Brexit, Texit, and Exits

It was a rather historic moment for Great Britain last Thursday, with the vote of the people favoring leaving the European Union about 52-48.

One of dozens of photos I took of Big Ben
during my trip to London in May

It’s interesting, because they are our longtime friends; we share language and a fair amount of culture. And I think we can learn from what they’re going through.

The European Union was originally called the European Economic Community. It was meant to unite separate sovereign nations economically, for purposes of money and trade. And it was meant to make it easier for Europeans to travel from state (nation) to state.

In the US, that sounds familiar. We were sovereign states (nations) that united to increase our economic power as well. And also to increase our strength against invasion and takeover. So our union was actually intended to have the central government do more than the European Union was intended to do. But we had our Constitution to strictly limit the federal powers, which is probably why the experiment has extended beyond two centuries, rather than just four decades.

When the European countries signed on to this agreement, it was not supposed to give a central government power over day-to-day decisions of people in these sovereign nations. It wasn’t supposed to set rules on their immigration, or limit them in trade—or take wealth from the successful countries to bail out the profligate ones.

Maybe it’s too much central planning when your economic union decides what your imported bananas must look like, or how much power your vacuum is allowed to have, or how to label your jams, or that you can no longer use incandescent lightbulbs, or that bottled water is not allowed to claim that it helps avoid dehydration. Maybe those kinds of decisions are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Some of those might seem like trivial annoyances compared to the bailout requirements that drain resources, and the forced immigration-without-assimilation that has been going on.

And, of course, the argument against leaving has been the expected, “Only bigots and xenophobes are in favor of Brexit.” So now, 52% of the UK—one of the most cosmopolitan places on earth, where immigrants have long been welcome and fit into the culture fairly seamlessly until the recent mostly Muslim influxes—can’t possibly have a reason than hatred and fear of foreigners? That seems unlikely.

I don’t know what the economic fallout will be. Since Great Britain kept its own money—the euro was accepted, but the pound remained the usual currency—that will require less transition than some other countries might face. Still, it may take some time, especially in a world economy struggling with debt and recession.

But here’s what we know, based on the Spherical Model: when the government is as local as possible, that always works better than government from a higher level than necessary. Because the European Union was leftist, socialist, and generally anti-freedom, the British people at least have a better chance for freedom without that layer of tyranny hanging over them.

And because the EU was economically controlling, the British people have a better chance at prosperity without the EU’s interference and misuse of earned wealth. There may be some rocky times while things readjust, but the closer you get to earners deciding how their own money is spent, the more prosperity you get.

Various people have been commenting on the outcome. Nile Gardiner at the Daily Signal said,

Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty.

Bottom of Form

Indeed, Brexit will result in a bonfire of red tape, freeing the city of London and enterprises across the nation from European Union diktat. And at last, Britain is free again to negotiate its own free trade deals, a huge boost to the world’s fifth largest economy.

All of those things look appealing.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has been thinking about it as well. He said on Facebook,

What were the issues in the election? The people of the U.K. feel they are losing their country. They are being swamped by illegal and legal immigrants and refugees. Wages are flat, immigrants are not assimilating to their new nation, taxes are high and the cost of living has increased. Seniors can't earn a reasonable rate on their savings, and they see a world where terrorism is the new normal. On top of that, they were buried in regulations, put in place not by their elected representatives, but E.U. officials who are elected by no one and accountable to no one. The people are angry and afraid for themselves and their children and grandchildren.

Those were the issues. And it’s not much of a stretch to say we face similar issues here. Patrick added,

As victory was announced in the U.K., media and opponents pronounced the leaders of the Brexit charge divisive, hateful, and dangerous. Sound familiar? Democrats here in the U.S. and their allies in the media, and sadly some establishment Republicans, frequently call those of us who simply want secure borders, lower taxes, increased wages through economic growth, a military that is given the freedom to crush terrorists and protection of our traditional values, liberties and the Constitution, divisive, mean spirited and dangerous.

In our last post, we talked about that as the secular progressive religion—and it isn’t a religion of invitation or peace, but one of coercion and hate.

We can continue to show them the good outcomes of living the rules of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. And they will ignore evidence and obvious facts, and then demagogue.

But the Brexit example may be starting something. There comes a time when it is appropriate to stop submitting to the tyranny and take back the rights God has given us.

On Friday, while I was talking over the Brexit vote with son Political Sphere, we both almost simultaneously came up with the idea of Texit—for a Texas exit. Not that we want a split to happen; we want our US Constitution to be the law of the land—and have government abide by it. But the name is a natural. And apparently it’s so natural, I learned later that day it was a top trending hashtag on Twitter—so plenty of others thought of it as well.

There are already murmurs of possible other exits from the EU. For those of us that remember the dissolution of the USSR, we’re not so surprised at that kind of thing.

We’re a week away from the celebration of the US Declaration of Independence. Some of the words feel so current:

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

That’s a beautiful way of saying, sometimes there needs to be a dis-union, and since that is such a weighty thing, honor requires giving a full explanation. The Declaration of Independence goes on to enumerate many of the despotic usurpations, “all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” which had been committed by the king.

We, the people of the United States, have been infinitely better off than we would have been under tyranny.

And we became strong and loyal friends to the British people—which we could not have been if kept in submission for any longer, let alone an additional couple of centuries.

But when the US government becomes the tyranny we fought independence from, how long can that continue?

Just this morning we got another ruling from the Supreme Court, overruling a just, duly legislated law in Texas: Justice Kennedy leaned to the pro-abortion side (the coercive religion side) and refused to allow Texas to require abortion clinics to meet the health standards of other similar medical facilities. No woman would have been prevented from getting an abortion through the law, but women seeking abortions will now have no health protections against clinics with grisly, unsafe Gosnell-type practices. No abortion clinic was forced to close, but they were simply required to meet the same standard other types of clinics meet.

But unelected members of the Supreme Court threw out the Fifth Circuit ruling, and came up with their own law, not based on the Constitution, but based on their preference for abortions to continue unhindered in as many places as possible. The ruling is so broad as to make it difficult for any state to have any law related to women’s health and safety concerning abortion clinics.

Is this a line too far? Combine it with forcing the state to accept unvetted Muslim refugees in large numbers. Combine it with forcing states to adopt policies for bathrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms that give advantage to sexual predators while taking away the right to bodily safety for women and children. Combine it with high taxes, high debt, Obamacare, Common Core, failure of care for veterans—the list of grievances begins to look as substantial as the founders’ list in the Declaration of Independence. And it looks every bit as substantial as the reasons Britain voted to exit the EU.

The Declaration also points out,

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury….We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice…

Here in America—and particularly here in Texas—we are at the “petitioning for redress” stage. Texas won one battle last week, proclaiming that the president did not have authority to change immigration law by edict. Other battles continue.

We are currently John Adams, in the 1770s, situated in Great Britain, petitioning for justice again and again. We are not yet Thomas Jefferson penning the Declaration of Independence. But, as Britain has just shown us, in the course of human events, there may come a time.

It is not “crazy right-wingers” or "bigots and xenophobes" that bring an exit closer. Despotic usurpations bring it closer. Big-government oppressors around the world should take heed.

Source of Morality

Last week, following the Democrat presidential debate, Glenn Beck called in to his radio show (he was out that day) to comment. He opined that what Bernie Sanders is proclaiming is what is moral. It isn’t what is really moral, but what people with a totally skewed worldview might think is moral.

That got me thinking. I’ve noticed, among friends who are non-religious but still decent people, they seek morality. They try being vegan—to avoid eating what was alive as an animal. They might volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. While rejecting God’s word as a way to a moral life, they nevertheless seek to be moral, finding their own definitions—and sometimes proselytizing their “discovered morality” to others who don’t yet agree with them.

I propose that it is normal for people to want to be good, to think of themselves as good. They can define that according to what God has revealed as good. But if they reject that, they leave a vacuum they must fill with something. Sometimes what they fill it with will align with what God tells us is good, sometimes neutral. Sometimes they’re just plain wrong.

Another thing necessary for figuring out what is moral is a standard, or authority. If God is not the authority, then the vacuum left is filled by something else: the person’s own gut feelings, the popular culture—or the government.

What we saw at the Democrat debate was morality as defined by those who think the authority is government. And it’s circular; government must do what the people think is moral, and the people must agree with government’s definitions of moral.

I thought it might be useful to draw a comparison between God’s definition of morality and the counterfeit Government-is-god version of morality. If we can trust that those who disagree with us want to be good and right, and we can use language that recognizes the search for morality, we might persuade away from the big-government ideas that lead inevitably to tyranny, poverty, and savagery—which moral people do not want.

This thought exercise in the chart isn’t yet how to word things to the lost morality thinkers, but it is on the way. If we can see the real next to the counterfeit, then maybe we can think of ways to lead others to the real.

God’s Revealed Morality	Government-as-god Morality
God is the authority of what is moral and good. He lets us know what that is, in written word that has been used and handed down for millennia, and agreed upon by civilizations.	Government is the authority of what is moral and good. What government says is good is different now than it was a decade ago, and will likely be quite different a decade from now.
God grants human beings inalienable rights.	Government grants human beings what it chooses, and removes those “rights” and privileges as it sees fit.
God grants us life, and determines timing of birth and death. God prohibits us from taking innocent life.	Government decides whose life is or is not worth protecting. Government places greater value on criminal life and possibly animal life than it does innocent unborn human life or innocent elderly or infirm.
God is no respecter of persons; i.e., He invites all races and nations of people to come unto Him and follow His law in order to live their best life.	Government chooses whom to favor, and may favor one ethnicity or gender or class over another as it chooses.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; God gives mankind the resources and responsibilities to live well on the earth, allowing His children to prosper from their work and effort.	Government insists that man is a danger to the earth, and should curtail any activities or enterprises that the government deems to be dangerous to the environment, even if those restrictions unduly harm the poor, or prevent inventions that could solve cleanliness issues.
God plans for each child to be raised by a loving mother and father, to teach the child God’s morality and bring him/her up to be productive and contributing to society, so parents have the sacred right and responsibility to see to the care and upbringing of their children.	Government claims to know what is best for children; it will insist on government institutions for inculcating government ideas, and will override parental rights as it chooses.
God is concerned about economic inequality if some of his children are starving and in need while others fail to care and offer help, because voluntary helping, individual to individual, can help both the giver and the receiver.	Government is concerned about economic inequality regardless of cause, and takes by force from some to give to others, as it sees fit, regardless of how this might harm both the giver and the receiver.
God allows, and considers it a responsibility, to defend self, family, and home. So good citizens have a right to arm themselves.	Government claims that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons, because some people might use them improperly.
God requires allegiance to Him first, followed by family, community, and government.	Government requires allegiance to government first, followed by community as higher government allows, then family as government dictates, and to religion as far as government is willing to tolerate.
God joined our first parents in marriage and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth—to care for their offspring and bring them up to adulthood in love and security.	Government decides that marriage is a current agreement between any two people in a sexual relationship, without any connection to permanence, exclusivity, or parenting; and government may decide on a different definition at any time in the future, regardless of the effect on families and children.
God expects His children to respect property ownership, to care for what is theirs, but never to take what is not theirs.	Government decides who owns what, and whether to allow ownership to continue, or to confiscate from a current owner to claim for government or to bestow on a new owner.
When God asks for charity, it is one person freely giving something he has, or his time, attention, or work to benefit another of God’s children.	When government asks for charity, it is coerced by taxation, confiscation, or regulation and requirement.
God’s laws are short and simple: there are ten clearly worded basic requirements respecting God, family, life, honesty, and property ownership, plus some advisory details about how to implement them. He has made them relatively easy to understand and obey. He will judge fairly and mercifully.	Government’s laws are lengthy, complex, unintelligible, and often obscure, so as to make them almost impossible to obey, which gives government the power to prosecute at will almost anyone it might target. Government may judge arbitrarily and inconsistently.

Bigness

Big Government. Big Business. Big Media. Big Law.

Tom Hanks movie Big,
which other than bigness, has nothing
to do with today's post

The bigness of it sounds ominous. Probably for good reason. Without the “big” adjective, they’re just things. Segments of society. Elements that carry out certain duties and practices, purportedly for the good of society. But the bigness means there’s an overabundance of power that they yield, whether real or simply perceived.

What happens when two bigs get together? Scary amounts of power. Making it much harder for smalls, like the rest of us, to get heard, to influence, to be free to pursue what we want to do. The collusion of the bigs, the elite powerful, is called cronyism.

When Big Government and Big Business collude, that’s crony capitalism—which is very different from free market economics. When Big Media colludes with Big Government, that’s propaganda and disinformation.

Of the various bigs, I hadn’t really thought about Big Law before. But earlier this week I read apiece by Ryan Anderson, the brilliant crusader for real marriage with the Heritage Foundation, in which he discussed the effects of Big Law on the current culture. He began by referring to a New York Times piece. This is quoting NYT reporter Adam Liptak: “In dozens of interviews, lawyers and law professors said the imbalance in legal firepower in the same-sex marriage cases resulted from a conviction among many lawyers that opposition to such unions is bigotry akin to racism.”

Liptak says he found that no major law firms—that’s zero—offered amicus briefs defending marriage. As he puts it,

Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar.

There are equal stacks of briefs, as many pro-traditional-marriage as pro-same-sex-“marriage.” So there are good lawyers out there. But the elites—the ones in the big firms, commanding the big money, and wielding influence galore—have the mistaken and narrow belief, relatively new in culture and certainly without evidence—that to support traditional marriage is equivalent to hating a segment of society because of accident of birth. And, as  Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who teaches law at Stanford, said, “The level of sheer desire to crush dissent is pretty unprecedented.”

Ryan Anderson’s piece conveniently links to yet another piece, “7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage,” which he wrote in August 2014. So, I’m interrupting the discussion of the elites for a moment to recount the list:

1.      Support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal.

2.      Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were historical anomalies.

3.      Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does.

4.      Even cultures that embraced same-sex relationships did not treat them as marriages. [I think he may be referring to the Roman and Greek empires during their decaying years, when homoeroticism was acceptable, but calling it marriage would have been laughable.]

5.      Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind.… Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what marriage is.

6.      Jim Crow laws were meant to divide the races, but marriage law unites men to women and children to their parents. Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity—men and women, as husbands and wives and as fathers and mothers—so that any children born of their union will know and be loved by the man and woman who gave them life.

7.      The Supreme Court was correct in striking down bans on interracial marriage but it should not redefine marriage…. [Earlier in the summer of 2014, in regard to the Loving v. Virginia case] Judge Paul Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit Court explained that “Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions.” But this does not require redefining marriage.

Anderson didn’t include, but there are amicus briefs making the point,[i] that, while race is innate and immutable, sexual orientation is not. The homosexual lobby claims that sexual orientation is the way they’re born and unchangeable—which is why they ignore (or attack) significant and growing evidence that there is no significant genetic component, and many, even thousands, have left the lifestyle, and some have entered into heterosexual marriage and find it satisfying. Sexual orientation simply isn’t like race.

The point is, to anyone who knows the definition of marriage, it’s clear that a male and a female are required. Whatever same-sex couples have (even if they were to be loving, committed, exclusive, and permanent—which is almost without example), it cannot be marriage. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying a person of the opposite sex who is eligible according to law to marry. Nor is there a ban on homosexuals living with the person of their choice.

They aren’t asking for “fairness”; they are insisting loudly on throwing out the purpose of marriage, its relationship to procreation, the terms mother and father, the worldwide religious belief that real marriage is a moral good ordained of God. Throw out what family is, and you throw out civilization and bring on savagery. That’s not just speculation; it’s what we’re watching wherever same-sex marriage has been embraced.

But Big Law, the elites—not necessarily the first we’d turn to for morality lessons—are certain it is immoral to keep the longstanding definition of marriage. And they claim morality requires that we accept same-sex relationships as if they were marriage. Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, made the claim: “It’s so clear that there are no good arguments against marriage equality. Lawyers can see the truth.”

What do ordinary, non-elite Americans think? Probably a wide variety of things, in both directions on the marriage issue—thanks to confusing help from Big Media. But mainly the smalls don’t think that everyone must be forced to believe some specific thing passed down from the elites above. As Anderson describes it:

Ordinary Americans—whether they are in favor of same-sex marriage or opposed—agree that the government shouldn’t penalize their neighbors. Ordinary Americans—even those in favor of same-sex marriage—do not view their neighbors as bigots.

But our governing elites do. So people who believe the truth about marriage need to equip ourselves, because our opponents want to see the law treat all citizens who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife as if they are racists.

If Big Law, in collusion with Big Government and Big Media (and lately with support from Big Business[ii]), holds a particular belief, what is the likelihood they will defend the rights of those whose beliefs they consider on par with racial bigotry?

Anderson asks some important questions:

Will the right to dissent be protected? Will the right of Americans to speak and act in accord with what the United States had always believed about marriage—that it’s a union of husband and wife—be tolerated?

When people ask how same-sex “marriage” can harm me, they are apparently ignorant of the onslaught of religious freedom attacks, and the “gay mafia” tactics to put ordinary minding-their-own-business believers in marriage out of work, out of business, and silenced.

If you were uncertain about which side was right, or which was more moral, consider which is tolerant and which is coercive.

No matter the smallness of our non-elite voices, we need to speak. While we can.

---

[i] This is one example: Brief of Texas Values as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, http://www.jaredwoodfill.net/files/DeBoer_Amicus_Brief_3.31.15.pdf.

[ii] Tim Cook, Apple CEO, stopped short of boycotting the state, but declaimed the law; other CEOs boycotted: http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/apple-indiana-gay-law/.