Charming Rogues Are Out And About!

I have not blogged about Obama's presidency recently because, honestly, it depresses me to think about it much.  With the direction he is taking us with domestic and foreign policies, the United States will be in serious trouble, and we will be hard pressed to make amends. Frankly, I believe it may be too late.  This morning, I read a face book posting by my friend, Terry Conley, which made me both sick to my stomach and seriously amused.  His posting was about a news report about Obama's state visits to the Mideast, including Israel, and the expectation that he would use his charm to get Israel and the crazy (my word) Muhammadans to respect one another and get along.

I guess the plan is for him to go around the leadership in the countries involved and appeal to the sensibilities of the young masses to put pressure on the leadership. The laughable part is that he thinks that anybody over there cares at all about what he thinks. I guess the sickening part is also that he thinks anybody over there cares at all about what he thinks.  For example, when the youth of Iran were trying to act out and demand a change in their government, Obama was silent.  Also, what are the Israelis supposed to think of a guy who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood so heartily and gives so much monetary aid and weaponry to Egypt--Mohamed Morsi is a Holocaust denier and has repealed Egypt's policy under Mubarak, that Israel had a right to exist--who are again technically at war with Israel.

Now, I understand that true charm can get people a lot of things they want.  Even perceived charm can get people a lot of what they want. However, I dispute that Obama is charming at all, for people who see him as he really is--that would be people like myself--and who know a thing or two about phonies and cheats. Obama is even more transparent and less charming than Bill Clinton. He and Bill Clinton got to the highest office in the land because they were able to fake sincerity well enough that the most gullible among us--which may have been a majority of us, judging by election returns--thought that they deserved our trust with power and authority.

We all knew that the cartoon character, Snidely Whiplash, was a dastardly criminal, who had a penchant for placing damsels in distress. You knew he was dastardly because he acted like one and he twisted his mustache in a suspicious way and laughed about what he planned to do in a dastardly and comical way. I guess in reality, Snidley had a degree of charm, in that his attempts to do evil were always thwarted by the half-wit, Dudley Do Right, who exhibited the same kind of charm as another hero of book and film, Forest Gump.  Sadly, we are not living in a cartoon world and there are circumstances, both here and abroad, that will undoubtedly result in disaster. As I see it, Obama's perceived charm is killing us here at home and will likely kill a lot of people abroad. I guess I shouldn't think the idea of him being charming that amusing after all.

Do You Understand What Depression Is?

When I hear some people say that that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, I marvel at their ignorance. Of course, this is generally political speech. It is used on the left to give blame for the past administration, and to give cover to the present administration for its economic policy failures. This the same situation that prevailed 80 years ago and made a bad economy worse and which extended the recession, turned depression, to 13 long frustrating years.  Like FDR before him, Obama is trying to manage a free economy by socialist principles and failing badly. We may soon see how badly when the federal spending and job-stifling high taxation shows the inevitable results.

My parents lived through the Great Depression, as did the parents of my friends around my age. My generation, because of the plenty we enjoyed, had a hard time appreciating what they experienced. My parents tried to describe it to me and my siblings: how they ate potatoes and beans for most every meal, along withe fish and game that the men brought home from hunting and fishing; and how my father might expect to get a new set of overhauls for a Christmas present. As I understand it, the motto of the time was, "Use it up, wear it out, Make do or Do without." The following pictures might help us "get the picture". We just need to imagine them in color.

In those years, people really wanted to work for what they might eat. My father worked as a teenager, along with his brothers and my grandfather, in the coal mines of northeastern Kansas to help provide for his family. He went to school during the the high school football season so he could play football, but then he would go back to the mines when the season was over. Because of this, he never completed his education beyond the 8th grade. After serving in the European theater of WWII, he came back to look for work where ever he could find it. He ended up as roofer, eventually working for himself and teaching his sons the roofing trade. He was the hardest worker I have ever known.

Those folks were a tough lot. They endured the Great Depression and the greatest world war yet seen on the earth. They survived what their government's economic policies inadvertently did to them because they had great work ethic, and they largely strived for success and self respect. And, further more, they had great faith in God. Do we have the same values and virtues today, which would carry us through similar circumstances? We may have to see what we are made of in the very near future, and seeing what I am seeing, I have some serious doubts about us. This time the pictures will be in color!



William Penn

WILLIAM PENN


Why do people want to come to America? Mostly, I think they want to come here, these days, for economic opportunity--the millions of illegal immigrants storming our unprotected southern borders for the past 20 years to find jobs testifies to that--and there are still some who would come here for political liberty, though I think in much lower numbers than the 1950s and 1960s. And to some degree, would-be immigrants still seek the freedom of religion. In our early history, It was clearly much the same, with the people craving economic opportunity, political freedom and, to a much greater degree than today, religious freedom. The world needed a place like America. And, the world needed unselfish leadership to create such a place. And so I offer another instalment of Profiles of Leadership in America:

William Penn
October 14, 1644—July30,1718

When one visits the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor they can read the famous lines written by Emma Lazarus:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

During the 17th Century when religious outcasts (many of which were tired and poor) were seeking asylum from persecution, there were few, if any, such places in the world as Emma Lazarus describes. However, a young convert to Quakerism, William Penn did envision such a place, and planned to make it happen in America.

Penn was the well-educated son of wealthy Admiral Sir William Penn. Though he came from a well-to-do family, Penn was attracted to the teachings of the radical preacher, George Fox. Against his father’s wishes, Penn joined with the Society of Friends (Quakers) and became one of the faith’s most ardent defenders. During his career, he was arrested and imprisoned several times for his religion, but he never relaxed his faithfulness to it. Quakers believed that the Holy Spirit or “Inner Light” was capable of inspiring everyone (even women). They had no paid clergy and no official creed. These beliefs plus the fact that most of the Quakers were of the bottom wrung of the social ladder and chose not to tip their hats to the social elite, made the Quakers extremely unpopular in England.

Although he was not the typical Quaker, William Penn’s personal experience with religious persecution, his sense of right and wrong and his religious faith prompted him to provide a safe haven for his fellows. Using his own great personal wealth and calling in on a debt owed by King Charles II to Penn’s father, Penn was able to secure a land grant in North America which was named Pennsylvania. Penn founded and designed the city of Philadelphia (city of Brotherly Love). He created a government with more than the usual democracy, hoping to limit the “power of doing mischief, that the power of one man may not hinder the good of the whole company.” He, like Roger Williams before him, treated the Indians fairly and wished to live with them as neighbors and friends. And again, like Roger Williams, he enlarged on the image of America as a freedom-loving place and provided much of the philosophy that would later be borrowed by the architects of the Constitution of the United States. Before his death, Penn wrote his “Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe”, in which he outlined a plan for a league of nations based on international justice.

Though William Penn spent limited time in his colony and he died a virtual pauper in England, he left a great legacy and a great vision for the future. Not only did Quakers from England, Germany, The Netherlands, and Wales flock to Pennsylvania, but Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics were attracted to Pennsylvania’s religious toleration as well. And though Penn’s “peaceable kingdom” eventually suffered from the absence of his leadership, during his time, he lifted his “lamp beside the golden door.”

George Whitefield

There are some today that reject the notion that religion is, or should be, an important element of the American experience. They may even deny the importance of religion in the founding of our nation. Of course the fact is that religion was paramount, not only as a motivator to colonize America, as in seeking religious freedom, but as an empowering agent, convincing our ancestor's that they were compelled to create this nation by Divine inspiration. Thus I offer my fourth instalment of Profiles of leadership in America:

George Whitefield
December 16, 1714 - September 30, 1770.


The American Revolutionary War was fueled by various differences of opinion between England and its American Colonies. For example, taxation without representation is accepted as a major contributor to the harsh feelings held by England’s American colonists. However, religion may be as big a contributor to the war as any thing else, and traveling preacher George Whitefield may have unwittingly helped to prepare the way.

Since the time of Henry VIII when the Church of England had broken from the Roman Catholic Church, many other variations of Protestant Christianity splintered away from it (The Church of England). From the Anglican Church came the Puritans (Congregationalists and Separatists), Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and Methodists. Each group dissented from an earlier dissenting group until there remained less and less common philosophical ground amongst the various Protestant Faiths and even less good will from one group to another. By the early 18th Century, North America had become a place where religious misfits such as Roger Williams and William Penn and their various followers could worship as they wished without persecution. America was becoming a hotbed of religious dissent.

George Whitefield was born December 16, 1714, in Gloucester, England, to innkeepers, Thomas Whitefield and Elizabeth Edwards. Though he was not particularly physically attractive—he was severely cross-eyed, judging by portraits of him—Whitefield was a gifted and passionate orator with a penchant for theatrics, often reenacting scenes from the bible during his sermons. Because of a poor economic background, his education at Oxford was tuition-free in return for working as a servant for other students. While at Oxford he associated with brothers, John and Charles Wesley, and underwent a religious self-awakening after and illness. After his ordination he preached throughout England, establishing several churches in his name. Whitefield was a follower of the Wesleys’ Methodist teachings but later condemned John Wesley’s doctrine of “free grace” becoming the acknowledged leader of “Calvinist Methodism.”

In 1732 George Whitefield came to Georgia acting as the catalyst of the “Great Awakening” in the American Colonies. In the age when traveling across the Atlantic was anything but easy and comfortable, Whitefield was indefatigable, crossing over the Atlantic seven times. He traveled up and down the colonies preaching his evangelical message, often in the out of doors, to thousands and thousands of rural Americans—an obvious precursor to modern stadium preachers and evangelists—who thirsted for the religious guidance that the Anglican Church was unable, if not unwilling, to provide. Whitefield’s message and his style of delivering it impressed many thoughtful Americans, including young Benjamin Franklin who, though he disagreed with Whitefield on some religious tenets, became a close friend, helping him with publishing. His colorful and powerful oratory and his willingness to preach repentance to the leaders of the Anglican Church made him both the most popular (to the dissenting masses) and most unpopular (to the Anglican leaders) religious teacher of his time. Whitefield also organized numerous schools and established the Bethesda orphanage, but he is equally noted for contributing to inter colonial unity. His attacks against the State’s official church and his travel throughout the colonies helped create an alliance of dissenters from New England to Georgia.

A few decades later the majority of Americans would not only largely reject the religious dictates of the Church of England, but would also reject the economic and political dictates of the government of England as well. And with George Whitefield as a possible example of righteous indignation, patriots like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin would, with evangelical zeal, call for independence. Just as George Whitefield was able to do with the religious-minded, Franklin and his friends were able to unite the diverse and seemingly at-odds American colonies to a common purpose. Though they may not have intended to start a revolution, George Whitefield and religious leaders like him may have started the colonies in that fateful direction.

James Oglethorpe

Here is my next instalment of Profiles of Leadership in America. Not all efforts by great leaders are counted as immediate successes or even as successful as intended. Nevertheless, intentions often count for much and, in the case of James Oglethorpe, his dream of a Georgia, successful and offering freedom for all, eventually became reality, although almost a century after his death.

James Oglethorpe
December, 22 1696—June 30, 1785

Last, but not least, of the original thirteen American colonies, was Georgia (named for England’s King George II). When one thinks of Georgia today, they may think of the pro-slavery state deep in the antebellum south. Though it did eventually become a great stronghold of slavery, its founder, James Oglethorpe did not intend it to be.

James Ogglethorpe was born in 1696 in Surrey, England, to Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe and Lady Eleanor (Oglethorpe). He began his schooling at Oxford, but immediately entered the Austrian army of Prince Eugene of Savoy as the Prince's aide-de-camp. Oglethorpe served with distinction in the Austro-Turkish War of 1716–18. In 1722, he was elected to the British Parliament and became interested in humanitarian causes. He published an anonymous pamphlet, 'The Sailors Advocate,' in which he exposed the deplorable conditions experienced by sailors in the Britain's Royal navy. He was also became acquainted with and concerned about the abuses of the debtor’s prison in London. He was appointed to a committee to investigate the abuses, and it was at this time that he conceived of his plan to send English debtors to North America to establish yet one more colony. He planned also to establish an asylum for oppressed Protestants throughout Europe.

The fact that England wanted a defensive buffer between Spain’s colony in Florida and her own colonies to the north probably encouraged the King of England to grant a charter to Oglethorpe in1732. In 1733 with 120 original colonists he established Charleston and Savannah, and served for 10 years as Governor. His military experience served him well as he defended his colony and its neighbors against the Spaniards and Indians from Florida. His military successes and his efforts to trade with the Cherokees enabled Oglethorpe to render to the Crown services much beyond the usual of a colonial administrator. In 1739, during the War of Austrian Succession a related lesser conflict known as the War of Jenkin’s Ear erupted between Georgia and Spanish Florida. With Seminole Indian allies, Oglethorpe managed a number of successful raids on Spanish forts, with the exception of a failed siege of St. Augustine.

Because the colony's primary role, in the British Governments’ eyes, was as a military buffer between English and Spanish-held territories and because of Oglethorpe’s personal views against slavery, the original plan for the colonisation of Georgia did not include, or allow the use of slave labour. In contrast to the other American colonies, Oglethorpe, as Governor of Georgia, insisted that slavery be forbidden in his colony. He not only hated slavery because it degraded blacks, but also because he believed that it promoted laziness in whites. He believed that slavery was contrary to the principles that his group was trying to embrace—of lifting the oppressed. He feared also the threat of bloody revolt, as was experienced in South Carolina’s Stono Rebellion of 1739.

James Oglethorpe’s attempt was, in some respects, a failure. The conditions for release from debtor’s prison, that Parliament set, were so difficult to meet for most debtors that very few actually arrived at Georgia’s shores. Almost half of those immigrating to Georgia were Germans, Swiss, and Scots including a few Jews. In some respects the anti slavery position kept the colony from competing economically. Land holdings no larger than 500 acres and no slave labor made it difficult to raise profitable cash crops like rice or tobacco. Many settlers began to oppose Oglethorpe and regarded him as a dictator, causing newer settlers to move on to the north, to South Carolina, where they felt less restrictions and a better likelihood of economic success. In 1750, after a series of political defeats, Oglethorpe essentially gave up his opposition to slavery and the ban was lifted. It was not long after Oglethorpe returned to England that Georgia followed the lead of her sister colonies and embraced slavery.

Although he was able to preserve his colony for England militarily, he returned to England, financially strapped because of the many non-repaid loans he made to his colonists, and disappointed that slavery would surely take hold in his colony. After his return to England, in 1745, Oglethorpe was promoted to the rank of Major General. During the Jacobite War of that year his conduct resulted in a court marshal and acquittal. He was later raised in rank to full General and died in England.

Eventually, slavery and fewer restrictions on land ownership transformed Georgia into a booming colony. Though it became an economic success in his absence, Oglethorpe’s Georgia was an experiment in noble humanity that failed. If James Oglethorpe had been as good a financial leader as he was a moral leader, perhaps he could have changed the philosophic tide in the southern colonies. If the need for profit could have been met without resorting to immorality of slavery, the term “antebellum south” might not have meaning today.

Unhappy Birthday, Roe V. Wade!

I have to take a moment and mention something about the grave historical milestone we have reached in this country. I do not even feel like being snarky about it, which is one of my favorite things to be, when it comes to criticizing the the socialist progressive policies we have adopted. After 40 years since the Roe v. Wade decision was made by our morally bankrupt Supreme Court, over 55,000,000 unborn human babies have been brutally slain in this country. Even Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood as an organization to help provide reproductive education to women and to whom the progressives look to as a saint, would be appalled. Before her death and the Roe v. Wade obscenity, and while Planned Parenthood was focused on the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, Sanger is reported have said before,"while there are cases where even the law recognizes  an abortion justifiable by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."  Now, we know that Sanger was a bit of a racist--she believed that lighter-skinned people were superior to darker-skinned people--and she was into eugenics, though not to the extent of Hitler, but even she understood that wholesale abortion is a human travesty. Clearly, she would not approve of the inglorious destruction her organization has wrought. While the progressives produce disgusting television ads, in which they high-five themselves for what they have accomplished with Roe v. Wade, we must pray to God for forgiveness, for allowing our culture to become so morally depraved. The majority of the Supreme Court ruled, but fifty-five million babies had their votes ignored.  Roe v. Wade had a birthday this week, but fifty-five million babies did not.

PROFILES OF LEADERSHIP IN AMERICAN HISTORY

For several years I have been thinking of writing a book of a collection of my essays about persons from American history, who I believe exhibited exceptional leadership that influenced, for the better, American society, or influenced the direction that we, as Americans, have come so far. I think it is important to recognize how we got here and who helped lead us here. I am personally very conservative, both politically and socially, so in my opinion, there have been many 'leaders' in America's history--though likely revered by those who embrace a more progressive political philosophy--who have exhibited little positive influence on the development of the United States of America. Therefore, I choose not to include those persons in this collection. Some of the persons I include may have had some progressive tendencies during their careers and embraced, what I would consider, some misguided causes, but I include them for what positive actions or ideas they contributed, to who we are as a nation. So, this is the first instalment of my effort, to which I plan to add to on a timely basis. I hope it will generate some comment from readers and, perhaps, promote some suggestions of other historical figures to consider. I have posted some of these before, but since I have a lot more readers today than I did when I first started this blog site, I have chosen to post all the of essays again, with the newer ones which have not been posted before, before I publish them. So, here goes...


Profiles of Leadership in America
By Randall D. Mundy

Every four years, we in America divide ourselves in political parties or groups of political thought or persuasion, and discuss the leadership qualities, or the lack thereof, of the myriad of candidates seeking the highest office in the land. I find it interesting that any one candidate can be aggressively held up by one group as the epitome of leadership and the obvious savior of the nation, while another group will be blind to the same individual’s attributes, in fact they will be convinced that he or she is an utter fool and/or completely devoid of true honest character. Our political process allows us to narrow the field of candidates until eventually the electorate chooses a leader for the next four years.

In a perfect world, in a democratic sense, we would all get behind the new president and support him or her in the direction they take us for the next 4 years, and then solemnly revisit the selection of a new leader or the re-election of the current leader for the next cycle. But, in the real world of American politics—my study of American history teaches me that it has never been otherwise—a debate continues, with nary a respite, as to his or her leadership qualities, with intermittent polls asking the public what they think. The obvious attempt here is for media groups and opposition parties—often they are one and the same—to influence the nations' “leader” to be led by public opinion and to shelve whatever plans he or she may have had to lead us into greatness.

And, every few years polls are taken to find out who the American public thinks were the greatest Presidents. Of course the American public is influenced in their opinions by short memories and very little historical perspective. They tend to choose Presidents close to their own life time, or persons that the current educators are particularly enamored with. There are obvious choices among American presidential icons, such as Washington and Lincoln, because of their dramatic actions at important times in history. Because of their prominence in our history, they can hardly be ignored for their greatness, although there are those who look for chinks in their personal armor to reduce their stature. The truth is that they were great men and, though they may have had some personal flaws, they were willing to make personal sacrifices and lead out when opposition would have defeated lesser men.

But, here in America we have not been led by politicians alone. There have been many American leaders in business, entertainment, and religion that have helped lead us to where we are today. Our American social and political system allows us the freedom of choice. We are free to try to lead and we are free to follow whom we will. As a student of history, I have noted many individuals, some well known, some not so well known, who I feel have been leaders of historical consequence. These leaders are important to me because they influenced, for the better in my opinion, how we live in America today, politically, socially and religiously. And because I deem it important to understand the importance of good leadership in our society; to recognize its qualities in our fellow Americans; and to embrace it, developing those qualities in our individual lives, I have written some short histories, spotlighting individuals who, to me, epitomize leadership in America. I am sure there will be some who may initially disagree with some of my choices, be it for their personal political or religious persuasions, but hopefully they will consider my reasoning and be influenced by my arguments to see their merit. But, after all, it is a free country and we are free to see great leadership where ever we choose. The following are some of my choices.




Roger Williams
December 21, 1603—April 1, 1683

Roger Williams is believed to have been born December 21, 1603 in London, England--the records of his birth were destroyed in a later fire. A child of merchant-class parents, Roger entered an apprenticeship in his teens to jurist, Thomas Cooke. Cooke was taken enough with Williams that he became his patron for education, eventually sending him to Cambridge. Williams excelled in foreign languages, including: Dutch and french, and the ancient languages of Greek, Latin and Hebrew. At the age of eleven, Williams had spiritual conversion. He later took holy orders in the Church of England, but deciding that the Church of England was corrupted and teaching false doctrine, he eventually became a Puritan while at Cambridge. He married Mary Barnard in 1629, with whom he shared six children--all born in America--and in 1631 he brought his bride to America.

Upon arrival to American, Williams was invited to become the minister of the church at Boston. However, Williams was uninterested in the position, declaring that the church there was still too unseparated from the Church of England, that civil authority should not punish infractions against Ten Commandment laws, like idolatry, Sabbath breaking and blasphemy. He also preached that all should be free to worship according to their own convictions and that freedom of religion and separation of church and state were fundamental to true Christianity.

Much has been made of the founding fathers coming to the North American continent looking for religious freedom. Though those of our forefathers that came to the New World first were indeed able to enjoy religious freedom, it is ironic that in most cases they were unwilling to make similar freedom available to those who came after them. Unlike other New England Puritan leaders like Congregationalists John Winthrop, John Eliot and John Cotton, Roger Williams felt that the “New England Way” of religion was tied too closely to the state.

Williams opposed compulsory church attendance and interference by the government in religious beliefs fearing that such meddling would only corrupt the church. Roger Williams was well respected by most every one of his peers, but his questioning of the legality of congregationalism and his insistence that church and state remain separate were judged subversive and ultimately led to his banishment from Massachusetts.

Williams journeyed south and proverbially put his money where his mouth was. Purchasing land from the Narragansett Indians, Williams started a new colony named Providence and invited all dissenters from Orthodox Puritanism to move there. Although its Puritan critics called this new settlement, which became Rhode Island, “Rogues’ Island”, those seeking freedom for their own particular brand of worship streamed into the colony. In some 15 years it grew to accommodate 800 plus settlers and was considered the only colony in New England that practiced religious toleration. Though it was too often imperfectly practiced throughout some periods of our American history, Williams' idea of religious toleration would become the American ideal.

Roger Williams was by most standards a humble Christian. He apparently did not believe that he had a monopoly on religious truth or at least felt that there might be much more truth for him to know. American poet and editor William Cullen Bryant concludes in his book, Picturesque America, that although Williams was an ordained minister, Williams believed that there had been a great apostasy from the church that Christ had organized. According to Bryant, Williams, because of his understanding of Scripture, was awaiting a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the calling of new apostles as the foundation, “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking. Picturesque America, p. 502) Williams earned his living as a farmer and not as a preacher. He spent much of his time doing missionary work with Indians and was trusted greatly by them. He was truly interested in their spiritual insights and tolerant of their religion. Much of the good will that existed between Indians and New Englanders in 17th Century North America was attributed to Roger Williams’ relationship with the Indians.

It should probably be lamented that those others coming to America, fleeing religious persecution, did not better follow Williams’ example of friendly, honest and equitable treatment of Indians. However, the leadership that Roger Williams provided has been felt for generations. His concept of the necessity of separation of church and state was borrowed from later by Thomas Jefferson and has since been the focus of much debate in the United States even till now. Perhaps, his greatest contribution to our civilization is that he was first to make reality of the myth that was freedom of religion in America.