Twice a week I find myself along with everyone else who work five-nights a week: at home, twiddling my thumbs wondering what to do. On most of those nights, I am with friends watching a movie or playing some games.

            Last week, however, no opportunity presented itself. No one was around, I had no money to see a movie, I wasn't hungry and I didn't know what to do.

            But like anyone else with an inquisitive mind, such a challenge is ripe to be overcome. I dusted off an old copy of The Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. That book was written between 1787-1788 to try and persuade New Yorkers to adopt the Constitution.

            Boring, right?

            On most nights, yes. I'd pick up that book, take a glance and promptly fall asleep. Not this night.

            The book, while not overly complicated, is quite detailed in political concepts that are unfortunately foreign to many people in this day and age. But not to those who lived over 200 years ago. They devoured each article as it came off the printer's press multiple times a week.

            That book is a masterpiece, especially when one considers that most of the sections were rush jobs without any peer review or other proofs. The author wrote it, checked it himself and then sent it off to the printer, just like that. Then he began working on his next article.

            In total, 85 articles appeared over a period of about nine months. That's roughly two and a half articles a week.

            Suffice it to say, they were busy. But they were more than up to the challenge. Their education had prepared them to not only understand governmental theory, but also able to disect and debate the validity of any form of government.

            The biographical note on Madison, Jay and Hamilton in the version that appears in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's Great Books of the Western World explains that the authors' education was a "liberal arts program based on the ancient classics with considerable practice in the scholastic disputation. The whole program was infused with religion and politics which was the primary ends of the program."

            Clearly they were uniquely prepared to create and defend a form of government based on morals.

            And what did these men theorize about America's system of government? Federalist Paper 1 gives us the answer:

            "It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

            Never before had a republic, which was defined by John Adams as "an empire of laws, and not of men," had such a great opportunity of succeeding throughout all generations of time.

            Why? Because in order for a republic to last, like any other mode of government, it must be based on virtue. Both in the people and in the government.

            Virtuous people are not prideful and not easily swaid by fads of passion, but are stalwart in obeying the law. They do the honorable and just thing because it is the right thing and not for any other ulterior motive.

            Virtuous leaders do not oppress their subjects in any way and hold as sacred the absolute equality of rights among all people.

            That is why the freedom of religion was expressly integrated into the Constitution. It is religion that teaches correct morals and helps individuals develop those goodly characteristic traits. So all religion was protected and allowed to permeate the country, for history had shown what happens when an ecclesiasitcal dogma is joined together with a political government: tyranny and the expulsion of all other religions.

            Even the Asian and Middle-east religions were welcomed. As Benjamin Rush said in 1786, "I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."

            And As Noah Webster said in 1802, "The universal prevalence of that religion [speaking of any religion based on virtuous principles], in its true spirit, would banish tyranny from the earth."

            Thus ended my reading. It was midnight. I closed my books and turned off the light. My intellectual appetite was filled. I put my head on my pillow, gave thanks for life in this free country and fell fast asleep.

            I wonder when I'll have another experience like that again? 

            Over the last week, stocks worldwide have plummeted due to the bancruptcy and bailout of Greece in the European Union. Other countries, such as Spain, also are going belly-up. America is even threatened by these developments. The question, however, is why is this happening?

            The New York Times recently recently stated in an article "Crisis Imperils Liberal Benefitcs Long Expected by Europeans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html) that the problem rests in large deficits combined with too many entitlements.

            This is one of the few times I actually agree with the New York Times. It's a simple matter of basic accounting. When a family is used to living an expensive lifestyle and tough economic times come (as they always do), the family has a choice, continue its lifestyle or cut back on services.

            If the family decides to continue its lifestyle, the family will spend more money than it earns, which will land it in serious debt and, eventually, possibly in a situation where bankruptcy is the only option left.

            If governments spend more than they earn, the very viability of their currency is threatened and inflation is likely. Eventually, the government will have to make a choice of what to cut from its budget. It is easy to cut discretionary spending, such as military, which is not wise for many countries. It is much more difficult to cut mandated spending, such as welfare, social security and other entitlements that are written in law.

            For Greece, they couldn't cut their military expenses. The only thing left was their entitlements, which the people had become so accustomed to and dependent upon that any threat at ending their secure life made the people panic even more.

            Had the economy continued to grow, Greece may not have had to worry about its expenses. But economies always come down after an expansion and Greece found out how unprepared it was for such a development.

            America is in the same boat. We are not prepared for a severe contraction of the economy. How long has it been since the government consistently spent less than it earned? (Hint: it's been a long time).

            With over $13 trillion of debt, a deficit of over $1 trillion this year, and Social Security in the red, America is not ready for any economic fluctuation. We are bankrupt.

            The solution to this problem is to tighten our belts and everyone be willing to take sacrifices for the good of the team. That means government lowering taxes to spur economic productivity and cutting expenses in every sector, especially entitlements (according to the Congressional Budget Office almost 50 percent of the federal government's budget currently goes to entitlements with another 14 percent to interest payments).

            That means local governments and communities working harder and taking more responsibility to take care of their sick and afflicted. That means giving more power and authority back to the states. That means weaning ourselves off the social entitlement milk "freely" given to us by a federal government that is financially broken.

            America should learn from the New York Times and the failures of Europe: ever expanding entitlement programs do not prepare a country for a financial crisis.

            Tough times are ahead, but it is better to sacrifice a little now to avert a larger disaster later.

            Over two hundred years ago on June 28, 1789, Benjamin Franklin spoke to a crowd of men in heated debate that threatened the ratification of the Constitution and subsequent establishment of the United States of America:

            "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"

            This faith, or trust, in Deity was not uncommon among the people and leadership of that day and age.

            Not 20 years previous to Franklin's declaration, the Virginia legislature set aside a day for fasting and praying pleading for Divine intervention as the disagreement with the mother country was teetering on out right revolution.

            In their most desperate hour, the people turned to their Maker and sought Him out. They were all of differing religions and backgrounds, but were unified in their trust that God would either step in and resolve the problem or give them the strength to overcome. They found strength in their religion's written word.

            Such faith and humility is not uncommon in our history. Those escaping the shackles of slavery to freedom offered in the North showed such devotion to Deity. The people living during the great World Wars showed such devotion. On Sept. 12, 2001, all the world joined together in worship and solemn service to Deity. Even our Congress begins each session with a word of prayer asking for aid.

            Devotion and humility to seek aid from an unseen force brings aid that cannot be quantified. The Revolutionary War was won, slaves were freed, totalitarian regimes were destroyed and freedom was proclaimed. Is it possible that men could accomplish so much on their own? No. Religion gives strength and resolve that cannot be taken away except by force.

            Correct religion teaches to have faith, hope and charity. Charity is a love of all mankind and a desire for peace and happiness to be felt by all. Hope helps men and women to work for a better tomorrow. Faith gives the strength to continue on even under the darkest of circumstances.

            Yet now, it seems almost taboo to openly seek out the blessings offered by Heaven. True, technology has advanced a great deal since those days of Washington, Franklin.

            Science and technology with all their advancements, however, cannot answer the most pressing and basic answers of life: "Where did we come from? Why are we here? Is there life after death?"

            Only in religion can solace come in regards to those questions, especially when facing death head on.

            That is what the Founding Fathers relied on in their darkest of circumstances. Religion gave them hope and strength to continue on. That is why they established a country where everyone could worship Deity in whatever way they chose best.

            Let's not forget that.

            Over two hundred years ago, a wise and aged man stood up in a contentious meeting (one which makes the recent health care debates pale in comparison), took command of the floor and chastened the men.

            Benjamin Franklin, on June 28, 1789, spoke to the crowd of delagates debating the Constitution:

            "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"

            As I read these words over and over again, in came to my mind the question "can a man become all he can become without God in his life?" For me, the answer is no.

            There is much speculation about religion these days. It seems that many people would rather not ask whether there be a God or whether He has a plan for them. Many, it seems, feel that He does not exist, for if He did exist, why would He allow all these horrible atrocities we so often see in life to occur?

            Because many of these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily in a 30-second sound bite, many people reach a point in life where trusting in the faith of their fathers seems less appatizing than venturing out in the world alone.

            Science has made many great progresses in the last 20 to 50 years. Ok. Technology has made even greater progress in the last five years alone than in the previous 50 (could anyone imagine 40 years ago being able to hold more power in a device no bigger than your hand than what powered the astronaughts to the moon?).

            Yet, with all its advances, science cannot definitively answer for the origin of life, why the cosmos act in such perfect harmony (i.e. why does the milky way have spiral arms of stars rather than a spherical shell of stars circling the center of the galaxy?).

            And with all our strides in making life more comfortable to live, we still have poverty, we still have sickness, we still seek for a happier life.

            Can religion answer all these questions or solve all these problems? No. But maybe in certain areas it can help us come closer to the answers than science. Unfortunately, some things we will never understand or know. But just because it may not offer all the answers and just because there may sometimes be apparent contradictions between science and religion is no reason to throw in the towel and do away with it all together.

            Back in 1789, Franklin, one of the greatest scientists in history, continued his speech to the assembled delagates by asking that each day begin with a unified prayer being offered by the delegates: prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven in creating a system of government based on the idea that the rights to govern are inherintly found in the people collectively.

            Prayers were offered each day until the end of the Constitutional Convention. And since that time, prayers have also been offered each day of each session of Congress.

            Unfortunately, most people are taught that there is a wall of church and state that cannot be breached no matter how miniscule the matter nor innocent the motive. That wall is a reference to a quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter. Jefferson was referencing the idea that no religious organization should be in bed with the federal government. States, however, could have a state run religion if they so chose. Over time, even the states with an official religion gave that up and allowed the people to choose what to believe. All religions had free reign to proselyte to the people.

            This begs the question, are Americans a Christian nation? If so, what seems to be the big controversy?

            While most, if not all, the Founding Fathers as well as colonists of that time believed in God, Jesus Christ and the Bible, not one particular church organization monopolized the people's faith. Instead, they were able to worship God the way they felt best.

            Nowadays, there are even more religions in this nation than ever before. While many are not of the Christian faith, most of these religions, at the fundemental level, also hold to many of the truths that Christians hold dear: that there is a Supreme Creator; that this entity loves and cares for all of His creations, including us; and that if we live a good life and do good to others, we will be blessed in the hereafter.

            So what's the controversy? We ought to be a religious people and a religious nation because that was the intent. And if science cannot answer the questions of the soul, perhaps a turning to Deity will bring us closer to some of those answers that burn within all of us. And perhaps He will guide us and our nation to greater peace and happiness, if we ask Him.

Regardless about how you feel about Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, his foray into the presidential waters is historic as he is the first half-black man to become president. As such, we should be glad that anyone can become president no matter their walk of life, but Obama's presidency is also historic in the sense that it seems, at least with what was implied during his inaugural speech, he is about to embark on a process over the next four plus years to radically change many government policies that have been held sacred and good for the last 50 plus years.

During his speech, he said this:

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.... What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Prior presidents may have acted off of this premise, but not since FDR, I believe, has a president actively spoken that the scale of government and its programs cannot be limited to a set of core principles, only by necessity of a perceived situation.

This idea is dangerous on a whole range of levels, not the least of which is that if a government has the power to give you everything you've ever needed, it also has the power to take it away. And, rest assured, given that power, over the course of time, sometimes which is not very long, government will use power that it has been given in a negative way.

Another principle to keep in mind is that once a government gains a power, it is nigh near impossible to take that ability away from government without some form of a revolution.

Case in point is the patriot act which allows domestic espionage and is hundreds if not thousands of pages long in its entirety. For years, the Democrats have derided Bush and declared for the protection of individual privacy. But now that they have complete control over two branches of government, will they follow through with what they seemed to want and take that power away from government? I think not, but we'll see.

So, if the purpose of government is to do whatever is necessary to get the economy working, regardless of the size of government, where is the incentive to find a job on your own? Won't people all over this nation just wait for government to provide for their needs?

But even if the answer to the last question is a negative, a more insidious and fundamental problem looms with the seeming flippant attitude toward growing government bureaucracy wherever it is deemed necessary at the moment.

To be man is to err said the famous poet. What happens if a policy is implemented that is flawed? The consequences may not be felt for years, but they are felt eventually and it is all-to-often not pretty.

Case in point is the legislative committees who oversaw the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations. The committee was warned well over a year before their collapse that something was wrong, yet they chose to do nothing. Had they not erred in their judgment of the problem, the collapse may have been prevented and no bailout would have been called for.

The problem is that all government actions have consequences that don't fade easily and are sometimes not felt in complete force for many years. And there is a very real danger of wanting to grow government bureaucracy in whatever way is deemed necessary, especially when it is fraught with human error in judgment.

Besides, if one studies history, the nation that changes and adapts on the whim to every vicissitude of the economy, alliances abroad, or domestic concerns is not a government that protects freedom, but is an absolute dictatorship. Freedom cannot last with a government that is determined to solve all of society's ills with the magic formula of an ever larger bureaucracy.

Rightly did our first president, George Washington, say that society should use caution when changing fundamental government principles, no matter how pleasant sounding they are because changing a policy merely on a hypothesis, whim, or opinion creates a precedent of perpetual change and instability.

And to help determine whether a policy is good or not, Washington again shared his insight into human institutions and government in that it is experience and an understanding of history is the surest test of the tendency for good or ill of governmental principles.

In our government, thankfully, our policy leaders, Pres. Obama included, are ultimately beholden to the people and Deity for their actions, rather than having a carte blanche to do whatever they want. After all, it is the people who retain or give up power and authority to government as the people deem necessary and not the other way around. Government leadership is a trust that should be held sacred and its power should only be used with the greatest care.

It will be good to remember that the purpose of governments and the reason they were instituted was to protect people, not babysit them. Governments were designed to protect life, liberty, and property, not keep them in a perpetual childhood where they suffer no consequences or responsibility.

John Walker

There is nothing like a close sports game to make your hands tense up, your heart start to pound,  and adreneline start pumping through the veins.  The lopsided victories are perhaps not as fun to watch, but there is still an excitement that comes from watching one's favorite team storm onto the field and play their hearts out.

Often times during games, referees will make calls and decisions that have radical consequences on the outcome of the game. If the ruling is in favor of the home team, the fans will voicefully shout their pleasure at the greatness of the refs decision making abilities. On the other hand, if the decision gives an advantage to the opposing team, the fans are likely to shout their displeasure with equal, if not greater vitality.

At times, one can even hear snide jokes about the de facto judges of the legal viability of a play in a game, such as one that was told by Jay Leno:

When I was young, I wanted to be involved in sports, but I was to short for basketball, to thin to play football, to slow to run track, and I had perfect vision so I couldn't become a referee!

While these jokes are fun and, in many cases all to true, they also belay the point that without someone on the field to judge the actions of the players or rule on a question of conduct, no final score or record would be fair or a trusty representation of which team was better than another. All sports have many rules, procedures for how to proceed under any number of circumstances and have a certain format for playing the game. Love them or hate them, if no one is there to judge on or enforce the rules, no one could be sure of how to play. Consequently, chaos would reign.

In real life, the officials in our government are like the teams playing ball against each other. Sometimes they perform well and are worthy of praise. Sometimes they allow circumstances to blunt their skills and they get creamed. When government fails, however, it is not because of unqualified people playing a position they've never seen before. And it isn't because the system is flawed, though at first glance it may seem that way. The framework that government must play under is called the Constitution. If government acts against that code of law and changes that fundamental structure, then it changes the game in such a fundemantal way that is similar to a pop-up out to first base in baseball being ruled an inside-the-park home run in an actual game.

The answer, in short, as to what allows the government to act outside the framework of the game is that the referees of the game and judges of conduct literally drop the ball and allow government to do whatever it wants to, for free. If the referees knew the framework the game was supposed to be played, however, they could not only tell the players of the game, the government, when they were breaking their own set of rules, but also force them to make a course adjustment.

Though it may be the referees who have allowed the government players to make their own set of rules, the question remains: who are the referees? Is it the courts? In essence, no. Though the courts like to say they are the protectors of the Constitution, they are a branch of the government and are players in the game as well.

No, the real referees in the game of government policies are the people as a whole. They can abnegate their right to rule on the veracity of the policies, but if they do, then the players get to judge themselves what was a strike and what was a ball. If the people knew the framework of the game and called the players out when they went against the rules, there would not be much incentive to break the rules because the players would know that the refs would catch them and replace them.

How sad it is when so many of the referees of the greatest and freest country of all have decided that the framework that the game is played under is outdated, incomprehensible, and completely unnecessary in this day and age. Anyone who disagrees with this fundamental assumption, only need to ask family members, friends and colleagues how many times they have picked up and read the Constitution in the past year. Then ask them how many times they have done so their entire life. Then ask them what they comprehended from that experience. The answer, I warrant, is probably a negative, which is not what it used to be three or four generations back.

Another case to prove that the Constitution is not seen as a document that rules government actions today is the fact that though many Democrats derided Pres. George W. Bush for the Patriot Act that breaks all manner of privacy laws we hold dear, how many Democrats will move to eradicate that law now that they are completely in power?

To those in power, the Constitution seems to only be a document that is worth keeping as long as it helps them retain or gain power. Once it becomes a thorn in the side, they gloss over it and ignore it. This would not happen if the true judges of government actions actually cared about enforcing the following of the framework that government must act under, no matter the consequences.