
I been studying about Davids might men and came across this picture. Not much is said about them but what is said brings about only 1 reaction : WOW!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
More than six decades ago, George Orwell wrote a little book called "Animal Farm" as an allegory about the Russian Revolution. But for those of us who have had the privilege of reading this classic work, we realize it is an allegory depicting the rise of oppression and tyranny and can be compared to similar tragic events in history like the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, Fidel Castro and Communist China. However, I never thought I would compare "Animal Farm" to the American republic.
In America, the people rule and liberty is supreme. Generations of men and women have fought for that liberty. Fifty-six men pledged their lives, fortunes and their sacred honor for it. Over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of the belief in it, and thousands of men and women serve in the United States military sworn to preserve and protect it. That liberty – the belief that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights – is what this nation was founded on and what we have lived by in the Constitution of the United States for over 200 years. On Friday, Feb. 13, however, that liberty was dealt a fatal blow when 244 congressmen and 60 senators voted for a $787 billion stimulus package.
Many of us find ourselves asking the age-old question, "How did we get here?" I'm sure that's what the animals on Animal Farm wondered when the rules they believed in and everything they knew and understood as truth suddenly changed.
As I have reflected on events of the last few months leading up to the vote on this "stimulus bill," I have both marveled and ached at the remarkable similarities between the events and characters of "Animal Farm" and the current state of our nation.
In "Animal Farm," Mr. Jones' farm animals launch a revolt and take over the farm themselves. The pigs, who can read, lead the revolt. The animals unanimously accept Snowball as their leader and establish seven commandments, or rules of government, by which to live by. The commandments designated those who walk on two legs as enemies and those who walk on four as friends, and included other standards such as "no animal shall sleep in a bed" and "all animals are created equal." But as time passed, under the cunning leadership of a pig named Napoleon, Snowball is run off the farm and the commandments evolve to a more suitable arrangement for the pigs.
The animals were confused as the rules began to change from "no animal shall sleep in a bed" to "no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets," and Squealer, Napoleon's spokesperson, quickly jumped in to convince the animals that was the way it always was – they just didn't remember. Since they couldn't read, they accepted the new rules as they were announced one after another. When any animal would question the rule change, Napoleon would use his trained dogs, who had violently run Snowball off the farm, to scare them into submission, and the sheep would start bleating, "Four legs good, two legs bad" over and over again until the animals stopped asking questions and accepted the rule change.
Watching the events of the last few weeks unfold, I find an uncanny resemblance between Animal Farm and Washington D.C. All the rules that we established over 200 years ago in the Constitution of the United States have slowly evolved and eroded from the freedom of speech to include "unless you're saying something we don't like" and freedom religion to "unless the building was paid for by the stimulus bill." The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness established in the Declaration of Independence have evolved to include life – as longs as it is convenient, liberty – as long as the government approves it, and the pursuit of happiness – as long as our carbon footprint isn't too big.
In "Animal Farm," Snowball orchestrated a plan to build a mill to reduce the work on the farm animals. Napoleon was completely opposed to the idea until he rose to power and suddenly announced construction on the mill, stating he was for it all the time and the animals must not remember right if they thought otherwise. Then the sheep began their familiar relentless chant, "Four legs good, two legs bad" until all arguments ceased and the animals quietly accepted whatever they were told because, as Napoleon reminded them, they didn't want to go back to the way things were when Farmer Jones was in charge.
The windmill sounds a lot like the last eight years of the Democrats preaching the need to reduce the deficit and then once President Obama is elected, suddenly deciding they were for deficit spending all along and convincing the American people that we needed to go another $787 billion deeper in debt for the "good of the farm."
The rules keep changing, and there seems to be no end to the changes. The pigs have succeeded in turning President Bush into a traitor. He is blamed for everything that goes wrong – even after he is gone. Just like Napoleon, President Obama has adjusted the seven commandments – or, in our case, the Constitution of the United States – to promote his own self-serving interests. The media is Squealer convincing the American people that anything President Obama says is good even if yesterday he said it was bad, because he is, after all, Obama. And anytime anyone questions anything, the Democrats begin bleating, "Bush bad, Obama good" until the American people are silenced and accept whatever they are told, while President Obama reminds us, you don't want to go back to the way it was under Bush do you?
The saddest thing about "Animal Farm" is that as you read you realize the animals have no idea what's going on. We see the corruption, deception and tyranny unfold, page by page, but they have no idea things are actually worse under the pigs than they were under Farmer Jones. As I read the book, I wanted to shout out: "Don't you realize what you're doing? Don't you realize what is going on?" But the animals didn't hear me and neither do the American people. They have no idea what they have done. They have no idea what they have given up.
April 18, 1775, was the day the shot was heard around the world and freedom began in the United States of America. Feb. 13, 2009, is the day history will acknowledge as the day freedom was lost without a shot being fired. And while the world looks at President Obama as the new leader of the free world, after reading another classic, by C.S. Lewis, I know him for what he really is: just another donkey in a lion's coat.
This is by the late Larry Burkett. We wonder why God has not judged America. Well after reading this article we can assume that God is judging America: one slaughtered baby at a time. As Bro Harter has said on occasion that the ones who could have preached the revivals, cured cancer and led the country to prosperity were killed befoer they were born...dc
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Editor's note: The late Larry Burkett, popular Christian financial counselor and author, penned this article in 1998. It is a compelling "response" to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent statement that the economy benefits from "family planning." Joseph Slife contributed to this column.
Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives, and when he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?– From "It's a Wonderful Life"
I'm sure you remember the classic film, "It's a Wonderful Life," starring Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey. In one scene, George makes a rash request: "I wish I'd never been born." Instantly, the angel Clarence makes it so.
Bit by bit, George discovers that because he never existed, everything in his hometown has changed. Without the life of George Bailey, the life of just one person, nothing is the same.
I thought of George Bailey recently when I saw this headline in USA Today: "Abortion Altered America's Future; Without Abortion, the USA Would Be a Vastly Different Place."1 The story did not concern the significant moral or constitutional questions surrounding abortion-on-demand; rather, it concerned the demographic impact. In other words, it tells how America is different now and how it will be different in the future, because of legalized abortion.
(Column continues below)
This is an aspect of the abortion issue that, largely, has been ignored over the past 25 years. But the economic and public policy implications are so serious – and unavoidable – that we can't afford to ignore these demographic consequences any longer.
Too many old – or too few young?
Consider what social researchers call the "graying of America," a term used to describe the social and economic impact of the aging of the post-World War II baby boom generation – those born between 1943 and 1960. The challenges presented by the graying of America are created not so much by baby boomers getting older but by a marked slowdown in the population growth of young people. The result is that within 30 years there will be as many Americans of "retirement age" as there are 20- to 34-year-olds.
This growing parity between the old and the young is at the heart of the demographic challenges that face Medicare and Social Security. Incredible as it may seem, by the time the peak of the baby boom generation reaches retirement age, the number of abortions since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision will equal the number of births in the baby boom. "If only one-third of those who have been aborted were available to start work on their 18th birthday," speculated USA Today, "the demise of Social Security would be put off for decades."2
Indeed, it is largely because of abortion-on-demand that by the year 2030 the ratio of workers to Social Security beneficiaries will be reduced to only 2-to-1, according to a projection from the Social Security Board of Trustees.3 In other words, two workers will be supporting one retiree. (When the program began in the 1930s, 42 workers supported each retiree.)
According to the New York Times, Japan is heading toward a 21st century in which it will have "twice as many old people as it has children." The nation's economy will be "groaning under the weight of heavy taxes; its population [will be] shrinking, and the government's reserve of Social Security funds [will] run dry."5
How has Japan, once the economic envy of the world, come to this? The sequence of events is instructive, since the U.S. is following much the same pattern. The main difference is that the Japanese experienced their big baby boom just prior to World War II (the U.S. boom was after the war) and legalized abortion in 1948 (the U.S. legalized abortion-on-demand in 1973).
Now, the Japanese boomers are retiring and not enough young people exist to take their places. "[T]he number of Japanese reaching the end of their [economically] productive lives overwhelms the small expansion of twenty-something Japanese," writes one observer. "If anything can explain why the Japanese stock market roared during the 1970s and early 1980s, but has been moribund since then, it is the simple fact that their once vigorous population is running out of creative steam."6
Will America, having lost some 35 million lives to abortion, experience a Japanese-like fall as our baby boom generation retires? We can only wait and see.
We do know that for the past 25 years the total the U.S. fertility rate, despite huge strides in fertility technology, has remained below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per woman.7 In other words, since abortion-on-demand became legal in 1973 the U.S. population has stopped replacing itself. If this trend continues, our nation is inevitably headed toward long-term population and economic decline.
That decline will be mitigated somewhat by immigration, of course. However, cumulative immigration since 1971 has replaced only about half of those Americans who were not allowed to be born.
George: "This should be Bailey Park. But where are the houses?"Clarence: "You weren't here to build them."
Population and prosperity
I realize that from the days of Thomas Malthus onward some population watchers have claimed that growing numbers of people actually are a drag on society, leading not to prosperity but to poverty and misery. But such a view seems inconsistent with the facts of history, especially in free societies.
As social researcher Allan Carlson points out, in the U.S. "population and per-capita wealth grew together at unprecedented rates between 1850 and 1950. Moreover, the 'baby boom' of the 1950s was accompanied by an economic boom that defied ... gloomy prognostications"8 (italics added).
This pattern has been repeated in other parts of the world. In East Asia and the Pacific, where population growth has been especially strong in recent decades, incomes are more than five times what they were in 1965.9 By contrast, countries in which poverty has accompanied population growth have tended to be nations which have suffered from political repression, civil wars and natural disasters.10
The view that population growth leads to poverty is rooted in the assertion that people consume more than they produce. This assertion may be true for the early years of life, at least in cold economic terms. But even young children, because their consumption of diapers, toys and the like, are engines of economic activity. Their consumption generates production. Indeed, "[e]xpanding families are net consumers, and consumption stimulates economic growth."11
In this sense, abortion-on-demand already has produced a negative economic effect. In his book, "The Cost of Abortion," researcher Lawrence Roberge correlates the legalization of abortion with a slowdown in the production and sales of child-related items. He also estimates that the loss of millions of children to abortion thus far has precluded creation of between 950,000 to 1.2 million teaching jobs.12
Over the long run, however, the loss created by these "economic ghosts"13 isn't restricted solely to the cycle of production/consumption. As the late Julian Simon noted, the most positive economic effects of additional people "happen in the long run and are cumulative."14 These effects occur as new ideas, products and processes are conceived by the human mind and then put into use.
I believe the major reason social researchers are projecting a notable shortage of "human capital" in the 21st century is due to the large numbers of people lost to abortion. According the Hudson Institute's Workforce 2020 report, for example, slow population growth, combined with the retirement of many baby boomers from the workforce, is likely to create "a tight labor pool, particularly for high skilled jobs."15
Indeed, if current trends continue, "many high-skilled manufacturing and service jobs will go begging in the U.S."16 These jobs will not simply go unfilled, however, but likely they will be exported to other nations, resulting in a steady erosion of U.S. economic competitiveness.
Some people will argue, of course, that since many of the children aborted in the U.S. would be part of what we call "the underclass," they wouldn't be economically productive anyway. Several years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer made this very argument – in the context of contraception, not specifically abortion – in an editorial titled "Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?"
Lamenting the number of children living in poverty, the Inquirer asked what seemed to be an economically sensible question: "[W]hy not make a major effort to reduce the number of children ... born into such circumstances?"17 The paper suggested making the implanted contraceptive Norplant available free to poor women. Although few choose to express it publicly, this is the same attitude many people have about abortion: It helps us rid the world of children who will just be a drain on society anyway.
Setting aside the moral argument that can be made against deciding who "deserves" to live, let me ask a practical question: Has inner city poverty improved since abortion became legal? Obviously not. In fact, I would submit that legal abortion has made the poverty problem worse by helping to sow the seeds of family breakdown, a problem that plagues the poor in America. After all, if the life of a child has no value, why should a man feel any obligation to marry and provide for the woman he has impregnated?
But the argument that aborting the underclass is "good economic policy" falls to another reality: The underclass are not doomed forever to be the underclass. Think of your own family a generation or two back. Were any of your ancestors "poor"? Personally, I don't have to think that far back. I was raised in a family that was on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Like millions of other poor youngsters, I grew up to enjoy a better life financially than my parents knew.
Will some poor children stay in poverty all their lives? Yes. But how can we know who will and who won't?
I believe that aborting the underclass accomplishes nothing except to encourage a continuing cycle of hopelessness. It tells the poor that life is cheap. Ultimately, it cuts the legs out from under the desire to improve oneself and one's lot in life. It is a "solution" that serves only to make the problems of poverty and despair worse.
George: "Mary! Mary! Tommy! Pete! Janie! Zuzu! Where are you?"Clarence: "They're not here, George. You have no children."
Cascading effects
I don't think of people primarily as "taxpayers," but I was nonetheless intrigued by the chart that follows, illustrating the possible loss of tax revenue due to abortions that have occurred already.
Keep in mind that the numbers listed above are conservative. In other words, it is assumed that not all of the 35 million people thus far lost to abortion-on-demand would have become taxpayers. Instead, the chart assumes a uniform loss to the workforce of an additional 31 million first generation workers.
Also note, as the chart shows, that those who have been aborted will not have children of their own, creating a second wave of demographic impact. Eventually, this second wave will create a third wave and a fourth wave and so on.
We can't know, of course, how much these missing Americans would receive in government benefits, so it is impossible to determine the degree to which the additional tax revenue they produced would be siphoned off in additional government costs. However, since most people give substantially more to government than they receive,18 the cumulative effect is a significant and unrecoverable loss to the U.S. Treasury. This growing loss will exacerbate the growing imbalance between government spending and government revenue in the early decades of the 21st century (see chart).
State governments also will face fiscal challenges. A study by the state controller in California projects that with the retirement of the baby boom generation will come a significant reduction in state revenues. "In the next two decades, we can expect to see new [financial] pressures placed on ... public services," warns California Controller Kathleen Connell.
"The challenge for state policy-makers is to begin planning for the time when the revenues may not be there, perhaps even restructuring our tax system to accommodate the changed demographics."19
George: "[My brother Harry] saved the lives of every man on that transport!"Clarence: "Every man on that transport died. Harry wasn't there to save them because you weren't there to save Harry."
National security issues
One other area that should be mentioned when discussing the demographic and economic impact of abortion is the effect on America's ability to defend itself militarily. Will we be able to recruit, train, and finance sufficient numbers of young people for military service? In his 1987 book, "The Birth Dearth," Ben Wattenberg argues that a superpower requires both cutting-edge technology and a robust population to maintain its superpower status.20
Indeed, a large population is not only necessary to field military forces but also to support them – in the both the public and private sectors – with strong industrial production, transportation, and engineering and science acumen. Lawrence Roberge offers this useful mental exercise: "Picture the numbers of construction personnel, scientists, engineers, transportation personnel, military training specialists and raw materials suppliers that are required to design, build, supply, maintain and train for such military necessities as aircraft carriers, spy satellites, air cargo carriers ..., nuclear submarines or a battalion of M-1 tanks."21
Whether or not we will have sufficient numbers of young people to carry out these tasks could well determine the future of our nation and the world.
What can be done?
As the preceding evidence demonstrates, abortion is not simply a matter of private conscience, but of public concern. Abortion-on-demand has effects that are rippling throughout our society and could even threaten our future liberties.
This is why abortion, even if all moral arguments are totally discounted, cannot be ignored in framing public policy. Simply writing off abortion as a "moral" or a "religious" issue is a short-sighted approach that fails to reckon its economic and demographic consequences.
We can't undo the past, of course. We can't undo the fact that we have had 35 million George Baileys, people never born, people whose lives were never allowed to touch other lives. Indeed they have left an "awful hole." But for the sake of our nation's economic future and national security, as well as its moral character, we must resolve to promote from this time forward an ethic that is pro-family and pro-children. Only then can America continue to have a wonderful life.
Endnotes
1. David Mastio, "Abortion Altered America's Future," USA Today, Jan. 21, 1998, p. 15A.
2. Ibid.
3. This is the "intermediate" projection, i.e. not worst-case, not "most" optimistic.
4. "Sheryl WuDunn, "The Face of the Future in Japan: The Economics of Aging," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 1997.
5. Ibid.
6. W. Patrick Cunningham, "Markets Which Need People," Population Research Institute Review, May/June 1997, p. 5.
7. The Grandchild Gap (documentary), PBS, April 1997.
8. Allan C. Carlson, "The Economic Consequences of Abortion," The Family in America, Vol. 9, No. 11, Nov. 1995, p.4.
9. "The Poverty Business," The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, Jan. 23, 1998. 10. Ibid.
11. Cunningham, p. 5.
12. Lawrence Roberge, The Cost of Abortion (LaGrange GA: Four Winds Publishing, 1995), p. 49.
13. The term is borrowed from Allan C. Carlson.
14. Julian Simon, Theory of Population and Economic Growth (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), p. 64.
15. Carol D'Amico, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 5,
1997.
16. Richard W. Judy and Carol D'Amico, Workforce 2020 Executive Summary, Hudson Institute, 1997.
17. "Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?," Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 12, 1990, p. A18.
18. See "Who Pays and When? An Assessment of Generational Accounting," Congressional Budget Office, 1995.
19. "Graying of Baby Boomers to Slow California's Economic 'Golden Age'," Business Wire, Feb. 11, 1998.
20. Benjamin J. Wattenberg, The Birth Dearth, Pharos Books, 1987.
21. Roberge, pp. 67-68.
Copyright by Crown Financial Ministries. Posted with permission.