So many significant stories are emerging at the same time, it’s hard to comment on everything. I wanted to be sure to write about the Gosnell verdict on Monday. I freely admit I’m disappointed by the sentence he received: two life terms without parole in exchange for not appealing. As I said in the earlier post, if ever anyone deserved the death penalty, it is Gosnell.

At the same time that the Benghazi investigation heated up last week, we learned the IRS was targeting conservative groups who were applying to become non-profit organizations. An IRS official admitted it publicly last Friday. Any group that had Tea Party in the name or that even spoke about making America better or studying the Constitution, became a target. These organizations had been telling the media this ever since the harassment began in 2009, but no one took them seriously. Now we know they were treated differently simply because of their political views.

The IRS is supposed to be a nonpartisan agency. White House spokesman Jay Carney even pointed to the fact that it has only two political appointees. In fact, the past head of the agency had been appointed by Bush. He testified that nothing of the sort was going on, but now it has come to light he knew back in May 2012. The report on Friday came in the form of an apology.

That apology is far too little and much too late, as far as those organizations who were put through the wringer are concerned. The animus of the IRS toward them was blatant.

Much of this scrutiny was apparently an attempt to blunt the conservative movement’s momentum in elections, both in 2010 and 2012. The IRS became an arm of the Obama administration and campaign.

Naturally, the White House is saying the president had nothing to do with this. After all, the IRS is an “independent” agency of the government. Yet we all know how this works. Previous presidents have been able to use the IRS against their political enemies—FDR and Nixon, for instance, did so. In fact, one of the impeachment articles against Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to undermine his opponents during Watergate. A president doesn’t have to give anyone a direct order; those in sympathy with him at the agency can easily detect what he wants, something Obama has “joked” about during his presidency—having people investigated by the IRS. One study showed that IRS employees gave far more to his campaign than to Romney’s.

Another feature of this administration is always to push the blame onto low-level employees. In this instance, we’re told some employees in the Cincinnati office didn’t understand the parameters of what was permissible. Yet now information has come forth showing that IRS employees in Washington, DC, were right in the middle of it. But, as far as President Obama is concerned, it’s all separate from his administration. It’s just one big mistake.

I have as much trouble believing that as I do his tall tales on Benghazi.

Young America’s Foundation is an organization devoted to conservative principles in culture and government. While it doesn’t claim to be openly Christian—other conservatives are welcome—the concepts it promotes are consistent with Biblical principles. In the last few years, it has established the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, where it holds a number of significant seminars and conferences. The organization also bought the Reagan Ranch in the mountains outside Santa Barbara, and is keeping it as Ronald Reagan had it when he lived there. I’ve visited with some of the leaders, both in Virginia and Santa Barbara, but haven’t yet had the opportunity to go to Reagan’s ranch. The last time I was there, I was told to just let them know ahead of time, and on my next trip, they would arrange a visit. Unfortunately, I haven’t been back since; not sure when I’ll be able to go again.

Recently, the Foundation commissioned a poll of college and university professors. They took the opinions of 284 professors on the ranking of presidents. Which presidents did they consider to be the most influential and/or most effective? What grade would they give each president? The answers may not surprise you.

Not one of these professors considered Reagan as his/her top choice. Sixty percent didn’t even put him in the top ten of all presidents. Overall, they gave him a C+ for his achievements, apparently overlooking the tremendous economic resurgence during the 1980s, his pivotal meetings with Gorbachev, and the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union, stemming from the combined efforts of Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. In fact, when they were asked to state what they considered to be Reagan’s greatest accomplishment, nearly 1/5 of them could come up with nothing.

Here are some other indicators of how college professors view American presidents:

• When asked to list their picks for the three greatest presidents, they mentioned FDR more times than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison.
• They mentioned FDR four times as often as Reagan.
• FDR ranked in the top three presidents for 54% of these professors.
• Overall, Bill Clinton received six times as many favorable mentions as James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

From where does this stem? Well, three times as many professors identified themselves as liberal than as conservative. The review of this poll that I read doesn’t break down the professors by discipline, but I would suspect that most of them were history or political science professors, and the fact that there were three times as many liberals as conservatives only surprises me in the sense that I thought the divergence might be even greater, given the stance taken by national leadership for these disciplines.

Now for a counterpoint. In February of 2011, the Gallup organization polled Americans nationwide to determine their idea of who should be considered the greatest presidents. In that poll, Reagan came in first, 5 points ahead of Lincoln. Reagan also topped the list in 2001, 2005, and 2009, and ranked first or second in eight of the ten “Greatest President” polls conducted by Gallup since 1999.

I have my own critique of public opinion polls, and how they seem to fluctuate based on the public’s feelings rather than facts. I don’t always consider the majority viewpoint to be the most accurate. Yet I find this poll fascinating. What it indicates is that as time has gone by, people are looking back at the Reagan years with increasing fondness. I think they remember them, when compared to today, as solid, strong, and patriotic. They believe that America came back from the brink in the 1980s, after the disastrous events of the 1960s and 1970s. Reagan was the antidote to LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. He called us back to our roots, and that led to revitalization.

I believe America can be called back again, and I believe we can overcome the national disgrace of the Obama years. The only question is: will we do so this November? The future is not fixed; our decisions can redirect the ship of state as well as the drift of the culture. One more thing: Christians need to take the lead in this redirection. Now is the time to call us back to a humble dependence on the One who will bless if we come to Him in genuine repentance and a sincere desire to do His will.

Forget for just a moment the substance of the new illegal immigration policy President Obama announced on Friday. I’m not going to deal with that today. Instead, let’s concentrate on the constitutional and political angles. Last September, speaking to a Latino audience that wanted to know why he hadn’t done anything on the illegal immigration issue, Obama accurately noted that as president, he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally change immigration policy. He correctly stated that any policy change had to come from Congress. This was a remarkable statement from a man who normally couldn’t care less about the limits imposed on his office by the Constitution. But in this case, he was right.

Speed ahead to June 2012 and we now have a different story. Without any legislation, without any constitutional authority at all, the president has signed an executive order to alter how illegal immigration is handled. This move was a one-man show. It manifested blatant disregard for any constitutional restraint. He bypassed Congress entirely and simply announced that the policy was going to be different.

Frankly, this is how tyrants operate, outside the rule of law.

Not that there’s anything new about this. Consider one of Obama’s heroes, FDR. In the midst of the Great Depression, Roosevelt decided that every person in the country had to turn in all gold and currency backed by gold to the government. Just like Obama’s pronouncement last week, FDR simply signed an executive order—actually, a number of them—infamously ignoring the role of Congress in legislating, and forced everyone to turn over their gold. It all became government property. In exchange, citizens got federal reserve notes. FDR didn’t have to worry about congressional reaction; he owned Congress at that point. He set himself up as a petty dictator.

What will the current Congress do about Obama’s power play? We’ll have to wait and see if backbone still exists.

Why did he choose to do this at this time? That’s the political angle. Seeing how he is dropping in the polls, he saw this move as a way to shore up his Hispanic vote. In other words, he chose to shred the Constitution for his own political gain. I predict this is only the beginning of his pandering. He will offer goodies to other segments of the population in the coming weeks in an attempt to regain their support.

The real tragedy of this episode is that most Americans won’t even think about the unconstitutional nature of his action, and those groups he seeks to reward will gladly take the bribes without any regard to the rule of law or moral propriety. They will want what they consider to be “theirs.” As this dependent mentality spreads, we become less and less a nation with a moral foundation.

Can this descent into self-centered moral turpitude be arrested? Only if those of us who believe in moral foundations take a stand and continue to speak out and work for a reversal of the spiritual decline that has fed this destructive fever. Now is the time to show we still have spines.

CBS’s 60 Minutes aired an interview with President Obama Sunday night, but they edited out a most interesting portion. Near the end of the interview, he was asked how his presidency stacked up to previous presidents. His response? He concluded that only three other presidents in American history had done more for the country in both domestic and foreign policy than he had. First of all, that’s a lot of hubris—but I’m kind of used to that in this man.

The next question is who were the three he said had done more. One was Lincoln. I certainly agree with that. The other two were FDR and LBJ. Naming them as having done more for the country than any other presidents provides insight into the mind of the current chief executive. Just what did FDR and LBJ do that this president admires so much? Their main claim to fame [infamy?] is their direct assault on the Constitution. FDR used the Great Depression to alter the role of government dramatically in the mid-20th century; LBJ took FDR’s ideas and put them on steroids.

So what has Obama done to be classified as one of the greatest of all presidents in his own mind? He’s taken what FDR and LBJ have done and pushed their ideas over the edge into uncharted territory. His is the single biggest attempt to transform this nation into the nanny state that others have only dreamed about. Welcome to the United States of Europe, Obama’s perfect world.

What does he claim to have accomplished? Universal healthcare that will ensure low costs and quality treatment? Sure, for those the government deems worth saving. A trillion dollar stimulus that has put the country on the right track and invigorated the economy? Is that why we’ve had such wonderful employment and productivity numbers for the past three years?

Let’s allow the cartoonists to carry the message the rest of the way today as they illustrate the joys of living under the Obama regime:

But don’t worry, he’s slowing down the pace:

We’ve had forty-four presidents in our history. In my judgment, as a professional historian, I offer a different opinion on Obama’s ranking in that list. How does forty-fourth sound to you?

Labor Day 2011. Is this really something I want to celebrate? Let me begin Biblically with a passage that speaks to the concept of work and wealth creation. It’s from Deuteronomy 8:16-18:

In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, “My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.” But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm the covenant which He swore to your fathers.

What does this passage say to me? First, God is our provider. Second, whenever we take credit ourselves for building up wealth, we are forgetting who gave us the abilities we possess. Third, God is not opposed to wealth creation, to working hard to provide for ourselves and our families; He just wants us to do so with the right attitude of gratitude for His blessings.

This is a good starting place. No matter how wealthy one becomes, it means nothing in the Lord’s eyes if that person does not acknowledge Him. No matter how diligent a worker one may be, again it means nothing if it isn’t intertwined with an appreciation of the gifts and abilities provided by Him.

This particular day, Labor Day, is supposed to honor the average worker. A couple things need to be understood first. There should be no dichotomy created between those who labor as entrepreneurs and executives, on the one hand, and those who perform what are called blue-collar jobs. Everyone works. There is no particular dignity attached to either management or “labor.” Anyone who carries out his job with gratitude, and who sees it as a calling from God, is honored by Him. There is no reason to assign greater honor to those in blue-collar positions.

Yet Labor Day seeks to do that. Why? Well, this won’t go over well with some, but I’ll venture here anyway. The roots of the holiday stem from a socialist agenda that pits management against workers. Throughout labor history, socialism and communism have played a significant role. And the reason they were able to make inroads into the movement is that some in management made such poor decisions that they, in effect, pushed people toward the socialist solution.

This history of labor unions is spotty at best. We could start with the Haymarket riots that erupted in Chicago in 1886. A strike led to violence in which policemen were killed. Then there was the Homestead Strike in 1892 against one of Andrew Carnegie’s steel plants. It turned into a pitched battle where strikebreakers were attacked and killed. Two years later, the Pullman Strike against the railroads also got out of control. The workers at the Pullman factory had legitimate grievances, but when federal troops arrived to protect the running of the trains for mail service, again riots ensued. Railcars were tipped over; buildings were set on fire; people were killed in the melee. It took great force to stem the violent tide.

During the Great Depression, FDR courted union favor and put the government on their side. FDR’s New Deal was very anti-business, and government encroached on areas where it had never been before. Result? The Great Depression never really went away until after WWII. Some analysts say that real prosperity didn’t return until the 1950s. Yet the unions had it good. Their power grew exponentially. Union leadership became part of the privileged class, not much different than highly paid executives.

Union membership has decreased dramatically in the past few decades. Union leaders fear their loss of power. The Obama administration has given them new life. Organizations such as the SEIU have figured prominently in administration circles. The latest battleground was Wisconsin where a new Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature, facing imminent financial disaster, largely due to state expenses for union benefits, passed a law that cut back on union power in negotiating. Remember the scene? Protesters taking over the Capitol? Thugs menacing the families of legislators? Democrat politicians fleeing the state to try to stop the new law from being passed? The trashing of the Capitol building itself, which cost quite a bit to repair?

They lost anyway. Hopefully, this is an indication that their day has gone. By the way, that hated law has resulted in jobs being saved. Have you heard much about that from the mainstream media? I thought not.

Radicalism is alive and well in America. This past May Day, the SEIU coordinated a protest with other organizations of like mind. Which ones? Here are some pictures from that protest:

Posters honoring Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara don’t inspire me.

On this Labor Day, let’s honor genuine, honest labor, whether it is classified as blue-collar, white-collar, or any other type of collar you prefer. Let’s remember that it is God who gives us the ability to make wealth, and let’s labor with gratitude for His provision. Above all, let’s do all that we do for His glory.

We create our own problems. Case in point: Social Security. The original intent was to ensure solvency for those who could no longer work because of age, disability, or loss of a husband. Worthy intention, to be sure. But I’m always reminded of a book I read once with the title Beyond Good Intentions. The thesis of the book was that good intentions do not necessarily lead to good policies. In fact, quite often the policies undermine the original intent. That’s what’s happening with Social Security.

FDR signed this into law back in 1935. It was one of a multitude of programs in the New Deal that had no basis in constitutional authority. That was mistake number one. It was built on the philosophy that the private sector could be milked to create a welfare state. Mistake number two. It didn’t take into account longer life spans in the future [knowing the future is usually rather difficult, don't you think?] and the mushrooming number of individuals who would one day be claiming the benefit. Mistake number three.

What began as a program where one recipient was funded by approximately thirty people paying into the system inexorably degenerated into a bankrupt debacle. For the first time, this past year, more funds were going out of the system than were coming in. Needless to say, this can’t go on forever. But few are the politicians who wish to touch this “third rail” of American politics—they risk losing their political lives.

President Bush tried to make a minor modification to Social Security by proposing that individuals should be able to designate a small amount of their “contribution” [how's that for a euphemism---forced to make a contribution---I thought contributions were voluntary] into some stock, if they chose to do so. The third rail struck again. Cries of “you’re taking away our Social Security” rent the air.

Let me be clear: since the government made the promise, no matter how unconstitutional it was, it has to fulfill the promise. We have poured our “contributions” into this monstrosity all our lives, so we should get some of it back. I learned, though, how the system worked when my dad died in 2004. While he was still alive, both he and my mom were receiving Social Security checks. After he died, she lost hers, since she was only allowed the larger of the two.

That would never happen if the money were truly yours. Don’t believe the lie that you have a trust fund set aside just for you.

Something has to change; we are at the breaking point. But instead of tackling the problem at its root, we settle for tinkering with the edges of it.

Now is the time for political courage. Who will show the way?

I don’t think there’s really any disagreement about how pessimistic the majority of Americans are about the future. Currently, all the polls reveal that pessimism.  As I survey the scene—the spiritual/moral, political, and cultural aspects [what does that leave?]—I have grave concerns as well. I plan to expound on those concerns in tomorrow’s post. But for now, I’d like to offer a historian’s perspective.

Since I teach American history, I have a more in-depth knowledge of what has transpired previously. I can imagine myself transported back into earlier eras and think about how I might have felt about current events at those times. Bad moral climates, disunity, and devastating government policies have cropped up throughout our history.

If my life had spanned the late colonial and revolutionary era, for instance, I would probably have been quite distressed over the state of affairs. The colonies had declared independence, and it was a thrilling prospect, but the progress of the war was anything but thrilling. George Washington was often near despair over the inability of the Congress to pay his troops or provide for their needs. Thousands deserted during events such as Valley Forge. There was talk of meekly bowing to the British because all hopes for the future now appeared to be delusional. Even after achieving independence, the new states didn’t seem to want to work together; the entire national governmental structure was on the verge of collapse.

If I had experienced the 1790s, I would have been shocked by the vitriol that spewed forth daily in the newspapers, particularly those who accused Washington of wanting to set himself up as king. The French Revolution, which took place at that time, was one of the bloodiest episodes in all of history, and many in America were hailing it as a magnificant development. I would begin to question the wisdom of the electorate and wonder if this fledgling country could survive its first decade after the Constitution.

Later, during the War of 1812, our military defenses were so disorganized that the British actually burned Washington, DC, including the president’s house and the Capitol. Their troops were ravaging the countryside, destroying everything in their path without any effective countermeasures. What a low point for a nation.

Then there’s the Civil War and the decade that led to it. Passions were so heated in Congress that representatives started bringing their weapons with them into the House and Senate for protection. Slavery, by this time, had become entrenched. The Founding Fathers had hoped to eliminate it, but now the South was proclaiming it to be a positive good from God. The nation split; more than 620,000 died in the war that followed, the highest tally for any American war. Bitterness remained for years afterward [you can still see its remnants today].

The Progressive Movement, after the turn of the twentieth century, introduced more government involvement in people’s lives and decided that the Constitution was an outdated document that had to be reinterpreted. Woodrow Wilson, a racist and a eugenicist, took the presidency. The eugenics movement sought to limit who could have children; only the “best” should reproduce. This movement formed the cornerstone of Nazi policies in Germany later.

Wilson moved the country down the path that led to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s—the fulfillment of progressive dreams as the government took charge of getting the nation out of the Great Depression. FDR’s policies were so dismally foolish that the Depression continued until WWII. If I had lived during those decades, I would have mourned the loss of Biblical principles and constitutional limitations. The reigning ideology tossed out the concept of the rule of law. Now, anything could happen.

I did live during the 1960s and 1970s. It was not pleasant. First was LBJ’s Great Society, which could be described as the New Deal on steroids, followed by the rancor of the Vietnam War, then Nixon’s Watergate fiasco, and finally, the debilitated presidencies of Ford and Carter. The economy was in the tank, the worst since the Great Depression. Along the way, we also concluded that innocent children in the womb could be murdered.

I say all of this to make this point: there have always been bad times. Quite often, those who believe in Biblical morality and constitutionalism have come to the edge of despair. Yet we are still here. There is still hope to turn things around. We survived the disunity of the Revolution and the Civil War. We overcame the disgrace of the burning of the nation’s capital. Calvin Coolidge reversed Woodrow Wilson’s policies and Jimmy Carter brought forth Ronald Reagan.

Will the disaster that is the Obama administration become a footnote in our history or have we turned a corner and lost our way forever? That page in our history has yet to be written. We are the ones who will write it. If we take our responsibility seriously, hope remains.