On this day in 1789, George Washington took the very first presidential oath of office. His inauguration on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City was the beginning of a grand experiment. Although the fledgling nation had been in existence since 1776, it had only an ad hoc government throughout most of the American Revolution, then switched to a very weak Articles of Confederation in the 1780s. At Washington’s inauguration, the new Constitution also was inaugurated. The question in everyone’s mind was whether it would or could work.

Ten thousand citizens were present to witness the first inaugural. Washington, at six-foot, three inches, looked every bit the part of a president. Of course, he already had won the confidence of Americans by his leadership during the war. They now looked to him to transfer his leadership from military matters to those of civil government. Everything he did would be seen as a precedent.

After he repeated the oath of office, Washington then kissed the Bible and went inside to deliver his inaugural address in the newly improvised Senate chamber. The address was short, but focused on the need for a strong Constitution, the addition of a Bill of Rights [which came along two years later], and how government was to be for the public good. As was his practice as general of the army in the war, he took no pay other than reimbursement for actual expenses.

At the end of his address, he and a number of the legislators and local politicians then walked to St. Paul’s Chapel to pray. He knew this new nation would need all the prayer it could get. It really was a grand experiment. Many thought it would fail. One of the reasons it did not can be traced directly to the wisdom George Washington brought to the presidency and to the precedents he set, not the least of which was to step down after serving two terms, thus laying to rest the fear that the presidency would evolve into just another kingship.

Excellent character in high office is a requisite for success in government. Washington set the bar high. We can’t say the same for all of his presidential successors, but we can, on this day, honor the good start he gave us. May we work now to preserve that heritage.

When Chuck Colson broke free from his earthly body this past Saturday, the evangelical world lost one of its foremost spokesmen. He didn’t start out as a Christian leader; in fact, he was considered a political hatchet man and became embroiled in the Watergate controversy, over which he went to prison. But his life changed dramatically.

I remember the events of Watergate quite clearly. Just out of college, I followed the fallout from the foolish break-in at the Democrat headquarters that occurred during the 1972 presidential campaign. Colson was a White House operative under Nixon. He in no way participated in the break-in plans, but did get involved with the attempted coverup afterwards. As a result, he was found guilty of obstruction of justice and served seven months in a federal prison for his actions.

Yet by the time he went to prison, he already was a different man. The ordeal made him rethink his entire life, and where ultimate meaning really resides. He began to delve into Scripture and into the works of C.S. Lewis. The combination convinced him to turn his life over to the Lord. This was particularly meaningful to me at the time since I was reading Lewis rather heavily myself; he was fast becoming my favorite author. Hearing how Lewis’s works had helped bring Colson to salvation, I naturally wanted to know more about what had transpired.

I didn’t have long to wait, as Colson’s spiritual confessions were in print shortly after his release. The book’s title, Born Again, was not inventive, but it certainly was descriptive. It was the beginning of a witness to the truth of the Gospel that Colson would maintain for the rest of his days. It made an impact on me. As I sit here writing, I see my copy of the book in my bookcase across the room, a book I’ve now had in my library for thirty-six years.

The cynics watched and waited. They fully expected this was a foxhole conversion that wouldn’t hold. Colson surprised them. He started a ministry called Prison Fellowship, which ministered to the incarcerated. It continues unabated today. If you’ve ever participated in the Angel Tree program at Christmas, you’ve been touched by the life of Chuck Colson.

More than that, he sought to educate Christians into a more comprehensive, consistent Biblical worldview—another key component of his ministry, separate from the prison ministry but just as significant. In his later years, he devoted the largest share of his time to speaking out on how to apply Biblical thinking to our culture and politics.

Although his family and friends will surely miss him, everyone who knew him has the deep assurance that he now has a greater reason to rejoice than those who have been left behind. I hope to meet him someday. Death is not the end for those who name the name of Christ. As the apostle Paul explained,

For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

On Saturday, death lost again.

On this date 237 years ago—April 19, 1775—riders spread throughout the Massachusetts countryside warning citizens that the British Regulars were coming out of Boston. Why the warning? Those troops had two goals. The first was to capture “rebel” ringleaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock at Lexington where they were staying, and send them to Britain to be hanged. The second was to take possession of the area’s militia stores in a town called Concord. They accomplished neither, but they did start a war for independence.

Paul Revere was one of those riders that day, and he successfully warned Adams and Hancock in time before he himself was captured by a British patrol. As the 700 troops entered Lexington, they encountered 70 Minutemen, part of the overall militia, standing on the town’s main square. There was no way this small body of shopkeepers and farmers was planning to engage in an all-out battle with regular troops. It was primarily a statement of principle. Their leader, Capt. John Parker, is reported to have told them, “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

The British commander ordered the Lexington men to disperse. Knowing they had no chance to win this battle, they were in the process of dispersing when shots rang out—from which side depends on the telling—but when the incident ended, eight Lexington men were dead, and the troops continued their march toward Concord.

Concord had been warned in time. The militia stores were removed for safekeeping, and when the troops arrived, they had nothing to confiscate. They did, however, start burning some property in the middle of the town. Minutemen by the bridge outside town saw the smoke and flames and assumed their town was being burned down. This led to a skirmish on the bridge with some of the British troops. When it became obvious the goals were now unachievable, the British beat a hasty retreat to Boston.

Unfortunately for them, the entire countryside was now up in arms—literally. Using rocks, trees, and stone walls for cover, the militia sniped at the troops all their way back to Boston. The British troops committed a number of atrocities in their retreat, which embittered the colonists even more, but the militia successfully harassed the troops the entire way. Once they had them back in Boston, 15,000 militia ringed the city to ensure they couldn’t come out again to do more harm.

The fighting had begun, and it wouldn’t end until October 1781 at the Battle of Yorktown. John Adams, writing to his wife Abigail shortly after news of the events of April 19, gives us a sentiment that is still poignant today when he said:

Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

We are that posterity. Do we really understand what it cost that generation to establish our freedom? Are we making good use of it? Sobering questions, to be sure.

Since April 15th came on a Sunday this year, today is the filing deadline for federal income taxes. This has become so much a part of life that most Americans probably don’t realize it wasn’t always this way. The federal income tax didn’t exist for the first 137 years of the republic [except for a short time during the Civil War]. Then in 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution [the ratification of which is still suspect historically] allowing taxes to be collected for all incomes derived from whatever source.

The amendment itself didn’t establish an income tax; it merely permitted it. Congress, later that year, in a bill that reduced tariffs—which was a good move—decided, in its wisdom, to make up for “lost revenue”—a line used repeatedly over the succeeding decades—by adding to that bill a provision for the first national income tax.

It wasn’t an intrusive tax at the time. The rates ranged from 1% to 7%, the latter being only for what today would be called multi-millionaires. So it didn’t bother too many people. Yet only four years later, in 1917 in the midst of World War I, the highest rate jumped from 7% to 77%, as a means to help pay the costs of the war. That truly is astounding.

Once the camel has its nose in the tent, it wants to come the rest of the way in.

After the war ended, and a Republican administration replaced Woodrow Wilson, the top rate was cut back to 25%. That certainly was better, but we never again got close to the 7% where we started. The value of having this progressive tax became evident to politicians of all stripes: anytime the government needs more money, just open the spigot and take more. At one point, after World War II, the highest marginal rate was over 90%. Can you imagine what that does to incentive to earn money and be productive?

Where did this wonderful idea of taxing citizens progressively—the more you make, the higher percentage of your income you have to pay—come from? Well, one of the originators of this policy in the modern era was Karl Marx. He set forth his plan for the progressive income tax in his Communist Manifesto in 1848. So Marxist ideology is behind the bright idea, and we continue to “honor” Marx today by propagating his class-envy program. Why should the government have first say on what we earn? Why should it demand so much? God requires a tithe; the government requires more than God.

Proposals to alter our taxation always fall short of support. An entire industry has arisen to bolster the current system, and an even higher percentage of citizens no longer pay any income tax at all, thereby putting the onus for financing the government on the middle and upper classes. And what do we receive for all our sacrifice? Obamacare??? Trips to Las Vegas for federal employees??? The list of abuses is virtually endless.

It’s time to rethink the entire tax code, not merely tinker with the edges. The income you earn is your money, not the government’s. That is the first perception that needs to change. Then perhaps we can find a way to appreciate that basic truth while still supporting the essential services of the government.

Most of my posts deal with current events, but as a historian, I want to highlight key moments in history. Today, for instance, is the anniversary of a special moment in American colonial history: the Powhatan princess Pocahontas married English settler John Rolfe in 1614.

Why is this so important? Pocahontas’s father, Chief Powhatan, had tried to wipe out the Jamestown settlement by starvation just four years earlier. The two cultures weren’t meshing well at all. But when Rolfe and Pocahontas married, the hostility and tension lessened considerably. Prior to the marriage, Pocahontas had been tutored in the Christian faith and accepted what she heard. She asked to be baptized.

This particular painting of the baptism of Pocahontas can be viewed in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington, DC. It’s a little idealized—those columns didn’t exist in colonial Jamestown—but it captures the spirit of the event. She even changed her name to Rebecca, which she considered a more appropriate Christian name.

The Virginia Company knew a good thing when it saw it, so Rebecca and family [she had a young son as well] were all packed and sent to England to show off the good work being accomplished in the New World. While in England, she had her portrait painted in proper English dress.

By all accounts, her conversion was genuine, as was her love of English culture. Unfortunately, before she could return to Virginia, she died of pneumonia. Only a few years later, the peace between the cultures deteriorated. In March of 1622, the natives rose up and tried to exterminate all the English in the Jamestown area. Though they failed in that attempt, any hope for the two cultures to live peaceably side by side disappeared.

But for a few special years, Pocahontas/Lady Rebecca was the cornerstone of good relations. She played a valuable role in early American history.

No, my title today is not the name of a new rock band. Today marks the opening arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare before the Supreme Court. Good news would be a decision declaring it unconstitutional. Bad news would be a decision upholding it. But the worst news of all is that it comes down to nine people who may determine this for the whole nation, regardless of the ruling.

We have resigned ourselves to the idea that when the Supreme Court speaks, mere mortals must step aside. Yet the Court itself is comprised of mere mortals, not demi-gods. Some of them don’t even have any desire to inquire into the original intent or exact wording of the Constitution. A few have even suggested we look at what other nations do as our guide.

We didn’t used to have this awe over Supreme Court decisions. We used to believe we were a government made up of three co-equal branches, each of which was charged with maintaining constitutionality. When the president takes his oath of office, he says he will protect and defend the Constitution. That document gives Congress authority to remove certain types of cases from the federal purview in the courts. To my knowledge, Congress has never used that authority as leverage against unjust Court rulings.

This is what “check-and-balance” is all about.

Back in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled on the freedom of a black slave named Dred Scott. He was from Missouri, but his master took him into Illinois and Wisconsin, where they lived for a number of years. Both areas banned slavery, so later Scott sued for his freedom, saying he shouldn’t have been held as a slave because of his residence in those places. This was seen by slaveholders as a severe threat to their “right” to their “property.” Seven of the nine justices on the Court at that time were from the South, and all sought to uphold slavery.

The Chief Justice, Roger Taney, decided to use this case to lecture the nation on his concept of the Declaration of Independence, the supremacy of the white race, and the place of blacks in American society. In denying Scott his freedom, he said the Declaration didn’t apply to blacks and that no black person, slave or free, was to be considered a citizen of the United States. Consequently, Scott had no right even to bring the lawsuit. Further, the Congress had no authority to pass any law that limited slavery in any way throughout any state or territory in the Union.

This was a rather breathtaking decision. Did the entire nation bow down before the Supremes and meekly follow the “divine word”? Hardly. The new Republican party spoke out against the ruling, declaring it null and void. It had unconstitutionally denied the rights of all black persons, many of whom were free citizens who had voted in the past. It had said the Congress had no authority to pass laws about slavery when, in fact, it could pass whatever laws it saw fit for territories. The Supreme Court, dominated by a false ideology, had been wrong.

The Supreme Court today can be just as wrong. If it rules Obamacare constitutional, it will have trashed the Constitution. But that doesn’t have to be the final word. In November, we can elect enough members of Congress and a new president dedicated to repealing and replacing that dreadful healthcare bill.

Do we have the intelligence and desire to effect this change? Balance can be restored if we choose wisely. We can once again become a nation of three co-equal branches of government.

Last week, President Obama made fun of one of his predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, who served as president from 1877-1881. In a campaign speech—which is the description of any and all speeches he makes—Obama referred to people who disagree with his energy policies as those who would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society if they had lived at the time of Columbus. Now, never mind that no one of any knowledge during Columbus’s life span believed the earth was flat; he thought he had a good line, so he used it. Who cares about historical accuracy?

Then he used the former president as one of his foils: “Rutherford B. Hayes reportedly said about the telephone, ‘It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?’ That’s why he’s not on Mt. Rushmore because he’s looking backwards. He’s not looking forwards. He’s explaining why we can’t do something, instead of why we can do something.”

Well, Mr. President, after that display of erudition, don’t expect to see your face on Mt. Rushmore either.

Here are the facts: Hayes installed the first telephone in the White House, it having been invented only the year before he took office. That’s hardly the picture of someone who is dragging his feet and looking backwards, is it? He also invited Thomas Edison to the White House to demonstrate the phonograph. Flat Earth Society member? Really?

Some excellent responses to Obama’s foolish comments have been making the rounds. Here’s a montage, sort of, that I’m particularly fond of:

Then there are his “advanced, forward-thinking” energy policies. Forget oil, right? Who needs that? He has a better idea.

His promotion of “new” cars has been a real spectacle as well:

It’s not that I don’t believe in researching into alternatives, but government can’t make it happen by decree. The market will drive [pardon the pun] this development. Get the government out of the way and we might be surprised at the inventiveness that will rise to the surface.

In the meantime, Mr. President, find some new researchers and writers for your speeches. The ones you have are pretty pathetic.