I love this time of year. This is now my 22nd year of teaching full time at the college level. When a new academic year begins, I experience an emotional rush. I’ve experienced that for 21 of those 22 years [no need to talk about the exception---that's history]. Students also seem fresh and ready.

Yes, that early excitement will scale back as the semester wears on, but it never goes away entirely, particularly if you believe what you are doing is the will of God, and that the classroom is another form of ministry.

I am grateful to be able to teach at Southeastern University in Lakeland, Florida, a Christian university that is not only very beautiful, but dedicated to infusing Biblical principles into all subjects. And why not? God is the author of all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

We do face a multitude of problems, though, in modern education. Some of it has to do with ignorance:

Many students who show up for college as freshmen haven’t been taught well. They are especially ignorant of their own country’s history, the very subject I teach. Another big problem is the apathy of parents. They often just shuffle their children off to a school, happy that they can absent themselves from their children’s educational progress:

Parents used to believe they were responsible for their children’s education. That viewpoint seems to be more rare with each passing year.

Even more pernicious, however, is the blatant attempt to alter historical reality. In a recent column, analyst Thomas Sowell makes some incisive observations about what exactly is being taught in many classrooms:

The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class, and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention — and sometimes none at all.

Our “educators,” who cannot educate our children to the level of math or science achieved in most other comparable countries, have time to poison their minds against America.

Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

I don’t teach that America is perfect. I clearly point out the racial issues of the past. However, I also note that it is faulty analysis to reject everything about America just because there were some injustices. As Sowell says, where in the world do you not witness injustices? It’s the human condition; it’s called sin. America has done a pretty good job, compared to other nations, in rooting out many of those problems over time.

My perspective on American government and the policies we have followed, particularly in the past century, is often critical, but never in a way that makes students think they live in an awful place. Our Founders provided a system that can be corrected, but it depends on the character and the choices “we the people” make.

More than once, I’ve had students come up to me and say something similar to this: “Every president you praised was presented to me as bad in high school, and every president you criticized was highly praised by my former teachers. You’ve reversed everything and have made me rethink America’s history.”

If I am accomplishing that, I am satisfied. It’s time to continue that quest in this new academic year.

I’ve noticed there are some things that are very hard for people to do. For instance, once some individuals get into power, particularly political power, it’s fascinating how nothing they ever do wrong is their fault. They can always find someone else to blame. Charlie Rangel seems to be pretty good at this, as is Maxine Waters.

Listen to either of them speak about the ethics charges against them and you will come away believing they are victims of a massive conspiracy. In both cases, though, the evidence seems pretty clear—they are guilty of using their offices for personal financial benefit. If only they would simply admit it, but pride and arrogance forbid it.

Rangel and Waters are indicative of a whole species of political animals who can’t seem to see beyond a predetermined personal prejudice:

I’ve mentioned in previous posts the decision of the Justice Department not to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls and the atmosphere in the department that refuses to focus on any discrimination cases brought against blacks. All this does is undermine the rule of law.

Every person—black, white, and all the beiges in between—are accountable to the same law [I've always liked the title of one of Thomas Sowell's books, Pink and Brown People---it's more accurate].

Yet we continue to draw racial lines, as Harry Reid did recently:

Well, Harry, let me explain it for you: the Republican party [or at least a lot of people in that party] believes in helping individuals get off the government plantation, offering them security in their personal property, providing the liberty to achieve one’s dreams in life without undue governmental interference, and respecting the life of all unborn Hispanics. Many of those Hispanics are from Cuba, and they know how bad a socialist system can be. They appreciate American liberties.

Hope that helps, Harry.

Republican congressman Joe Barton of Texas did something politically foolish last week, but constitutionally sound. In a hearing with BP executives, Barton used the word “shakedown” to describe what the Obama administration had done to the company. He then offered an apology for the way in which BP had been treated.

That set off a firestorm, not just among Democrats but within his own Republican party. Pressure was so intense that he was forced that same day to apologize for his apology. If he hadn’t done so, he was told he would lose his leadership role in the party.

Now, Barton’s wording was politically foolish. If he had simply avoided the word “apology” as applied to BP, no one would have said much of anything. Yet a tin ear politically does not indicate a wrong view of the Constitution. In that regard, Barton made a valid constitutional point.

What point is that? An excellent essay by scholar Thomas Sowell has explained it clearly. Sowell talks about how even though Obama’s poll numbers are going down, it’s only because people disagree with some of his policies; very few understand the more foundational issue—”the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation.”

Sowell then raises the question that rarely is raised anymore:

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation?

The short answer is short indeed: nowhere.

Of course Sowell is talking about the $20 billion fund that Obama extracted from BP. We’re supposed to be a government of laws, not just executive decisions that make unconstitutional demands. Sowell is correct when he notes,

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government. Without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.

This has happened before in American history. When I tell students that during the Great Depression FDR ordered all Americans to turn in their gold to the government, they can’t believe such a thing ever occurred. FDR did that purely by executive order; he certainly had no constitutional authority to do so.

My students are now living in a time that is making FDR’s power moves seem trifling in comparison. FDR never took control of auto companies; FDR didn’t take over 1/6 of the American economy via the healthcare route.

These are dangerous times for the survival of constitutionalism and the rule of law. We have come to this place slowly, but deliberately, like the proverbial frog in the slowly heating water that doesn’t realize he will soon be cooked. The last year and a half, however, has seen the heat turned up significantly. Perhaps that will be Obama’s undoing—he has moved so quickly that people are finally awakening to the danger.

Will enough citizens awaken in time to avert disaster? November will tell.