'76 Blog

(Rome)  If one would conjure in imagination what Gibbon called the “Glory that was Greece and the Grandeur that was Rome” a worthwhile approach is to set sail upon Homer’s “wine dark sea” and in select ports of call contemplate with awe the visible Ruins of those mighty civilizations that are the foundation of our own.  On a recent cruise, my wife and I did just that. In the many centuries since Greece and Rome held sway over the known world visitors like Gibbon have come to view marble remains while parsing ancient texts and searching for clues to the fate of their own world. In ironic fashion Athens and Rome are once again centers of intense worldwide interest, though not as progenitors of Western Civilization but rather possible contributors to its financial collapse. Indeed, how times have changed.  Places that produced leaders like Pericles, and Marcus Aurelius, now offer only Papandreous and Berlusconis.  Peoples who once sent Captains like Alexander and Caesar to bestride the far corners of the earth now reach exhaustion mastering a sand pile called Libya. At mid-point in our journey my ruminations on all this were enriched by the insights of an old English friend who I first met at Oxford in 1970.  Paul, “a former naval person” retired from MI-5 (I think) and his ever elegant French wife Nicole now grow prize-winning roses at their lovely seaside cottage in Cornwall.  We became close when our respective governments sent us to a summer “cultural exchange” in Communist Romania, then under the heel of the beastly tyrant Nicolae Ceasusescu.  With wonderful English understatement Paul suggested that his only instruction from his sponsor was “Just be alert, old boy”. The itinerary of this cultural exchange- wandering across Transylvanian countryside, Black Sea coast, Bucharest etc.- allowed ample time for idle conversation between like-minded individuals willing to civilly but enthusiastically criticize each other’s countries and leaders (e.g. Nixon & Heath) and generally pontificate upon all the great political questions of the day. To be sure, Paul and I had our biases.  He believed that his country would always be a major force in world affairs.  I believed that my country would never be afflicted by that strange “civilizational fatigue” that seemed to be leaking into the bloodstream of much of Western Europe.  During our recent struggling ascent up the slopes of Europe’s last active volcano-Mt. Etna in Sicily- we reached the rueful conclusion that we both had been wrong. For those who love History roaming through Greece and Italy is a delight since they have so much of it crowded in very compact spaces.  The entire flowering of Greek civilization took place in an area just a third the size of Colorado.  In a single city- Florence- is the greatest concentration of Western Art in the world, and the finest museum-The Uffizi.  Three giants of Western Art, Science, and Philosophy-Michelangelo, Galileo, and Machiavelli-are at rest in the same darkened Church.  Nearby one can gaze upon Michelangelo’s David, arguably the most nearly perfect expression of Western Art anywhere in the world. What Gibbon did for the Ancient World in his Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire (5 vols. 1776-1788) the German philosopher Oswald Spengler sought to do for the Modern World in his darkly prophetic Decline of the West  ( 2 vols. 1918-1922) which argued that all cultures are subject to the same historically predetermined cycle of growth and decay. Spengler wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophically self-destructive First World War, the initial act of a European Civil War (1914-1945) which prematurely ended that continent’s global ascendance and inflicted a devastating spiritual wound upon the Western psyche that is unhealed to this day. What one sees in Florence particularly and the Renaissance generally is an extraordinary amalgam of Greek, Roman, and Christian civilization the salient characteristics of which are the boundless dynamism, energy, and self-confidence that simultaneously produced the world’s greatest art, the birth of modern science, and unleashed the Age of Discovery. The present generation must answer whether those characteristics remain in sufficient abundance to meet the stern challenges of this time of Doubt and Divisiveness.  To find that answer, however, they will need the guidance of History, and the resource of Faith to first fully understand the question. William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Human Events and Denver Post.  He is a Fellow of the Centennial Institute in Colorado.    

A dozen scholars and commentators convened as guests of the Centennial Institute on May 17 for a luncheon seminar on Benjamin Wiker's survey of modern intellectual history, Ten Books That Screwed Up the World.  After Wiker, formerly a professor of philosophy and ethics at several Catholic colleges, lectured about his book at CCU on April 15,  Centennial director John Andrews suggested there should be a followup discussion to probe the validity of his thesis.Two CCU faculty members, political scientist Greg Schaller and historian William Watson, reflected afterward about some of the differing perspectives that emerged at the luncheon.  Their comments included the following: =======================SCHALLER:Some at the table seemed to desire the absence of state interference in soul-craft. In my opinion, this is not the same good they seem to think it is. While I certainly agree that the absence of brutal states is superior to the cruel dictator, I disagree that it is an either/or proposal.  The state can and should play a role in the forming of social mores that are essential to self-government success.It is indeed a great thing that we have the liberty to debate and discuss these ideas, free from state persecution and I wouldn't want to live under a different regime.  The problem with the absence ofguidance is that the liberty that was won, based on the principles of natural right, has been corrupted into license.  And this is a terribly dangerous development, that does indeed connect back to Wiker's argument.  There is no denying the fact that Hobbes does indeed refer back to Machiavelli, and Rousseau to Hobbes, and Marx to Rousseau, and Nietzsche to Marx.  To ignore how this lineage has built on itself, and the negative impact it has had, is wrong.===========================WATSON: I was surprised there weren't more voices supporting Wiker's understanding of historical causation, that ideas have consequences.  Have we dispensed with Intellectual History?  Is there no historical development of ideas?  Didn't Rousseau influence Robespeirre and Marx, or Darwin and Nietzsche influence HItler?  Isn't there an assumption in teaching Western Civilization, in the way CCU is now doing, that Western ideas developed gradually over the centuries by the influence of Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and Christians?  Didn't positive developments like the Magna Charta, Martin Luther, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and the founding fathers culminate in the production of the rights, freedoms and democratic institutions we enjoy?  Couldn't there also have been negative influences leading us astray of these values, influences like the authors mentioned by Wiker: Rousseau, Marx, Darwin, Hitler, Freud? I differ on a few particulars of Wiker's positions, but his general thesis of a drift away from the worldview that produced human dignity, rule of law, free markets, limited government and individual freedom cannot be written off.  We should defend (and train our students to defend) the ideas that have produced our liberty.   It seems to me impossible to deny the historical development of ideas which had consequences --specifically, the catastrophes of the 20th century.  If someone claims, for example, that there was little or no difference between Genghis Khan and Adolph Hitler, I would say there is a great difference for the worse on Hitler's side, not only quantitative in terms of the death toll, but also qualitative in terms of the evil ideology 

The world is full of people waiting eagerly to sound the death knell for the American era.  America is perceived as a beleaguered nation, beaten down and falling apart.  Yet it's possible for our nation to return to greatness even after the struggles of the past decade.  My essay, The American Demise?, explores the situation.  Read it here.  Grenier American Demise.pdf (154.10 kb) Like a sick person who seeks medical help for a problem, only to find that it's really a symptom of an even greater problem, as a nation we need to look deeper if we really want to get well and thrive again. The American Demise? analyzes our current economic situation for its root causes, not merely the symptoms. Major sections look at the shrinking world, our lost heritage, misguided economic dreams, government overreach, popular culture, and debt addiction. My essay's conclusion is our current economic and political struggles are symptoms of a national lack of character.  The best answer is promote, once again, the concepts of morality, nobility, and virtue in our nation.  Once more, here's the link where you can read and download a full copy of The American Demise?Grenier American Demise.pdf (154.10 kb)   Kevin Grenier is a graduate of the Air Force Academy. He has been an intelligence officer, military chaplain, pastor and non-profit director. He has also taught at CCU and Denver Seminary. He and his wife, Lisa, live in Castle Rock with their five children.  

On the night of November 9, 1938, Nazis unleashed unimaginable violence on the Jews of Germany. The wave of atrocities became known as Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass.  Adolf Hitler, in one of his frequent cynical attempts to cloak pagan barbarism with Christian respectability, declared that the horrors were inflicted in honor of the vehemently anti-Jewish Martin Luther’s birthday the next day.Editor: Anti-Israel divestiture efforts this week at the University of Colorado prompted this historical essay by our friend Pamela Zuker, a scholar and writer in Aspen, on the long and shameful history of Jew-hatred.  As she notes, it is a legacy in which Christians have sometimes participated, though without any valid theological warrant - in repudiation of which, we at Colorado Christian University solemnly vow, in much the same words as Dr. Zuker quotes at the end from our brave Jewish friends: “Never again.”Until Kristallnacht - despite the enactment of laws prohibiting intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews, a national boycott of Jewish stores, the exclusion of Jews from respected professions, the expulsion of Jewish students from German schools, the revocation of the German citizenship of all German Jews, and even the requirement that Jews wear yellow “Jude” stars on their clothing - many Jews had refused to flee the country, believing that German anti-Semitism would abate.In the immediate aftermath of Kristallnacht, however, virtually every remaining Jew in Germany attempted to emigrate. Sadly, even after the Nazi atrocities were known to the world, few countries would provide Jews asylum. When asked how many Jews his country could accommodate, a high government official in Canada replied, “None is too many.”? The British, bent on thwarting Zionism (the desire to create a sovereign Jewish State in Israel), imposed a prohibition on Jewish emigration to the Land of Israel, and even refused safe passage to a ship that arrived in British-controlled “Palestine” bursting with Jewish Holocaust refugees. By escorting them back to Europe, the British ensured that when Jews needed their ancestral home the most, it would not be their safe haven.That dismal chapter in Jewish history finally cemented in the minds of the world’s Jewry the urgent necessity to return to a world with a sovereign Jewish State. In 136 C.E., Romans forcibly expelled the Jews from the Land of Israel (then called Israel, Judea and Samaria). This expulsion brought to an end more than one thousand years of Jewish reign (with several intermittent periods of external rule by conquest), compelling the global dispersion of the world’s Jews, and inaugurating eighteen centuries of cruel oppression and genocidal persecution. In the nearly two thousand years between Jewish expulsion from Israel and their return, Jews were variously subjected to forced conversions, confiscations of land, money, and personal property, expulsions from several countries, slavery, prohibitions on the practice of Judaism, frequent massacres, the burning of sacred books, the burning of Synagogues, and being burned alive. Several countries attempted to obliterate their Jews, resulting in the annihilation of a third of the Jewish population of Germany and Northern France, during the first thousand years of exile. The entire population of Jews in England was murdered and/or imprisoned in the 13th century, and in 1472, when all Jews were expelled from Spain, even the descendants of Jewish converts to Christianity were prohibited from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions. One third of Poland’s Jews were slaughtered in the 1600s, and during the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s, Jews there were massacred to complete elimination. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in Russian pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries. The pogroms that accompanied the Revolution of 1917 alone orphaned more than 300,000 Jewish children.The staggering Jewish genocide during what Jews have come to call the “Shoah” (calamity) of World War II, saw approximately six million Jews sadistically tortured and murdered at the hands of Nazis and their collaborators. At the war’s end, fully one-third of the world’s total Jewish population had been brutally butchered.The history of Jews outside of Israel until the end of World War II is largely a history of oppression, genocide, and expulsion – punctuated by burnings at the stake, public torture, and insidious, malicious libel. Remarkably, Jewish “displaced persons” continuously assimilated into other cultures around the world while retaining their unique religion and identity as a people, a feat that Jews all across the globe are somehow still able to accomplish.Eighteen hundred twelve years after Rome exiled the Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisroel (the land of Israel), and changed the names of the Jewish lands to Palaestinia (the land of the Philistines – so named in an attempt to sever Jews’ ties to their land), descendents of 2nd century Jewish refugees returned home as 20th century Jewish refugees. In the first year of the existence of the State of Israel, roughly 500,000 homeless European Jews emigrated. Within ten years, the population of Israel had grown to two million. The majority of the Jewish immigrants, including 700,000 refugees from Arab countries, arrived with no possessions.In contradistinction to neighboring states, Israel established free and fair elections, universal suffrage, a free press, and the right to a fair trial with an independent judiciary. Arab citizens of Israel, regardless of religious affiliation, are afforded the same rights and privileges as Jewish citizens, and all women who are citizens of Israel, regardless of religious affiliation, are afforded rights equal to those of men. In Israel, Jews created a country that allows both the freedom of religion and full access to Jerusalem’s Jewish, Christian and Muslim Holy sites that were denied Jews when Jerusalem was not under Jewish rule.Despite this, in the rest of the world, particularly in difficult economic times, antisemitism rears its ugly head. Even – or perhaps more accurately, especially – in the world’s most respected international forum, the United Nations, antisemitism is rampant.On November 10th, 1975, the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht, rather than issuing a statement in memory of the Jewish victims of Nazi savagery, the United Nations passed Resolution 3379 branding Zionism, the reestablishment of a Jewish State in Israel, “a form of racism.” Although renounced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as “obscene,” it was through this resolution that Jew-hatred was sanitized, repackaged, and propagated globally as politically correct “anti-Zionism.” It took the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had voted in lockstep with Arab nations and other countries with anti-Jewish interests, for the U.N. to officially revoke the resolution, but the damage had been done and the precedent set. As a particularly ludicrous example of the United Nations’ stance toward Israel, at the International Women’s Year Conference in 1975, a resolution denounced Zionism as an enemy of all women (despite women’s equal rights in Israel) but did not denounce sexism as an enemy of all women because the call for women’s rights was seen as an attack on the Arab-Muslim world.Appallingly, on June 8, 2010, a Syrian representative at the United Nations perpetuated a modern version of the ancient blood libel to the United Nations Human Rights Council: “Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school,” he said, “and I quote, ‘With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.’” As shocking as this is, it should not be surprising given that these myths persist not only in Muslim countries, but even, according to anthropologists in a 2008 study, among Catholics and Orthodox Christians of all social classes in places as far from the Middle East as Southeastern Poland. In November, 2010 the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People featured speeches from Libyan and Syrian demagogues that referred to Israel as, “the cancerous settlement in all the Palestinian territories,” and included statements such as, “Zionism, in reality, is the worst form of racism,” “Israel shows and rears its ugly face,” and, “the word Israel has become synonymous with words such as aggression, killing, racism, terrorism.”Words like “butchering,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “racism,” “brutality,” “crimes against humanity,” “torture,” “killing in cold blood” and “barbarism” were invoked not to describe the reasons for the creation of the state of Israel, but to condemn it. Opposition to “Judaization” – Jewish presence on what is perceived as Arab territory – was proclaimed and by default, legitimized.For some reason, the depictions of a “cancerous” Jewish state with its “ugly, bloodthirsty” Jewish occupants – utterances that would be recognized as unambiguously anti-Semitic if spoken elsewhere – are not considered beyond the pale at the United Nations. By the end of 2010, half of the country-specific condemnatory resolutions and decisions ever adopted by the UN Human Rights Council targeted Israel. Yet somehow, in the face of this, in the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had the courage to sign a peace treaty with Israel. In advance of the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked with sadness to Sadat, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.” Today in Colorado, Palestinian advocate Michael Rabb and his group “CU Divest” hope to convince the Board of Regents at the University of Colorado to divest its portfolio of any investments linked to our staunchest ally in a troubled and increasingly less stable region. While we have every right to choose to disagree with Israel’s policies, it is essential that we protect, defend, and support its right to exist and to defend its inhabitants from virtually unceasing violent incursions. One can only hope the University will recognize that weakening Israel will not facilitate peace in the Middle East. In fact, only a strong and globally acknowledged Jewish state of Israel with widespread support from the world’s democracies will allow others in the region to enjoy the human and civil rights taken for granted in the U.S., Israel, and Europe. In the decades since the Holocaust, the haunting mantra, “Never Forget” serves to define the Jewish people’s role and responsibility to humanity as a constant reminder of the moral imperative to treat every human being – regardless of race or religion – justly and with decency, dignity and compassion. The existence of Israel is a necessity for the world’s Jews as a safeguard against a recurrence of the horrors of the last two thousand years and a protection of Jews’ human rights. But it is also a necessity for the human rights of those surrounding that tiny island of democracy. It is how the world treats Israel that will determine whether it is possible to move toward a world with universal human rights. The citizens of Israel along with the citizens of other democracies across the globe share a fervent hope that Israel’s neighbors will one day know freedom, prosperity and true peace. Until then, Israel is their last best hope.Psychologist Pamela Zuker is the author of "A Year of Kindness," a guided journal for anyone who would like to be kinder, happier, and lead a more meaningful life that draws on years of social and psychological research about kindness and giving. Her research at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) focused on Positive Psychology and happiness, and her PhD is in Human Development and Psychology from the University of Chicago. She also holds degrees in clinical psychology and anthropology, and consults for nonprofits, foundations, and philanthropic families. "A Year of Kindness" is available at aYearofKindness.org, Amazon.com, and Explore Booksellers in Aspen, CO.

('76 Contributor) It hurts me deeply to see good, hard working Americans struggling to find jobs.  These Americans don’t want a penny from the government; they want a job. They want to experience the self worth and sense of accomplishment that comes with putting food on the table on one’s own accord, not on the forced benevolence of unknown taxpayers.  They want to talk about their kids’ days,  a family vacation, or the quintessential football family rivalry but it is apparent that family finances, how are we going to pay the bills, how are we going to send the kids to college, am I going to get laid off,  have come to dominate dinner tables around our nation. Editor: On this 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, we asked young Karthik Venkatraj, son of immigrants, Army officer, and currently a John Jay Fellow working at the Centennial Institute, for his thoughts on the legacy of the 40th president.  He filed this heartfelt essay. Our nation is hurting and her people are shouldering the hurt. Families around the nation are having to make tough choices, cut out any expenses that are not completely essential,  hold on to their jobs, or begin the most arduous and taxing task of finding a job. Younger folks are struggling to find jobs after college or after graduate school.  Worst of all, our nation’s children and their children are already mired in debt, after years of government spending and profligacy. Folks are hurting and our nation’s leaders are searching for solutions in an almost circuitous fashion. What has come of our nation? Most Americans are in utter frustration mixed with disbelief to see our nation in this state. This problem is far larger than conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, or any sort of party or political affiliation. Our nation and her people are crying out for leaders who care about her prosperity and perpetuity over that of their re-election. We are crying for principled leaders to make tough decisions to provide a better future for us and more importantly, our children. Each and everyone of us are making the tough choices, isn’t time for a government indicative of the decisions we have to make? Isn’t that the duty of our generation, to provide  a better future for the next generation?   I have been able to lead soldiers, who have deployed two or three times to make ends meet in their households. Is that the nation we aspire to  be or do we seek to be that  “shining city upon a hill”? So we call on our legislators to follow through on their oath. But let us not predicate our hope on select men and women; rather, let us remember that our nation was constructed on the hard work and dedication of Americans moving together as one. As we come together as a nation to honor and celebrate President Reagan and his legacy, let us be reminded of the charge he gave to the American people of an exceptional nation. Reagan was often referred to as the Great Communicator but in his farewell address, Reagan refuted this claim, stating : “I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries." And within this statement we find the key to our nation’s challenges - - our timeless ideals embodied by the American people. It is why I am convinced that although my generation will face the greatest challenges our nation has witnessed since the post World War II era, we will also find our greatest triumphs. It’s time for us to roll up our sleeves and win one for the Gipper.  

(CCU Student) Any group of individuals that has faced a difficult task quickly comes to realize that a successful completion of their endeavors is impossible without solid leadership. Without effective leadership, any significant task will be torn asunder either from external pressures or internal strife. No one understood this more than our Founding Fathers. The task of uniting thirteen stubborn and independent colonies against the most powerful economic and militaristic empire on the planet is a challenge that rivals the impossible. And yet it was through the guidance of leaders like George Washington that the greatest manifestation of freedom and natural law survived the violent throws of birth.  With similar leadership, even the seemingly insurmountable challenges facing our nation today can be overcome. The leaders needed in the coming struggle to regain our freedom and restore our Constitution must display the type of leadership and integrity embodied by George Washington. His tenants of propriety, fearlessness, selfless service, integrity, and humility make for an exceptional human being that stood as a bulwark against the storms of war and political turbulence. Propriety: From an early age, George Washington lived in service to his country. At the age of fifteen, Washington set out to explore the frontier and survey territories belonging to the (at the time) colony of Virginia. In his early twenties, a young George Washington was given a commission as a colonel in the Virginia militia. Washington was forced to learn a critical facet of leadership the hard way: resilience. Even in the face of defeat by his French enemies, Washington handled himself in a manner that won him high esteem throughout Virginia and the other colonies. This air of propriety and dignity that Washington radiated not only earned him respect on the battlefield, but in his private life as well. Even as a young man Washington lived his life in a respectful and dignified manner. Through a copy of The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation (an enticing title, I know), Washington learned and began to build a foundation of civility and respectable behavior that further added to his ability to lead and turn heads in a room. Not only was Washington a physically imposing individual, he was a stoic and deliberate leader. Unlike many of his political counterparts, Washington preferred private conversation and behind the scenes deliberation to eloquent speeches and extensive writings. Even during his terms in the House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress, Washington rarely participated in open debate, but rather listened and processed a situation. This is a far cry from many of our political leaders who constantly seek the lime light and sign million-dollar-book deals. Washington simply sought to serve his constituents and make effective decisions rather than seek to get his opinion heard. Fearlessness: Washington also operated on the battlefield with a fearlessness that only comes from a firm reliance and belief in God and His will. During the French and Indian War, Washington served as an aide to General Braddock; a by-the-book European style general that was completely unsuited to fight a war in the American frontier. During the British push to retake the Ohio Valley, Braddock marched his redcoats in rank and file straight into an ambush consisting of French soldiers and their Indian allies. Within minutes, almost a thousand of the fifteen hundred men under Braddock lay dead or dying. Included in these, were all of the officers (Braddock would succumb to his wounds a few days later) except for Washington. During the engagement Washington had two horses shot from under him and multiple bullets passed through his clothes. But Washington was never wounded and succeeded in leading the survivors back to defensible positions. During the Revolution, Washington was almost always in the fray and could be found close to the enemy. A one point during the Battle of Monmouth, Washington almost personally charged the British lines out of sheer rage. Such behavior on the part of a general was unheard of at the time. But in order to instill confidence in his men, Washington himself had to demonstrate fearlessness. If only political and military leaders of today displayed such raw courage and audacity. Instead, most modern politicians will pander to whoever they need to in order to advance their personal agenda or advance their party’s platform. And in spite of blatant acts of violence and war, political and military leadership seek to extend a handshake to our enemies to the very people who seek to wipe out our way of life. Selfless Service: Ultimately it was Washington’s selfless service that sets him apart from the leaders of today. In today’s political climate, men and women campaign for office because they want to be a politician. And once they’re in office, the position is treated as a job rather than a position of servitude. At no point did Washington seek the military appointment granted to him by the Continental Congress. In fact, it is said that Washington darted from the room when it was motioned that he be given the position of commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. After the war, some of his officers sought to install him as a monarch over the United States by force if it need be. Washington flat out refused the offer and instead rode to Philadelphia to resign his command and return his power to the Congress. After that he simply sought to retire to his plantation and live as a gentleman farmer.  But again down the road, Washington was called upon again to hold together the debates on what to do about the Articles of Confederation. By this time, it was obvious that the system put into place by the Articles of Confederation was falling apart. The Federal Government had little or no power at all over the states and the entire country was on the verge of being ripped apart because of internal disunity. When asked to attend what would become the Constitutional Convention, Washington lamented and asked “have I not yet done enough for my country”. Even at the Constitutional Convention, Washington said little but rather presided over the proceedings and played a significant role in holding together the delegates from the states that all had their own interest and agenda to advance. Through his leadership, Washington took an unwieldy confederation and guided the delegates to form what can only be described as a miracle. And in his presidency, Washington walked away after two terms despite the opportunity to keep the office for life. In fact, Washington was more than thrilled to walk away from public office in spite of the massive potential for supreme power.  Integrity: From beginning to end, George Washington placed integrity at the forefront of his mind. There is a reason that the reputation of Washington as an honest man has weathered hundreds of years and the tragedy of historical revisionism. Washington never succumbed to personal ambition or the temptations of power that followed his victory in the Revolutionary War; but such integrity is scarce in the American political landscape. Instead governors are selling senate seats. Politicians are no longer concerned with what is right but rather what is popular. This is a pervasive attitude that transcends party politics. One has only to look at the Republican Party from 2000-2006. How can a group of politicians claim to be conservative and continue to pile on public debt in record numbers? In contrast, Washington stood as a pillar and stuck to his bearing. Humility: Above all, Washington’s humility made him a learned man that was able to lead. Until the Continental Congress, Washington had seen little of the Thirteen Colonies. So rather than act as if he was an expert on the combined interest of all colonies, Washington diverted his efforts to listening and learning about his fellow colonists. This knowledge he gained in Philadelphia was later priceless in creating unity between the different troops in the Continental Army. Washington had the humility to take time to learn from his mistakes and act in a manner that was genuine and effectively achieved a victory over the British. But too many politicians seek to build up a world of power and affluence rather than serve. Over the course of their time in office, too many political leaders have made millions from special interest and from political maneuvering. A Call to Action: The time for leaders like Washington is now. The time for apathy and mindless opinions is long gone. Names such as Adams, Jefferson, and Washington have not stuck in our history because they were men who backed down in the face of adversity and peril. Instead they entrusted their lives, fortunes, and honor to the hands of God and the judgment of history. The need for such leaders to step up has never been greater. This is not something to be feared. We can learn from the words of Patrick Henry, “If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come… Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”  For hope, we can look again to Washington’s words: “The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, not to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power and wisdom, resignation, and, as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will is what we are to aim.”

(CCU Student) "Air raid Pearl Harbor. This is not a drill," went the frantic radio message from Patrol Wing Two HQ on this day 69 years ago.  Early on December 7th 1941, Japanese aircraft wreaked havoc on the majority of the United States Navy. The ships in the harbor of Oahu, Hawaii were close together and completely unprepared for an attack of the magnitude that startled the country out of its stupor. The Japanese knew the attack had to be swift and deadly; otherwise, the attempt to cripple the US would have been utterly useless. The attempt did leave the United States reeling, but it truly just served to awaken a slumbering resolve to win.  The attack lasted for approximately two hours and killed or wounded about 3,500 Americans. The U.S. Pacific fleet was decimated in the two waves of attack by the Japanese. The USS Arizona was sunk by an 800 kilogram bomb that struck the forward magazine in the front starboard side of the ship. The resulting explosion and fires killed most of the marines and seaman on board. There were only 334 survivors documented from this battleship.  The USS Oklahoma is yet another ship that shared the terrible fate of that day. She was moored alongside the USS Maryland and took three torpedo hits almost immediately after the attack began. She began to capsize into the Harbor while most of her crew was forced to abandon ship. She continued to be under attack from the Japanese. Two more torpedoes slammed into her already damaged frame, and the men trying to flee the danger were continuously being harassed by the strafing from Japanese pilots. Over four hundred of her crew died or were classified as MIA. Many of the others continued to fight on by swimming to the USS Maryland and taking on battle stations there. I will bet you never saw that in the movie. The Nevada tried to leave the harbor after being struck, but was beached instead to avoid blocking the harbor entrance after being targeted by the Japanese bombers with 113kg bombs. The California was sunk after taking hits from two bombs and two torpedoes. The West Virginia was incapacitated by seven torpedoes, and the Maryland was hit by two converted 40 cm shells (she didn’t take on any major damage). The USS Tennessee was hit by a bomb in the first wave, but most of the battleships were taken out during the second wave of the attack.  The USS Whitney, much further away from Battleship Row, was one of the first ships to ready for the attack. The crew spotted one of the first Japanese aircraft as it flew right over the G-nest strafing the ship. The men were immediately called to their battle stations, and it only took five minutes to unlimber her .50 caliber machine guns. By 0810 she was unleashing her heavy antiaircraft guns. She also issued ammunition and ordinances to nearby ships as well during the battle. She did not receive any major damage and had no wounded aboard from the attack.  These battleships were the main target, but that does not mean the Japanese force ignored the other ships in the harbor. They also did not ignore the land targets on Ford Island: the surrounding air fields and American bunkers. About half of the United States aircraft on the island had been destroyed or damaged. Some of the destroyers in the harbor were quick in launching a counter attack, including the USS Whitney, with antiaircraft rounds. There were relatively few vessels that day that escaped some sort of action, whether it was to be attacked or to counter the attack. Even fewer were able to do both as most were hit critically by bombs and torpedoes. That day around 2,402 personnel (American) were killed, another 1,282 were injured, and we had lost most of our battleships and aircraft in the Pacific. Among the Japanese it was another story. They only lost 64 men and 29 aircraft (less than 7% of their operating force). The remaining ships and crew that were relatively uninjured began to assay the aftermath and began the mission to recover the trapped, the wounded, and the dead. The USS Whitney sent out five lengths of hose and two submersible pumps to help the nearby Raleigh (CI-7) and her Doctors went to the Solace (AH-1) to assist with the wounded as there had been none on the Whitney herself.  This attack sent the United States into the midst of world war. It launched the campaign that would, eventually, help put an end to the atrocities occurring in Europe and in the Pacific. The many men who died that day will be forever remembered by those who care. The men who survived that attack should be honored for their courage to remain in the fight and live from that moment on. The saddest part is that the day will pass by quietly without a blink or a nod of appreciation. The world moves on and forgets, but I pray that this year more will take just a moment to remember the fallen and the survivors of that day and the subsequent war.  Please do not let them fade into obscurity. Note:I feel strongly about this because my great-uncle,Herbert Wynn, Fireman First Class USN, was there that day on the USS Whitney. He died less than a year later on the USS Indiana while testing the engines in Norfolk, VA. Others in my family enlisted shortly after; some lying about their age. I am proud of each one of them.)

('76 Contributor) When Mamoru Shigemitsu, the Japanese foreign affairs minister, signed the surrender papers on board the USS Missouri in 1945, the drama of World War II drew to a close.  The end of the war set the stage for another great play – one in Berlin where America would take center stage. Unlike the European continent, the United States emerged from the war physically strong, economically robust --- and in a position of global leadership. As the sole owner of nuclear weapons, it would have been possible to dominate the defeated nations of Germany, Italy and Japan and destroy the malevolent Soviet Union. Instead, America harkened back to the spirit of Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. With “malice towards none” our nation helped rebuild a post-war industrial world and launch it into an era of unparalleled prosperity. This decision to act for the good of all – even our enemies – was perhaps the most significant act of benevolence by a victor that the world has ever seen. It demonstrated how exceptional America truly was.  Still, it would be the smoldering Cold War that would force us to seize the stage in Berlin for a command performance. It was not as if we were unprepared. We were, after all, the nation that proclaimed its Manifest Destiny and the one which de Tocqueville in his 1831 Democracy in America saw as uniquely placed to lead the world in “benevolent enterprises.” What was lacking however was our failure to recognize that few other nations ever look beyond their own short-sighted, self-interests. This would cost Europe dearly at the end of the World War II when the United States worked hard to be a team player with even the Soviet Union, often to its disadvantage. In fact, much of the turmoil that became the Cold War was the result of our failure to understand Joseph Stalin and the insatiable communist appetite for territory. From Yalta on, Stalin had fast-talked the allies into post-war concessions as trade-offs for his entry into the war against Japan. The Battle for Berlin had been grueling and in April of 1945, similarly shortsighted U.S. diplomatic accommodations on the battlefield kept U.S. forces out of the city as Soviet forces razed what little remained after allied bombing.  House-to-house street-fighting by the Nazis gave communists all the excuses necessary to further dehumanize the war by raping Berlin’s women and girls, and pillaging its remaining booty. These war crimes were not just premeditated but actually promised to the soldiers as rewards for the bitter campaigns that had preceded Berlin’s “Stunde Null” (Zero Hour).   At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, Harry Truman arrived with more realistic insights on Soviet eastern European expansionism than his predecessor, FDR. The Russians sought at first to retain all of Berlin but Allied Forces used physical leverage over the Soviets in the German states of Thuringia and Saxony to ensure that Berlin would be an open city, governed by four powers in a ruling body known as the Kommandatura. It was with more than some suspicion that agreements regarding the four country occupation zones were crafted and under these conditions that American forces were actually “admitted” to the city.  In the three years following the war’s end, the Russians were obsessed with reparations and followed a two-pronged exploitation of their spoils. On the one hand, their commissars exacted money from current German production activities while on the other, they stripped prime industrial machinery in their zones and shipped it by railcar back to the motherland. In Berlin, it went well beyond economics. It became crystal clear to the Allies that Russia had every intention of transforming the city by stealth into a socialist enclave by using trained agitators, labor thugs, and former Nazi hacks. Resistance by the Allies to the Soviet master plan came slowly at first, but it went from warm to a boil almost overnight through friction within the governing combine. By late spring 1948 the fissure was beyond repair.  A secretly orchestrated tri-party currency reform replaced inflated occupation Reichsmarks with new Allied Deutschemarks. The Russians were furious and they responded predictably by instituting a blockade of all traffic to and from the non-Soviet sectors. They were sure that the allies would have to submit to Soviet demands or surrender control of Berlin. It would have been understandable if Washington had done nothing to stop the Russian land grab. Confronting the Soviet military was not a viable option as our remaining occupation forces were pitifully small -- and the potential for another major war was quite real. So it was in June of 1948 that America’s muscular exceptionalism came of age as President Truman announced the Berlin Airlift as the counter-punch to the Russian siege.  The decision did not come easily. Many urged “Give-Em-Hell-Harry” to sacrifice Berlin in the name of peace.  Fortunately for the citizens of Berlin, the president and his post-war generals were insightful of their enemy and Truman had taken his own full measure of the Russian beast.  The airlift itself was an impossible task. Feeding and providing fuel to a city of some 2 million people with the technology and smaller cargo aircraft of the day was beyond imagining.  But there was the American “x factor” -- brilliant doses of ingenuity that revolutionized air freight management, ground approach radar and air operations. The enormous success of the 11-month air bridge was seen in its numbers: 2.33 million tons of cargo, 277,569 flights, only 101 fatalities and the lifting of the blockade in May of 1949.  But this was no solo task. America led the free world air flotilla but the Royal Air Forces of England, New Zealand, and Australia contributed mightily to these monumental numbers. The book Daring Young Men by Richard Reeves (released earlier this year) is a compelling account of this epic success and a must-read for anyone who wants to understand American courage and leadership in the post-war world. If American exceptionalism was not obvious enough in the Berlin Airlift, it was demonstrated clearly to the whole world in the Marshall Economic Recovery Plan.  Through the Marshall Plan, the United States poured upwards of $100 billion in today’s dollars to rebuild Germany and also Europe’s economy. Never in the course of history had one country taken on the responsibility of rebuilding an entire continent, including both its former enemies and exhausted allies. The plan itself was at its core, foreign policy.  It recognized that freedom in the old world would be doomed if the new world could not breathe economic life and hope into the ashes of war. Russia was also in dire straits but when offered participation in the plan, Stalin could not countenance it.  The Marshall Plan was more than just a “most noble adventure” as Greg Behrman has detailed in his book of the same name; it was the signature foreign policy achievement of its time.  When reinforced militarily with the NATO Treaty executed in 1949, the military-economic umbrella it represented became the catalyst of development and then the emergence of a modern-day Europe. Thirteen years later, in 1961, Europe was back on its feet and surging. In contrast, the Soviet Zone of Germany was in shambles.  It is estimated that some 2.5-3.0 million East Germans had found a way to escape Soviet domination – either by going to West Berlin or transiting through on the way to another free country. Coupled with the ongoing economic counter blockade initiated in response to the airlift, the Democratic Republic of Germany was losing its best minds to freedom and was no more than a third world nation.  Reacting again to the failure of its political system, the Berlin Wall was hastily thrown up on the night of August 13, 1961. For 28 years, an isle of freedom endured in a squalid communist sea because the United States, as the free world’s leader, refused to be bullied by ever-changing masters of the failing Soviet communist state. During that time President Kennedy joined the city with his famous line, “Ich bin ein Berliner” and decades later Ronald Reagan called on Mr. Gorbachev to tear down his wall.  On November 9, 1989 the Berlin wall finally collapsed under the weariness of a dysfunctional political system unable to sustain its own economic promises. If the story of Berlin is the story of the collapse of communism, it is even more the story of America coming of age. The rise and fall of the Berlin Wall serve as benchmarks of the Cold War – a costly economic, military and political struggle which had the highest of nuclear stakes and was won by a free world with the unswerving, courageous leadership of the United States. Today, it is fashionable in some circles to denigrate our nation’s glorious past. We have entered into a time in which the intellectual and political leadership of this country has lost sight of our greatness. There is a clattering gong from the growing ranks of apologists who feel the need to expunge the demons of American greatness past. Many of the liberal, political elite fail to see the blessings they are still enjoying from America’s leadership and instead seek to paint our great benevolence in hues of domination and intimidation. In 2008, Andrew Bacevich in his book, The Limits of Power, called U.S. exceptionalism into question.  He concluded that our exceptionalism had become an unsustainable desire for material wealth.  He saw the Cold War having given rise to the “Long Peace”, followed by an unbridled decade of interventionism, with the beginning of the “Long War” on 9/11.  In essence, Bacevich sees his country with a military industrial complex, picking convenient wars with those who threaten its way of life and the oil pipelines that sustain it. It is a nation that has reached the limits of its power. The opinions of those like Bacevich threaten to destroy the fabric of our nation and can become self-fulfilling prophecies. By attacking our nation’s very ideals, these detractors keep our nation from success and then point to our struggles as proof of their beliefs. How many of our school textbooks weave national guilt into their historical accounts making for a youthful self-loathing that is cancerous to our culture? Granted, there are no great leaders and no great nations that have been perfect. And surely, everyone needs humility to recognize faults and correct them. But there is grave danger in being so fault-focused that we begin to believe our detractors. When we believe what our foes are saying, we lose our ability to lead. And right now, strong leadership is what the free world needs most. As a result, this attempted destruction of American exceptionalism is not a purely domestic issue. It has consequences for the entire world. Exceptionalism recognizes the lonely challenges of leadership, the fundamental rightness and unarguable progress of the western, Judeo-Christian way of life. Moral relativism and post-modern accommodations don’t work when the enemy wages war on a way of life, innocents and children, and against all reason. Since 1776 and the Revolution that followed, our manifest destiny has been to do what is right.  Steeled in the high drama of Cold War crisis and the streets of Berlin, we have proven ourselves worthy of the task. While there may be limits to our national power and its projection, our capacity and resolve to lead the free world cannot be in doubt.  Can the free world afford a U.S. retreat from exceptionalism?  Consider the alternative: a stew of leadership including socialist bullies and third-rate actors like Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and Venezuela, all stirred in a pot by a hapless United Nations.  None of these nations will seek to benefit anyone but themselves even though the only real hope for peace is a world leadership that is characterized by a genuine pursuit of the common good. In this way, American exceptionalism is the last and best bulwark in the fight against terrorism. As in Berlin, the world cannot do without U.S. leadership.  The scream for our continuing exceptionalism is primal and strong, but never louder than from those who would be free.  May God continue to drive and bless American Exceptionalism!

As professor of European History at Colorado Christian University, I regularly teach courses on Communism.  Last week my students turned in their book reports on History of the Russian Revolution by Harvard professor Richard Pipes.  While grading their papers, I noticed that my students drew many comparisons between Lenin and Obama. The Bolshevik government: 1) was run by intellectuals who didn’t understand economics, despised capitalism, never knew how to run a business, never had any money, and had never earned money.  2) stirred up the masses promising hope and change; specifically “Peace, Land, and Bread”, but all the people got was violence, confiscation of their land for collective farms, and starvation. 3) took over private enterprises by the state, especially “the commanding heights”, the major industries like banking and heavy industry, and those most influential like media and education. 4) massively expanded the money supply to inflate the currency and destroy personal wealth; in the process they destroyed the economy, caused massive unemployment, shortages, and poverty. 5) redistributed wealth in the name of social justice, actually it was confiscated from the productive (forcibly taking grain from peasants, who then starved), resulting in less productivity the next year. 6) in the name of the working class took away the secret ballot from union members, forced labor on the entire populace, paid them in worthless paper money with nothing in the stores to buy.  A common saying in Soviet controlled areas was “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” 7) Government failures were blamed on the previous administration, the war, and political enemies, but never on their bankrupt political philosophy, economic stupidity, or inept administration. As I read my students; papers, I was reminded of the old maxim, that “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Watson worked with Army Intel in Cold War Berlin specializing in Eastern Europe, has graduate degrees in European history from the University of California, and recently taught Free Markets and the values of Western Civilization in a former Soviet republic as a Fulbright scholar.  He is now a professor at CCU and a fellow of the Centennial Institute.

(From Investor's Business Daily 9/17) Constitution Day — Sept. 17, the day 39 delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention signed and submitted to Congress (under the Articles of Confederation) a new constitution for consideration — used to be familiar to many Americans. But as the Constitution's authority has faded in our public life, its birthday has faded too. Don't think the authority of the Constitution is ignored? Consider the irony of today, Constitution Day: In a 2004 spending bill, Sen. Robert Byrd attached a mandate that every educational institution accepting federal funds must sponsor a Constitution Day program. But the Constitution nowhere authorizes Congress to tell schools what they must teach. Nor does it authorize Congress to fund educational institutions — that's supposed to be the job of state and local governments, or the private sector. Constitution Day, as now enshrined in federal law and celebrated by colleges and universities under threat of that law, is arguably unconstitutional. So what happened? The Constitution has suffered two blistering critiques, both of which undermine its integrity: First, the Constitution is outdated, no longer relevant for modern America. Second, it is racist and immoral because it offered protection for Negro slavery. Progressives leveled the first charge more than a century ago; the second became the battle cry of the modern civil-rights movement. Well-educated, well-intentioned, public-spirited men and women who wanted to advance justice, as they understood it, progressives and civil rights activists took aim at the Constitution. From their point of view, the greatest political good is "social justice," meaning an egalitarian redistribution of wealth coupled with an inegalitarian distribution of civil rights, all supervised by bureaucratic experts whose interest is, allegedly, the public good rather than their own. The Constitution, by this measure, is an impediment to justice and therefore bad. This is why Woodrow Wilson, among the most impressive of the progressives and the first president to hold a Ph.D., criticized the Constitution as "political witchcraft." He argued that the Constitution should be understood as a "living" document whose meaning evolves with time. In its original form, the Constitution was an instrument of evil, designed to keep America frozen in the icy environs of 18th-century racism and favoritism for the rich. For progressives, originalism is regressivism. Persuaded that the Constitution is fundamentally defective, all three branches of government today violate it, routinely, usually by exercising powers nowhere found in the Constitution. And what does government say about this? The executive and legislative branches typically don't say much about the Constitution, because they don't need to (unless a liberal president risks impeachment, then even the most progressive politicians fret over the original intent of "high crimes and misdemeanors"). Congress doesn't need any progressive theory of a "living" constitution to do its work. It needs only a majority vote. The president doesn't even need that. He needs only a pen to sign a bill into law, regardless of its constitutionality. Exhibit A: ObamaCare. The judiciary is different. Often it cannot avoid confronting the Constitution because of its peculiar job, judging constitutional disputes and explaining those judgments in written opinions. This has led to a new industry in our law schools, where progressive scholars invent fantastic interpretations of the Constitution used by progressive judges to extract progressive results from the very unprogressive language of the Constitution. But those who pervert or ignore the Constitution all of a sudden find themselves seeking cover from political attacks. Circumstances have combined — political, economic and military — providing a window of opportunity to highlight the Constitution and its conspicuous absence in public policy and law. Waiving Constitution banners at "tea parties," however, isn't enough. The Constitution is in need of a moral and intellectual defense. It needs teachers of constitutionalism. To be effective, that defense must persuade the public mind and the public's representatives that the progressive and civil rights critiques have been answered and fully refuted, a tall task yet to be done. The critiques of the Constitution run deep, informed by sophisticated evolutionary theories of human nature and backed by intelligentsia who populate our universities and influence public opinion. Constitutional apologists, therefore, are in need of study and learning. Only then can we teach. But if we can teach Americans why critics are wrong and why the Constitution is good and deserves to be defended — with our lives, fortunes and sacred honor, if necessary — we celebrate Constitution Day in a fitting way, by helping "we the people" deserve the Constitution bequeathed to us by the Fathers of 1787. Thomas Krannawitter teaches politics at Colorado Christian University and is a Centennial Institute Fellow.  The author of Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President, he joined the CCU faculty this fall after teaching for five years at Hillsdale College.  This article appeared first in Investors Business Daily.