s been about contraceptives and women’s rights.

In rhetorical terms, Fluke’s testimony setup a straw-man—making up a ridiculous and easily knocked down argument and attributing it to your opponent. Her testimony also threw out a red herring—an argument intended to divert attention away from the central point to a point on the periphery. The straw-man was making it appear that Republicans and conservatives are “wagging war on women” by restricting their access to contraception. The red herring was arguing that the point of the HHS mandate is a woman’s right to contraception and not a question of religious liberty.

What the Republicans and conservatives should have done, instead of calling Ms. Fluke names (as Rush Limbaugh did) or argue the rights of women, was to keep the pressure on the administration, not just to “adjust” the mandate—as Obama did shortly after Seblius’s announcement—but to resend the mandate all together. But until Republicans and conservatives learn not to fall for fallacious arguments and the fluke Fluke, we’ll keep chasing red herrings and keep getting knocked over as easily as a straw-man. And that will be no fluke.

Although there is good reason to doubt whether Washington ever came to faith in Jesus, there can be no doubt that Washington was commitment to religious liberty. As one writer put it:

As President, Washington’s respect for the individual rights of conscience—not mere toleration, but full recognition of the necessity for personal choice in matters of belief or disbelief—demands our attention again more than six generations later. His fundamental message of religious freedom, “to bigotry no sanction,” is an essential doctrine for peace and mutual respect among a diverse people.

Washington would be perplexed by the efforts of some to suppress free expressions of worship and to denigrate religious thought and practices. He would also be saddened by the attempts of many today to advance their own belief system through coercion rather than persuasion and through direct mechanisms of government rather than through appeals to the heart. [1]

It seems appropriate on this President’s Day, given the recent controversy surrounding the Obama Administration’s disregard for and attack on the First Amendment rights of religious institutions to refuse contraception and abortion related services to their employees, that we remind ourselves of the first principle of liberty—the freedom of conscience. George Washington understood that if we are no longer free to think then we are no longer free to be.

✯ ✯ ✯

After Washington’s election to the presidency in 1789, he received many congratulatory messages from churches, dioceses, and synagogues. The most famous of these messages came from the Jewish congregation at Newport, Rhode Island—Jeshuat Israel (now Touro Synagogue).

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and Washington’s election, there were six Jewish congregations in the United States: Shearith Israel in New York City; Jeshuat Israel in Newport; Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia; Beth Shalome in Richmond, Virginia; Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina; and Mikveh Israel in Savannah, Georgia. It was proposed by Shearith Israel that all six write a congratulatory message to the president because “that mode will be less irksome to the president than troubling him to reply to every individual address.” [2] However, due to slow communication and inaction on the part of Shearith Israel, the Savannah congregation sent their own message to Washington. And when Jeshuat Israel in Newport learned that Washington was planning a trip to Rhode Island they too decided to act independently.

On August 17, 1790, Moses Seixas, the Warden of the Hebrew congregation at Newport read the following letter to President George Washington:

Sir:

Permit the children of the stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person and merits—and to join with our fellow citizens in welcoming you to Newport.

With pleasure we reflect on those days—those days of difficulty, and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword—shielded Your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit, who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest, upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People—a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine:

This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual confidence and Public Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

For all these Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of Men beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised Land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.

Done and Signed by order of the Hebrew Congregation in NewPort, Rhode Island August 17th 1790.

Moses Seixas, Warden [3]

Washington’s reply to Jeshuat Israel, written the following day, expressed more than mere toleration of religious liberty; it embraced full and real equality for the first of our rights—freedom of conscience, just as the First Amendment intends:

Gentlemen:

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington [4]

✯ ✯ ✯

In the 1930s and ’40s, as Hitler and the Nazi party gained and abused power, Washington’s letter took on added significance to Jewish Americans. On the 150th anniversary of Washington’s reply to the Newport synagogue, in August 1940, the letter was celebrated by a nationally broadcasted reading of the letter and speeches about religious liberty. To this day, Touro Synagogue holds an annual reading of Washington’s letter in their historic synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island.

[1] Alonzo L. McDonald, To Bigotry No Sanction: George Washington and Religious Liberty (McLean, Va.: The Trinity Forum, 2008), 4.

[2] Circular Letter of Shearith Israel, 1790, quoted in Paul F. Boller Jr., George Washington and Religion, in To Bigotry No Sanction, 31.

[3] “Moses Seixas’ Letter from Congregation Yeshuat Israel,” Newport, Rhode Island, August 17, 1790, http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/tsf-intro-menu/slom-scholarship/85-seixas-letter, accessed February 20, 2012.

[4] George Washington, “To the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island,” August 18, 1790, http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/tsf-intro-menu/slom-scholarship/86-washington-letter, accessed February 20, 2012.

That’s what he tried to do at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast. Obama took the opportunity to wrap the gospel of wealth redistribution in the cloak of the Christian gospel. Quoting Jesus’s words in Luke 12:48, Obama attempted to justify the position that the rich should pay more taxes. Here’s how the President put it:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” [1]

On the surface this seems a reasonable application of Jesus’s teaching . . . that is if we chose to ignore the context, which is what Obama and his speechwriters did. The context of Jesus’s much given/much required dictum beginnings in verse 35.

A Necessary Clarification

From Luke 12:35–40 Jesus told a parable about the master of a house who was away for a wedding. The day and hour of his return are unknown to the servants of the house, so Jesus said, “Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit” (12:35). Blessings await those ready for the master’s return, but the point of the parable is found in verse 40: “You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.” In other words, God people ought to be ready for the coming of Messiah, who would usher in God’s kingdom, which could come at any moment.

Peter then asked a question: “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us [the disciples], or to everyone else as well” (12:41).

Jesus didn’t answer Peter’s question directly, but verses 42–48 make it clear that Jesus had more than the disciples in mind. The parable was addressed to the leaders of the nation—the “steward” and “slave”—who were to manage the nation as God’s representatives until the Master returned. Knowing the Master was away but would return, the rulers of Israel were under obligation to care for God’s people, not mistreat them. If they did the one they would be blessed (12:42–44), but if they did the other they would be cursed (12:45–47). Jesus’s point is clear: those who have knowledge of and believe in Messiah’s coming to establish God’s kingdom but are found unready will receive greater punishment than those who are ignorant of Messiah’s coming. In other words, knowledge of the coming kingdom and trust in preparing for it demands greater responsibility.

Jesus’s words in Luke 12:48 have nothing to do with the amount of money anyone possesses or their relative level of “shared responsibility” to pay taxes.

Obama could have, however, made the case that as a Christian, he, and every other Christian, is commanded to demonstrate their faith through open-hearted and open-handed generosity to “seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills” (see James 1:27; 2:15–17; 1 John 3:16–18). But he didn’t.

It would be easy then to turn a clarification of the President’s misuse (or misunderstanding) of Scripture and taxes into a political criticism. Without a doubt I’m dissatisfied with how Obama mishandled Jesus’s words, but I’m glad he raised the issue of Scripture and taxes. It’s been my (mis)fortune to speak with many Christians who are either ignorant of the biblical teaching on taxes or are confused about the Bible’s teaching. So, instead of criticizing the President, I’d like to clarify what the Bible says about taxes and our responsibility to pay taxes.

Let’s start off with an important comment about government and about the limits of government in general: the state is divinely ordained and appointed, with a divine purpose; but the state, itself, isn’t divine. Now, with this as a backdrop, the Bible makes at least three vital comments on taxes.

First, taxes are earthly and therefore temporary.

Capernaum was home base for Jesus’s ministry in Galilee. Peter made his home in that port town along the banks of the lake he knew so well; he had spent a lifetime fishing along those banks and on that lake. It was in Capernaum that the local priests came collecting the required annual temple tax of two drachmas (the half shekel tax of Exodus 30:13). Apparently, Jesus hadn’t yet paid the tax, so the priests asked Peter, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” (Matthew 17:24). Peter assured them that Jesus was obedient to the Law and Peter went into the house either to inform Jesus that the tax collectors had come collecting or to retrieve the money and pay the amount out of his own purse (17:25).

Upon entered the house, Jesus asked Peter a question: “From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” (17:25). “From strangers,” Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt” from paying taxes, Jesus responded (17:26).

But, so as not to give offense, Jesus instructed Peter to go fishing; take the first fish caught and pay the tax from the money found in the fish’s mouth (12:27).

The point of this little episode was to impress on Peter and all believers that there will come a day when taxes will cease, when April 15 will be a day of celebration and freedom. God doesn’t collect taxes in His kingdom there. The King and the King’s children are exempt. But on earth, the King submitted to the ruling authority and paid his taxes without dispute, and so must we.

Second, the state has the authority to tax.

The episode of the temple tax and Jesus’s submission to the Law is followed by another episode that has caused consternation among many Christians for millennia. In Matthew 22:15–22, Jesus faced another question about taxes. The circumstances of the question brought together two groups normally and naturally opposed to each other: the Pharisees, who were an anti-Roman sect and the Herodians, who were a pro-Roman sect. The purpose of this cabal was to discredit a common enemy—Jesus (22:15–16). After flattering Jesus, the Pharisees and Herodians posed a question: “It is lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (22:16–17).

Taxation in the Roman Empire utilized a two-pronged approach: direct taxes and indirect taxes. Roman citizens were exempt from direct taxation (property taxes or poll taxes); non-citizens bore that burden alone. These direct taxes were as high as ten to twenty percent of goods produced. As for indirect taxes, everyone in the Roman Empire was subject; these included sales taxes and tolls on roads and bridges. [2]

The poll tax imposed by Rome on every Jewish citizen was an annual tax of a denarius—the amount of one day’s wages for an average worker. The Jews hated this tax—partly because it was a direct tax against their labor and partly because it was a foreign tax that reminded them they were no longer an independent nation. But they hated this tax mostly because the Roman coin used for payment bore the image and blasphemous inscription of Caesar, as one coin of the time read: “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus.”

When the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about the legality of the poll tax what they meant was: “Is it lawful to pay the poll tax according to the Torah, the sacred Law?” The trap in the question was ingenious. On the one hand, if God had chosen the Jews as His own people and given them the land, and if God meant for them to live in the land as a free and peaceful people, and if God accepted their sacrifices and offerings in acknowledgment of His covenant relationship with them, then how could any Law abiding Jew pay tribute to any other power, king, or god? So, if Jesus said the tax must be paid He would be a traitor to the Torah, the temple, and the people—a fact the Pharisees would use against Him. On the other hand, if Jesus denied that the Torah allowed for the paying of the tax He would be branded a rebel—a fact the Herodians would use against Him.

But Jesus saw through their ingenuity and their hypocrisy, and asked for a denarius (22:18–21). Then Jesus posed His own question: “Whose likeness and inscription is” on the coin? “Caesar’s,” they replied. Exactly! This established an enduring principle: a distinction exits between political and spiritual responsibilities. Therefore, Caesar is due his tax in rightful obedience to his authority and God is due our lives in rightful obedience to His authority (22:22).

Years later, Paul would echo Jesus’s principle: “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear” (Romans 13:7).

Third, private property is a sacred trust.

Jesus taught that the state has the authority to tax and we have the responsibility to pay—no more, no less. What the state doesn’t have, however, is the authority to steal, because God views private property as a sacred trust.

God owns everything—the oil in the ground, the gold and diamonds in the mines, and the cattle on a thousand hills. God owns it all.

The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it,

the world, and all who live in it. (Psalm 24:1 NIV)

Or as theologian and prime minster of the Netherlands, Abraham Kuyper put it: “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, ‘This is mine! This belongs to me!’” [3]

Because God owns it all, He has the right to give what He owns to whomever He chooses. When David made his offering for the building of the temple, he prayed: “Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone” (1 Chronicles 29:12). And when King Hezekiah came to the throne, many years after David’s reign, it was said of the new king:

Now Hezekiah had immense riches and honor, and he made for himself treasuries for silver, gold, precious stones, spices, shields and all kinds of valuable articles, storehouses also for the produce of grain, wine and oil, pens for all kinds of cattle and sheepfolds for the flocks. And he made cities for himself and acquired flocks and herds in abundance; for God had given him very great wealth. (2 Chronicles 32:27–29, emphasis added)

Because God owns it all and gives what is His to whom He wishes to give it—to hold, to use, and to invest as private property—mere money and plain property is transformed into a sacred trust. And because God’s material gifts are sacred trusts He outlawed theft. “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In fact, God outlawed the attitude leading to theft: “You shall not covet . . . anything that belongs to your neighbor” (20:17). These commands apply to the individual and to the state.

A biblical illustration of state sanctioned theft of a citizen’s private property is found in 1 Kings 21:1–24.

Ahab was a wicked king. And seeing the vineyard of Naboth, which sat next to Ahab’s palace, the king asked Naboth to sell his vineyard to the king (21:1–3). Naboth refused to sell his property because the permanent transfer of title of inherited land was against Torah Law (21:4; see Leviticus 25:23–28; Numbers 36:7).

Ahab knew the Law, but returned to his palace sullen and angry. When Jezebel, the wicked queen, heard about the conversation between Ahab and Naboth, she devised a plot to kill Naboth. Then Ahab could seize the vineyard for himself (1 Kings 21:5–10). Jezebel selected two witnesses, according to the Law (Deuteronomy 17:6), to accuse Naboth, falsely, of slandering the king and blaspheming God—crimes worthy of death.

Jezebel’s plan worked to perfection. Naboth was stoned to death and Ahab seized the vineyard (1 Kings 21:11–16). Though Naboth was killed “legally,” corrupt leaders will use what is good for what is evil. In the words of Frederic Bastiat, “[Perverse laws] convert plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder.” [4] When this happens the law becomes lawlessness. Therefore, God, through the prophet Elijah, pronounced judgment on Ahab and Jezebel for abusing their power, corrupting God’s Law, and stealing another man’s property (21:17–24).

Three Timeless Truths

What does all of this teach us about the Bible’s view of taxes and taxation, especially as it relates to our present time and tax structure in the United States? Three truths come to mind: a hope, an obligation, and a warning.

For Christians we have the hope that taxes are only temporary—that a day will come when we’ll be exempt from April 15.

But, while we remain earthbound, Christians are under obligation to submit to the state’s authority to tax. Such obedience to the state is an active demonstration of faith in and obedience to Christ, who also obediently paid His taxes.

Finally, those in authority—the state—should heed this warning: private property, including one’s income, is a sacred trust from God, and while He has granted you the authority to tax you may not abuse that authority to steal. If you exceed your God-ordained authority and turn taxation into a form of state sanctioned theft then you’ve made the law lawless and you stand condemned under the justice of God.

What the Bible doesn’t prescribe is a percentage or rate of a just tax, nor does it specify which types of taxes are just or unjust (income, sales, tariffs, customs, consumption). But the Bible is clear that God is an administrator of justice and holds those in authority accountable to administer justice. And this applies to the tax policy. Without specific biblical principles on rates or types of taxes, however, we, in the American system, must determine what is just by electing representatives and appointing judges to write, pass, administer, and adjudicate laws governing tax policy. Therefore, it is “We the People” who must insure that our taxes, as representative of the sacred trust of private property, are used properly by the state, keeping the state in check from abusing its authority and turning the law in lawlessness and justice into injustice.

[1] Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast,” Washington, D.C., February 2, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast, accessed February 7, 2012.

[2] “Exacting Taxes,” in Insight’s Handbook of New Testament Backgrounds (Plano, Tex.: IFL Publishing House, 2012), 38.

[3] Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488.

[4] Frederic Bastiat, The Law, trans. Dean Russell, reprint (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: The Foundation for Economic Eduction, 1987), 9.

In 1966, a new senate district in Houston was carved out and Jordan decided to make a run for it. Though better known and better connected candidates within the Democratic Party challenged her, Jordan won with 64% of the vote, becoming the first black female state senator in Texas history and the first black person since 1883 to serve in the Texas Senate. Serving six years, Jordan left the senate when she won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972, making her the first African American woman from Texas in the House. As a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan was suddenly thrust on the national stage.

When the question arose of pursuing impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, concerning the Watergate fiasco, the usually staid Judiciary Committee took hold of the nation’s attention. After fourteen months of investigation, on July 24, 1974, the Committee prepared to vote on articles of impeachment. Before the vote was cast each member was given fifteen minutes for a statement. Order was determined by seniority. Jordan was scheduled to speak later in the day. While partisan remarks droned on through the five o’clock hour, Jordan hadn’t decided what to say. At a dinner break, she finally collected her disjointed thoughts—collected on various pieces of paper—and wrote out her speech. When her turn to speak came, news cameras and the eyes of the nation were riveted on an unknown black lady. Sitting amidst blue and grey suited congressmen, Jordan’s blue and white polka dotted blouse covered with a pink coat was eye-catching on camera. Within fifteen seconds—barely fifty words into her remarks—the eyes of those watching would forget who they were looking at, but their ears would never forget who they were listening to. Holding the nation spellbound, Jordan’s voice rang out with precision—in diction and reason—as she defended the rule of law and the Constitution against corruption.

✯ ✯ ✯

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, “We, the people.” It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed, on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.”

Today, I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

“Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?” [Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, number 65] The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse of violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the president should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. “It is chiefly designed for the president and his high ministers” to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the executive if he engages in excesses. “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”[Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, number 65] The framers confined in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the others.”

The North Carolina ratification convention: “No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.”

“Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. “And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” I do not mean political parties in this sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do. Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transpiration. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the president is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the president did know on June 23, 1972. The president did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.

What the president did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt’s participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt’s fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the president wants to supply that material, the committee sits here.

The fact is that yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the Untied States.

At this point I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the president’s actions.

Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The president had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign.

We know that the president met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to discuss matters related to Watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the president. The words are “if the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.”

Justice Story: “Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.”

We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist’s office. We know that there was absolute complete direction in August 1971 when the president instructed Ehrlichman to “do whatever is necessary.” This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding’s office.

“Protect their rights.” “Rescue their liberties from violation.”

The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the president had engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false.

These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who “behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

The Constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aids to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice.

“A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth-century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth-century paper shredder. Has the president committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That is the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

✯ ✯ ✯

See the video of her speech here.