Charles W. Frank is convinced that the United States is headed in the wrong direction. His Web site, lightofthenation.us, which notes that he graduated with a BA in social science from Chico State University, is an impassioned plea for a return to "Christian foundations" that were first established by the Founding Fathers.
He writes me that "our representation with regard to our so called 'republic' has been hijacked by special interests, as we now have evolved to a nation that has the illusion of a democratic process. 'We the people' are now but mere pawns on the chess board of kings (an elitist shadow government)." His analysis is contained in "House of Lords: America In the Balance" ($12.99 in paperback from Tate Publishing), but it is no mere list of wrongs. To his credit, Frank proposes possible solutions that, from his perspective, are consistent with America's unique status.
"Today this divine uniqueness," he writes, "is now clouded with anti-God sentiment, persecution, censorship, demoralization, secularization, confusion, massive monopolistic corporatization, government injustices, and the love of money."
A guest on the Lars Larson radio program, Frank advocates a "decentralization of power" and the establishment of "impartial, independent" agencies that can deal with, for example, "fake news" packages distributed by the Federal government as well as corporate interests which the FCC, and the Congress itself, cannot be trusted to regulate. Such agencies would be composed of "unbiased officials elected by the people in a national election. Let this be the beginning of direct democracy."
In discussing the heart surgery scandal in Redding, he writes that the American Medical Association keeps bad doctors out of jail and, with the complicity of the Food and Drug Administration, stifles those who provide "alternative" treatment. "Let's start by having a law passed that protects doctors from losing their licenses when they treat their patients with unconventional medicine!"
Christians who pay taxes "need to have the freedom of religious expression in the work force and in public institutions." However, "if one's religion does not promote the fruits of genuine love and peace, then obviously it is not useful and should not be allowed to be expressed in the public sector at all."
Consistent or not, perhaps Frank's proposals will spur healthy--and humble--debate.