Why I Oppose the National Popular Vote Initiative

I sent the following to the legislators from my district:

Gentlemen,

I am asking you to OPPOSE the current national popular vote initiative.

In the past I have considered a form of national popular vote.  But the system being considered now has two critical flaws.

First, it requires each signatory state to cast its electoral college votes not for the candidate who garnered a plurality of popular votes in that state, but rather for the candidate who won the most popular votes nationally.  Those who back this approach will argue that, in this way, the plan would ensure that every voter—regardless of the state in which they live—would have their vote count equally to that of every other voter in the country.  This is fundamentally UNTRUE.  Committing all electoral votes to the person winning nationally means that the votes of those who voted against that individual are thrown away.  Worse, it means that their dissenting votes are essentially CHANGED - without the consent of those who cast them.  

Let me demonstrate this another way.  

Suppose the state of Michigan decided that all legislation would be enacted using the system being proposed for the NPV.  Legislation would be voted on in each house, and all votes would be committed to the side receiving the popular vote in both houses.  Regardless of how you, personally, felt about and voted on a given bill, your vote would ultimately be committed to the side garnering the most votes.  If the Yays took it, your vote would be thrown in with theirs - even if you voted Nay, or vice versa.  In effect, your vote would be changed - without your consent - to support the popular consensus.  That is exactly what is being proposed with the current NPV scheme.  Not only does it NOT count each vote equally, it marginalizes those who vote against a given candidate; it tells them that their vote, ultimately, doesn't matter.  While this illustration doesn't perfectly reflect the NPV proposal, I daresay that if someone were to propose such a system for the state legislature, you would oppose it forcefully - to the point of resigning because of what it would essentially do to your individual vote.  

Second, the current initiative is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires congressional approval before any state can enter a compact with another state.  While this has been watered down through successive Supreme Court decisions, even that body has continued to hold that any compact that has the effect of changing the balance of political power in DC must have congressional approval before any state can enter it.  The compact being ramrodded through the legislatures of the states today never received the congressional approval required by the Constitution.  As to dividing the vote, the Constitution gives states the right to appropriate the votes of the electoral college as they see fit.  If the state elects to give all of the votes to the winner of the state popular vote, it may; if the state elects to divide the votes, it may do that as well.  It is entirely up to the state, and does not require an illegal, unconstitutional compact to accomplish this.

I am very concerned about the NPV proposal as it is now stands, and I hope that you will oppose it.

A Theology of Church and Personal Security.....

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing concealed carry in churches.  For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia.  After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe.  For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.


And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek,  there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.


Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils.  These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities.  They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day.  They guarded the finances and foodstuffs.  So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection.  This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it."  A literal translation of the term, "hides",  indicates covering one's self,  taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.


OK, but that was the Old Testament.  The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek.  Again, this is true.  As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response.  But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also commanded His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.  Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest.  An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:  

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" 

They said, "Nothing." 

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.


Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them.  They were to take nothing with them - no   money, knapsack, sandals.  Not even their staves.  This is significant.  The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense.  The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel.  But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God. With His impending death, however, something changed.  I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us.  I simply acknowledge that something changed.  As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition.  Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection.  This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek, commanded His disciples to sell some of their clothing if necessary to provide it.  His command had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment.  Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.


Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection?  Absolutely.  Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection?  Again, the answer is yes.  Romans 13 teaches this clearly.  And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches.  So when human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides, more of that responsibility falls on the individual.  Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves.  The right granted by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.

CCW Legislation - Show Your Support!

Your griping privileges have been revoked!  It's time to stop TALKING about the problem, and take action.  Three very important bills are in the pipeline, and legislators need to hear from you - NOW.


The first two, SB 58 and HB 4009, from Michigan, concern the elimination of so-called "pistol free zones" for holders of CPLs.  These identical bills were submitted for consideration in January, 2011, and because of Michigan's budget battles earlier this year, have been languishing in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate.  They are supposed to be added to the schedule in the very near future, but phone calls and emails to the Chairs of both of these committees, as well as communication with the legislators from your own district requesting their support for these bills, will add impetus to get them scheduled sooner rather than later.  


Why should we even be concerned?   Gun free zones are, in theory, supposed to provide protection to students, parishioners and physicians, among others, by denying access to people carrying weapons - even those private citizens who have been properly certified by the state.  And yet, with the exception of the shooting in Tucson, every large-scale shooting that has taken place in this country in the last 30+ years has occurred in areas that were designated to be gun-free and, therefore, deemed safer:  Columbine, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, churches.  On this basis, common sense would lead one to the conclusion that so-called "gun free" zones are counter-productive, that the likelihood of becoming a casualty in these areas is actually greater.  Since 1980, there have been 216 firearms-related incidents on the campuses of educational institutions across the nation (all of which were designated gun free zones) and 15 more at churches (of which all but one, New Life Church in Lakewood, CO, were gun free zones), resulting in 702 casualties (deaths/injuries/ hostages).  The shooting that took place at New Life Church in Lakewood, Colorado, the exception to the gun free zone designation, was stopped by an armed security officer who had been authorized by the pastor to carry her weapon there.  Had she not brought the shooter down, there would certainly have been many more dead.  Brendan Keefe, an emmy award-winning anchor and investigative reporter for WCPO in Cincinnati, made this observation in a recent email:  

Our detailed analysis of every major 'mass shooting' over four-plus decades did conclude that the vast majority took place in locations where guns were not otherwise allowed by law -- schools, post offices, college campuses, etc. ...The bottom line is that someone bent on committing mass murder is not going to be deterred by a sign saying guns are not allowed there -- they're already committing the most serious felony of all, murder.....Tactically speaking, any killer, sane or otherwise, would want to select a target based upon the resistance he would expect there -- putting yourself in the mind of the killer, you could be 100% assured that no one would be armed at a school or a place of business that posts signs banning guns.

These numbers demonstrate conclusively the veracity of the old cliche, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."


It makes no sense that those who are certified to carry concealed are denied the privilege of carrying in these places.  After all, those possessing CPLs in Michigan have passed state-mandated training, have undergone background checks (twice - once before purchasing a handgun, and then one performed by the FBI before receiving a CPL), and have demonstrated an ability to safely handle firearms.  Numerous studies have proven that allowing greater access to CPLs has not increased the incidence of gun violence, particularly in Michigan.  On the contrary, as Governor Granholm was forced to admit a year after opposing the 2004 ballot initiative to expand access to CPLs, the incidence of gun violence in Michigan DECREASED. There is ample evidence to suggest, as was graphically demonstrated in the recent Walmart and Walgreen's pharmacy cases, that concealed carrying can provide a level of protection in a dangerous situation that police cannot.  Law enforcement has my full support, but trusting one's safety to them has one major drawback - they are almost never able to respond before something has actually happened.

These two bills would change that by providing those with CPLs to be proactive with regard to their own safety; it would also bring our laws into better conformity with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Click on the following two links to email these gentlemen - ask them to place these bills on their committee schedules as soon as possible:


Senate Chair Senator Rick Jones
House of Representatives Chair Representative John Walsh


You can find contact information for the Michigan legislators from your home district by going to:  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2axmao45czrdql55wylumlzj))/mileg.aspx?page=legislators.


CPLs have come a long way in recent years, but to say that we have arrived is premature.  You can bet that the anti-carry lobby, organizations such as the Brady Campaign (which is working toward complete disarmament), is working overtime to keep these bills from passing; your legislators need to hear from you - NOW!  Take a moment and help restore this foundational right to its proper Constitutional place in our society.

Mitt Romney Misstates FairTax Impact in Televised Republican Debate in Florida

Press Release

Sept 13, 2011, Kalamazoo, MI - Because a politician or candidate says it, does not make it true. In a response to a question in the September 12 Republican presidential debate about the FairTax tax replacement plan (HR 25 & S 13), Mitt Romney stated that "the FairTax will help the rich and poor but hurt the middle class". 

Because the question was asked only of Mitt Romney, no other candidate had the opportunity to respond to Romney's statement and the public was left with only the unsubstantiated statement by Romney. 

Mitt Romney, R-MA, misstates impact of FairTax. Rick Perry, R-TX, looks on. Photo by Scott Audette, Reuters

Some of America's brightest economists have conducted studies on the FairTax that show that Americans of every income level and family status fare better under the FairTax than under the current income tax system. 

There is no study by any reputable economist that shows otherwise.

In hearings held this past August by the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee, testimony was presented by economists Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University) and Dr. David Tuerck (Beacon Hill Institute) that the FairTax will benefit all Americans by rapidly growing the economy and creating jobs in the U.S. for Americans.

Politicians and candidates making unsubstantiated statements do a disservice to the American public by misleading them, thereby leaving the public in the position of having to make decisions with false information. 

In the event that Mr. Romney has some evidence to substantiate his claim, the Michigan FairTax Association would like to know of it so as to determine its validity.

To view the studies and to learn about the FairTax visit the national FairTax web site at www.fairtax.org.

September 11, 2001 - yet another day which will live in infamy....

I have taken the speech delivered by FDR after the attack on Pearl Harbor and revised it for September 11.

Ten years ago, September 11, 2001—yet another date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by aircraft hijacked in the name of Islamic extremism.

The United States was at peace with that religion within our own borders, and, at the solicitation of numerous Islamic governments and organizations throughout the middle east, was still in conversation with these governments and organizations looking toward a peaceful solution in the region. Indeed, in the years that have passed since the events of that fateful day, these governments and organizations continued to request the assistance of the United States.  While public statements of these governments and organizations indicated doubt that such a peaceful solution seemed likely through existing diplomatic negotiations, and tense rhetoric frequently ensued, they contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., from the countries of the middle east makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many months or even years prior to the events of that day. During the time preceding the attacks, the representatives of numerous Islamic organizations and governments continued to express hope for a peaceful solution in their communications with the United States, an outlook obviously not shared by the extremists sheltered in their midst.

The attacks ten years ago on the cities of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., caused severe damage to American security and economy. We regret the need to remember the 3,200 American lives that were lost in the attacks, and the thousands of American lives that have been lost in military actions undertaken since in the effort to eradicate these extremists. In addition, American ships have been attacked in the waters of the middle east.

In the intervening years, Islamic extremists have launched attacks against Britain.

They have hijacked French aircraft.

They have attacked Israel.

They have attacked India.

They have attacked Indonesia.

They have attacked Spain.

This is only a partial list of the countries that have suffered atrocities at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Islamic extremists have, therefore, undertaken an offensive extending throughout the world. The facts of the last decade - and preceding decades - speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

Various commanders in chief of the United States military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

We believe that we interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when we assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

We recognize that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Islamic extremists on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a state of war has existed between the United States and Islamic extremists around the world.

Never again forget, never again let down our guard.