DC - God, family, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, religious freedom

Michigan Rep. Conyers Reads Playboy on DC Flight

2010-11-25T08:11:00.000-08:00

The voters of Michigan's 14th District have really found themselves a quality Congressman in Democrat John Conyers. A passenger sitting in the same row as Conyers on a flight to Washington, DC last summer took video of him apparently unabashedly flipping through a Playboy magazine. Way to go Michigan 14th, you've obviously elected a man of true character and integrity. Pelosi's "drain the swamp" campaign apparently missed this particular gem.

Labor Unions Want Your Retirement Account

2010-03-26T06:57:00.000-07:00

As if things couldn't get any more unbelievable out there, a key union ally of Obama proposes creating mandatory public pensions for all workers and forcing existing 401K and IRA funds into them. From WorldNetDaily:

A key labor union ally of the Obama administration has mounted an effort to create government-mandated worker retirement accounts as an entitlement program, with the possibility that a portion of all private retirement funds could be forced into U.S. Treasury debt.

Branding the program "Retirement USA," the Service Employee International Union, or SEIU, has joined with the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based economic left-leaning think tank that receives substantial labor funding and two other left-leaning interest groups, the Pension Rights Center and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security.

Retirement USA promotes the concept that all workers in the U.S. have a right to a government account that would fund a secure retirement in addition to Social Security and private workplace programs such as the 401(k).

"Our goal is to involve all workers and all employees in a government-mandated retirement program, with the government putting up the difference for lower-paid employees," Nancy Hwa, a spokewoman for the participating Pension Rights Center, told WND.

Retirement USA would require by law employers and employees to contribute to a retirement account for every employee and demand that a portion of that contribution go into a federal-government-created annuity that would be funded by purchasing Treasury debt.

"Retirement USA is basically an effort that amounts to nationalizing 401(k)s and IRAs," David John, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation told WND.

I really hope that Obama doesn't go along with what basically amounts to the theft of Americans' retirement savings. I'm sure that this proposal will be rationalized with declarations of "it's for your own good" and "workers have an unalienable right to a retirement account". At one point I would have considered something like this unthinkable, but with the federal government growing increasingly tyrannical and literally drowning in debt, it is just too convenient and tempting of a way to finance future spending binges.

This proposal demonstrates that the SEIU and AFL-CIO (both heavy Obama supporters) are utterly evil. That they would even consider forcing a scheme like this on us is almost beyond belief. Such are the times we live in, and such is the "quality" of leadership under which we suffer.

Liberal Jack Cafferty: Nancy Pelosi is a "horrible woman"

2010-01-14T21:15:00.000-08:00

Wow, you know it has to be bad when even liberals are noticing the breathtaking corruption and arrogance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nothing further needs to be said about the great video below the fold.

Chavez the Fool Strikes Again

2010-01-11T21:41:00.000-08:00

Hugo Chavez is a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Foolishness and arrogance seem to go together, do they not? The AP reported Monday that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez shut down stores this week that raised their prices following the government's recent currency devaluation. According to the AP, "authorities began inspecting retailers a day after President Hugo Chavez threatened to temporarily close or take over businesses that raise prices as a result of the devaluation he announced Friday. Chavez said he is determined to curb inflation — even if it means deploying the military to prevent price hikes." 1 Though Mr. Chavez seems to think much of himself, he obviously knows nothing about economics - and his nation is paying the price. You cannot devalue a currency and expect prices to stay the same. Money is a commodity like anything else, therefore it's value to everything else is relative. If the purchasing power of money is devalued, that means it purchases less than it did before. And if it purchases less than it did before, that means it takes more money to purchase goods and services. In other words, prices have to go up. If they don't, businesses can't make a profit and stay in business.

Chavez may intend for his heavy-handed measures to make goods and services more affordable for the poor, but the end result is going to be scarcity. If retailers can't sell and make a profit, they will choose not to sell at all.

With policies like these, Chavez is doing extreme damage to his nation's economic future by making it astronomically risky to start a business. Think about it: would you want to invest tens or hundreds of thousands of your hard earned cash knowing the government might choose to regulate your pricing, shut your business down, or confiscate it altogether? Most people wouldn't. It will takes years of sound economic policy to repair the perception that Venezuela is a risky place to do business, and in the meantime the citizens of the nation will suffer.

References

1. Venezuela shutters stores in price-hike crackdown. (January 9, 2010). Retrieved January 9, 2010, from http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/venezuela-shutters-stores-in-price-hike/

The Treaty of Tripoli Provides No Support for Secularist Argument

2009-12-31T18:15:00.000-08:00

Misguided as he is most of the time, Ed Brayton over at Scienceblogs is a pretty bright guy. But I'm amazed that he and so many others still refer to the Treaty of Tripoli as support for the position that the United States was founded within a secular framework. Most Americans probably have never even heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, yet a short quote from the document taken completely out of context is often presented as a major component of the argument for a secular Founding. The phrase in question is as follows, from Article 11 of the treaty:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Hopefully that didn't read like a complete sentence, because it wasn't one. And using it like one is disingenuous at best (or just ignorant), lying by omission at worst. If taken as a complete sentence, it certainly gives the impression that the treaty is declaring that Christianity, in no shape or form, had any influence on the Founding of our nation. However, let's look at the whole article for the context, which is important:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Note that there is no period after the word "religion", only a semicolon. This means that the thought expressed by the article continues beyond the oft-quoted opening statement. To properly understand the complete intended meaning of the drafter, the entire article must be taken as a whole. The most important phrase, in my opinion, and the one that most colors the meaning of the article as a whole, is the one that concludes the article:

. . . no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This phrase indicates that Article 11 was not making a declaration that America's government was not rooted in a Christian worldview. Why would the representatives of Tripoli even care about that? I would think that the details about the philosophical underpinnings of the American government would be irrelevant in a peace treaty, particularly if the treaty was with a nation with a vastly different philosophical worldview. Why highlight your differences when you're trying to make peace, right? The key phrase is "pretext arising from religious opinions". This refers to conflicts deriving from differing religious views. In other words, by signing, the parties to the treaty are agreeing not to start any holy wars.

And why would the issue of "religious opinions" need to even be raised in a peace treaty with a Muslim nation? Because it was well-understood that the United States was a predominantly Christian nation, meaning that the vast majority of citizens held to a Christian worldview. This is not to say that the United States was a Christian theocracy as many Muslim nations are theocracies, only that the United States was heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview. If that was the case, it is pretty safe to say that a Christian worldview heavily influenced the framing of America's system of government. And why would it be any other way considering the Founders came from heavily Christianized Europe?

The bottom line is that the Treaty of Tripoli provides zero support for the position that America was founded within a strictly secular framework. Secularists would be better off to drop the argument altogether.

The official version of the treaty can be seen in digitized form on the Library of Congress website.

Senators Display Their Constitutional Ignorance on the Health Care Issue

2009-12-19T09:44:00.000-08:00

Democrats have demonstrated that they have no reservations whatsoever about trampling underfoot the Constitution in their quest to implement some form of national health care system. One of the most disturbing provisions in the health care bill working through the Senate is the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or potentially face fines and jail time. CNSNews asked several Democratic Senators to identify the part of the Constitution that gives them the authority to make this mandate. The following were some of the responses, as reported by CNSNews:

Senator Reed (D-Rhode Island) responded as follows:

Let me see, I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that.

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) apparently believes that "Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution 'charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.'"

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) deferred to the lawyers when questioned:

“Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that."

“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know--government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility."

The scariest thing about this is that it doesn't seem to have ever occurred to these Senators to question whether they have the constitutional authority to mandate purchasing health insurance. We are truly in trouble if constitutionality is the farthest thing in the minds of our congressional leadership when deliberating legislation. The truth is that Congress has no right or authority whatsoever to require that we purchase health insurance. The proper role of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (rendered "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration). Instead of securing our rights, this mandate plunders and violates them. If we aren't allowed the liberty to make financial and health decisions on our own without government interference, how can we possibly say we are free? The proper role of government is to protect and defend our unalienable rights, not attempt to be our caretaker.

If there is one good thing to result from the liberal takeover of our federal government a year ago, it's that Americans can now see what liberal governance looks like. I believe that the more the radical, left wing leadership in Congress and the White House push authoritarian, nanny-state policies, the more they seal their fate in the 2010 elections.

Democrats Accuse Joe Wilson of Being Motivated by Racism

2009-09-15T22:25:00.000-07:00

Talk radio host Mark Levin has said that liberals are obsessed with two things: sex and race. I couldn't agree more. Liberals are always obsessing about sex, whether it is pushing the limits of decency in public and the media, agitating for more sex education at younger ages, or conjuring up new rights based on sexual behaviors and preferences. The other liberal obsession, race, reared it's ugly and well-worn head once again today thanks in part to the perennially ridiculous Jimmy Carter, who claimed that "racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office". Carter commented as follows to NBC News:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . . I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

Carter continued with the following:

"I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president . . . The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."

As disgraceful as these comments are, even more ridiculous were comments made by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, regarding Rep. Joe Wilson. The following is from FOX News:

Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

Liberals absolutely cannot let the issue of race go. Will there ever come a day when the scourge of slavery and institutionalized discrimination will be buried forever, never to be dredged up? Or is the charge of racism just far too tempting a way for liberals to demonize their opponents? The comments by Carter and Rep. Johnson are absolutely disgraceful and inexcusable. We will never be free from the legacy of racism as long we tolerate irresponsible race-baiters that continue to saddle our society with guilt for the sins of the past.

Stimulating the Economy With Pork . . . Literally

2009-07-21T20:20:00.000-07:00

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apparently was annoyed at Matt Drudge for pointing out that stimulus dollars were spent on pork - real pork, as in ham products. According to the New York Daily News, "federal bean counters had spent $1.19 million for '2 pound frozen ham sliced.' An additional $16.7 million contract was earmarked simply for 'canned pork'." Vilsack claimed "the purchases for sliced ham and other contracts - including mozzarella and other cheeses - were to provide soup kitchens and homeless shelters with food for the needy." Nevermind the fact that Vilsack formerly was the governor of Iowa and that Iowa is "the nation's No. 1 pork producer." 1 It certainly makes sense that he would defend the purchases since it was his own former constituents that directly benefitted. It also wouldn't be surprising if this pork project was payback for some campaign contributions to Iowa's congressional delegation.

As annoying as it is that the federal government spends money this way, what is most galling is the fact that Vilsack "argued that buying hams for poor people would stimulate the economy, in line with Obama's $787 billion stimulus package." 2 Vilsack said the following:

"While the principal purpose of these expenditures is to provide food to those hardest hit by these tough times . . . the purchases also provide a modest economic benefit . . . [to] food retailers, manufacturers and transportation companies as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce our food supply." 3

If this kind of thinking resulted in just a few million dollars of federal pork barrel spending every year, maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The problem is that this kind of thinking currently permeates through all levels of government. The belief is essentially this: if the government spends money to buy stuff for people it is stimulating the economy because businesses are being supported by government funds. The businesses can employ new people, purchase new equipment, new inventory, etc. That's a good thing, isn't it? Well, that depends on how you look at it. The problem is that most people seem to only acknowledge one side of the equation. Sure, government money stimulates pork producers when it is used to purchase nearly $18 million in pork products. I'm sure the employees of the pork producers got bonuses, bought stuff, went on vacation, etc. But didn't that $18 million have to come from somewhere? Before the government can give money to one person, does it not first have to take it from another?

Frederic Bastiat, a French philosopher, economist, and statesmen who lived in the 19th century, illustrated the fallacy of Vilsack's thinking with the parable of the broken window. The parable, reproduced below, is part of a larger work entitled That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen that is well worth reading.

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. 4

With regard to federal purchases of pork products, "that which is seen" is that pork producers are wealthier because the federal government spent $18 million on pork products. However, "that which is not seen" is that $18 million or more will have to be extracted from taxpayers to cover it. Taxpayers, in turn, will have less money to spend on other things. The net benefit of this kind of spending actually is zero because money was simply moved from one hand to another with a little skimmed off the top for government overhead. No new wealth was created in the process, therefore the economy gained nothing. If buying pork products is so beneficial to the economy, why don't we increase the spending to $18 billion? Why not have the government buy up all the agricultural products currently available for sale in the entire country? Wouldn't that benefit the economy because all the farmers and ranchers who would suddenly be flush with cash to spend on cars, flat screen TVs, and iPods? Maybe that would be true in Vilsack's world, but in the real world things work a little differently.

Government money is well spent if it prudently invested in projects that directly support wealth creation, such as roads and energy infrastructure. Purchasing $18 million worth of pork products was not stimulus, it was a handout to favored constituents. The "stimulus" rationale was simply the cover story used to justify it.

References

1. Drudge story on pork draws ire from President Obama's agriculture chief. (July 21, 2009). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/07/21/2009-07-21_obama_admin_calls_drudge_pork_story_slop.html
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Frederick Bastiat, What is Seen and What is Unseen. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

Senator Barbara Boxer Gets Taken Down a Few Notches

2009-07-16T21:24:00.000-07:00

How the heck did Barbara Boxer get elected to the US Senate anyway? Even the San Francisco liberals who overwhelmingly voted for her have to be embarrassed by her latest gaffe. In a recent hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Boxer plays the racial politics game and elicits a strong response from Harry C. Alford, the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce. Alford apparently expect to testify about the specifics of energy policy, yet Boxer apparently was only interested in getting him to fall in line with other black groups like the NAACP. Check out the video below, and feel free to cheer out loud at how Alford brings Boxer down a few notches.

If there is one thing worth noting about Boxer, it's that she is incredibly arrogant. Check out how she handled this exchange with a General in the US military:

Amazing, isn't it? Maybe Boxer should consider how hard the General worked to get where he is instead of talking to him as if he's a bratty teenager. In the military, addressing a woman as "ma'am" is a sign of respect. Boxer is wrong to take offense to it and even more wrong to publicly chastise him for it.

Peter Schiff: The Upcoming Minimum Wage Hike Will Make Unemployment Even Worse

2009-07-11T15:40:00.000-07:00

Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital wrote a great editorial this week about the upcoming minimum wage hike and the impact it will have on an already terrible unemployment situation in the United States. In short, minimum wage laws are a form of price controls on labor that can lead to a shortage of available jobs, particularly for low-income workers. Business owners faced with a minimum wage hike may deem it too expensive to pay people minimum wage for certain positions, therefore they eliminate the positions altogether and shift the responsibilities onto other workers. The end result is fewer jobs available and higher unemployment. Schiff's article contains a lot of great points, check it out here.

I also wrote about the problems with minimum wage policies. Check it out here.

Don't Want to Buy Health Insurance? Tough Beans.

2009-07-03T22:56:00.001-07:00

The push by the White House and Democrats in Congress for universal health care is getting more ridiculous by the day, and the end result will be that we'll all end up with far less freedom. It is an absolutely indisputable fact that as government grows, freedom decreases. There can be no other way. Why? Because government is force. It is coercion. Government is the long arm of the law reinforcing certain behaviors and discouraging others under penalty of the law. If you increase the scope of government influence over the lives of citizens, they will have less freedom to make their own decisions. Government makes more decisions for them, or completely eliminates the freedom to make some decisions altogether. Case in point: don't want to bother spending money on health insurance? Our benevolent caretakers in Congress might take away your choice in the matter altogether. According to a new bill introduced in the Senate, "Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday". 1 Folks, this is the essence of socialism. Nanny politicians increasingly take away your ability to manage your own affairs and instead make you the subservient wards of the great socialist state. You apparently cannot take care of yourself, therefore socialist politicians who are far smarter and far more enlightened must do it for you. How can we possibly remain a free people when this is the kind of garbage flung upon us by our elected representatives? There is a reason F.A. Hayek called his classic treatise about the evils of socialism The Road to Serfdom. If we continue to tolerate the nonsense coming from the useless idiots running our federal government, we will find ourselves mere serfs in our own great land.

References

1. Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage. (July 2, 2009). Retrieved July 3, 2009 from, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD996I6VO0

Representative Randy Forbes on Our Judeo-Christian Heritage

2009-07-03T18:50:00.000-07:00

Representative Randy Forbes, a Republican from Virginia, recently made some great comments on the floor of the House of Representatives regarding the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation. See the video below the fold.

Geithner Tells Chinese "Your Assets Are Safe". The Crowd Laughs.

2009-06-01T22:27:00.000-07:00

Isn't it the Left that is always concerned about how the rest of the world perceives America? Well, maybe they should take note of the fact that the fiscal and economic policies of the Obama Administration have become a source of grim amusement for the Chinese and a national disgrace for the United States. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is overseas for a few days this week to pay homage to America's biggest creditor, China. Seeking to reassure Chinese leaders that their dollar investments are safe despite America's mind-blowing fiscal recklessness, he had the nerve to tell the Chinese that the United States believes in a "strong dollar". 1 C'mon Tim, who are you kidding? The Chinese are not stupid. They understand full well that what Timothy doeth and what Timothy saith are two entirely different things. It is not a secret that the US government is openly sacrificing the dollar in an attempt to prop up the markets and well-connected Wall Street banks. If the US government really believed in a strong dollar, it wouldn't be throwing trillions of borrowed and printed dollars into bailouts, toxic assets, and massive "stimulus" bills that Congress doesn't even bother to read. Despite being a part of a culture that tends to speak indirectly, former Chinese central bank advisor Yu Yongding didn't mince words in an email relating to Geithner's visit:

Referring to the Federal Reserve "as the world’s biggest junk investor," and to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke as "helicopter Ben," Yu said the Fed has dropped "tons of money from the sky since the subprime crisis."

"The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve not only has expanded like mad but is also ridden with 'rubbish' assets," he said. 2

Ouch. Speaking at Peking University, Geithner reassured students as well that Chinese dollar assets are "safe". Their response?

Laughter. 3

What a disgrace. What a national embarrassment. Even Chinese University students can see how ridiculous Geithner is.

...how many more days is it until the next presidential election again?

References

1. Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe. (June 1, 2009). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from, http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSPEK14475620090601?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0.
2. Global Crisis 'Inevitable' Unless US Starts Saving, Yu Says. (June 1, 2009). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCV0pFcAFyZw.
3. Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe.

An Ongoing Chronicle of the Follies and Foibles of the Obama Administration - Updated 7/3/09

2009-04-30T23:16:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Though the Obama administration has only been in office for a matter of months, the sheer volume of missteps and blunders is truly incredible. It would be amusing were it not for the fact that the decisions made by the administration and our equally absurd Congress have an impact on each and every one of us. As a dedicated conservative libertarian, I am happy to take any opportunity to highlight the folly of big government and its apologists with the hope that I will contribute even in the tiniest way to the returning of our nation to its limited goverment roots.

Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post paints an accurate picture of the disgrace that is America's current political leadership:

Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?

Will America recover from its current trials? Corcoran is cautiously optimistic:

Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.

I couldn’t have said it better. The haphazard and disconnected policymaking coming from the administration and Congress is evidence that America's foremost challenge is a lack of good leadership.

With that, let's begin the chronicles of the days of the Obama administration. For further reading, check out a great piece that the New York Post did on Obama's first 100 days, entitled 100 Days, 100 Mistakes.

An Ongoing Chronicle of the Follies and Foibles of the Obama Administration

12/18/2008 – Bill Clinton reveals that donors to his foundation include “governments in the Middle East, tycoons from Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international figures with interests in American foreign policy.” Despite the obvious conflict of interest, Obama picks Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. In her role as Secretary as State, Clinton will potentially engage in diplomacy with regimes that have contributed to her husband’s foundation.

Verdict: Obama displays serious integrity issues by appointing Clinton. A man of principle would avoid even the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest.

1/6/2009 – Bill Richardson withdraws his nomination for Commerce Secretary over a grand jury investigation into allegations of corruption.

Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.

1/13/2009 – Revelations emerge that Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in taxes for work he did with the IMF a few years ago. It should be noted that the Treasury Secretary oversees the IRS. Geithner has since been confirmed to the post.

Verdict: Obama and Geithner both have some serious integrity issues.

1/23/2009 - Despite promises to bar recent lobbyists from positions where there could be conflicts of interest, Obama waives his highly-touted ethics rules to allow William Lynn, a former lobbyist for a defense contractor, to serve as Deputy Defense Secretary. Lynn served as a lobbyist as recently as last year.

Verdict: Broken promise, lack of integrity.

1/27/2009 – Obama waives his ethics rules again to allow former Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson to serve as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s chief of staff. Patterson lobbied for Goldman Sachs as recently as last year. The Treasury Department “oversees the government's $700 billion financial bailout program. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of that money.”

Verdict: Broken promise, lack of integrity.

1/28/2009 - Democrats ram the economic stimulus package through the U.S. House of Representatives without even allowing time to read it. With 1000 pages and nearly $800 billion in spending, it is the largest spending package in United States history. In an absolutely disgraceful display of arrogance, the House leadership repeatedly shot down requests by Republicans to allow for more time to read and debate the bill.

Verdict: Incredible arrogance, poor judgement, and incompetence. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from our "esteemed" elected officials. Oh, and remember that Obama promised greater government transparency in the campaign by posting legislation for a few days online before signing. Did that happen in this case? No.

2/3/2009 – Tom Daschle withdraws his nomination as head of the Department of Health and Human Services because of a controversy over his non payment of $140,000 in taxes in recent years.

Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.

2/3/2009 – Nancy Killefer withdraws as Obama’s chief performance officer after “citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax.”

Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.

2/5/2009 – The confirmation of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary stalls because of unpaid taxes dating back to 1993. Solis is eventually confirmed.

Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.

3/2/2009 – Revelations emerge that Ron Kirk, Obama’s pick for US trade representative “owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to pay them. The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees he donated to a scholarship fund that he set up at his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.”

Verdict: Considering the relatively small amount owed, I'm willing to cut Obama some slack on this one. A high earner can incur back taxes of this amount simply because of a bad accountant. However, tax evasion does seems to be a common theme in the Obama administration.

3/7/2009 – Obama was “too tired” to give a proper welcome in his first state visit with our closest ally, Britain. According to people close to the administration, Obama’s team has “had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship”, including the usual press conference and state dinner”. Gordon gave Obama historically significant gifts, “including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk”. In exchange, Obama gave Brown, who is not much of a movie buff, a set of DVDs that won't even work on British DVD players. When The Sunday Telegraph questioned a State Department official about the unusually low-key visit, the response was that “there's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." Wow.

Verdict: Very poor judgement and a lack of forethought. As president, the minimum Obama should do is at least try to represent our nation well. In this case he definitely did not. Call it a rookie mistake? Maybe, but it could have easily been avoided with a little forethought.

3/17/2009 – “Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.” Incredibly, Obama told Jay Leno that he was “stunned” when he learned of the bonuses. “"We're going to do everything we can to get these bonuses back", he declared.” And get them back they will, with Nancy Pelosi leading the charge. She rammed through a bill late last week that retroactively taxes the AIG bonuses at a stiff 90% tax rate. Never mind that such a law is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

Verdict: A disgraceful lack of integrity. This is political hackery at its worst. It was later revealed that the administration and Congress knew ahead of time that the AIG bonuses were going to be paid, yet the outrage only came forth when the public became outraged.

3/20/2009 - Obama creates another headache for himself by taking an offhanded swipe at the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It probably is safe to assume that Obama meant no harm by his comment, but he certainly didn't do himself any favors by making it.

Verdict: Kind of a dumb thing to do, but I would call it a simple gaffe. I know I've had my insert-foot-into-oral-orifice moments.

3/23/2009 - Obama is asked if he is "punch drunk" by Steve Kroft in a bizarre interview on 60 Minutes in which he answers questions about the financial crisis. Why did Obama keep laughing as he was answering questions about the economy? He didn't necessarily need to be deadly serious in the interview, but the laughing and chuckling was truly strange.

Verdict: Bizarre. Why is our president acting like this? This truly was a weird and creepy interview.

3/25/2009 – What is going on with Tim Geithner? Now that it appears the United States will be borrowing heavily to finance massive deficits and foreign creditors are already expressing doubts about the future stability of the dollar, Geithner comments that he is “open” to an alternative international reserve currency system to replace the U.S. dollar. Not surprisingly, the dollar sold-off sharply against other major currencies. According to Representative Michelle Bachman, R-MN, Geithner’s comments Wednesday directly contradicted previous comments:

"During a Financial Services Committee hearing , I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," Bachmann said. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know."

If the administration wants to restore the confidence of investors, it should start by presenting a unified message on the economy.

Verdict: Lack of consistency and integrity on the part of Timothy Geithner.

4/16/2009 - DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stands by an a ridiculous report issued by her agency that warns of the risks of "right-wing extremism" in America. According to the report, "groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority" or "are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration" are a potential risk to national security. You can read a copy of the report here.

Verdict: This is a display of extremely poor judgement and cheap partisan politics. If Obama really sees his political opposition as potential terrorists, we have good reason to fear for the future of our nation.

4/18/2009: Obama gives a cheery handshake to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. Chavez has been a bold and vociferous critic of the United States, even calling former President George Bush "the devil" in a speech before the UN.

Verdict: Lack of principle on the part of Obama. A much cooler reaction to Chavez would have been appropriate to preserve the honor and dignity of the United States and the office of the president.

4/23/2009: A report by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York reveals that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pushed Bank of America to absorb Merrill Lynch last fall or face the possible removal of the board and management. Kenneth Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, testified "that he was told by Mr. Paulson to keep quiet about the deal’s new developments, even after it was clear that the bank was going to absorb much bigger-than-expected losses in buying Merrill." The problem here is that Bank of America is a publicly-traded company, and securities laws require that this kind of information be reported to shareholders.

Verdict: The jury is still out on this one in the hopes that Obama will do the right thing and make people pay for their illegal actions. Granted, the BofA/Merrill merger happened on Bush's watch, but will Obama do anything to rectify the situation? Something tells me he will not.

4/30/2009: The administration causes a serious scare for many New Yorkers by flying Air Force One low over the city solely for a photo op that reportedly cost the government around $300,000. A former Air Force officer who served in the Clinton White House reportedly accused the Obama administration of having "mistaken judgment" for flying Air Force One low over New York City this week. Retired Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson placed the blame for the stunt firmly on the president, as WorldNetDaily reports:

"It defies my belief that the White House staff did not know they were launching the 747 to go up and do this. So it had to come down from the White House. It wouldn't have been done on behalf of the folks at Andrews [Air Force Base]. It would have been done at the direction of the White House."

Patterson summed up his thoughts as follows:

I find it incredible with our current economic situation that we're flying 747s empty anywhere in the country, much less for a photo op. And again, they're so wantonly careless about this."

Verdict: Absolutely ridiculous display of poor judgement and arrogance. Obama had to know about this ahead of time. Did he not think that New Yorkers might get a little freaked out by this? Did he ever consider how stupidly wasteful something like this would be? With deficits running into the trillions, why is our government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to scare the crap out of New York and get a few Air Force One photos?

5/5/2009: Chrysler creditors allege that the Obama administration engaged in "hardball tactics" and "threats" in negotiations over the Chrysler bankruptcy. One individual "described the administration as the most shocking 'end justifies the means' group they have ever encountered." Another said "Obama was 'the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger'". Both individuals said they voted for Obama in the last election. One hedge fund manager struck back at the administration in a great letter that circulated around Wall Street. Read it here.

Verdict: No surprise. Saul Alinsky believed in these kind of tactics, so why is it a surprise that our president, who is a follower of Alinsky, would engage in them? Obama is not the man the mainstream media would have you believe he is.

6/1/2009: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner heads to China to meet with America's biggest creditor, China. While speaking before a crowd of university students, Geithner attempts to assure them that China's massive investments in US government debt are "safe" despite America's continuing reckless spending and debasement of the dollar. The response? Laughter.

Verdict: Sorry Timbo, the joke's on you. They saw straight through your BS.

7/1/2009: Wow, veteran reporter and ardent liberal Helen Thomas calls out White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how controlled media events are under the current administration. Check out the video below (Thomas speaks near the end of it):

In case you couldn't quite hear what Helen Thomas says, the following is the quote:

"The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled..."

WOW. As fawning as the liberal media has been with the Obama Administration since day one, it is amazing to hear such a statement from one who is allied so closely with the administration. The thing is, she's right. Obama campaigned on the promise that his administration would be marked by openness and transparency, but time has proven his statements for what they were: pure BS.

Verdict: Openness and transparency are not chief among the concerns of the Obama Administration. Obama may have made it sound that way when he was running for office, but we already know that Obama is not an honest man.

7/22/2009: During a national news conference, Obama interjects himself into a controversy surrounding the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in Cambridge, Massachussetts. When asked about his opinion of the incident, Obama said the following, as reported by CBS News:

"I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here," the president said. "I don't know all the facts."

Despite saying he might be "a little biased" and that he didn't "know all the facts", Obama still proceeded to pass judgment on Sgt. Crowley and say he acted "stupidly".

Verdict: If anybody acted "stupidly" it was Obama, who should not have condemned the actions of a city cop when he admittedly did not know all the facts. Obama owes Sgt. Crowley a sincere apology for this blunder.

8/4/2009: What is the White House thinking?? In a move that smacks of Big Brother, the Obama Administration sets up an email address by which citizens can report supposed "disinformation" about the President's health care reform plan. See below for an entertaining video that highlights the incredible absurdity of this.

Verdict: This is just incredible. Seriously, a snitch line? Folks, this smacks of desperation and can't serve to boost Obama's image or credibility.

11/14/2009: Obama bows to the Prime Minister of Japan.

Verdict: The President of the United States has no business bowing in such a submissive and deferential manner to a foreign head of state.

To be continued...

The Printing Presses Are Running Full Speed Ahead

2009-04-23T20:01:00.000-07:00

The printing presses are running full speed ahead at the Federal Reserve as it pumps more money into the economy in an attempt to awaken it from the economic doldrums. Bloomberg reported recently that the Federal Reserve has completed its "eighth purchase of government securities" in its quantitative easing campaign, bringing the total amount of Treasuries acquired to $43.9 billion since the purchases began on March 25th. The Federal Reserve "plans to buy as much as $300 billion in U.S. debt over six months", further increasing a balance sheet that has already "more than doubled . . . in the past year". 1 As mindblowing as all this is, it is even more mindblowing that it is being advertised. Our government is making no effort to hide the fact that it is debasing our currency by creating money from thin air and buying up government debt.The consequences of all this? The article discusses that too:

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s plans may result in a higher cost of living, said Allan Meltzer, the central bank historian and professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Rising costs erode the value of the fixed payments from bonds.

Inflation “will get higher than it was in the 1970s,” Meltzer said. At the end of that decade, consumer prices rose at a year-over-year rate of 13.3%. 2

Considering how much the Fed has expanded the money supply over the past year, I don't see how Meltzer could be wrong in his assessment. High inflation down the road seems to be pretty much "baked into the cake" at this point. Check out the following chart from the St. Louis Fed, which shows the expansion of the monetary base.

What is scary and sobering about this chart is the fact that inflation in the monetary base has a direct impact on inflation in prices. Widespread price inflation is a symptom of monetary inflation, which is the growth of the money supply. More money in the economy means that more demand is placed on goods and services, which in turn, drives up prices for goods and services. If this is difficult to understand, think of it this way: imagine that Congress passes a new, even more massive stimulus package that gives everybody in America a check from the government for $10,000. What do you think the majority of people would do with that money? Spend at least a good part of it, right? All that spending would represent increased demand for goods and services, and as we all know from high school economics, higher demand leads to higher prices. As can be seen in the chart above, the monetary base has expanded massively over the past year. The only reason we haven't seen rampant price inflation yet is that banks are largely hoarding the money because they are afraid that if they lend it out they will never get it back. Once the economy begins to stabilize and bank lending begins to loosen up, all that hoarded money will begin to enter the economy, and the result may be a massive surge in price inflation.

References

1. Treasuries Gain After Federal Reserve Buys Government Debt. (April 13, 2009). Retrieved April 23, 2009 from, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahXVnbCqrqP8&refer=home.
2. Ibid.

Religious Freedom Increasingly Trumped by "Gay Rights"

2009-04-11T09:21:00.000-07:00

An article in the Washington Post recently highlighted the disturbing trend of religious groups losing discrimination lawsuits to gay groups. The lawsuits, which are the direct result of states and communities banning "discrimination based on sexual orientation", are creating a "clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion". Unfortunately, it appears that religious freedom is increasingly losing to the interests of gay groups, putting the nation "on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views." 1 A few incidents cited in the article highlight the disturbing trend:

- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage. 2

Though gay groups constantly try to demonize their opponents with accusations of hatred, homophobia, bigotry, etc., many religious groups oppose the gay agenda primarily because of its implications for religious freedom:

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles." 3

Religious freedom is my central concern as well. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior based on my Christian beliefs, but most concerning to me is the impact that the gay agenda will have on my freedom to have my beliefs. Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal certainly doesn't offer any comfort on the religious freedom issue:

But gay groups and liberal legal scholars say they are prevailing because an individual's religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays' right to equal treatment under the law.

"We are not required to pay the price for other people's religious views about us," said Jennifer Pizer, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group. 4

Though many gay activists will argue that religious conservatives have nothing to fear from gay groups over the issue of religious freedom, reality says otherwise. It is clear that gay groups intend for "gay rights" to trump religious freedom whenever and wherever the opposing views clash.

We are moving into the dangerous and Orwellian realm of thought-control in this country; either religious conservatives embrace certain forms of thinking or they will be penalized. The Christians in the examples above landed in hot water because they refused their services explicitly because of their religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. But what if they didn't express opposition to homosexuality as the reason for refusing service? What if the New Mexico photographer and the Georgia psychologist were merely too busy to provide their services to the homosexuals that later sued them? Who is to say that they still wouldn't have been sued? Once it came out in court that they were religious and opposed to homosexuality the suit would have been a done deal anyway. Merely refusing service to homosexuals for any reason , no matter how non-discriminatory, might still land a Christian business owner in court.

Folks, let there be no illusion in your mind that the radical liberal Left truly believes in freedom. They do not, unless of course the freedom applies to them and their views. Gay groups have no qualms whatsoever about trampling underfoot your religious freedom for the sake of their radical agenda. It should be noted as well that Barack Obama fully embraces the homosexual agenda. It is highly doubtful that he could be relied upon to defend the interests of religious conservatives, even though he has repeatedly made the highly dubious claim of being a Christian.

References

1. Faith Groups Increasingly Losing Legal Battles Over Gay Rights. (April 10, 2009). Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html?hpid=topnews
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Photo courtesy of freefoto.com.

Is This The Best Music Video Ever?

2009-04-07T18:48:00.001-07:00

This is absolutely 100% completely unrelated to the normal content of this website, but I could not resist posting this. This is the funniest music video I have ever seen. Enjoy! - M. Roberts

Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Losing It?

2009-04-01T06:10:00.000-07:00

Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi losing her mind? One really has to wonder. She was recently caught on camera telling a pro-illegal immigrant group that enforcing federal immigration laws was "un-American". Check out the embedded video and note how Pelosi, who is on the far left of the political spectrum, uses fallacious emotional appeals to "support" a position that is logically unsupportable. Pelosi seems to care little that illegal aliens are lawbreakers and that they depress wages and take jobs that unemployed Americans could be doing. She also seems to care little that her sworn duty as a member of Congress is to defend the Constitution and uphold our nation's laws. The following is the text of the oath Pelosi took when she was sworn into office:

I, Nancy Pelosi, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Pelosi cannot possibly "defend the Constitution" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . . without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion" while supporting and encouraging the breaking of our nation's laws. As usual, neither the Constitution nor principle bear any relevance to Pelosi's politics; the only thing important to her is gaining political advantage for herself and her party. Low-income immigrants tend to vote Democrat, and Pelosi is pitching her case to what she undoubtedly hopes will be a future constituency once the Democrats manage to pass some form of amnesty legislation.

If Pelosi wants to discuss what is American and what is not, the conversation should start with the importance of a respect for the law - particularly by high-ranking legislators. If she doesn't like the law, the legitimate course of action would be to change it, not encourage people to break it.

Depraved Professor Proposes "Harvesting" Organs From Aborted Babies

2009-03-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

There are days where I am in wonder at God's patience and that He still has not finally said "enough!" and ended the madness on this planet. The Daily Mail in the UK reported Wednesday that Professor Sir Richard Gardner at Oxford University believes the chronic shortage of organs available for transplant in Britain can be solved by harvesting organs from aborted fetuses. Yes, you did read that right, Professor Gardner of Oxford University wants to harvest organs from aborted babies for transplant into adults. In case you wonder if such transplants could work, Gardner states that "experiments in mice have shown that foetal [sic] kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted to adult animals". Similar results could be achieved in humans, but "much research would be needed to show such transplants were effective," he continued. Christian and pro-life groups were naturally - and rightfully - "horrified" by Gardner's proposal. 1

As ugly as abortion is on it's own, the civilization that begins using the unborn for spare parts truly has descended into a Soylent Green kind of nightmare. Such a civilization advocates not just murder, but murder plus human trafficking as the unborn are exploited as a mere commodity to be bought and sold on the market. I bet Planned Parenthood would love this idea if it could be made to work. Not only could they profit from the abortion, but they could profit from the spare parts too, right? If Gardner's proposal became reality, is there any reason a couple shouldn't be allowed to conceive a child simply to "harvest" the organs? Or what about a woman who opens a business as a surrogate "mother" to sell human spare parts to researchers or transplant recipients? Is there any reason that should be opposed? Yes, Gardner's proposal is far from reality, and many people will undoubtedly find it enormously repugnant, but it is a sign of severe cultural decay that otherwise credible and intelligent people can seriously promote something like this.

If there is anything positive in Gardner's proposal, it is that it exposes even more the contradictions and hypocrisy of the pro-abortion position. Aren't abortion supporters always denying that the "something in there" is really human? Don't they always maintain that it is merely a formless blob or lump of flesh and that killing it is no big deal? Aren't pro-abortionists always opposing proposals that require full disclosure through the use of ultrasound? If the unborn "something" is not human, how is it that it has human organs that could be transplanted into adult humans?

The most astounding and heartbreaking part of the Daily Mail article was the callousness expressed by Professor Stuart Campbell, also from Oxford and supportive of Gardner's proposal. Campbell said he has "no ethical objections" to harvesting organs from the aborted unborn. Many babies are aborted quite late, and "if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs". 2 Professor Campbell apparently reserves no regret at all for the "waste" of the life of another human being.

References

1. Use aborted foetus organs in transplants, urges scientist. (March 11, 2009). Retrieved March 14, 2009 from, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1161085/Use-aborted-foetus-organs-transplants-urges-scientist.html
2. Ibid.

Image courtesy of http://www.freefoto.com/.

The Unintended Consequences of Wall Street Bonus Rules

2009-03-06T23:35:00.000-08:00

An article in the online version of Fortune Magazine highlights a great example of the unintended consequences that can arise from government "solutions" to problems. Senator Chris Dodd "crammed" tough limits for Wall Street bonuses into the recently passed stimulus package at the last minute to prevent Wall Street firms from giving away "lavish" bonuses while receiving taxpayer bailout money. 1 The intent of the legislation is good, nobody thinks scumbag bankers who destroyed their companies should be rewarded with big bonuses, but good intentions don't always result in good policy. Limiting bonuses will most likely end up creating a "flood of top performers leaving for positions that have no restrictions" - such as at foreign banks not subject to the legislation. The rules will likely "backfire" because "they make pay for performance, otherwise known as bonuses, illegal beyond a modest allowance, yet they permit unlimited pay for nonperformance. An executive may be paid a guaranteed base salary of any size but may not receive a bonus exceeding one-third of total pay." Most absurd is that Dodd's legislation attempts to discourage "'manipulation of the reported earnings' of the firm" by prohibiting the payment of bonuses based on profits. Isn't that what bonuses are for? Aren't they a reward for increasing corporate profitability? According to Fortune, all the limitations in the legislation virtually make it impossible to compensate talented executives in any "sensible" way. 2 If companies cannot compensate top talent, how can they expect to recruit them? Without top talent on their payrolls, how can failing financial institutions turn around their businesses? Again, the legislation my be well-intentioned, but it will have the consequence of making it more difficult for bailed out companies to rebuild their businesses.

A timeless truth that can't be repeated enough is that there is no problem that the government cannot make worse. Yes, it looks bad that Wall Street banks that took big risks and ran themselves into the ground are using government bailout money for huge bonuses. However, the government can't have its cake and eat it too; it can't expect bailed out banks to recover if it disincentivizes the recruitment of top talent. Congress made the choice to bail out the banks, and they had better get used to the fact that some of the bailout money is going to be used for bonuses. The bailed out firms will not survive unless they can recruit and retain the best people in the business.

Not that it matters much now, but the best thing would have been for Congress to stay out of the bailout business altogether. Bailouts reward failure, penalize responsible institutions that still have to compete with bailed out banks (and pay for the bailouts through taxes and inflation), and put the government in the position of picking winners and losers. There also is the issue of moral hazard; if financial institutions know they will be protected by the government from the consequences of bad investments, what motivation will there be for them to be responsible? Finally, bailouts are absolutely unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government authority to rescue failing corporations.

References

1. Chris Dodd Wants to Scrap Your Bonus. (March 6, 2009). Retrieved March 6, 2009 from, http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/06/magazines/fortune/colvin_bonus.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009030609
2. Ibid.

Photo courtesy of free-stock-photos.com

Video: The Fraudulent Nature of Our Banking System

2009-02-27T19:45:00.000-08:00

With the economy in tatters and Congress, Treasury, and the Federal Reserve spending obscene amounts of money on bailouts and propping up failed companies, it is relevant to examine the true nature of the banking and monetary system in our country. The following video is absolutely excellent, and it reveals in very simple terms the fraudulent nature of our monetary system and how it has brought us to this point in our history. Note that it may take a few seconds to load.

President Obama's Integrity Rightfully In Question

2009-02-06T22:18:00.000-08:00

I can't say I'm a fan of Campbell Brown at CNN, but she is absolutely correct in criticizing Barack Obama for apparently having two sets of ethical standards, one for himself and those he favors, and one for everybody else. 1 After declaring on his first full day as president his intent to establish "firm rules of the road for [his] administration and all who serve in it", Obama has at least twice waived his own ethical rules to appoint former lobbyists to key positions within his government. 2 Mark Patterson, who lobbied for Goldman Sachs until April of last year, was appointed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither to be his chief of staff. Patterson promised to recuse himself of any matters relating to his former employer, for whatever that's worth. William Lynn, recently a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, was appointed deputy defense secretary. 3 All this happened just days after Obama declared the following:

But the American people deserve more than simply an assurance that those who are coming to Washington will serve their interests. They also deserve to know that there are rules on the books to keep it that way. They deserve a government that is truly of, by, and for the people. As I often said during the campaign, we need to make the White House the people's house. And we need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave.

So today we are taking a major step towards fulfilling this campaign promise. The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am President. And there will be a ban on gifts by lobbyists to anyone serving in the administration, as well. 4

So President Obama promises to avoid conflicts of interest by preventing lobbyists from working in "the agencies [they] lobbied during the previous two years" and within a week he reneges on it? And not once, but twice? Are these two guys the only viable candidates in America for these positions? Can Obama honestly say he could not find a single non-lobbyist nationwide to serve in these roles? Obama's "clean break from business as usual" appears to be, well, business as usual. No wonder Americans are so cynical about government.

Aside from the lobbyist issue, there are plenty of reasons to doubt Obama's integrity because of the appointments of Timothy Geithner, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Daschle to senior positions within his administration. Geithner, appointed and confirmed as Treasury Secretary, didn't bother to pay $34,000 in taxes for work he did with the IMF a few years ago. 5 Incredibly, Obama and the Senate Democrats saw no hypocrisy in Geithner running the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS. Geithner coincidentally happened to notice his tax oversight right around the time he was tapped for his new position. Funny how that works. Hillary Clinton, confirmed as Secretary of State, will now be engaging in diplomacy with foreign powers that donated money to her husband's non-profit foundation. 6 This is a serious issue, and if Obama had any integrity, he would have avoided even the remotest possibility of a conflict of interest with such an important position. Former Senator Tom Daschle, who was nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services, neglected to pay over $128,000 in taxes. Thankfully, Daschle has since withdrawn his nomination, but enough damage was done that Obama had to publicly admit that he "screwed up". 7

The day after his inauguration, Obama said that "the executive orders and directives I'm issuing today will not by themselves make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be." 8 He couldn't be more right. It actually takes honest people to keep government honest, and it appears that Obama has failed the honesty test already - on multiple occasions. The American people are rightfully cynical about government because it often seems that it is of, by, and for the well-connected, not the People. A man with true integrity would have avoided even the appearance of conflicts of interest like the plague, not waive his highly-touted ethical standards and appoint people with serious integrity and conflict of interest issues.

Americans will continue to have reason for cynicism until they demand the highest integrity from their elected officials and hold them to it. Too often elected officials are given a pass on their conduct, particularly by those who have the same political views. Many conservatives, unfortunately, gave George W. Bush a pass as he spent eight years bankrupting the country and refusing to do anything about illegal immigration. Liberals, on the other hand, were happy to rationalize adultery on the part of Bill Clinton. Many liberals will doubtless be happy to rationalize Obama's mistakes as well. Founding Father John Witherspoon warned that "the people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches [of government]." 9 Character does matter, and we should be demanding the highest character from our elected officials. Regardless of ideological and political differences, conservatives and liberals - and everybody in between - ought to be able to agree that our elected officials should conduct themselves with the highest integrity.

References

1. Campbell Brown, Commentary: Obama's hypcrisy showing. (January 29, 2009). Retrieved February 6, 2009 from, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/campbell.brown.ethics/index.html#cnnSTCText
2. Remarks By The President Welcoming Senior Staff And Cabinet Secretaries. (January 21, 2009). Retrieved February 6, 2009 from, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/remarks_by_the_president_welcoming_senior_staff_an.php
3. Exceptions to Obama ethics rules under scrutiny. (January 29, 2009). Retrieved February 6, 2009 from, http://www.freep.com/article/20090129/NEWS15/90129005
4. Remarks By The President Welcoming Senior Staff And Cabinet Secretaries.
5. Geithner questioned about former housekeeper, taxes. (January 13, 2009). Retrieved Feburary 6, 2009) from, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/13/treasury.taxes/index.html?iref=newssearch
6. In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation. (December 18, 2008). Retrieved February 6, 2009 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/w19clinton.html
7. Obama: 'I screwed up' in Daschle withdrawal. (February 3, 2009). Retrieved February 6, 2009 from, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/
8. Remarks By The President Welcoming Senior Staff And Cabinet Secretaries
9. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 344.

Race-Baiting Journalist Perpetuates 3/5 Myth

2009-01-27T23:20:00.000-08:00

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, but ignorant, race-baiting journalists are busy reminding us yet again of our past sins of slavery and how bad America remains because of them. Jennifer Loven, an AP Press Writer, couldn't get through two paragraphs of a news article about the Obama inauguration last week before displaying her blatant bias and pathetic ignorance:

On an extraordinary day in the life of America, people of all colors and ages waited for hours Tuesday in frigid temperatures to witness the moment as a young black man with a foreign-sounding name took command of a nation founded by slaveholders. 1

Incredible, isn't it? Loven is either ignorant or willfully distorting history, but either way the AP ought to be embarrassed that this is the kind of "journalism" being published in its name. By no means was this nation "founded by slaveholders". Sure, some of the Founders were slaveholders, but Loven completely ignores the fact that many were not. There were plenty of Founders who vehemently opposed slavery, founded and participated in anti-slavery societies, drafted anti-slavery legislation, and were instrumental in banning slavery in many states. David Barton of WallBuilders did a great piece on this subject, check it out here. Loven then ignorantly writes the following later in her article:

But he seemed somber as he stood on the Capitol steps, placed his left hand on the Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated the inaugural oath "to preserve, protect and defend" a Constitution that originally defined blacks as three-fifths of a person. A deafening cheer went up. 2

What Loven is referring to is the 3/5 Compromise, which can be found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It is obvious that the central theme of this paragraph was not personhood or humanity, but apportionment of representatives and taxes. To imply that the Founders wrote the 3/5 Compromise because they viewed slaves as less than human again ignores the fact that many Founders were ardent opponents of slavery. Some Founders, such as those that abhorred slavery, saw blacks as full persons. The Founders that advocated slavery saw blacks as animals or mere property, not human at all. The 3/5 Compromise was the result of a controversy over whether slaves should be counted as part of a state's population for the sake of apportioning representatives in Congress. Though slaves were considered property by slaveholders and had no rights as citizens, pro-slavery delegates wanted them counted because it would increase their power in Congress. Anti-slavery delegates naturally took issue with this and may have been anticipating a push for future legislation banning slavery. They obviously would want to deny the southern states an unfair advantage in Congress, particularly when the advantage would come on the backs of an enslaved people with no rights as citizens. With strong feelings on both sides of the issue, neither side yielded fully to the other. The final result was a compromise to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of apportionment.

It is a constant frustration that ignorant, and often malicious, "journalists" either don't do their homework and distort history or blatantly misrepresent it for the sake of their political agenda. Yes, it is remarkable, and a sign of how far America has come, that Barack Obama was elected president. Such a thing would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. And yes, slavery is a horrendous evil that has scarred America. However, the best way to move forward is to let the past be the past. Nobody today is guilty of the sin of slavery. Nobody today has been a slave. The best way to put the issue behind us is to let it go and move on with our lives.

References

1. Obama takes power, urges unity vs. "raging storms". (January 21, 2009). Retrieved January 21, 2009 from http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1577541
2. Ibid.

Pelosi's Economic Stimulus Plan: Fund Contraception

2009-01-26T21:41:00.000-08:00

[T]here is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity. - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action 1

Consider this an example of just how pathetic our leaders in Congress really are. In an interview Sunday with George Stephanopoulos, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended a move to include federal funding of contraception into the House economic stimulus plan. Pelosi apparently believes that contraception funding is critical to turning around the US economy. Who would've thought? The exchange went as follows:

George Stephanopoulos: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

Speaker Pelosi: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is - will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

George Stephanopoulos: So no apologies for that?

Speaker Pelosi: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. 2

The video is below:

Even Stephanopoulos might've been scratching his head over this one later. Any reasonable person can see that what Pelosi is pushing is not economic stimulus, but a pet project for Nancy Pelosi and her supporters. She makes an absolute fool of herself by attempting to dress it up as a valid economic stimulus proposal.

As absurd as Pelosi is, she is philosophically not any different than Barack Obama when it comes to the economy. President Obama's solution to the economy is the Keynesian formula of heavy borrowing and spending. The proposed $825 billion stimulus package is focused primarily on infrastructure spending, but includes things like upgrading the energy efficiency of federal buildings, modernizing schools, and investing in green energy. 3 All these proposals might sound great at first glance, but they will have no lasting effect other than burdening future generations with even more debt. It is laughable to think that adding insulation to federal buildings is going to turn around our economy when it is only savings and investment in profitable businesses that can make our economy grow.

The problem with big government spenders like Obama and Pelosi is that they never seem to think about the unseen consequences of their actions. If the government takes more money from the people, do the people not have less of it to spend themselves? Even if a stimulus program does stimulate the economy, won't it do it at the expense of the part of the economy that had to bear the financial burden of the stimulus? The problem with government meddling and its unintended consequences is effectively illustrated by Bastiat's broken window analogy. In the analogy, a child breaks a window and forces the owner to bear the expense of replacing it. The window maker gets more business out of the deal, so that should be good for the economy, right? After all, won't he end up with more money to spend as a result? If this is true, then all windows should be broken so that the window makers get even more business and stimulate the economy even more! As Bastiat says, this is what is seen. What is not seen is that the owner of the window had to replace it and ended up with less money to spend as a result. The economy grew as far as the window maker was concerned, but at the expense of the part of the economy that would have benefited had the window owner had more money in his pocket. 4 When Obama's stimulus bill is passed (as it unfortunately will be), what is seen is that it will give jobs and money to some citizens, but what is unseen is that it will take money from other citizens who might have spent it on living expenses, retiring debt, investing for the future, buying a home, etc. One part of the economy benefits at the expense of another, and much is lost in the transfer to wasteful bureaucracy. Whether the stimulus bill is financed with borrowing, taxation, or inflation, somebody will get punished by it.

The disease that afflicts our economy is a massive debt burden, and it is utterly ridiculous to think that more debt is going to be the solution. Instead of borrowing astronomical amounts of money and spending it on wasteful pet projects, Congress would do better to drastically slash taxes and spending. A healthy, growing economy is not created by bigger government and higher spending, but through savings and investment in profitable businesses.

References

1. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://mises.org/humanaction/chap29sec1.asp
2. Pelosi says birth control will help economy. (January 25, 2009). Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm
3. Obama: Stimulus plan means lower power bills.(January 24, 2009). Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28825558/
4. Frederick Bastiat, What is Seen and What is Unseen. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

Some Musings on the Inauguration - and What Might Lay Ahead

2009-01-20T20:16:00.000-08:00

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, there are few things for me to be excited about today with the inauguration of the most liberal president America has ever had. One thing that is incredibly disturbing is the outright worship of the man by many on the Left. This is old news for conservatives, who have been referring derisively to Obama as "the messiah" for months. But some on the left have apparently noticed as well, so much so that Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal Bishop, thought to include the following in his inaugural invocation today:

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Near the end of the prayer he said the following:

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one.

Eight years of seething hatred for Bush has transformed into very high hopes for Obama. Can he live up to them? We shall see. But considering his rock star status among those on the Left, I have a feeling they will be pretty forgiving with him even if he doesn't.

Speaking of Bush, I was astounded at the absolute lack of class on the part of many in the crowd at the inaugural ceremony as Bush and Cheney were introduced. In the following video you can hear the booing clearly:

Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Dispatch was at the inauguration and blogged about the booing:

The booing was, in fact, pretty shocking, regardless of your political bent. Some of it was augmented with obscenities. When they showed VP Dick Cheney in the wheelchair, the booing was joined with some laughter at his predicament (he injured himself moving things recently).

Bush has earned his unpopularity in my opinion, but it is absolutely classless for people to express their dissatisfaction in such a way. Maybe Obama was referring to the conduct of some of his supporters when he said the following in his inaugural address:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

One can only hope that some of his supporters grow up a bit.

Returning to Obama's rock star status, this star-studded commercial exhorting Americans to "pledge" to make a difference disturbed me. It is absolutely great to motivate people to get involved in their communities, but to pledge allegiance to President Obama? Wow. Check it out:

If people want to admire Obama and be inspired by him, go for it. I think their admiration is misplaced because of his policies, but for goodness sake, the guy is only human. And he is not a king! We do not serve Barack Obama, he serves us, the people. To put so much hope in one man, and to pledge allegiance to him as well, is disturbing. I hope people haven't lost their heads so much that they can no longer evaluate his ideas and policies based on their merits.

If there was any remaining doubt about how far left Obama is, he certainly cleared things up when his new White House website went up today. Yes folks, the White House - and the executive branch - is definitely under new management. It is a nice site, granted, but the policy roadmap it details is disturbing. In an obvious nod to his gay supporters, Obama details some of his intentions for the days ahead:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

I intend to dig into some of his policy proposals a little more in the future, so check back if you like!

May God, in His mercy, be with this country in the next four years.

- M. Roberts

Study: Religion Beneficial to Health and Wellbeing

2009-01-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

A study published recently in the Psychological Bulletin correlates religious devotion with individual well-being. The study, conducted by Michael McCullough and Brian Willoughby of the University of Miami, cites an enormous volume of research spanning seven decades and chronicles many benefits of religious belief. Some of the main benefits identified in the study are as follows:

Longer life
Less likely to drink and smoke (which could be linked to longer life)
Lower rates of gambling
Lower rates of drug use
Lower likelihood to engage in crime, delinquency, or sex as a youth
Higher GPAs and standardized test scores in youths
Greater likelihood for married couples to stay married and experience higher levels of marital satisfaction
Lower rates of depression
Positive "subjective" well-being

In short, the study correlated religious belief with a "wide variety of outcomes relevant to health, well-being, achievement, and social flourishing." Note that the authors of the study did not mean "religious belief" (or "religiousness", as they referred to it) to include vague, nebulous "spirituality". They defined it as a commitment to an organized religious body with regular participation in prayer, worship, and services. The study determined that general spirituality does not confer the same benefits as structured religious belief and practice. Interestingly, many of the results of the study were consistent across race and nationality.

McCullough and Willoughby concluded that two factors more evident among religious people resulted in their comparatively higher well-being: self-regulation and self-control. Self-regulation, as defined in the study, is the process by which individuals alter their behavior in pursuit of a desired "end state" or "goal". Such "end states" or "goals" for a Christian might include eternal rewards in heaven or a better marriage in the future as a reward for chastity now. Self-regulation involves choosing certain behaviors over others with an end goal in mind. McCullough and Willoughby identified a variety of factors that seem to contribute to self-regulation, including involvement in a religious community, participation in religious rituals, and reading religious texts.

The second factor, self-control, is defined in the study as engaging in behavior that counteracts a "prepotent" response, such as restraining the impulse to hit somebody that makes one angry, or choosing to save a life at the risk of one's own in a dangerous situation. The authors concluded that "religiousness is associated cross-sectionally with self-control relevant personality traits." In other words, religious people seem to have a greater ability to overrule fleshly impulses.

The results of this study are compelling, yet not surprising. Moral codes are core components of religious faith and divine retribution for violating them serves as powerful motivation for obedience. Christianity teaches that God is not only loving, but just and holy. He forgives, but He still expects us to obey His laws. Though the follower of Christ no longer needs to fear eternal consequences for sin, God will not necessarily protect us from the consequences of sin in our lives. As I have written before, Christianity teaches that people cannot remain free and healthy without limits on their behavior. The Book of James refers to the "law of liberty" in chapter 1, verse 25. As ironic and contradictory as that phrase seems to be, law is absolutely essential to liberty. Liberty cannot exist without it. God does not place prohibitions on our lives to take away all our fun, He does it to protect us from the harm and enslavement that often comes with sinful behaviors. Dabbling in pornography, promiscuity, drugs, gambling, or a host of other vices often results in consequences that limit our freedom and impact the rest of our lives.

If religion promotes self-control in individuals, then it is beneficial to society as well. In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis uses the analogy of a fleet of ships sailing on the ocean as an illustration of the human race. As long as each ship is maintained and stays on course, it is not a danger or hindrance to other ships. Self-control is one of the mechanisms by which individuals stay "on course" and avoid hindering or interfering with others. Self-control, promoted by religion, enables human beings to subordinate selfish impulses for the sake of civility and peace in society. Self-control is particularly important in public office, and doubtless most Americans wish that their leaders better exemplified it. Matthias Burnet, a well-known American preacher in the early 19th Century, understood well the importance of self control in national leaders:

Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office. 1

Governeur Morris, a signer of the Constitution, echoed Burnet's comments in a speech he delivered September 4, 1816:

There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their country. By this vile traffic they become odious and contemptible . . . But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion (emphasis added). 2

It is sad that Christianity is gradually being banished from the public life of our country. Even more tragic is the fact that it is even being stigmatized by many who think themselves far more wise and enlightened. The present moral decay of our culture should serve as abundant evidence of what happens when a society deliberately replaces a binding, transcendent moral code with a nebulous relativism that allows every individual to decide for themselves what is right. Instead of banishing religious faith from our culture, we should be promoting it! The self-control and self-regulation that religious faith promotes is desperately needed in our society today.

The University of Miami study can be accessed here.

References

1. Staver, Mathew. Voting Christian Values. Liberty Counsel Commentary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=17918
2. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 343.

Economic News: Gold Preserves Purchasing Power and the Threat of Hyperinflation

2009-01-01T13:56:00.000-08:00

Gold Preserves Purchasing Power

Now that we are into the new year, I thought it would be interesting to do an update on a previous article regarding the ratio of gold to the Dow Jones Index. As many of us are well aware, 2008 was a tumultuous year for the stock market with the Dow and NASDAQ finishing the year down 40% to 45% from their highs set in late 2007. Gold suffered as well, peaking over $1000/oz and then subsequently falling below $700/oz at the end of October. It has been a wild ride for stocks and gold, but gold retained its purchasing power through the year, unlike stocks.

As I wrote before, the true gauge of wealth is not the number of dollars one has, but the purchasing power those dollars offer. If your dollars only buy half of what they once did because prices have doubled due to inflation, you are poorer unless your income has doubled as well. Because of its rarity and universal appeal as a safe haven for wealth, gold has largely preserved its purchasing power over time. One hundred years ago, a man could purchase a nice dress shirt for $1.50 to $2.00 - about 7.5% to 10% of an ounce of gold, which was $20 at the time. Today, a man can buy a nice dress shirt for about $50 to $80 - about 6% to 10% of an ounce of gold, which is around $880 today. Gold holds its purchasing power because it has a limited supply and the supply grows very slowly. Because of this, gold prices are a good gauge of the purchasing power of the dollar, which suffers due to monetary inflation. The chart below is an update of the chart I did for a previous article and it includes updated year-end closing data for the Dow and gold.

Figure 1. The Dow in terms of gold has been in a bear market since 2000. Source: CNN Money (Dow Jones Data) and www.onlygold.com (Spot Gold Prices).

As you can see in Figure 1, in terms of gold the Dow has been in a steep bear market since the turn of the century, despite hitting record highs in 2007. Those that sold all their stocks at the 2007 peak may have had more dollars than ever, but their purchasing power - and true wealth - still suffered due to the ravages of inflation. Interestingly, the Dow/gold peak was the point when the nearly two decade decline in gold prices reversed and signaled the ideal time to cash out of stocks and move into gold (unfortunately, hindsight works far better than foresight). It is likely that we will see a similar signal once the current gold bull has run its course in the form of a Dow/gold trough. At that point, it may be a good time to get out of gold and back into stocks.

The Threat of Hyperinflation

Thomas C. Scott, CFP published an article on Forbes.com warning about the threat of a "tsunami" of inflation due to the massive amounts of money being created to prop up the financial system. As mentioned above, the dollar has declined in value versus gold (which is why gold has gone from $20/oz in 1913 to over $800/oz today) because of monetary inflation, ie, the expanding of the money supply. Since the financial crisis hit in all its ferocity last year, the Fed has committed a staggering $7.36 trillion to propping up the financial system. You can be assured that the Fed doesn't have trillions of dollars sitting in a checking account somewhere, but it does have the power to create money from thin air. That is what concerns me. People and banks are hoarding cash like crazy right now because they fear they will lose it if they let go of it. If even a modicum of stability returns to the market and all that hoarded (and newly created) money finds its way into the economy, it could unleash a storm of inflation as it creates massive demand for goods, services, and possibly even stocks. Scott cites John Williams at shadowstats.com, who predicts the possibility of a Dow at 100,000 should inflation hit in earnest. That might sound great at first glance, but if it happens, it will be because of hyperinflation. Again, as the chart above shows, the record Dow in 2007 still represented a loss of purchasing power. A Dow at 100,000 would as well. If Williams is right (and I certainly hope he is not), a Dow at that level would mean $10,000/oz gold, assuming the Dow/gold ratio stays where it is today.

Scott picked a fitting analogy to illustrate the devastating effects of hyperinflation. As a tsunami races through the deep ocean outward from its point of origin, it is just a small wave and barely detectable. However, as it approaches the shoreline, it quickly transitions from a small wave to a 50 to 100 foot monster that strikes suddenly and with devastating impact. The effects of all this monetary stimulus so far are latent, but I fear that it could quickly emerge as a inflationary tsunami at some point in the future.

Whiny Michael Newdow Now Targets Inauguration

2008-12-31T11:36:00.000-08:00

The whiny atheists are back. Michael Newdow, familiar to many as the Sacramento doctor who argued before the Supreme Court to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in 2004, is back suing to get all references to God removed from the upcoming presidential inauguration. According to CNN, "Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion." 2 First of all, this is an absolute lie. Invoking God in the inauguration ceremonies does not violate the 1st Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion. The "separation of church and state" to which Newdow undoubtedly alludes does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It is a phrase that derives from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that their religious freedoms were safe under the Constitution:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. 3

The context of the "wall of separation" phrase clearly indicates that Jefferson was not saying that religion should stay out of government, but government out of religion. The "powers of government" should "reach actions only, & not opinions", he wrote. He clearly is placing limits on government, not religious expression. If the "wall of separation" was intended to mean the exclusion of religious expression from the public square, the letter likely would have had little effect in comforting the Danbury Baptists that their religious freedoms were secure.

The debate about religious expression in the public square really centers around the phrase "establishment of religion", therefore it is important to understand what it means. Thankfully, Congress itself defined what constitutes an establishment of religion in the House and Senate Judiciary Committee Reports of 1853-1854. The following excerpt is from the House report:

It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. 4

From the Senate:

The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion’. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country . . . . [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. 5

Clearly, an "establishment of religion" was understood to be a national church like that "which existed in the mother-country", the Church of England. In the days of the Founding, the Church of England was the official religion of England and conformity to its dictates was compulsory. According to early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the Church of England was guilty of making such things as “apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity” to church teachings “standard crimes for public appeals”. 6 In other words, citizens were prosecuted for being unwilling to conform to the dictates of the Church. Folks, this is what constitutes an establishment of religion. Does a reference to God in an oath of office force a citizen to become a Christian? Of course not. Therefore it does not constitute an impermissible establishment of religion under the First Amendment. Newdow's assertion otherwise is rooted only in lies.

As if misrepresenting the meaning of the First Amendment wasn't bad enough, Newdow engages in the typical (and nauseating) liberal bleating about hurt feelings if he doesn't get his way. CNN reported that Newdow and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit believe that "having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized." 7 What a bunch of babies. Seriously, it is incredible that a guy who obviously is as bright and accomplished as Newdow (he is a physician) would whine in a lawsuit that his feelings are going to be hurt if Obama says "God" in his oath of office. If these guys are worried about being stigmatized, maybe they should consider that their own actions reflect poorly upon them. As a grown man, I can't think of many worse stigmas than being labeled a "whiny baby", as is appropriate in this case. If Newdow wants to argue that mentioning God in the oath of office is unacceptable on a purely constitutional basis, he is wrong, but have at it. But to complain of hurt feelings is just pathetic. Newdow also asserts, according to CNN, that mentioning God in the oath of office would send the message that only those "'who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans'" and that it is "unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good". 8 Ridiculous. Just because your hurt feelings say so doesn't make it reality, Mr. Newdow. Invoking the name of God is not a statement that atheists are less than full humans or citizens. And what an absurd assertion that the Constitution has anything to say about some groups being more or less "good" than others.

When asked about his chances of victory in the lawsuit, Newdow said "'I have no doubt I'll lose'". 9

Let's hope so.

References

1. Rand, Ayn. The Nature of Government. (December 1963). Retrieved January 9, 2009, from
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government
2. Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural. (December 31, 2008). Retrieved December 31, 2008 from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html.
3. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. (June 1998). Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
4. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 30.
5. Ibid. pg 30-31.
6. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1987), pg. 702.
7. Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural. (December 31, 2008). Retrieved December 31, 2008 from, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.

Obama Supports Absurd and Dangerous "Living Constitution" View

2008-12-09T11:47:00.000-08:00

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Johnson dated June 12, 1823. 1

President-elect Obama believes that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times, and that it is the job of judges to interpret it through the lens of modern culture (or at least their perception of modern culture). The following is from an article by WorldNetDaily:

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, 'His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.' 2

By "living and breathing", Barnes is referring to the view that the meaning of the Constitution changes as our society changes and it is the job of judges to figure out that meaning based on their perception of societal values. Not only is such thinking dangerous for the integrity of our system of government and the ability of the people to rule themselves, it is absolutely illogical. Consider the following quote from a play written early in the 20th century:

It is only when we are very happy, that we can bear to gaze merrily upon the vast and limitless expanse of water, rolling on and on with such persistent, irritating monotony, to the accompaniment of our thoughts, whether grave or gay. When they are gay, the waves echo their gaiety; but when they are sad, then every breaker, as it rolls, seems to bring additional sadness, and to speak to us of hopelessness and of the pettiness of all our joys. - Baroness Emmuska Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel 3

Notice the word "gay" in the quote. Was Baroness Orczy referring to homosexuality when she used that word? Could her passage be legitimately rewritten as follows?

It is only when we are very happy, that we can bear to gaze merrily upon the vast and limitless expanse of water, rolling on and on with such persistent, irritating monotony, to the accompaniment of our thoughts, whether grave or homosexual. When they are homosexual, the waves echo their homosexuality; but when they are sad, then every breaker, as it rolls, seems to bring additional sadness, and to speak to us of hopelessness and of the pettiness of all our joys.

This example is probably a little ridiculous, but hopefully the point is made. Few people would seriously argue that Baroness Orczy was referring to sexual orientation in this passage of her play. The historical meaning of the word "gay" meant "happy", and for us to properly understand her play, we must understand her words as she intended them to mean. It would be absurd to assume that because the word "gay" refers to homosexuality today that the passage above refers to homosexuality. In other words, it is inappropriate to interpret the play through the lens of modern culture because doing so results in a false interpretation. The same principle applies to the Constitution. Just as Ocrzy's play can only be properly understood through the original, intended meanings of her words, the Constitution can only be properly understood by discerning the original, intended meaning of the Framers who wrote it. Because language changes over time, words and phrases change in meaning or are no longer used at all. If the Constitution - or any document - is interpreted based on language that has changed in the years since it was written, the meaning of the text is distorted. Because the Constitution protects our rights as citizens, any distortion in the meaning of the text can place our rights in jeopardy. If a judge rules on a constitutional issue based on his perception of societal changes, he replaces the original intended meaning of the text with a meaning derived from his own prejudices. He is in fact unilaterally modifying the Constitution without the consent of the governed - the people. If the system of government under which "we the people" live is changed without our consent, our power to rule ourselves is usurped and we have lost some measure of freedom.

In my experience, it seems that proponents of the "living and breathing" Constitution dogma really wish to use the courts to enact policies that are difficult to get through legislatures. They push this utterly illogical doctrine as a rationalization for reading into the text of the Constitution the policies they wish to enact, whether the Constitution actually supports the policies or not. President-elect Obama himself has said that he wishes the courts would do more to bring about redistribution of income, despite the fact that the Framers would never have supported such policies. I assume that he intends for judges to consider the Constitution "evolved" to the point where it now mandates (or at least allows) for wealth to be confiscated from one person and given to another who did not earn it.

If the American people want to be ruled by an unelected oligarchy of judges, then by all means, let's encourage the judiciary to interpret the Constitution based on their perception of societal changes. If we wish to rule ourselves, we need to make sure that our elected representatives hold judges accountable for interpreting the Constitution as it was intended to mean. If the meaning of the Constitution needs to change, let it be done by the people through the amendment process as our Founders intended.

References

1. Notable Quotes. Constitution.org. (n.d.) Retrieved December 8, 2008 from, http://www.constitution.org/cons/quotes01.txt
2. President-elect would seek changes in Supreme Court. (December 5, 2008). Retrieved December 5, 2008 from, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729.
3. The Scarlet Pimpernel. wikiquote.org. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Pimpernel.

The Presence of Islamic Law Grows in American Business

2008-12-09T11:07:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily recently published an article detailing the implementation of Shariah-compliant business practices at recently bailed out AIG. Ed Brayon over at ScienceBlogs bashes the article as "hysteria" over what he believes to simply be "marketing" to Muslims. Brayton quotes the following from the WorldNetDaily article:

Unlike mutual insurance, Takaful [an insurance product] includes Shariah-compliant stipulations. It prohibits investment in companies that violate Islamic law by selling or promoting products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork. 1

Brayton fails to quote the next sentence, which identifies the core source of controversy over Shariah compliance policies:

Critics claim Shariah-compliant businesses are even opening doors to U.S. funding of Islamic extremism. 2

Critics justifiably fear that Shariah-compliant finance will lead to the support of Islamic terrorism and the legitimization of Shariah law in the West.

Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy wrote a report last year documenting some of the implications of Shariah-compliant banking:

1) Shariah-compliant banking may lead to the support of terrorism through the zakat (charitable giving). Part of Shariah is the requirement of "almsgiving", or giving to the poor. For banking institutions to be Shariah-compliant, they may be required to support Islamic charities, many of which fund terrorism. According to Alexsiev, the first Islamic bank, the Islamic Development Bank, was known to support the suicide bombers of Hamas. Bank Al-Taqwa and other institutions were used to fund Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Alexiev identifies many radical organizations among those most influential in Shariah finance, including Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Fatwa Council of North America, and newer organizations like General Council of Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions (GCIBFI), the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), and the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI ). Many of the leaders of these organizations are known to have extremist tendencies. If the organizations that influence the criteria for Shariah compliance are radical, it is not unreasonable to fear that funds resulting from Shariah banking would be diverted to terrorist groups. 3

2) Shariah-compliant business practices further legitimize Islamic law in the West. Islam is not shy about its intent to be the dominant religious and political system in the world and instituting Shariah-compliant business practices in the West gives it a strong foothold in Western institutions. To embrace part of Shariah is to embrace all of it; it is not realistic to think that Islamists would disavow the more controversial aspects of Shariah for the sake of appealing to Western tastes. We can't expect to implement Shariah in insurance or banking and not be pushed to integrate it into other aspects of American life. If Shariah is so great for banking or insurance, why would it not be great for other areas of society? Some in Britain are already calling for the integration of Shariah into the British legal system. Could that be the goal of Islamists here in the States as well? The Treasury Department is already looking into Shariah-finance with the goal of integrating it into our banking system.

Despite Brayton's belittling of those questioning Shariah-compliant insurance or banking, it is legitimate for people to be concerned about it. We should be concerned about policies that could fund terrorism and lead to the undermining of our system of government. Shariah is absolutely incompatible with the principles of individual freedom, limited government, free markets, and republicanism that have been so essential to the success of America. Check out some of the following characteristics of Shariah that Alexsiev listed in his report:

- Arab women cannot marry non-Arab men
- Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
- A father or grandfather may marry a virgin against her will
- It is permissible to beat an insubordinate wife
- Women may not leave the house without the permission of her husband
- Offensive wars of jihad against non-Muslims is a religious requirement
- Disavowing Islam is a capital offense
- It is permissible to bribe non-Muslims to become Muslims
- A woman's testimony in court is worth half that of a man
- Homosexuality is a capital offense
- Slavery is permissible 4

If this is Shariah, then this is what we get when we legitimize Shariah. Again, there is no reason to think that the Islamists pushing Shariah onto the West would temper it into a version more palatable to Western tastes. Compliance with Shariah means compliance with all of Shariah. Insurance and banking are the first steps, the integration into our legal system is a subsequent step - as is already happening in England. Considering the upheaval in our nation today, Shariah-compliant insurance and banking probably is not the highest of concerns for most Americans, but we certainly should not turn a blind eye to the implications of it. And we certainly shouldn't belittle those who choose to take a deeper look at it.

References

1. Bailed-out AIG offers Islamic insurance to US. (December 5, 2008). Retrieved December 5, 2008 from, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82726
2. Ibid.
3. Alexsiev, Alex. Islamic Finance or Financing Islam? (October 2007). Retrieved December 5, 2008 from, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/islamic%20finance%20or%20financing%20islamism.pdf
4. Ibid.

Obama's Foreclosure Moratorium a Bad Idea

2008-11-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over, our national leaders are getting down to business planning the future of the nation. As president-elect Obama begins to assemble his cabinet, the talk on Capitol Hill is already turning to possible solutions for our economic crisis. The election may have changed administrations, but it certainly didn't change the meddlesome, "do-gooder" mentality that has dominated economic policy lately.According to CNN, Obama has "called for lawmakers to require that financial institutions getting money from the government's $700 billion financial rescue package call a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures." The moratorium idea has been tossed around before, but with Obama's backing and an adoring majority in Congress, it wouldn't be surprising to see such an idea actually enacted into law. An idea like this has got to unnerve a lot of bankers because institutions are being forced to take bailout funds. Obama's idea could result in many banks being forced by the government to freeze foreclosures as well. This proposal is not only dangerously meddlesome, it sends conflicting messages to the marketplace in that it discourages lending in the midst of a credit crunch. And like all government interventions, it likely will have consequences worse than the problems it attempts to solve.

There are many reasons to object to a foreclosure moratorium, some philosophical and some practical. First of all, one of the pillars of a free and prosperous society is a respect for property rights. Our Founders held property rights in such high esteem that they included them among the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. The familiar phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was commonly understood to mean "life, liberty, and property", with "property" referring to an individual's life pursuits and the fruits of his labor. 1 When a bank lends to a homeowner, it is investing its property - capital - for a return in the form of interest with the security for the loan being the real estate. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the bank initiates the foreclosure process to recover its investment. If the government steps in and tells the bank they are not allowed to foreclose, it interferes with the right of banks to recover their property. Such a policy is an erosion of property rights, which ought to be absolutely sacred in a free society. Furthermore, a foreclosure moratorium will have negative consequences for the economy. As the government compels only certain banks to participate in the bailout, it creates an uneven playing field in the banking industry that interferes with normal, healthy competition that could create artificial advantages or disadvantages for certain institutions. A 90-day foreclosure moratorium also places increased stress on bank balance sheets that are already under tremendous stress due to the housing bust. Banks are required to lock up a certain amount of cash reserves for defaulted loans that can only be unlocked when the bad loans are cleared their balance sheets. Additionally, a loan in default represents lost revenue and additional incurred expenses that the bank will now be forced to endure for an additional 3 months. The most damaging aspect of a foreclosure moratorium, however, is the uncertainty it creates. If the government can ban foreclosures now, it can do it later - and for a longer period of time. Arbitrary interference by the government adds increased uncertainty and risk for businesses already enduring a tough economic climate. Banks will refuse to lend money if they are concerned they will be unable to get it back if borrowers default. If the foreclosure moratorium is enacted into law, I expect that an immediate result will be fewer banks writing home loans. Those that continue to lend will probably do so at higher rates and with more stringent guidelines. If fewer people can get loans, and only at higher interest rates, the consequences will include further pressure on home values and increased foreclosures as more homeowners are pushed into negative equity.

References:

1. Frederick Bastiat, The Law. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2008 from, http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

More "Tolerance" From the Anti-Prop 8 Crowd

2008-11-10T20:01:00.000-08:00

It is amazing that proponents of gay marriage have the nerve to call those that oppose them hateful and bigotted when they are the ones getting in the face of a little old lady supporting Prop. 8, the gay marriage ban in California. As badly as they treat her, it is equally outrageous that the anchorman doesn't even have the guts to call it like it is at the end. There was no hatred coming from "both sides", it was obviously coming only from one side. Ridiculous.

Economic News: When You're In Over Your Head...

2008-08-15T22:01:00.000-07:00

When you're in over your head, the first thing to do is stop digging. With worldwide confidence in the dollar and the fiscal situation in the United States declining (as reflected in the value of the dollar), our esteemed leaders apparently consider it a low priority to reign in federal spending. The Treasury Department reported that the federal deficit hit an "all time high" of $311 billion for the first half of fiscal year 2008. 1 Though the government is already drowning in red ink, Congress apparently is considering further spending for the wars in the Middle East and "to help distressed homeowners and stimulate the economy". In addition, this year the first baby boomers - a generation over 80 million strong - will begin to retire and draw Social Security checks. As more retirees draw from the system, the burden on an already overburdened federal government will grow substantially. If every baby boomer receives just an average of $500 from Social Security, it will mean a $40 billion hit to the treasury every month. And let's not forget that the government also has other obligations to retirees like Medicare and prescription drugs. As breathtaking as it is watching how Congress handles taxpayer money, even more astounding is the utter lack of concern for the eventual consequences of their profligacy.

As the presidential election looms, we find ourselves with the choice of an even larger welfare state - and the spending that comes with it - and something maybe slightly more fiscally sane than George W. Bush. Barack Obama, an avowed socialist, has made it clear he supports more federal spending on programs like universal healthcare, energy technology, funds for homeowners to avoid foreclosure, child care, after school programs, and many other programs. The question is, can we actually afford it? With an increasingly bleak outlook for the federal budget and the economy, how is Barack Obama planning to pay for all that new spending? David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, spoke before the National Press Club last December and reported that the projected federal budget shortfall is $53 trillion over the coming decades due to entitlement obligations. In other words, the federal government is projected to take in $53 trillion less than what it needs to cover its obligations. As Walker said, "our government has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it cannot possibly keep without huge tax increases". And tax increases is something our shaky economy can hardly handle right now. With the government already up to its eyeballs in debt, I don't see how Obama can possibly keep all his promises. He has to know this; the question is, does he care? It doesn't seem like too many other members of Congress care a whole lot. McCain seems less apt to introduce massive new spending programs based on his campaign website, and has even pledged to be a hawk on wasteful pork spending, but he has committed to either keeping taxation levels as they are or even lowering them. Low taxes are good, but if they aren't accompanied by major cuts in spending we can be sure of many more years of inflationary red ink.

The only way to truly solve the deficit problem and the resulting inflation (which is largely responsible for higher prices today) is for there to be a major change in thinking on Capitol Hill and in the White House about the proper role of the federal government. As radical as it would undoubtedly sound in Congress, the federal government needs to be shrunk back within the constitutional bounds set by our Founders. The budget is unsustainable, and no matter what happens, the size of the federal government is going to shrink eventually. The question is, will it happen because Congress willingly reduces the scope and expense of government now, or because our nation goes bankrupt? Instead of simply protecting our life, liberty, and property (rendered "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence) and allowing us to go about our business, the government has become our caretaker, the provider of retirement income, healthcare, minimum wage guarantees, home loans, personal and corporate welfare, job training, etc. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government is authorized to engage in socialist programs like these. After their experiences with the tyranny of the King of England, the Founders were very distrustful of centralized power. That is why they designed our government to be a limited government, one with enumerated powers only. The Constitution was designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government, and the assumption was that it did not have a certain power unless the Constitution expressly granted it. This is why the Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The text above leads to a few questions: Does the Constitution grant power to the federal government to provide retirement income for all Americans? Does it grant the power to provide healthcare? Or education? Or a minimum wage for all workers? Are the powers to create such programs listed in the Constitution and hence granted to the federal government? The answer is an emphatic no to all of these questions. The Constitution does not authorize such programs. Does this mean that the people are prohibited from instituting government healthcare or retirement programs if they want them? Absolutely not. Such programs can be created, but only at the state level where government is more responsive to the people. Having said this, I recognize that people currently are dependent on federal entitlement programs and we should not renege on our promises to them by abolishing such entitlements outright. However, the big entitlement programs are unsustainable over the long term and we need to phase them out over time if spending is to be brought under control again. Comptroller Walker remarked to the National Press Club that "the major functions expressly envisioned by our Founding Fathers as a proper role for the federal government . . . like national defense, homeland security, foreign policy, the treasury function, the federal judiciary, the Congress and the Executive Office of the President" constitute just "38 percent of the federal budget". 2 In other words, if the feds just stuck to their core duties it would mean that the federal budget would be less than $1 trillion! What would happen to our economy if the other $1.5 to $2 trillion of the budget was given back to the people? What kind of prosperity could Americans generate for themselves if they had that much more money to save, invest and spend?

As we get closer to the election, I hope that the issue of federal spending will become a central one. Americans need to take a honest look at our fiscal priorities and take step to bring them in line with fiscal reality. We cannot continue to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren to finance our irresponsibility today.

References:

1. U.S. Deficit at Record High and Rising. (April 23, 2008) Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0423/p01s01-uspo.html?page=1
2. Walker, David M. "A Call For Stewardship". December 17,2007. Retrieved June 76, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08371cg.pdf.

Behold the Caliber of Our Elected Officials

2008-05-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

Maxine Waters, a Democratic Congresswoman from the Los Angeles area, threatened oil executives Thursday that she would be "all about" nationalizing the oil industry if oil executives couldn't guarantee a drop in gas prices if Congress allowed for increased oil drilling on U.S. soil. As reported by WorldNetDaily, executives replied by "saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela." 1

Even more ridiculous than the idea of confiscating private industries is that government could somehow run the oil industry better. Congress' ineptness at addressing and solving pressing problems like the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare and the massive budget and trade deficits (note that steroids in baseball is not mentioned here) should not give one confidence that they can somehow equip the federal government to run an industry as complex and advanced as the oil industry. If you need proof of this, ponder the Katrina recovery for a few minutes. In fact, confidence in the ability of Congress to do anything right is best reflected in their approval rating, which according to RealClearPolitics is currently around 19%. 2 In other words, only 19% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job! For all the media hoopla about how Bush's approval rating is so low, Congress' is still lower! There is a maxim I have heard that applies nicely here: there exists no mess that government cannot somehow make worse. Don't expect that if only our esteemed representatives could manage to get their muddy paws on the oil industry they could somehow solve all our energy problems. Considering the major problems we already have on which they have done absolutely nothing (like Social Security and Medicare), we should not place too much confidence in them. It is an eternal truth - and one our Founders believed in - that the government that governs best is that which governs least. In other words, we would all be better off if our government just kept its nose out of our business. If Congresswoman Waters wants to really make a difference, then she would advocate for the loosening of ridiculously burdensome regulations that prevent the construction of new refineries and the development of oil resources here in America.

The last thing we need is for our esteemed representatives to take over the oil industry. They already have control over our country and look how well that has worked out.

Check out the exchange between Congresswoman Waters and Shell Oil President John Hofmeister below:

References:

1. Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry. (May 23, 2008) Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111
2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

The Audacity of Hypocrisy

2008-04-09T16:12:00.000-07:00

We all know that politics and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand these days, but sometimes the level of hypocrisy to which some politicians will stoop is truly astounding. House Democrats John Dingell (D-Michigan) and Bennie G. Thompson (D-Mississippi) filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday "that questions the constitutionality" of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security waiving laws to make it easier to build a congressionally mandated security fence at the southern border. With the authorization of Congress, the DHS filed waivers last week that would suspend over 30 laws so that the border fence could be finished without being locked up in endless court challenges. Representative Thompson said the following in a press release:

"The American people entrust Congress to ensure that the laws of this land are faithfully executed not excused by the Executive Branch."

Representative Dingell echoed Thompson's sentiments with a statement of his own:

"The blanket waiver of laws like the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act is a clear and disturbing abuse of the secretary's discretion." 1

If these Democrats are so concerned about how the Executive Branch enforces the law, it might be nice to see them speak up about how the Bush Administration continues to refuse to enforce immigration laws. However, based on their voting records, the likelihood of that is about as remote as Al Gore repudiating global warming. Pro-border enforcement lobbying group U.S. Border Patrol gave both Thompson and Dingell the same rating in 2005 and 2006 they gave the blatant open-borders apologist John Cornyn: 0%. 2 Not sure how one could get any worse than that on border issues. Both Representatives also voted against the tough H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 3

It is obvious that the real agenda here, like always, is to defeat any policy that might limit illegal immigration. One cannot help but be impressed at the audacity of the hypocritical demands of these two clowns.

References

1. Fourteen Congressmen take DHS's waiver authority to Supreme Court. (April 8, 2008) Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/laws_85728___article.html/thompson_waivers.html
2. www.votesmart.org
3. www.govtrack.us

Arrogant Liberal Again Introduces Anti-Spanking Measure

2008-04-05T21:59:00.000-07:00

If a random person came up to you on the street and demanded that you raise your children a certain way, what would you say to them? What if you found out that person had no children of their own, but had developed their child-rearing philosophy from their experiences raising a cat?

I know what I would say to that person.

As usual, there is no shortage of arrogance from nanny-state lawmakers in Sacramento. Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Sally Lieber, a liberal Democrat from the Silicon Valley area, has once again proposed legislation that would outlaw spanking in California. Lieber's bill, AB 2943, would penalize parents who spank their child with probation for a minimum of 4 years and would force them to attend a "nonviolent parental education class". The child would receive a "criminal court protective order 'protecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats'". 1 Lieber proposed a similar bill last year, but it was defeated when it was met with overwhelming outrage from parents across the state.

AB 2943 is an absurd bill for many reasons. For one, it is completely unnecessary. There already are laws on the books to combat child abuse. Secondly, how would such a bill be enforced? Does Lieber actually expect children to call 911 to report their parents to authorities? And how would violations of the law be proven? The courts could often be in the position of determining guilt based solely on the testimony of a child. The most galling aspect of this bill, however, is the raw arrogance it displays. Parents are rightfully offended and angry at a liberal politician who has the nerve to tell them how to raise their children, particularly when that politician has never had children of her own. Sally Lieber's extensive parenting insight and knowledge apparently derive solely from her experiences as a "pet guardian" for her cat.

Considering the problems California is presently facing, such as massive budget deficits, failing schools, and crumbling infrastructure, Sacramento politicians ought to rearrange their priorities. They truly have bigger things to worry about then dictating to California parents how they should raise their children. But if there is one thing that arrogant politicians like to do, it is telling everybody else how to live their lives.

And there is no shortage of arrogant politicians in Sacramento.

References:

1. Email alert from Capitol Resource Institute sent 4/4/2008. www.capitolresource.org

The Argument for Life Simplified: Scott Klusendorf's SLED Acronym

2008-02-28T15:15:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles talk radio station KKLA recently broadcasted a speech by Christian bioethicist Scott Klusendorf in which he outlined a compelling, yet simple way to articulate the case for life. Using the acronym "SLED", Klusendorf explained how to argue against abortion without using the Bible - which is critical when arguing with nonreligious people. Christians are required by God to argue effectively for what they believe, Klusendorf explained, citing 1 Peter 3:15. Yet the pro-life movement often attempts to argue simply from a Biblical basis, which is ineffective when discussing life issues with people who dismiss the Bible altogether. To make the case for abortion, pro-abortionists must demonstrate that the unborn do not possess personhood, otherwise abortion would most certainly be murder. To build this case, they attempt to prove that the unborn are different in fundamental ways that "prove" that they are not "persons". Klusendorf refutes their arguments simply and effectively by pointing out that there are only four fundamental differences between a fully grown human being and an unborn one, and none of the differences provide justification for abortion:

Size: The unborn are typically smaller than those already born, but since when did size have anything to do with personhood? People come in all different sizes and no reasonable person would attempt to make the case that people of one particular size are more human than anybody else.

Level of development: The unborn are the least developed of us, but this is absolutely irrelevant to personhood. The unborn are less developed than newborns, but newborns are less developed than children, and children are less developed than adults. Children do not possess fully developed reproductive systems, yet we would not attempt to make the case that they are not fully human because of it. We certainly would not make the case that we should be able to kill children because they are less developed, nor should we make such a case regarding the unborn.

Environment: A person's location has nothing to do with their personhood. Does one become more or less of a person by walking from the parking lot into their workplace? Or out of their house to their car? Traveling down the birth canal is as irrelevant to personhood as traveling down the street.

Degree of dependency: This cuts to heart of one of the favorite arguments of the abortion crowd - the issue of viability. In other words, is a fetus really human if it cannot survive outside the womb? The abortionist would argue "no", but the point is irrelevant to the personhood of the unborn child. There are fully grown adults that depend on caregivers, life support equipment, and medications to survive. It would be unthinkable to advocate killing such people simply because they are dependent upon another person or a machine to survive, and it ought to be the same for the unborn.

Economic News: More Insanity From Chavez and a Few Lessons From Zimbabwe

2008-02-01T18:19:00.000-08:00

More Insanity From Hugo Chavez

"[N]o law or government has succeeded or indeed can succeed in preventing every man from striving after his own and his loved ones' earthly well-being in the way he considers most suitable by making use of his faculty of free choice."

- Faustino Ballve

Sometimes it is absolutely amazing that certain people can get as far in life as they do. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned farmers recently that if they continue to sell their goods in surrounding nations, they may have their farms "expropriated", meaning they will be confiscated and nationalized. The Venezuelan government has imposed price controls on food to benefit the poor so farmers have chosen to sell their goods abroad to get better prices. The result has been widespread food shortages. 1

"'A government cannot allow itself to be slapped and do nothing'", Chavez said. Farmers attempting to circumvent price controls risk losing their farms "no matter who the owner was" and military force would be used, if necessary, to enforce the action. Chavez has already confiscated property in the oil, telecommunications and electricity industries. 2

Chavez may be the President of his country, but that does not entitle him to steal land owned by his citizens. Not only is such an act absolutely immoral, it is just plain stupid from an economic standpoint. A respect for property rights is absolutely essential if a nation is to build a strong economy. Without it, there is no incentive to invest, and it takes investment to grow an economy. The Venezuelan government has already destroyed the incentive for farmers to sell their goods domestically by forcing them to pay what are essentially food subsidies in the form of lost income. If Chavez wants to be a socialist purist and help the poor pay for their food, he should subsidize the food directly with government money. Instead, he forces farmers to pay for the subsidies by requiring them to sell their goods below market price. Price controls never work; they always result in shortages because merchants simply choose not to sell instead of selling for little or no profit. The same result occurred in the U.S. in the 1970's when price controls were imposed on gasoline. Price controls are bad enough, but by threatening land confiscation Chavez destroys any motivation that might remain to be a farmer at all. After all, why would a farmer want to invest in a new farm when the government is not only going to force him to be unprofitable, but threaten to confiscate the farm altogether if the farmer doesn’t comply with price controls?

The dismal success rate of radical socialist states proves that government is utterly incompetent when it comes to creating a dynamic and healthy economy. This point seems to be lost on Chavez as he continues his ongoing quest to create a socialist "paradise" in Venezuela. And by the way, price controls have recently been proposed here in America. Various individuals from President Bush to Hillary Clinton have proposed freezing mortgage rates for a period of time as a way to lessen the pain of the subprime mortgage mess. Such proposals are misguided at best and likely would result in a scarcity of loans as lenders simply choose not to lend.

Some Lessons from Zimbabwe

"Who suffers most from inflation? Who suffers most from rising prices? It’s the poor, not the rich. The rich can protect themselves from inflation; poor people can’t." - Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank (ECB)

The destruction of the Zimbabwean economy continues with the recent introduction of a $10M bank note. Equivalent to just $3.90 in US dollars, the creation of the note is the latest effort by the Zimbabwean government to stabilize an economy wracked by inflation running at an estimated 50,000% a year. 3 The Zimbabwean government has been driving the inflation by running the currency printing presses so earnestly that there probably is no nation on earth where money is piling up quicker. Clearly, printing enormous amounts of money is not what makes a nation wealthier - prices are rising so quickly that shoppers often find higher prices for the same goods just a few hours later. The parallels between monetary policy in Zimbabwe and the United States is not only striking, but sobering. The differences between the two are only in degree and scale. The US dollar, like the Zimbabwe dollar, is just an unbacked piece of paper with no intrinsic value. It once was backed by gold, but President Nixon ended that when he closed the gold window in 1971, forfeiting a US government promise to redeem dollars for gold on demand. Nixon did this because the US didn’t have enough gold to honor the demands of foreign banks - too much paper money was in circulation - and effectively declared national bankruptcy. With a true and honest gold standard, there never would have been more paper notes outstanding than gold in reserves, but governments can always be depended on to defraud by printing more paper than is actually backed. Since 1971, the dollar has been just a piece of paper - a fiat currency only - and the government has been running the printing presses faithfully ever since, resulting in perpetually increasing prices across the economy. With every decrease in interest rates, the Federal Reserve signals its intent to step up the printing of money in a quest to create perpetual economic growth. The most recent inflationary booms drove tech stocks and home prices to heights never before seen, creating an illusion of wealth that came crashing down when the bubble popped. Prices for many of the goods we purchase every day have risen rapidly in recent years, signaling that inflation is alive and well. With the 3/4% interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve last week and the 1/2% cut this week we can be assured that the Fed has little intention of easing the inflationary pain anytime soon. Inflation in America isn’t running anywhere near the levels seen in Zimbabwe, but it should be a sobering thought that all fiat currencies in history have eventually ended up the same way: worthless.

References:

1. Chavez threatens to seize farms. (January 21, 2008) Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7199543.stm
2. Chavez threatens to seize farms.
3. Zimbabwe bank to issue $10m bill. (January 18, 2008) Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7195569.stm

New Jersey Approves New 'Thoughtcrime' Bill

2008-01-10T22:09:00.000-08:00

The sweat started out on Winston's backbone. A horrible pang of terror went through him. It was gone almost at once, but it left a sort of nagging uneasiness behind. Why was she watching him? Why did she keep following him about? Unfortunately he could not remember whether she had already been at the table when he arrived, or had come there afterwards. But yesterday, at any rate, during the Two Minutes Hate, she had sat immediately behind him when there was no apparent need to do so. Quite likely her real object had been to listen to him and make sure whether he was shouting loudly enough.

His earlier thought returned to him: probably she was not actually a member of the Thought Police, but then it was precisely the amateur spy who was the greatest danger of all. He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

- George Orwell's 1984

Big Brother New Jersey - the New Jersey legislature - recently passed A-4591, a bill penalizing “bias intimidation”, or what George Orwell would have termed “thoughtcrime”. Under the bill, a person who displays a bias against a member of certain protected classes - such as homosexuals or transgenders – and causes feelings of “intimidation” might be guilty of a thoughtcrime under A-4591. If prosecuted and found guilty of a thoughtcrime, the convicted party would be subject to fines, reeducation (sensitivity training), and counseling to “reduce the tendency toward violent and antisocial behavior” and facilitate the development of more acceptable social attitudes. Additional penalties might include “payments or other compensation to a community-based program or local agency that provides services to victims of [thoughtcrime]” and payments to the victims themselves for “emotional distress”. 1 To help effectively root out thoughtcrime, the bill provides for the training and development of the Thought Police:

The Police Training Commission shall require all new police officers to complete two hours of training, which may include interactive training, in identifying, responding to, and reporting [thoughtcrime]. 2

The training is to be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Truth (the New Jersey Human Relations Council) and will include:

a. features that identify or could identify a [thoughtcrime];
b. laws dealing with [thoughtcrime];
c. law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of [thoughtcrime]; and
d. techniques and methods to handle incidents of [thoughtcrime], including training on how to deal sensitively with victims and referring victims of [thoughtcrime], to organizations that provide assistance and compensation to victims. 3

Thoughtcrime is apparently a very serious crime, therefore existing law was amended to include it among crimes potentially deserving of “payment of compensation” – a list that includes aggravated assault, threats to do bodily harm, lewd, indecent, or obscene acts, kidnapping, murder, and manslaughter. And there is no room for error when it comes to thoughtcrime; legislators added verbiage to the law that will make it impossible for defendants to duck the accusations against them by claiming they were "mistaken as to the race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity of the victim.” 4 A-4591 passed 65 to 10 with five abstentions and now will go to the Governor’s desk for signing.

Hopefully A-4591 sounds as crazy and dangerous as it is, because it truly is out of the pages of Orwell's 1984. Unfortunately, such legislation - otherwise known as "hate crimes" legislation - is a pillar of radical liberalism and activists have managed to pass it in varying degrees and forms in Congress and in statehouses all across the nation. To be perfectly blunt, hate crimes legislation is a feature of tyrannical societies, not free ones. It subjects not just actions to the authority of the law, but thoughts, feelings, and speech. Glen Lavy of Alliance Defense Fund explains:

"The emotion of hate is an unfortunate reality of the human experience. But it is not a crime unless accompanied by a criminal action – and even then it is the action that is within the police power of the government, not the emotion." he said. "The reality is that 'hate' crime laws are designed to punish people for what they think, feel, or believe . . . There is legitimate concern that once Congress makes any 'hate' crime a federal offense, the categories of crime will expand to include speech that causes someone to 'feel' intimidated.” 5

Several previously free nations around the world are already penalizing thoughtcrime. A Catholic city councilor in Canada was fined $1,000 for merely stating in public that a gay couple's lifestyle was 'not normal and not natural’”. 6 Swedish pastor Ake Green was sentenced to a month in prison in 2004 for violating Sweden’s hate-speech laws. The court determined he was “guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon.” 7 (emphasis added). Wow, did you catch that? His crime was simply offending a homosexual! This is happening here in America, too. Legislators in Pennsylvania passed legislation that added "sexual orientation" to the state's hate crimes laws and expanded “the definition of ‘harassment’ to include ‘harassment by communication’ – which means one could be convicted based upon spoken words alone” (emphasis added). 8 No matter what proponents of these laws might say, they are intended to penalize certain belief systems and speech - namely traditional, conservative belief systems and speech. Outspoken conservatives ought to take note, because the same people that came up with political correctness are pushing hate crimes legislation. Anything deemed politically incorrect will likely be dangerous territory in New Jersey if A-4591 is signed into law.

What is truly amazing is that many liberals who support laws like A-4591 also would likely insist they believe in and support free speech. After all, isn't it liberals that are always citing the First Amendment in support of pornography and flag burning? How could it not be considered anything less than a full frontal assault on free speech to penalize people for what they say and believe? Hate crime legislation is inconsistent with American values, period. Our Founders would never have tolerated such nonsense. Hate crime legislation is also woefully impractical. The application of A-4591 hinges on the word "intimidation" - an awfully subjective term that could mean different things to different people, including judges. Intimidation to one person might be just a mere annoyance or nothing at all to another person. How is it to be proven that a plaintiff was truly "intimidated" other than just taking his word for it? If it is difficult for a judge to figure out what is impermissible under the law, how is the legal system supposed to apply the law fairly to everybody? The truth is that this law is simply unjust and is going to be a mess for New Jersey’s court system as it becomes bogged down with innumerable, frivolous complaints of “intimidation”. There couldn’t be any other result. The threshold for legal action is so low, the burden of proof so vague and subjective, and the potential monetary rewards so easy to obtain that it could only encourage massive amounts of litigation.

Henry Ford is reputed with once telling his customers they could have any color Model-T they wanted - just as long as it was black. In the shining beacon of "tolerance" and "freedom" called New Jersey, you can believe and say anything you want, just make sure it’s something liberals like.

References

1. A-4591, New Jersey Assembly, 212th Legislature. (November 19, 2007) Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A5000/4591_I1.HTM
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan. April 26, 2007). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55392
6. Ibid.
7. Pastor gets prison for sermon. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328.
8. When grandmas go to jail for witnessing. (February 7, 2007). Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54125.

The Law of Liberty: Freedom Through the Laws of God

2007-12-14T14:23:00.000-08:00

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. - James Wilson, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

A long time ago, in a sermon on the nature of God, I remember my pastor relating the results of an informal and very unscientific survey of Sunday-school children on their perception of God. One child, a little boy, described God in a way that I have never forgotten. He very frankly told how he saw God as a big parent who just went around trying to keep people from having fun. I think I’ve always remembered what that little boy said because I too can relate to that perception of God. When I was a child, there were many times that I saw Him as just a bigger version of my parents, a being whose sole purpose it seemed – especially when I was being disciplined – was to keep me from having a good time. Unfortunately, in today’s day of watered-down Christianity, I think many adults still view God this way. Many Christians see God not as a just and benevolent parent who places boundaries in our lives out of love, but as a punitive parent who simply wants to restrict our freedom to do as we wish.

A few years ago, when studying the Book of James, I came across an amazing truth contained in Chapter 1, verse 25:

But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (NASB)

Did you notice the phrase "the law of liberty"? Think about that for a moment. These two concepts, law and liberty, operate at odds with one another. Liberty is freedom, and law restricts freedom, yet the former cannot exist without the latter. Ironically, law, which restricts liberty, is also that which makes it possible. Freedom actually cannot exist without law. William Blackstone, a 18th century Christian legal scholar influential on the Founders of our nation, described the link between law and liberty. According to Blackstone, God has so "inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former". In other words, God’s laws are not only designed to create human happiness, human happiness cannot be truly achieved apart from the observance of God’s laws. The two are "inseparably interwoven", as Blackstone said. Furthermore, if God’s laws are "punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce" human happiness. 1 Blackstone continues:

In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, ‘that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.’ 2

God’s laws aren’t just a series of random, meaningless rules - a list of "dos" and "don’ts" intended to inhibit our fun. They are designed to provide a framework for human conduct through which we can achieve the highest level of happiness, healthiness, and freedom. Think of His laws as a guardrail on a mountain road. When the road gets a little slippery, the guardrail is there to prevent a devastating disaster. Or think of them as signposts pointing us down the smoothest road and warning us of any trouble along the way. As long as we take heed, we can experience the greatest joy and peace in our lives – even when life is difficult. God’s design for our lives does not guarantee that we will never experience difficulty in life, but it does help to insure that we create for ourselves the least amount of trouble that can encroach on our freedom and happiness and that of others.

Despite what our do-whatever-I-want society preaches, we cannot truly be happy and free without boundaries in our lives. What kind of adult does a child become when he is allowed to run wild throughout his boyhood and youth with no limits on his behavior? Such a child is a terror in childhood and very likely a criminal in adulthood, and society is typically forced to take away his freedom just to keep him from creating trouble. The truth is that too much freedom inevitably leads to slavery. If we choose to disregard God’s boundaries for our lives and choose to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, we invite enslavement upon ourselves and others. What are the consequences when we choose to indulge in drugs? We become addicted to them. What if we indulge in sexual experimentation? We enslave ourselves to sexual baggage and maybe even diseases that will impact every major decision made for the rest of our life. That certainly doesn’t sound like freedom. What if we engage in the freedom “to choose"? We take away the life of another and enslave ourselves to the resulting guilt and shame. What if we refuse to believe the truth about God? We choose to remain enslaved to our sin and deny ourselves the boundless depth of peace and joy that comes from knowing God.

The truth is that the God of the Bible is like a loving parent with our best interests at heart. Any good parent knows that one of the greatest expressions of love for their children is not to let them run free to do as they wish, but to provide boundaries and loving discipline so that they grow up to be healthy, functional adults. Can anybody that does otherwise possibly be considered a good parent? God places limits in our lives so that we can enjoy the greatest freedom and happiness in our lives, just as Blackstone wrote. God’s standards for our behavior and His design for our lives constitute a "law of liberty" that insures our freedom from the bondage of sin. If your experience with Christianity is that it is just a set of stern rules and regulations, then you have never experienced the true, freeing power of Christ. Knowing Christ is not about legalism, but about being free from sin through His power. Only by believing in Jesus Christ can we overcome the shackles of sin and achieve the joy and freedom He wishes for our lives.

References

1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2007 from, http://www.lonang.org/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm
2. Ibid.

The Philosophy of Our Founding: Natural Law and the Foundation of Our Government

2007-10-03T14:15:00.000-07:00

Most of us probably don’t think too much on a daily basis about our rights because we are so accustomed to having them; it is as normal to us as rush hour that we get to determine for ourselves our course in life. For this we can thank the Founders of our nation because they had the wisdom to structure a system of government that has protected our rights for over two centuries. Though the Founders deserve credit for the system of government that has protected our rights, to whom do we ultimately give credit for the rights themselves? The government? The court system? The truth is that neither of these - or the Founders - are the ultimate source of our rights, though they have all played an important role in protecting them. You might think "who cares?" when pondering this question, but it is an important one because the answer lies in a concept absolutely foundational to our system of government and the preservation of our rights: natural law. It is the recognition of natural law that enabled our Founders to first declare our nation free and it is the continued recognition of natural law that will insure that our descendents have the same freedoms we enjoy today.

A good place to begin to understand natural law is our first founding document, the Declaration of Independence. If you are not familiar with the Declaration, take a moment to read through it. You will find that it contains a long list of grievances against the King of England and an explanation of why rebellion from his authority was morally and legally justified. Not only does the Declaration proclaim why the colonists were rebelling, it explains why they were right to rebel – a point critical to understanding the source and nature of our rights and freedoms. The Declaration of Independence opens by famously declaring the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The term "self-evident" refers to the universality of the truth that all men are equal and have been given certain rights by our Creator. By being "self-evident", the Declaration is indicating that this truth requires no explanation, it is simply understood to be true. The term "unalienable" means that our rights cannot ever be taken away. The Declaration continues by stating that the role of government is to "secure" the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", insuring that they are not violated by other citizens or the power of the government. Note that government doesn't create unalienable rights, it secures rights that already exist. The Founders believed so strongly that this is the proper role of government that the Declaration even says that citizens have the right to "alter or to abolish [the government]" if it ever became abusive of their rights. So, if not government, where do these rights come from? The answer is that they derive from a moral standard known to the Founders as natural law, or the law of nature. William Blackstone, a renowned legal scholar very influential on the Founders, describes natural law:

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. 1

First and foremost, note the source of natural law: God. The Founders had a deep belief in God and understood that a core component of His nature is justice, just as the Bible says. Natural law is essentially God’s standards of justice and morality. As Blackstone describes, natural law is "superior in obligation to any other" and is "binding over all the globe in all countries". In other words, the authority of natural law is superior to any man-made law and is binding on all people regardless of nationality or social or political status. No human law has any validity if contrary to natural law and human laws that conform to natural law derive their authority from it. It is this understanding of natural law that provided the legal basis for America’s rebellion against the authority of the English crown. If all people and all human laws are subject to the laws of God, or natural law, then the king of England and his laws are also subject to the laws of God. If the king acts contrary to the laws of God and abuses the unalienable rights of his citizens, they are justified in declaring themselves free of his authority. The Declaration explains this reasoning and justifies it with a long list of abuses against the American colonists. If not for this understanding of and belief in natural law, it is safe to say that the Declaration of Independence as we know it would never have been possible. Justification for rebellion was only possible by appealing to an authority higher than the king and condemning his actions based on that authority.

As a side note, let me point out an absurd assertion I have often heard from secularists. Always looking for justification to remove any reference to Christianity from American public life, some secularists maintain that the Creator invoked in the Declaration was not the God of the Bible, but a vague, universal higher power that could have been a reference to any deity in any religion. This is ridiculous and patently false. Our Founders were English - citizens of a nation deeply influenced by Christianity. It would make little sense for them to invoke a deity they didn’t believe in as justification for what amounted to treason against their King. Similarly, the king was the head of the Church of England, therefore he most certainly believed in the Christian God himself. If the Founders were to condemn the king for his actions and justify rebellion against him by appealing to a higher authority, it wouldn’t make sense for them to appeal to any other authority than that in which the king himself believed. Besides, Blackstone identifies God by name as the source for natural law and declares it to be "found only in the holy scriptures" 2 (emphasis mine). Blackstone himself was an Englishman and a Christian, so it makes sense that he would invoke the Christian God.

Now that we understand that we have unalienable rights granted by God and that no human authority is justified in infringing upon those rights, we need to examine the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. Secularists many times attempt to distance the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution because of its troubling mention of the "Creator". They want to cast the Constitution as a completely secular document that can be understood separately from the Declaration. The truth is that the Declaration is critical to understanding the Constitution because it specifies the purpose of government: to protect the God-given rights of citizens. The Constitution then lays out a governmental framework for fulfilling that purpose. Essentially, the Declaration is the mission statement for our government and the Constitution is the implementation of the mission. The implementation cannot be properly understood without first understanding the mission.

So what would be the consequences if we removed God from the equation? What if we, as a nation, no longer acknowledged God as the ultimate source of our rights? Secularists have campaigned very successfully over the last few decades to achieve this - to remove all acknowledgement of God from the public life of our nation. If we reject that God is the source of our rights, we also reject that the role of government is to protect the rights that God has given us and we place government in the place of God as the highest authority in our land. If government is the highest authority in the land, then it also must be the authority that grants our rights. And if government grants rights, it can also take them away. Our rights and freedoms would no longer be an untouchable extension of God’s law, but instead would be subject to the whims of the majority controlling the government. Instead of our government being subject to the unchangeable laws of God, our nation would be ruled by a government whose moral standard could change with the whims of the majority in power. In today’s environment of increasing hostility to Christian faith, you can bet that a secular majority would enact laws increasingly unfavorable to Christian faith. We are already seeing this in many states with the passage of hate crimes laws that could make Biblically-based criticism of homosexuality a prosecutable offense. It doesn’t matter that our Constitution guarantees every individual freedom of speech and conscience. The majorities passing such laws tend to have a secular, left-leaning worldview and their version of "morality" dictates that opposition to homosexuality – even religious opposition – is absolutely impermissible. Therefore, they seek to punish it even though doing so is at odds with the Constitution. Without the recognition of God’s transcendent natural law, morality and rights and freedoms become whatever the majority wants them to be. What are the consequences if our leaders no longer acknowledge the authority of God and His laws? Political leaders are many times notoriously corrupt because they know they can escape accountability for crimes much more easily than an ordinary citizen. If a leader has no fear of God, no recognition of His transcendent standards of justice, is he not capable of just about any evil? If he has no fear of consequences in this life or the next, what is to restrain his actions? The recognition of God’s justice and His inescapable judgment is a powerful restraining force on political leaders.

Hopefully it is apparent that the recognition of God and His natural law is absolutely essential to our system of government and the preservation of our rights. Our government was never intended to be absolutely secular, and to make it so would essentially abolish it by removing its philosophical foundation. The vision of our Founders was that future generations of Americans would enjoy the same rights and freedoms they did, therefore they designed a system of government they believed best suited to fulfilling its proper role of securing the "unalienable" rights God has given us. As we have seen, the recognition of God’s transcendent and sovereign standard of justice is the cornerstone of our rights. If we choose to remove this recognition of God’s role in our rights, we risk losing our rights altogether.

References

1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2007 from, http://www.lonang.org/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm
2. Ibid.

Hate Crime Laws Jeopardize Your First Amendment Rights

2007-10-02T07:10:00.000-07:00

Can it possibly be that pastors are taking out insurance policies to protect them in the event they offend a homosexual from the pulpit? Folks, this is happening today in our America. Does this bother you? Do you care enough to do anything about it?

The Senate passed a "hate crimes" measure Friday with a vote of 60-39 that would expand federal "hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender or 'sexual orientation'". 1 The provision was passed by piggybacking it onto an important defense spending bill - a common legislative tactic used to pass controversial measures. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) attempted to justify the hate crimes amendment by suggesting that the military is rife with hatred-motivated violence against people because of their gender or sexual orientation:

'As I have said in the past, the military is not immune to the scourge of hate crimes in our country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen Schindler was brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan,' Smith said. 2

Pro-family organization Concerned Women for America (CWA) "noted that Smith neglected to add that Helvey was convicted of his crime and now is serving a life sentence in prison", implying that current laws appear to be adequate. 3

Senator Ted Kennedy, also a proponent of hate crimes legislation, cited a more current case and asserted there is a desperate need for such legislation to be passed. "We cannot let another day, really hours, go by without this legislation," said Senator Kennedy, as quoted by CWA. 4 If there is such a huge problem with hate crimes against homosexuals in the military, one might ask Senator Kennedy why today's liberal, pro-homosexual media is not reporting on it. Thankfully, it is likely that President Bush will veto the defense bill because of the hate crimes legislation, but it is deeply concerning that such legislation got through the Senate to begin with. The laws already on the books provide severe penalties for violent crimes against any group of people, not just homosexuals, so why would additional laws be needed? And why are homosexuals a favored group? The truth is that there is more here than meets the eye, and Christians really need to be paying attention. Janet Folger of Faith2Action, a Christian activist and commentator, cites the case of John Guimond to illustrate the consequences of hate crimes laws, which unfortunately have been passed in several states already. Guimond was recently convicted in New Hampshire of robbery, a class-B felony that normally carries a sentence of “three and a half to seven years in state prison along with a $4,000 fine.” 5 However, Guimond could spend up to 30 years in prison. Why? Folger explains:

In New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was 'enhanced' to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim. 6

Wow, did you get that? Guimond could spend another 26 1/2 years in prison because he uttered an anti-gay epithet during the crime. Apparently his words were evidence of a far more serious crime than robbery, one that justifies a nearly tenfold increase in his sentence: bigotry against homosexuals. This ought to get the attention of anybody that vocally opposes the homosexual agenda, particularly if that opposition is from the pulpit. Despite the ominous rhetoric about rampant hate crimes from Senators Smith and Kennedy, the truth is that hate crime laws are not really about fighting violence. Folger reveals the real agenda:

[Hate crimes legislation] isn't about hate. It isn't about ‘crimes’ (there are already stiff penalties against crimes); it's about speech. 7

Hate crimes legislation is essentially a step toward making certain kinds of speech - namely criticism of homosexuality - a prosecutable offense. Remember that Guimond was prosecuted not only for his violence, but for what he said during his crime. It is a very short leap from hate crime laws to hate speech laws, which criminalize people based solely on what they say. Check out what is happening in many previously free countries around the world:

1) In 2004, a Canadian Christian businessman was fined $4500.00 for publishing Bible verses in an ad in his local newspaper that condemned the gay lifestyle. Apparently, the ad violated Canadian hate speech laws. 8
2) Also in 2004, a Canadian teacher was suspended from his job without pay for writing an anti-gay letter to a local newspaper. According to Family Research Council, the college was "‘disturbed’ by his statements that homosexual relationships are unstable, homosexuality poses health risks, and that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral.” 9
3) Swedish pastor Ake Green was sentenced to a month in prison in 2004 for violating Sweden's hate-speech laws. The court determined he was "guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon." 10 (emphasis mine)
4) In Canada, a Catholic city councilor was fined $1,000 for publicly stating that a gay couple's lifestyle was 'not normal and not natural’”. 11

Once the door to prosecuting hate crimes is opened, it is just a short leap to prosecuting so-called "hate speech" on its own. You might not believe this could ever happen in America, but it is already happening in Pennsylvania. That state recently added "sexual orientation" to its hate speech laws and expanded “the definition of ‘harassment’ to include ‘harassment by communication’ – which means one could be convicted based upon their spoken words alone.” 12 Fearful pastors in Pennsylvania are taking out liability insurance in the event they are sued for opposing homosexuality from their pulpits. This could be a reality nationwide if liberal legislators in Congress get their way.

Folks, if you've ever believed that the liberal left is the protector of personal freedom, think again. It isn't conservatives who are pushing legislation like this that restricts freedom of speech and religious expression. Respected constitutional scholar and early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story describes some characteristics of a tyrannical government that restricts freedom of speech in his famous work Commentaries on the Constitution:

It is notorious, that, even to this day, in some foreign countries it is a crime to speak upon any subject, religious, philosophical, or political, what is contrary to the received opinions of the government, or the institutions of the country, however laudable may be the design, and however virtuous may be the motive. 13

Radical liberals absolutely intend it to be among the "received opinions" of our government that criticism of homosexuality be absolutely off-limits in the public discourse. This is not the hallmark of a free society, but of a tyrannical one. No truly free society would penalize a person for what he says unless it is blatantly slanderous, libelous, or subversive to the government. Simply criticizing and expressing an honest, contrary opinion about issue related to homosexuality meets none of these criteria.

Considering that pro-homosexual activists continue to ram homosexual "marriage" down the collective throats of our society and strive to take away our right to criticize and oppose it, one has to wonder why Christians largely continue to remain silent. We are being led silently and passively to the slaughter of our free society and we don't even seem to care. Folks, Christians are American citizens too! We have the right to contend for our views and we cannot possibly expect to remain free if we are not willing to stand for our freedoms. If we passively let other people legislate away our freedoms, we will get what is coming: tyranny. If pastors want to continue to be able to preach against evil from the pulpit without fear of legal consequences, they need to speak up and motivate Christians to stand against this. If Christian citizens don't want to live in a society where they cannot oppose their children being taught that homosexual sex is normal and healthy, they need to wake up and stand against it. The longer we Christians choose to sit out the culture war, the more we will lose our right to even fight it in. Christians need to wake up and take a stand for their God-given constitutional rights if they want to preserve them for their children and grandchildren.

References

1. Kennedy 'humiliates' soldiers to further homosexual rights. (September 27, 2007). Retrieved September 29, 2007 from, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57872
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail. (April 24, 2007). Retrieved September 29, 2007 from, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55348
6. President says 'hate crimes' plan unneeded. (May 3, 2007). Retrieved September 29, 2007 from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55538
7. Ibid.
8. Steve Jordahl, "Canadian Law Could Make Bible 'Hate Speech'", Family News in Focus, Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0028001.cfm); accessed February 13, 2004.
9. Suzanne Chamberlin, et al., “Culture Facts - May 2, 2003”, CultureFacts, Family Research Council
10. Pastor gets prison for sermon. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328
11. Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan. April 26, 2007). Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55392
12. When grandmas go to jail for witnessing. (February 7, 2007). Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54125
13. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1987), pg. 704.

Economic News: Senate Raises Debt Ceiling, Dollar Index Declines, and Is China Dumping Treasury Debt?

2007-09-12T12:20:00.000-07:00

Senate Panel Votes to Raise Debt Ceiling

Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come . . ." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789

I'm not sure what President Bush thinks his legacy will be when he leaves office, but one thing we can count on is that it will be a legacy of debt. Enormous debt. A Senate panel voted today to increase the nation's debt ceiling by $850 billion to $9.82 trillion. When the new ceiling is reached at some point in the future (which it inevitably will) it will equal a $4 trillion increase in the national debt since George W. Bush took office. 1 Folks, if you have ever thought of Bush as a true conservative, think again. No President in history has ever presided over such a large increase in our national debt. And all these bills are going to have to be paid back someday, most likely by our children and grandchildren. There should be no question that this is absolutely immoral; no good parent would abuse the credit cards and stick their children with the bill.

Dollar Index Drops Below 80

The U.S. Dollar Index continued its decline this week to a 15-year low. 2 The index, composed of six different foreign currencies, provides a benchmark to measure the purchasing power of the dollar against foreign currencies. The dollar has been in a decline for years in part because of mounting federal debt and continued expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. The result has been inflation, a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar that erodes savings and makes everything more expensive. With the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates an aggressive 50 bps this week, the dollar has become even less attractive for foreign investors. The resulting reduction in demand for the dollar drove it to record lows against the euro and to an even parity with the Canadian dollar - something that hasn't happened for over 30 years. 3 Additionally, the weak dollar pushed the price of oil to a record $83/barrel and gold to over $745/oz - a gold price not seen since 1980. 4 The Saudis placed additional pressure on the dollar with the raised possibility that they would unpeg their currency from the dollar to fight inflation, stoking fears that the move would trigger a "stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East" 5

Folks, the position of our currency is precarious; a declining dollar means that inflation is upon us and probably will get worse. As the dollar becomes even less attractive to foreign investors over the coming months, we can expect it to decline even further. The safe harbor to protect your purchasing power is still today what it has always been throughout human history: gold.

Is China Selling U.S. Treasuries?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph recently wrote that the recent "sharp drop in foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury Bonds" over recent months has "raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States". 6 Based on recent comments by senior officials in China, this would be no surprise and it is worrisome because it increases the vulnerability of the dollar. With the high rate of money supply expansion in the U.S. in recent years the U.S. dollar ought to have a much lower purchasing power than it does, meaning that inflation should be much higher and the goods we pay for every day should be more expensive. The fact that the Chinese are willing to hold such large amounts of U.S. debt has helped keep inflation and interest rates in the United States much lower than they should be. It won't be known until November - when the Treasury releases the data - if China is indeed behind the drop in holdings of Treasury debt. If they are, they undoubtedly would prefer to divest themselves of their dollar holdings quietly to prevent a run on the dollar and a crash that could destroy the value of dollar holdings they need to keep for now. As I wrote before, Americans should be furious that we are in this position. The government has put us in this position by borrowing massive amounts of money from foreigners like the Chinese to finance unending deficits. If we were on a sound money standard, i.e. a gold money standard, we likely would not be in the position of hoping that China will be nice enough not to destroy our currency and wreak havoc on our economy.

References

1. Senate approves increase in national debt limit. (September 12, 2007). Retrieved September 12, 2007 from, http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/12/news/economy/federal_debt_limit.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007091216
2. Dollar plunges on fears Saudis might drop peg. (September 20, 2007). Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/dollar-drops-record-low-vs/story.aspx?guid=%7B5FA1CA78%2DD591%2D4DC2%2DBFA1%2DE260625858FB%7D
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Is China quietly dumping US Treasuries? (September 6, 2007). Retrieved September 20, 2007 from, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/05/bcnchina105.xml

China Threatens to Use the "Nuclear Option"

2007-08-11T15:42:00.000-07:00

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave.
- Proverbs 22:7 (NASB)

Americans ought to be furious that our elected leaders have put us in this position. China threatened Wednesday to use the "nuclear option" on the U.S. dollar if Congress succeeds in passing a trade law intended to strong-arm China into allowing its currency, the yuan, to appreciate against other currencies. 1 Many members of Congress have increasingly complained in recent years that China artificially suppresses the value of the yuan to boost exports and give it an unfair trade advantage. Many experts point to this as a big reason for the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit with China, which totaled $96 billion for the year at the end of May. 2 With its trade profits, China has accumulated vast U.S. dollar holdings, including a large amount of U.S. government debt. This makes China our creditor and puts us in some measure of subservience to the Chinese. As I have written before, the United States continues to expand its money supply, resulting in a relentless slide in the purchasing power of the dollar. Nations like China that have bought up large dollar holdings and held them in reserve have artificially propped up the purchasing power of the dollar by creating increased demand for the dollar. Without this generosity and that of other nations that do the same, the purchasing power of the dollar would be much lower than it is today and prices on the goods we all purchase every day would be much higher due to higher inflation. In other words, the accumulation of dollar holdings by the Chinese has kept inflation in the U.S. much lower than it otherwise would be. So what is China's so-called 'nuclear option'? Because China holds so many dollars in reserve, dumping them all at once could in a single stroke destroy the purchasing power of the dollar, driving up inflation and interest rates and sending our economy into a tailspin. Yes folks, because our federal government has refused to end the red ink, we are now in the position of hoping that China is nice enough not to destroy our economy. Would China actually follow through with its threat? Hard to say, because to some extent they rely on exports to the U.S. and a reasonably stable U.S. economy to support the financial needs of the country. However, China could eventually decide they do not need a strong American economy when their domestic economy grows to the point that it can rely less on exports. Additionally, the Chinese have already made it clear they wish to diversify out of U.S. dollar investments because they continue to lose value due to the slide in the dollar. Based on this, we can expect that China will, at some point, offload a significant amount of their dollar holdings. And we, as proud Americans, will be in the position of begging them to go easy on us.

There are a couple of important points to emphasize here. First, China is not our friend. Senior Chinese military personnel have spoken openly in the past that they believe war with the United States is "inevitable", presumably over Taiwan. 3 A friendly country would never say such a thing, nor would it threaten to destroy our currency and send our economy into a tailspin. Second, it is our esteemed leaders in Congress and the Administration, both current and past, that have put us in this position by spending us into a hole $9 trillion deep. We once were the world's creditor, but we have become the largest debtor in history so that we can continue to finance our consumption and government entitlements. If Congress and the Administration actually balanced the budget and kept it balanced, maybe we wouldn't be in the position of having to hope a foreign and hostile power won't drop a currency bomb on our economy. Third, if the dollar was still a commodity-backed currency as our Founders intended, we would not be in this position. Having a gold standard limits government spending to whatever gold exists in the Treasury. If the gold runs out, the government has to either stop spending or find somebody to lend it more gold. The government is forced to balance the books; there would be no option to fire up the printing press and kill us all with inflation or borrow endlessly from foreign powers. The dollar also would be based on the rock-solid value of gold, which has changed little throughout human history. With a gold-backed dollar, there wouldn't be a "nuclear option".

Folks, America needs desperately to return to the principles of limited government upon which our nation was founded. Our Founders never intended for the federal government to be so large, have so much power, and be involved in so many things. A return to the gold standard would force the federal government to balance its books and put an end to destructive inflation and endless government borrowing. It would also force it to make tough choices about its priorities, likely resulting in the abolition of countless unconstitutional federal programs. As Alan Greenspan once explained, a gold standard is essential to our freedom and independence; let us return to it and reclaim the freedom and independence our Founders intended us to have.

References

1. Unease at China's Threat to Sell Dollar. (Aug. 8, 2007). Retrieved Aug. 11, 2007, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/09/cnfxnews109.xml
2. U.S. Census Bureau
3. Constantine C. Menges, China: The Gathering Threat (Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005), pg. xv

Economic News: Yen for Oil and Paulson on the Housing Market

2007-07-14T16:47:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg reported July 13, 2007 that Iran is now requiring Japan to pay for oil in yen instead of U.S. dollars, the traditional currency for oil transactions worldwide. 1 It might seem like a minor event in the scheme of world affairs, but it is indicative of the declining status of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Because of the historic strength of the U.S. economy, many nations around the world have chosen for decades to store their national savings – their reserves - in dollar-denominated assets. However, the continuing slide of the dollar has prompted central bankers around the world to begin exchanging their depreciating dollars for other currencies such as the euro and yen. China’s foreign exchange reserves are believed to be around $1 trillion or more, 75% of which is believed to be in U.S. dollars. 2 Assuming China has $750 billion in U.S. dollars, just a 1% decline in the value of the dollar will cost China $7.5 billion in the value of its reserves. No central banker would wish to incur those kind of losses on an ongoing basis, therefore China has signaled its intent to gradually move away from U.S. dollar holdings. If you are wondering why you should care about this, know that decreasing demand for U.S. dollars will negatively impact the value of your savings and investments. The yen received a boost after Iran’s announcement because the markets understand that it will likely result in increased demand for the yen. If increased demand can cause a currency to increase in value, then decreased demand can cause a currency to decline in value. If foreign central bankers start dumping dollars, it will represent decreased demand for the dollar and will put pressure on the value of the dollar, resulting in the erosion of the purchasing power of your savings and investments. China, with its massive foreign exchange holdings, has been treading very carefully on this issue because it does not want to create a sell-off in the dollar that could jeopardize the other dollar investments it must keep for now. However, they know a losing game when they see one; the Federal Reserve is continuing to intentionally undermine the value of the dollar by printing massive amounts of them to meet America’s never-ending appetite for spending. Every dollar printed results in the devaluation of every other dollar in circulation and relentlessly drives up prices. This is inflation, and in reality Americans should be suffering under much higher levels of inflation. By soaking up so many dollars and holding them in reserve, foreign central banks like that of China have artificially propped up the value of the dollar by increasing demand for it. If this changes on a widespread basis, Americans could face a rapid decline in the value of their dollars.

Paulson Thinks Housing Market Nearing Bottom

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson thinks that the “U.S. housing market correction [is] ‘at or near the bottom’". 3 Considering the relatively low number of people who can truly afford to purchase a 2-bedroom condo in Southern California for $500,000 or more, it seems preposterous that the housing market could have bottomed already. Inflation around the world is pushing U.S. mortgage rates higher, and with 30-year fixed rates now averaging near the mid 6% range, even fewer people can afford to buy property in high-priced areas like Orange County. It has only been a few months since it was possible to obtain a 30-year fixed mortgage in the high 5% range and every 1% increase in rates represents a $329 dollar increase in the payment for a $500,000 mortgage. If affordability decreases, demand will decrease with it, resulting in pressure on home prices. If mortgage rates continue to increase, which they likely will as inflation mounts around the world, home prices will have nowhere to go but down. And in a highly inflated market like Southern California, the bottom may yet be a long way off.

References

1. Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately. (July 13, 2007). Retrieved July 13, 2007 from, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=worldwide&sid=aLaColVYu5LA
2. INTERNATIONAL NEWS: China tries to reassure markets on dollar. (March 17, 2007). Retrieved July 13, 2007 from, http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=china+dollar+reserves&aje=true&id
=070317000872
3. Paulson: Housing ‘at or near bottom’. (July 2, 2007). Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/02/news/economy/paulson_housing.reut/index.htm

Conservatives, Please Vote Your Values In 2008

2007-07-03T14:27:00.000-07:00

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. - President James A. Garfield

I was really irritated when I recently heard conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt praise Rudy Giuliani as a "great" presidential candidate. Hewitt, a host on L.A.'s KRLA radio station, made his comments in an on-air conversation with a listener who called in to ask him his opinion of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Hewitt responded to the question in a way that made it clear he considers Paul little more than a barely relevant distraction in the presidential race. Obviously annoyed by this, the caller then asked Hewitt what he thought of Giuliani, and incredibly, the outspoken conservative praised Giuliani - who is essentially a pro-abortion liberal - as a "great" candidate. And this is the same Hugh Hewitt I saw speak boldly against abortion at a fundraiser for a local crisis pregnancy center last year. I shook my head and wondered what planet I was on. Unfortunately, this seems to be epidemic among many conservatives these days. Conservatives seem to be willing to compromise their values to vote for the perceived winner or "lesser of two evils" instead of finding and nominating a candidate who actually has a record of supporting conservative values. No matter what he says on the campaign trail, Giuliani's record makes it evident that he is far from being a conservative. He was the mayor of a big, liberal city and he has a record of supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and is at best indifferent to illegal immigration. And what of his character? He has had several marriages, one of which ended amidst allegations of him cheating, and he has publicly dressed in drag on several occasions to show his support for the gay community. Is this really the candidate conservative Christians want to be their next President? Folks, conservatives can do better than this. It is astonishing and embarrassing that Giuliani could be leading in the polls and that prominent conservatives such as Hewitt could back him. And Romney - the former governor of one of the most liberal states in the union - isn't much better. If conservatives are willing to throw out their principles for the sake of "electability", then they don't really have any principles. When one votes for a candidate, he is endorsing the values of that candidate - and I for one cannot endorse the "values" of left-leaning candidates like Giuliani and Romney. If you don't believe that Giuliani is really a liberal, see what Dr. James Dobson wrote about him. Romney is a slightly better candidate, but Joseph Farah points out that his conservative credentials are suspect as well.

When deciding which presidential candidate you vote for in 2008, please consider a few things. First, does the candidate's record prove that he supports your values? If not, how in good conscience can you vote for him? He is your representative, and by voting for him you are saying that he largely shares your values. I believe that Christian conservatives have a deep responsibility to vote for a candidate that supports and upholds God's laws. How could God possibly be pleased and glorified when we knowingly cast our vote for a candidate that will intentionally undermine God's standards of morality? Founder Noah Webster addressed this issue:

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. 1

It is extremely important to vote for representatives with true character, as Webster explains:

When a citizen gives his suffrage [his vote] to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust [civic responsibility]; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. 2

Did you catch that? Your vote impacts your neighbor and the welfare of the nation as a whole. How could it not be considered an act of Christian love to not only vote, but vote to defeat bad candidates and elect good candidates? God is glorified when His people are responsible citizens and vote for good leaders. His command to the nation of Israel regarding this is just as relevant to modern America:

Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them, as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. - Exodus 18:21 (NASB)

If you have ever grumbled about the corruption in Washington, know that you get what you vote for. Our government will remain corrupt for as long as citizens are willing to tolerate corruption.

Second, is the candidate a person of good character? During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, liberals tried to assert that President Bill Clinton's private life was irrelevant to his public duties. More recently, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attempted to make a similar argument when it was revealed that he was having an affair with Telemundo newswoman Mirthala Salinas. "I don't believe that the details of my personal life are relevant to my job as mayor", Villaraigosa said. 3 The truth is that a person's private character does matter to their public life. If a man is dishonest in his private life, how can he possibly be expected to be honest in his public life? Founder Samuel Adams explains it well:

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections . . .[P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected . . . Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptional characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men. 4

I believe that citizens should never tolerate anything but the highest standards of conduct from our public officials. This is why I think Idaho Senator Larry Craig needs to resign. Regardless of whether or not he committed an actual crime in the recent Minneapolis-St. Paul airport bathroom incident, his actions are indicative of a lack of character and discretion. I don't think citizens should tolerate such conduct from a U.S. Senator. The man has embarrassed his state and his nation with his conduct.

Finally, what are the practical consequences for issues dear to Christians if we elect a President who has little true regard for Christian values? Our next President will likely nominate at least one or two new Supreme Court justices. If the President lacks deep conservative and constitutionalist convictions, how can he be trusted to nominate justices that will uphold the Constitution and the traditional values it espouses? Whether we like it or not, many of the issues important to Christians, such as abortion and gay marriage, are being decided in the courts. A Supreme Court justice can have an impact that can last for decades, therefore conservatives must not jeopardize their influence on these issues by electing a left-leaning President that will nominate left-leaning activist judges.

I really hope that this election will be a turning point for conservatism in America. The low approval ratings for the President and the loss of Congress in 2006 are indicative of a deep dissatisfaction among conservatives for the state of the Republican Party. I think there is a lot of justification for that dissatisfaction, and I hope that conservatives will not make the mistake of compromising their values just to defeat a Democrat in 2008. If we are striving merely to defeat a Democrat and succeed in doing so, we likely will get something very similar to a Democrat such as a Romney or a Giuliani. How would that be good for the issues that Christians care about? Conservative Christians, I cannot emphasize this enough: vote your values in 2008. Let's finally elect a President we can trust to carry the conservative banner for years to come.

References

1. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 342-343.
2. Barton, pg 345.
3. L.A. mayor admits affair with TV reporter. (June 19, 2007). Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-04-villaraigosa_N.htm
4. Barton, pg 343.

Congress Raises the Minimum Wage

2007-06-16T19:53:00.000-07:00

Congress passed the first minimum wage increase since 1997 as a part of the hotly disputed Iraq spending package finally signed by President Bush. The increase, which will raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over a two-year period, was hailed by Senator Ted Kennedy as "only the first of many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and inequality". 1 The Democrats, after taking control of Congress in November, made it a high priority to raise the minimum wage in response to the increased financial strain higher prices has had on low income workers. As prices have risen significantly over recent years for everything from gasoline to food, the nation's lowest paid workers have found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

The concept of a minimum wage might seem compassionate, but it does not come without cost. Evidence suggests that increases in the minimum wage can be linked to higher unemployment. Jeff Cox, a contributing writer for CNN, notes that “national unemployment hit its highest rate since the Depression” after the minimum wage was increased in 1981. The minimum wage was increased again twice in the early 1990s and “unemployment zoomed”. 2 According to famed economist Ludwig von Mises, raising the minimum wage can contribute to unemployment because it places an artificially high price on labor. 3 Basic economics dictates that higher prices on certain goods will tend to reduce demand for those goods. Likewise, setting a higher price for labor will tend to reduce demand for labor. Companies employing workers compensated at or near minimum wage may find that it’s not worth it to pay the new minimum wage for some jobs. Other companies may be forced to reduce their workforce to compensate for higher labor costs. Either way, the workers hit hardest are those paid at or near minimum wage - workers that the wage laws are intended to benefit. Minimum wage laws are essentially price controls on labor and do not always reflect conditions in the marketplace. A market free of government interference tends to find the optimal price for any commodity, resulting in the greatest balance between supply and demand. This applies to labor markets as well; a labor market free of government interference will quickly find the optimal price for labor and achieve the maximum level of employment.

Minimum wage laws may grant a pay raise to the poor, but they are only pain medication for the true problem of incessantly rising prices across the economy. When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 it was charged with preserving the purchasing power of the dollar while moderating downturns in the economy. It has utterly failed this mission because the dollar has since lost 97% of its purchasing power due to inflation; it takes $33 to buy today what $1 bought in 1913. The Federal Reserve has intentionally flooded the economy - particularly over recent years - with intrinsically worthless fiat dollars, resulting in the erosion of the purchasing power of every other dollar in circulation. If the purchasing power of a dollar declines, prices rise because it takes more dollars to purchase the same goods and services. The hardest hit by rising prices are the working poor, the people most likely to earn around minimum wage. The way to ease the financial strain of low income workers is not to require businesses to pay them more, but to stop the Federal Reserve from continuing to debase our currency. Doing so would benefit all Americans, not just the poor, by ending inflation and stabilizing prices.

According to CNN, twenty-eight states have already raised or are in the process of raising their minimum wages, so the new federal legislation probably will have little real impact. 4 However, the efforts of the Democrats will probably help insure the continued loyalty of the working poor. Like other socialist policies, a minimum wage hike is simply a way for the political elite to purchase the support of a constituency with the money of another constituency. Democrats might be giving them a raise, but many low income workers might end up being moved from the payroll to the unemployment and welfare rolls. Those that keep their jobs will still struggle to make ends meet as inflation continues to drive up prices. In fact, increasing the minimum wage in itself contributes to price inflation. Companies with large numbers of workers earning at or near minimum wage, such as WalMart, cannot possibly maintain their workforces and absorb a 40% increase in the cost of labor (as is the case with the new federal law) without passing it on to consumers in the form of higher prices. And who shops at WalMart? Low income workers working for around minimum wage.

*** Inflation is raging all around us. Food prices rose at an annualized rate of 3.6% in May and overall energy prices rose 5.4% in the month of May alone. 5

References

1. Congress OKs minimum wage boost. (May 25, 2007). Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/25/news/economy/minimum_wagedeal/index.htm
2. Minimum wage, marginal impact. (January 26, 2007). Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/economy/economy_minimumwage/index.htm
3. Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, n.d. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 1998. Pg 764. http://www.mises.org/humanaction/pdf/HumanActionScholars.pdf
4. House passes minimum wage hike bill. (January 11, 2007). ). Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007011109
5. Despite record gas, inflation tame. (June 15, 2007). Retrieved June 16, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/15/news/economy/cpi/index.htm

Government Deficit Reporting Dishonest

2007-05-29T16:58:00.000-07:00

USA Today reported May 29, 2007 that if the U.S. Government used the same accounting rules required of corporations it would show “a $1.3 trillion loss [for] last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit”. According to the article, “modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.” The federal government doesn’t follow this rule, therefore “promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.” The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which determines standards for government financial reporting, has considered changing the standards and requiring the government to comply by the same rules required of corporations. This would mean that Medicare and Social Security liabilities would have to be reported on the government’s balance sheet. The White House apparently is opposed to the idea, “arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because [the] government can cancel or cut them.” 1

Folks, in case you haven’t figured it out already, the government cannot be trusted to be honest with your money and they can’t even be honest about their dishonesty. For the White House to insist that the Social Security money they took from your paycheck for your retirement is not a liability – ie. money they owe you – is despicable. Also despicable is the incredibly irresponsible spending habits of a Congress that was dominated for 12 years by supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. Conservatives shouldn’t deny that the Republican Party is no longer the party of limited government. Even worse, all the money borrowed will someday have to be paid back and it will be up to future generations – our children and grandchildren – to do it. What person would consider it moral for a parent to max his credit cards and leave them for his children to repay? Yet that is exactly what the government has been doing for decades now. The federal government has maxed the credit cards, and now it's liabilities amount to a “record $59.1 trillion". This breaks down to “$516,348 for every U.S. household.” 2 Such debt is absolutely staggering and we are kidding ourselves if we think it will not affect the economic stability of our nation. Who knows if the problem can truly be solved at this point, but to do nothing would be a disaster. A national bankruptcy and/or a collapse of the dollar might be averted if Congress would take steps to downsize the welfare state and return to the principles of limited government that our Founders set up.

References

1. Rules 'hiding' trillions in debt. (May 29, 2007). Retrieved May 29, 2007 from, http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070529/1a_lede29.art.htm
2. Ibid.

People Need to Take Responsibility for Themselves

2007-05-29T13:01:00.000-07:00

Few things are more disgusting than people who act absolutely irresponsibly, get called on it, then get offended because they got called on it. Take for instance Karen Howe, a 34-year-old mother of two from Littleton, CO. Howe was out partying with friends recently and got so drunk that she fell, hit the back of her head, and cracked her skull. WorldNetDaily reported that her blood alcohol level at the time was 0.216, nearly three times the legal driving limit in the state of Colorado. Howe wasn’t driving, but apparently she behaved badly enough that the emergency room staff had to strap her down to treat her. After treating her, Dr. Yadavinder Sooch counseled her with the following advice:

Do not abuse alcohol. Do not get drunk and fall causing harm to your head or body. Apologize to your family, friends and [emergency department] faculty for your extremely inappropriate behavior and rudeness while intoxicated. Be a great mother to your kids. 1

Great advice, but apparently it was very offensive to Howe. She proceeded to file a complaint with the city of Denver alleging that the doctor’s comments amounted to “substandard care” and were “outrageous”. I guess the truth hurts Ms. Howe, but don’t forget that you might be lucky to be alive. After all, your stupidity could have killed you and deprived your children of their mother. What is a 34-year-old mother of two doing getting stupid drunk anyway? This kind of behavior is completely irresponsible and Ms. Howe’s reaction is so indicative of the “don’t judge me”, do-what-I-want-to-do attitude of today’s society. It’s about time that people started thinking a little more about their responsibilities to others and started being a little less selfish. People need to take responsibility when they do something stupid and make sure they don’t do it again. Ms. Howe should be embarrassed that she conducted herself in public in such a manner. Dr. Sooch was right to give her the advice that he did. Howe would do herself and her family a great service by taking it to heart.

References

1. Woman offended by ‘Don’t get drunk’ advice. (May 29, 2007). Retrieved May 29, 2007 from, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55898

Record Dow Not As Good As It Seems

2007-05-07T13:19:00.000-07:00

The Dow Jones Industrial average closed Friday at 13,264.62 - another record high. According to CNN, Friday’s session made this the longest bull run in 80 years. “The Dow has now risen in 23 of the last 26 sessions, marking its longest bull run since the summer of 1927, when the indicator ended higher in 24 of 27 sessions”, reported CNN. 1 As investors cheer, it is worth noting that the numbers are not as great as they sound. The Dow may be hitting new records, but believe it or not, it has actually been a losing investment since the end of the 1990s. Yes, that’s right. If you had invested your money in the companies composing the Dow in 2000, your investments probably gained in dollar terms but they have lost purchasing power. Your investment dollars buy less today than they did in 2000. The reason? Inflation.

The best way to measure wealth is in terms of purchasing power, not dollars. One may have more dollars, but if it takes significantly more of them to purchase the same things, one cannot necessarily be considered wealthier. Take for instance gasoline prices, which have doubled since 2000. 2 Unless the average American’s income has doubled over the last 7 years, it is a pretty safe bet that a larger percentage of the monthly budget is going to gasoline. This is also true for other expenses, such as housing, insurance, and food. Dollars just aren’t going as far as they once did. If inflation is driving up prices faster than wages, people are getting poorer because their money is losing purchasing power. The main culprit behind inflation today is the rapid expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Every dollar added to the money supply devalues every other dollar in circulation, and the money supply has nearly doubled in just the last 10 years to nearly $10 trillion today. 3 With so much money supply expansion, it is no surprise that inflation is seriously eroding the purchasing power of the dollar. The Dow may be hitting new records, but the picture looks significantly different when inflation is taken into account.

Figure 1. Gold prices show that the Dow peaked around 2000 and has been declining ever since. Dow represented by annual closing value. Gold represented by annual London afternoon spot gold closing price. Source: CNN Money (Dow Jones Data) and www.onlygold.com (Spot Gold Prices).

The best benchmark to measure the impact of inflation is the price of gold. Anybody that watches the price of gold knows that it has increased significantly over recent years, climbing from about $270/oz at the end of 2000 to nearly $700/oz today. This increase is not because gold has gained in value, but because inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the dollar. The value of gold is largely static; an ounce of gold buys about the same basket of goods today that it did 100 years ago. This remarkable stability is the reason it serves as a good benchmark to measure the value of other things, such as the dollar and investments denominated in dollars. Despite continually hitting new records, gold prices show that the purchasing power of investments in the Dow peaked around 2000 and have been declining ever since. As Figure 1 shows, it took about 43 ounces of gold to buy the Dow in 2000 and it only takes 19 ounces of gold to buy it today.

The media can hype the record closings of the Dow all they want, but the numbers speak for themselves. The Dow may be worth more dollars than ever, but inflation shows a Dow in decline.

References

1. Dow: Longest Bull Run in 80 Years. (May 4, 2007). Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/04/markets/markets_0530/index.htm?postversion=2007050417
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Indexes. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
3. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M3 and Components. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/28

Introducing Secretary of State Nancy Pelosi

2007-04-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took it upon herself to engage in diplomatic talks with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad last week without the backing of the State Department. According to the Constitution, diplomacy with heads of state is a function given solely to the executive branch of the federal government. Other foreign relations functions are the domain of the legislative branch, such as approving treaties, but they are granted only to the Senate. Though the Speaker insisted she was just on a fact finding trip, her position in our government and the fact that she was meeting with a foreign head of state certainly would imply it was a much more significant mission.

Syria is identified by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism because it openly hosts terror organizations such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Additionally, Syria has a military alliance with another state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and has been linked to the insurgency in Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of numerous American servicemen and women. 1 Because of Syria's ties to terrorist groups, the United States has chosen to diplomatically isolate it from rest of the world. Vice President Dick Cheney said in a recent interview that Assad has been “isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior". 2 Because of the Speaker's visit, that barrier was broken down and Assad’s regime was given an undeserved legitimacy. Marwan al-Kabalan, professor of political science and media at Damascus University, was reported by the New York Times as saying that Pelosi’s visit helped “give the impression that Syria is no longer isolated in the world … So now, you can’t ask the Europeans or others not to visit the Syrians like you used to before." 3 The Reform Party of Syria echoed those words, as reported by WorldNetDaily:

Five years of investment by the U.S. State Department and the Bush administration in organizations and people who have committed their lives to helping their oppressed countries is being flushed away by the Democrats in Congress who, with the visit of Pelosi to Syria, have shown that they favor the stability of dictatorships to freedom even if they had a direct hand in killing American troops in Iraq. 4

Speaker Pelosi said that she went to Syria with “friendship” and “hope” and stated during her meeting with Assad that “the road to Damascus is the road to peace.” 5 She also stated that Israel was ready to resume peace negotiations – an assertion that surprised Jerusalem and resulted in a quick denial by Israeli officials. 6 Nations that support terrorism don’t deserve friendship and they are not the “road to peace”. Nations that support terrorism are not to be dialogued with, they are to be opposed. Syria should be required to renounce its links to terrorism and stop meddling in Iraq before it is accepted back into the community of nations. Until that happens it should absolutely remain an outcast.

The most disturbing result of Pelosi’s trip was the reaction from terror groups. Khaled al-Batch, spokesman for Islamic Jihad, had nothing but glowing praise for the Speaker’s efforts in Syria, expressing hope that she will continue to win elections and will “pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East ‘resistance movements’ and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.” Let it be noted that Islamic Jihad, along with Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, has taken credit for just about every suicide bombing attack in Israel over the past two years. Abu Abdullah, a leader of the terrorist group Hamas, said “the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria ‘is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S.’" 7 Wow, it must feel great to the Democrats that they have such upstanding advocates for their cause. Democrats like Pelosi are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do: push to get out of Iraq and open dialog with terror regimes like Syria. The Democrats are openly supported and endorsed by terrorists.

Many, including the author, believe that Pelosi’s trip was motivated more by partisan politics then any real concern for the situation in the Middle East. Democrats have at every turn attempted to embarrass and undermine the Bush administration and utilize the Middle East as a tool for political gain. Jihad Yaziji, editor in chief of The Syria Report, said “there was a feeling that [Pelosi’s] visit had more to do with domestic politics than us.” Though Pelosi insisted (incredibly) that her visit did not represent a departure from previous U.S. foreign policy, Yaziji further reasoned: “If she isn’t going to be very different from Bush, then why did she come?” 8

References

1. Terrorists go ga-ga over Pelosi's trip. (April 4, 2007). Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55038
2. Nancy Pelosi's Syria Trip Sparks Criticism for Bungled Shuttle Diplomacy. (April 5, 2007). Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html
3. Pelosi's Delegation Presses Syrian Leader on Militants. (April 5, 2007). Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/world/middleeast/05pelosi.html
4. Syrian reformers say Pelosi visit "chilling". (April 10, 2007). Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55123
5. Terrorists go ga-ga over Pelosi's trip
6. Nancy Pelosi's Syria Trip Sparks Criticism for Bungled Shuttle Diplomacy
7. Terrorists go ga-ga over Pelosi's trip
8. Nancy Pelosi's Syria Trip Sparks Criticism for Bungled Shuttle Diplomacy

The Philosophy of Our Founding: Tyranny and the Separation of Powers

2007-03-15T09:39:00.000-07:00

So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause. - Padmé Amidala, Star Wars Episode III

CNN reported January 31, 2007 that Venezuelan lawmakers unanimously granted President Hugo Chavez "authority to enact sweeping measures by decree". Termed the "mother law", the new legislation granted Hugo Chavez complete authority to legislate in "11 broad areas, from the 'economic and social sphere' to the 'transformation of state institutions.'" Venezuelan congresswoman Iris Varela hailed the new law, and was quoted by CNN.com as saying that the new power granted to Chavez had been given by "[t]he people of Venezuela, not just the National Assembly". Citizens such as high school teacher Luis Gonzalez were less enthusiastic about the developments. With human history amply supporting his concerns, Gonzalez predicted that Venezuela is "headed toward a dictatorship".

The Founders of our nation were very familiar with tyranny, having endured for years the abuses of the King of England. Their efforts to structure a new government protecting the people from the abuses of their leaders were rooted in a basic truth recorded thousands of years ago by the prophet Jeremiah:

The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
- Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB)

Many people today insist, contrary to the teachings of Scripture, that humanity is basically good. If this were true, then the Venezuelan people would have nothing to fear by handing absolute power to Chavez. However, Founding Father James Madison said that "[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary." 1 "Men" certainly are not "angels" and becoming a ruler does not make a person immune from temptation. Historical accounts of tyrannical rulers like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot demonstrate abundantly that unchecked power often leads to great evil. Our Founders understood this, therefore they designed the system of government they believed best able to rule effectively without being abusive. James Madison explains the challenge they faced:

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. 2

In other words, government must have the power to effectively govern but must also be restrained enough that it does not encroach upon the inalienable rights of the people. Joseph Story, an early Supreme Court Justice, points out that "every government must include within its scope, at least if it is to possess suitable stability and energy, the exercise of the three great powers . . . the executive, the legislative, and the judicial powers." 3 What makes governments more or less authoritarian and the people more or less free is how these powers are distributed among ruling authorities. When two or more of the three great powers are concentrated in one individual or a small number of individuals, the result is typically a dictatorship that restricts the freedom of the people. Our Founders believed it a "maxim of vital importance" to preserving the liberties of the people "that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct" 4. Therefore, the federal government was organized into the three separate and distinct branches with which we are familiar today: the Legislative Branch (Congress), the Executive Branch (President), and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court and Federal Courts). The Legislative Branch was given the authority to make the laws, the Executive to execute to the laws, and the Judicial to interpret the laws. An intricate set of checks and balances were also put in place to ensure that potential abuses by one branch of government could be checked by another branch. In an effort to further delegate power, the Founders limited the powers of the federal government to only what is specifically granted by the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. – 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Because state governments were considered closer and more responsive to the people, the Founders specified with the 10th Amendment that anything not addressed or anticipated by the Constitution was to be the domain of the states or the people themselves.

It is clear that the Founders of our nation went to great lengths to insure that the ruling powers in our country were divided up and placed under stringent controls so that future generations would not find themselves living in tyranny. Their wisdom ought to be something for which we are continuously thankful because it has resulted in the 230 years of freedom our people have enjoyed. It is both frightening and fascinating to see before our eyes in Venezuela what happens when a single sinful individual acquires great power over the lives of his people. History provides plenty of reasons to be concerned for the people of Venezuela. Let us Americans never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy and may we never forget that only with our diligence as citizens will they be preserved for future generations.

References

1. The Federalist #51. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1987), pg. 195.
4. Ibid, pg. 196.

A Case Study In Buyer's Remorse: How Easy Credit Will Push One Homebuyer to Financial Calamity

2007-03-07T13:45:00.000-08:00

Cheap credit and loose lending guidelines fueled by record-low interest rates will likely result in financial calamity for many subprime homeowners.

Bruce and Gina, a young couple from Olympia, Washington, bought their first home in April 2006 and recently contacted me to help them refinance their mortgage and obtain a lower mortgage payment. Because of their dismal credit and high debt load, I knew pretty quickly there would be nothing I could do for them but I was curious to know how they managed to buy their house in the first place. Bruce was working as a technical support analyst for a computer firm and Gina had a job as a teacher’s assistant at a local school. Combined, the couple grossed $50,000 per year. Because they didn’t have the savings to make a down payment, they financed the entire purchase price of $210,000 and took on a mortgage payment of $1850 with taxes and insurance – a payment much too high for their combined income and debt load. Bruce’s credit rating was terrible, far below the bare minimum required to qualify for even a subprime home loan, so the original purchase loan had been underwritten under Gina’s name only, using just her income and credit (which wasn’t that great either). Knowing that Gina grossed just over $1300 per month, I wondered how it was possible for her to obtain a loan with a monthly payment of $1850. As it turned out, the answer was a fraudulent mortgage application and loose lending practices. I confirmed with Bruce that Gina had “qualified” by obtaining a stated income loan – a loan that requires only that income be declared and not proven. Originally intended for those who can’t truly document their income (such as the self-employed and those who get tip income), today’s promiscuous lending environment has made stated income loans a common vehicle to “qualify” borrowers who don’t make enough to qualify by fully documenting their income. As the refinance boom unfolded over recent years, lenders loosened underwriting guidelines in an effort to qualify a greater number of borrowers and capture a larger share of the mortgage lending market. Stated income loans were increasingly made available to borrowers previously considered high risk. It is hard to say who actually did the income “stating” in this scenario, but the most likely culprit was the mortgage broker. To make the numbers work, I figured that he probably had to declare Gina’s income on the mortgage application to be about $70,000 per year for her to “qualify” with her debt load at the time. Though income is not verified, stated income lending guidelines typically require verification of employment. Because no reasonable person would believe that a teacher’s assistant makes $70,000 per year, it is likely that the loan underwriter either didn’t verify Gina’s position at all or chose to disregard that her declared income was unreasonable for her position. Even worse, Bruce and Gina elected to obtain an adjustable-rate mortgage with a 2-year teaser rate. Known as 2/28s, such loans have a fixed rate for the first two years of the term and an adjustable rate for the remaining twenty-eight years. Once the 2-year fixed period is over, Bruce and Gina will likely be hit with an increase in their payment of at least several hundred dollars as their rate adjusts to prevailing market conditions. Selling is not an option either. Home prices are stagnant or falling and because they didn’t put any money down, they will likely have no equity with which to pay for selling costs. This financial disaster in the making will likely end in foreclosure, resulting in shattered dreams of home ownership and a loss for the mortgage bank. And all of it could have been prevented with more prudent lending guidelines and practices.

Incredibly, the headlines are proving that Bruce and Gina’s story is not an isolated case. HSBC recently announced that losses due to subprime loans in 2007 were going to be “about $1.8 billion higher than expected (emphasis mine)" 1 Irvine, CA-based New Century Financial, one of the largest subprime mortgage banks in the country, announced it would have to restate 2006 earnings “to account for losses on defaulted loans it would be required to repurchase.” 2 New Century is also facing class action lawsuits, regulatory investigation, and possible bankruptcy due to the bad loans it has made. According to RealtyTrac, foreclosures are running 25% higher than last year:

We don't have high unemployment, high interest rates or a slowing economy, but we're seeing the number of foreclosure filings pushed above historic averages," says Rick Sharga, a marketing exec for RealtyTrac. "You can't underestimate the effect of higher risk loans." 3

Loans for borrowers with good credit ratings appear to be performing well, so clearly the problem is in the subprime underwriting practices and guidelines. The bottom line is that banks are lending to people who are bad credit risks and the day of reckoning has arrived. Few would probably disagree that things obtained easily and cheaply are seldom valued. That certainly has been the case over the last few years as the Federal Reserve, by lowering interest rates to record lows, has made credit so cheap and abundant that just about anybody can get it. The party was fun while it lasted, but now it’s time to clean up the mess.

References

1. Mortgage Defaults: Latest Woe for Housing. (February 12, 2007). Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/12/news/economy/subprime_realestate/index.htm
2. Ibid.
3. The Risk in Subprime. (March 1, 2007). Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/28/magazines/fortune/subprime.fortune/index.htm

Many Illegal Aliens Are Sex Offenders

2006-07-03T19:50:00.000-07:00

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. of the Violent Crimes Institute recently appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel to report on a 12-month study she had conducted regarding illegal immigrant sex offenders. Her study concluded, based on ICE reports and public records, that there are an estimated 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States*. The average number of victims for each offender was 4, resulting in a total of nearly 1 million Americans who have been victims of illegal alien sex crimes.When one considers these numbers and the horrible nature of sex crimes, it should greatly anger every American that our government has done absolutely nothing to protect citizens by securing our borders. President Bush, who called America a “nation of laws” in a March 25, 2006 radio address, has utterly failed to enforce our immigration laws. The United States Senate hasn’t been much help either. Instead of penalizing lawbreaking illegal aliens and the employers that hire them, the Senate has chosen to reward illegals with American citizenship. It is abundantly clear that our government is largely uninterested in protecting the interests of American citizens. This is absolutely disgusting. Any politician that contributes to the illegal immigrant invasion deserves nothing less than to be thrown out of office. The President and the Senators who voted for the Senate amnesty bill have all contributed to the victimization of American citizens by illegal immigrant sex offenders. They ought to be ashamed. See more on the results of Schurman-Kauflin’s study here.

* This figure represents 2% of the illegal immigrant population in the United States, which has been conservatively estimated at 12 million.

Free Speech Rights of Students Violated Again

2006-06-20T12:50:00.000-07:00

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” – First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

As seems to be the case too many times these days, the free speech rights of another student have been violated again. School officials cut short a valedictorian speech by Las Vegas teen Brittany McComb when it was apparent that she intended to deviate from the edited version of her speech approved by school officials. So what exactly was removed from the speech? Numerous references to Miss McComb's Christian beliefs, of course. School officials believed that her references to Christianity would somehow violate the First Amendment because they would constitute a prohibited establishment of religion. Maybe the school officials ought to be reminded about what an establishment of religion actually looks like. The House Judiciary Committee Report of 1853-1854 describes what is required for something to be a religious establishment:

It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. 1

The Senate Judiciary Committee provides even more insight:

The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion’. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country . . . . [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. 2

So, the question is whether Miss McComb was actually creating a national church by mentioning Jesus in her valedictorian speech. It is hard to believe that any reasonable person would think so, therefore it is safe to conclude that her speech did not in fact violate the First Amendment. If anything, what was truly violated were her First Amendment rights to express her religious views, even if some people don't like them.

References

1. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 30.
2. Ibid.

God is Central to Our System of Government

2005-12-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. - Benjamin Franklin

It is hard to believe, but once again we are back to the Christmas season. While families are busy shopping and planning their holiday celebrations, the secularists are busy trying to wipe every reference to God from the public square. Public school administrators are telling teachers they cannot wear Christmas pins or mention the name of Jesus during class time. Nativity scenes are being restricted from public property (even while menorahs are allowed). And business executives are telling employees to say "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Winter" (my favorite) instead of "Merry Christmas", which is deemed insensitive to the tiny fraction of the population that doesn't celebrate Christmas. Though some retailers may not indulge Christmas-loving shoppers by wishing them a "Merry Christmas", rest assured they will still be happy to take their money. But let's hope retailers will at least take a moment and be thankful to Jesus because, were it not for His birth, this time of year would not be nearly as lucrative for them.

The attacks on Christmas are just the latest incarnation in a broader and more lasting movement to wipe every vestige of Christian faith from American public life. Most Americans are familiar with the well-publicized legal fights over prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments, but few probably realize the broader implications of the secularization of America. Attacking the special place of God in our national heritage is an attack on the foundations of our system of government. America would not have been possible without an acknowledgement of and deference to the supreme authority of God.

The NAS Bible states in 1 Peter 2:14 that governments are ordained by God for the "punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right". God ordains government to be an extension of His divine authority on earth by enforcing his standards of justice in the world. The Founders of our nation recognized this. They acknowledged with our first founding document, the Declaration of Independence, that all people are granted certain rights by God that cannot be taken away. These "unalienable" rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the role of government is to "secure these rights". Note that the government does not grant these rights, it secures these rights, which are already granted by God. The role of government is to protect the God-given rights of mankind. If a government fails to do so and becomes abusive of citizens' God-given rights, the Declaration states that it is the right and the duty of the people to "throw off such government" and establish a new one.

Think of a system of government in which the acknowledgment of God is absent. From whom do the people derive their rights? Certainly not God - He doesn't exist, right? If the people receive any rights at all, they would be granted to them by their rulers. If a ruler can grant rights, he can also take them away. He is the absolute authority in the land, and the people have no final recourse but to him. When one really ponders it, this is absolutely shocking. A human being, a mere mortal subject to disease and death like the rest of humanity, is in a position of absolute ownership over his people. He is an absolute despot who can do with the people as he wishes. If a despotic ruler has some measure of virtue, the people are fortunate. But human history demonstrates that those with absolute power tend to be corrupted to an astounding degree. The leader who believes he answers to nobody but himself for his actions is capable of any form of evil against his people.

If the Founders did not believe in God, they could never have appealed to His standards to condemn the abuses of the despotic King of England. The highest authority in their lives would be the King himself and they would have no legal basis with which to rebel against him. But the Founders did believe in God, and they appealed to His higher standard - the standard to which the King of England also was subordinate. Because the King had broken the laws of God by violating the unalienable rights of the colonists, he forfeited his authority over them. It then became the right and duty of the colonists, as expressed in the Declaration, to reject the King's authority and establish a new government that recognized and observed God's laws.

If today's secularists lived back in the Founding Era, they could never have produced a document such as the Declaration of Independence. To what standard would they have appealed to pass judgment on the conduct of the King of England? In a world of moral relativism, how could they even say that the conduct of the King was wrong? The secularist rejects the idea of an absolute moral standard, let alone one from God.

It is important that Americans realize that the acknowledgment of God and His Divine authority are central to the existence of the American Republic. With the first stanza of the Declaration, the Founders subordinated American government to God's authority. The central role of the new American government was to secure the natural, God-given rights of its citizens, placing it in a position of service to both God and its citizens. If God is removed from the equation, our government becomes the supreme authority in the land. Composed of corruptible people and answerable to nobody but itself, it will once again devolve into the same tyranny that has plagued all of human history. Americans need to fear if their leaders no longer fear God. A leader who has no fear of Divine justice in the next life is capable of great evil in this life. It may not seem like a big deal for a store to forbid a "Merry Christmas" wish, but the wider effort to eliminate God from America's public life is a big deal because it strikes at the very foundation of our form of government. God is central to the mission statement of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. Without Him and the acknowledgment of His laws, America would never have been possible.

The full text of the Declaration of Independence is available here.

Defeat of California Prop. 73 Shameful

2005-11-25T12:59:00.000-08:00

It is an absolute embarrassment that Proposition 73, the Parental Notification initiative, was defeated 53% to 47% in the recent California statewide special election. It is an embarrassment to the state that people would actually vote against a proposal that would require parental notification before an abortion was performed on a minor. What parent would not support something like this? What parent would want a dangerous surgical procedure performed on their child without their knowledge? No sane parent would want even a teeth cleaning done on their child without their knowledge, so how could any parent vote against Proposition 73? Anybody who understands this initiative yet would vote against it is not fit to be a parent.

Also embarrassing was the voter turnout, which was just 43% statewide. Less than half of registered voters thought it important enough to take a half hour of their time to help shape the future of California. It would make sense that Proposition 73 would have drawn many conservative voters to the polls, but that does not seem to be the case. Heavily populated and very conservative Orange and Riverside counties had turnouts less than the state average at 41% and 37%, respectively. San Diego county, also very populated and conservative, at least offset the low turnout of Orange and Riverside counties with a 46% voter turnout. All three of these counties have some of the largest evangelical churches in the entire nation and populations that are overwhelmingly conservative Christian, but the results show that most voters chose to stay home. It is a shameful statement about Christians in California that they would do nothing when they had the chance to vote against one of the most obscene evils in our nation.

It is not unreasonable to view the turnout of conservative Christians as a broader statement about the convictions of the Christian church in America. For decades, Christian Americans have chosen to disengage from the culture even as blatant evil overtakes it. The evil of abortion has resulted in the deaths of 40 million innocent Americans, yet the Christian church has largely done nothing to prevent it. The Church should not deceive itself by thinking that God has not noticed. Individuals pay the price for their sin in the next life, but nations pay for their sin in this life. The Old Testament demonstrates that God is long-suffering, but nations that disobey His laws will experience His judgment eventually. If the chosen nation of Israel was not exempt from the judgment of God, America certainly should not expect that she is exempt either.

See election results for all propositions here.

Bye-Bye M3?

2005-11-23T13:02:00.000-08:00

The fortunes of empires tend to be predicated by the fortunes of their currencies. - A. E. Fekete

The Federal Reserve announced on November 10, 2005 that it intends to stop publishing the M3 monetary aggregate after March 2006. Most people would probably respond to such an announcement with a puzzled "huh?", then turn the page of their Newsweek and not give it another thought. I too was clueless until just a few days ago. Since then, I have discovered that the M3 is the broadest measure of America's money supply, which in recent years has been increasing at a furious rate. The consequences of this increase affect every American's paycheck and life savings and it concerns me that the government would see fit to stop publishing such an important economic vital sign. Why would they do that? Are times not as good as they say? Does our government not want us to know some vital truths about the health of the American economy?

Figure 1. Historical growth in the money supply. Money creation in America has accelerated significantly over the last few years. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.

Figure 1 shows the M3 over the last 45 years of our history. Notice that the money supply has doubled from around $5 trillion just a decade ago to nearly $10 trillion now. This is a huge increase in the money supply, especially since it happened only within the last 10 years. Now why would it be a bad thing to have more money in the economy? After all, more money in circulation means that there is more to go around, right? Sure, but more money in circulation results in a devaluation of all money in circulation. In other words, every dollar added to circulation results in a devaluation of every other dollar in circulation. When the dollar is devalued it is called inflation, and the result is that it takes more dollars than before to buy things such as a gallon of gas or a carton of milk. Inflation is defined as follows:

A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services. 1

In other words, when money is created at a rate that outpaces growth in goods and services inflation results. More dollars are chasing around fewer goods and services, so every dollar in circulation is worth less and the prices of goods and services increase. Figure 1 shows that the increase in the money supply over the last ten years is nearing 100%, astronomically higher than the growth in the GDP, which has averaged around 5% for the same period of time. Clearly, the growth in the money supply has greatly exceeded the growth in the economy.

Now why exactly would the Federal Reserve want to add to the money supply? It does this because the money added is in the form of credit that can be used to finance economic expansion. If credit is abundant, businesses can borrow to expand their operations. If businesses are expanding, more people are employed and accumulating wealth and more people are consuming and starting up new businesses. The theory is that as long as the Federal Reserve provides abundant credit, the economy will expand. How does it do this? Where does the money come from? It comes from the printing press (or the computer). The Federal Reserve simply creates the money needed to meet the demand for credit out of thin air.

It used to be back in the old days that market forces would regulate the cost of credit, which is reflected in interest rates. If the amount of credit available for new loans becomes more limited, the cost of credit climbs. It is a simple law of economics: limited supply results in higher prices. If outstanding loans are repaid quickly, more credit becomes available and the cost of credit drops. Well, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 to do away with the problem of a finite amount of credit in America. You see, some people noticed that limited credit usually translated into slower economic growth. If somebody could come up with a way to provide limitless credit to the economy, businesses would always have the money needed to expand and the economy would always grow. So, the Federal Reserve was created to provide limitless credit. 2 Now it's one thing to provide credit, but another thing to get people to borrow it. Instead of allowing market forces to dictate the cost of the credit, the Federal Reserve intervened by regulating interest rates itself. If the Fed lowered rates, credit would cost less and consumers would borrow more. If it raised rates, credit would cost more and consumers would borrow less.

Most Americans have heard about the Fed adjusting interest rates, but few probably know what really is happening. The rate the Fed adjusts is the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate charged by the Federal Reserve for the use of its funds. When the Fed cuts rates, the intent is to inject more credit, or liquidity, into the economy to fuel economic expansion. Because the federal funds rate is lower, it is less expensive for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve to make new loans. The banks pass the lower costs on to the consumer by charging lower interest rates on loans. Because the cost of credit in the economy is cheaper, demand for credit increases, and to meet the increased demand, the Federal Reserve simply fires up the printing presses. New dollars are created out of thin air to meet the increased demand for cheap credit, resulting in an increase in the money supply and a devaluing of all dollars in circulation due to inflation.

The danger of limitless, cheap credit is that it can result in speculative booms that can send inflation through the roof. If a borrowing frenzy ensues, such as in the white-hot real estate market of the past few years, the Federal Reserve finds itself in the position of having to create astronomical amounts of money to meet the demand for credit. It cannot simply shut down the printing presses because that would cause credit to dry up very quickly, resulting in a shock to the economy. The Fed has to ease demand by gradually raising interest rates. The danger here is that if it raises rates too quickly, economic expansion could halt and a recession could result. If it raises rates too slowly, inflation could increase. The challenge is for the Fed to strike a balance between economic expansion and inflation, achieving the maximum expansion for the minimum inflation. History demonstrates that it has not always been successful at finding that balance.

High inflation is a danger to the stability of our economy. It results in the devaluation of the dollar, making goods and services cost more. It undermines the confidence in our economic system that is absolutely essential to the continued financing of America's huge deficits. It is politically damaging to the ruling class because Americans have demonstrated that they vote with their wallets. But increasing inflation also would be a sign that the health of the economy is deteriorating. Because of an astronomical debt burden, increasing, out-of-control inflation could be a sign that the American economy is headed for very turbulent waters. This American is cynical about the intentions of the Fed with regard to the M3. Many have already made a strong case that the government is understating inflation. The decision to stop reporting the M3 seems to be another way to mask the true picture of inflation.

References

1. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/inflation
2. Alan Greenspan. Gold and Economic Freedom. (1966 Speech). Retrieved November 24, 2005, from http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

Moral Anarchy Is Destroying Our Nation

2005-09-07T13:13:00.000-07:00

But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25 NASB

Last week the world saw a major American city descend into anarchy and chaos. The destruction left in the wake of hurricane Katrina was shocking, but even more shocking was the lack of self-control of many of the citizens within the city. Looters calmly ravaged businesses, sometimes even on camera, taking what they wished. Rapes and murders were reported and shooters took potshots at rescue helicopters. Even more unbelievable were the people who actually publicly attempted to justify on national television the looting of luxury items such as televisions and stereos. A bunch of homosexuals even had the nerve to celebrate “Southern Decadence”, an annual festival to public debauchery, with a parade in the French Quarter last weekend. The callousness of some people in the midst of mass suffering truly is astounding to me. When it comes down to it, I think the blame for the selfishness displayed in New Orleans can be placed on the radical individualism that has taken hold in our nation.

The Bible indicates that in the latter days the love in the hearts of people will grow cold. I believe that the opposite of love is selfishness, so I think that it can be argued that the rise of radical individualism, which is selfishness, certainly fulfills this prophecy of the Bible. Tocqueville, an 18th century Frenchman who traveled all through America to document what made America “tick”, warned that the emphasis on individual rights in the public life of our nation could be destructive if there was not an equal emphasis on individual responsibilities. Tocqueville knew that an adherence to responsibilities on the part of individuals was important to the stability of families and communities. Such responsibilities could include honoring a marriage vow or providing a nurturing home for children. Other responsibilities may be to the community or a workplace. In our nation individual freedom seems to be expanding at the expense of individual responsibility. I think that this is why so many married couples divorce with little thought to their marriage vows and their children. Their personal needs are just more important than the responsibilities to honor their vows and raise their children. The innocent unborn are killed because the freedom to sleep around without consequences is more important than the life of another person. And in New Orleans last week, the desire for material things apparently was more important than respecting the private property that others worked so hard to earn.

The relationship of human government to individual freedom exists on a continuum. At one end of the continuum we find tyranny with maximum governmental power and minimal personal freedom. At the other end is anarchy, with maximum personal freedom and minimal governmental power. Though anarchy is maximum freedom, it truly has no freedom at all. It in itself is a tyranny, but ruled by the excesses of others instead of a powerful central government. Therefore we know that, ironically, freedom truly cannot exist without law - a point supported by the Bible. The trick to achieve the perfect government is to strike a balance between government and individual freedom so that freedom is maximized without letting it get excessive enough to allow things to devolve into anarchy.

Unfortunately, I believe that America has progressed to the brink of anarchy. However, the anarchy I refer to is not of a political nature per se, but of a moral nature. Though this moral anarchy occurs in the heart, it is manifested as radical individualism in the society around us. As moral restraints continue to be lifted from behaviors such as infidelity, homosexuality, promiscuity, etc., our society will continue to progress toward a moral anarchy that will have serious consequences for the stability of our nation. A society cannot function and remain stable if the citizens within it are not willing to recognize that yes, we all have personal freedoms, but they come with responsibilities too. As the moral anarchy of radical individualism expands, the stability of society eventually is threatened. If the stability of society is threatened, then a powerful governing force will have to restore order with – you guessed it – tyranny.

Some Thoughts on the Abortion Issue

2005-08-22T13:16:00.000-07:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

With the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts looming in the near future, the abortion issue has once again been placed front and center in the public debate. Though it has been over three decades since Roe v. Wade, Americans are still very passionate about the abortion issue. In fact, based on the rhetoric of many left-leaning senators, John Roberts’ confirmation may very well be decided based on his views about abortion and the Roe decision. Because John Roberts’ views on the abortion issue are under scrutiny, it is not surprising that the issue itself would once again be passionately debated.

Pro-choicers use many varied arguments to attempt to justify abortion, but the pro-choice position centers on one question: is the unborn child truly a person? Even the most ardent abortion supporter will not deny that abortion kills something, they just insist that the “something” is just a lump of tissue, not a person. If the fetus is not a person, then one certainly cannot consider it to be murder to kill it. The pro-choice side has been pretty effective by framing the abortion issue around what the fetus is now, as opposed to what it will be later. Because the unborn child is in a process of development, it will many times lack the characteristics one would associate with personhood or a human being, particularly in the earliest stages of development. Focusing on what the fetus is now is effective for the pro-abortion position because it is more difficult for the pro-lifer to make a case for personhood when many of the characteristics or abilities associated with personhood are not present.

Despite all the pro-choice arguments against the personhood of the unborn, there is one fact that cannot be denied: abortion denies future life to a person. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to grow through the innocence of childhood, wide-eyed at the wonders of the world. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to experience a first date and going to the senior prom. Were it not for abortion, another person would be alive to go to college, marry, and start a family. All the experiences and decisions and pains and joys that comprise what we call “life” are taken away from a person forever by the act of abortion. This is both grievously immoral and tragic. Our nation was founded with the belief that all people are endowed by God with certain “unalienable” rights - rights that are never to be taken away. The Declaration of Independence declares the first of these rights to be life, and American values dictate that life is not to be taken away without due process. Whether or not an unborn fetus is a person now is irrelevant because it is certain that it will be one in the future. Abortion is the cutting short of an innocent life; it denies the future to an innocent person. The act of taking away the life of an innocent person has a name in our society: MURDER.

Impeachment is Only Solution for Judicial Activism

2005-07-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

Because of the two recent Supreme Court decisions regarding displays of the Ten Commandments, the issue of judicial activism has once again returned to prominence in the national debate. The blatantly contradictory decisions could hardly have made it more difficult to discern the legality of public religious displays. According to Van Orden v. Perry, the Ten Commandments are legal at the Texas state capitol because, according to swing vote Justice Breyer, they were adequately balanced by secular displays. However, it appears that the posting of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse was a little too religious for the Court because it was deemed illegal in McCreary County v. ACLU. Maybe the Court would be so kind as to give the nation an idea of what could be considered a “legal” ratio of religious to secular items for future displays. As demonstrated in a previous article, the proper interpretation of the First Amendment really does come down to one question: Does the religious expression in question represent an establishment of a national church that receives direct government support and compels all citizens to be adherents? If the answer is “no”, then there is no violation of the Establishment Clause. Historical evidence abundantly supports this, but the modern Court has shown itself to not be interested in history. The Court has continued to show an historically unjustified and increasingly negative bias against Christian faith over the last five decades, and church/state jurisprudence – as confused as it is – has increasingly reflected that bias.

Because the Court has radically departed from the original meaning of the First Amendment, it must be relying on another, wholly inappropriate, source for its decisions: the personal biases of the judges. When a judge substitutes his personal bias for the written law, he makes law and usurps the authority of Congress, the only authorized lawmaking branch of the government. And because a judge is appointed instead of elected, the people have no recourse against his bad decisions, which have the force of law. If the people do not have the power to decide on the laws under which they live, then it cannot be said that America truly is a republic in which the authority of the government is derived from the people. Activist judges - those that substitute their personal opinions for the written law - are a serious danger to popular authority. If future generations are to be guaranteed the liberties Americans now enjoy, then judicial activism is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Fortunately, Congress has begun to take action to curb the abuses of the judiciary by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts. This authority, granted to Congress under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, involves prohibiting the courts from hearing certain types of cases. By doing this, Congress prevents the courts from ruling on certain issues and doing more damage to the Constitution in areas related to those issues. The latest effort currently pending in both houses of Congress is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, which will strip from the courts the ability to rule on issues related to the public acknowledgment of God. This legislation is a valiant effort, but limiting jurisdiction is not the ideal solution to the judicial activism problem for several reasons:

1. Limiting jurisdiction is a reactive approach, not a proactive one. The damage is done to the Constitution long before Congress is able to even address the problem.
2. Judicial activism is occurring over a larger range of issues. Congress is already overburdened and cannot hope to keep up with an increase in the need to limit the authority of the courts on various issues.
3. Limiting jurisdiction is impractical in many situations. Some issues are very complex and it can be difficult to design legislation that will limit enough authority to prevent abuse while still allowing the courts to properly do their jobs.
4. Limiting jurisdiction is just a “band-aid” solution that does not solve the problem of judicial activism. Congress can prevent the courts from ruling on certain issues, but activist judges will still remain on the bench.

The reality is that Congress does not even need to pass additional laws to curb the abuse of activist judges because Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution already provides a solution: impeachment. Many commentators argue that impeachment is only justified by the Constitution for blatant criminal acts, but according to early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, impeachable offenses can include more than just “crimes of a strictly legal character”. Such offenses can include crimes “of a political character” that may arise from “personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office.” 1 A judge who chooses to substitute his own will in place of the written law is not only violating his oath to uphold the Constitution, but is also usurping the authority of the people to rule themselves via their elected representatives. This certainly would qualify as a crime of a “political character”.

Because Congress is vested with the power of disciplining the crimes and abuses of judges, it is their duty to do so. The abuses and crimes of judges are abuses and crimes committed against the people. Any failure of Congress to discipline abusive judges is a failure to meet its constitutional obligation to act as a "check" on the runaway power of the judiciary. The current strategy to limit the jurisdiction of the courts is certainly a welcome step in the right direction, but it cannot be considered a final solution. The only effective solution, and one that will send a powerful message to other would-be judicial activists, is the public disgrace of impeachment.

Read the opinions for Van Orden v. Perry here.
Read the opinions for McCreary County v. ACLU here.

References

1. Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2005, from http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-310.htm

Have You Been Dumbed Down?

2005-07-01T16:25:00.000-07:00

A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. - Benjamin Franklin

Americans have been amazingly dumbed down by the public education system. Need proof? The following questions address relatively basic principles regarding our system of government. See if you can answer them without looking up the answers:

1) Natural law is one of the foundational principles upon which our government rests. Explain what it is and how it is relevant to our system of government.

2) Explain the difference between a republic and a democracy. Which type of government did the Founders intend America to be?

3) What are the three branches of our government and what are their roles? List them in the order of their power.

4) Explain the concept of federalism. Why did the Founders implement a system of federalism in America?

5) Why does Congress have two houses? Who were they both supposed to represent? (Hint: they were not both intended to directly represent the people)

6) What were the Articles of Confederation and why were they scrapped? What replaced them?

7) What was the legal basis cited by the Founders for the break with England?

If you cannot answer these questions in full without looking up the answers, it is a pretty good bet you have been dumbed down by America's educational system. I too am a product of the educational system, but have recently been studying our system of government on my own. It was not until 3 years ago that I had actually read the Constitution myself, and I am 30 years old. Let me ask you the following:

1) Have you studied the Constitution yourself?

2) Have you studied the Declaration of Independence?

3) What about the Federalist Papers?

If you have not, then how can you possibly say that you understand your government and your freedoms? Do you even care that you do not understand your freedoms? How can you protect your freedoms if you do not know what they are? I encourage everybody to read America’s founding documents. Don't depend on somebody else to tell you what they say, find out for yourself. All three texts mentioned above can be found online with a quick Google or Yahoo search. Check them out, and take the first steps toward understanding the republic in which you live.

If a nation expects to be ignorant – and free – in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -Thomas Jefferson

Every man of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country . . . By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them. -John Jay

Poll Shows Americans Misunderstand Role of Judges

2005-06-15T13:27:00.000-07:00

The Pew Research Center released a poll June 15, 2005 indicating an increasingly negative perception of the Supreme Court among the American people. An article by the Associated Press documenting the poll suggests that Americans tended to perceive the Court more negatively when it does not support their political views. One quote from the article is particularly striking, since it seems to capture a common misconception among Americans about the proper role of the courts. According the Associated Press, the poll shows that the “public is evenly split on whether they want President Bush to select a nominee who will move the court in a more conservative or more liberal direction.” 1 Because of such a statement, somebody who does not understand the proper role of a judge might view the Supreme Court, or the courts in general, the same way as the Congress - a body that moves right or left in its “agenda” depending upon whether conservatives or liberals are in the majority. In other words, if liberals are a majority on the Supreme Court, then its decisions will tend to support policies that appeal to liberals. Conversely, if conservatives are a majority, then Supreme Court decisions will tend to support policies that appeal more to conservatives. The issue is not so much whether or not this happens, but whether or not it should happen. The terms “conservative” and “liberal”, as they relate to modern political ideologies, are irrelevant to the proper role of the judiciary. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary in Federalist #78 as having “neither force nor will, but merely judgment”. 2 In other words, the courts only have the power to render judgment on the law, not enforce it or change it. If a judge rules with a political end in mind, conservative or liberal, he sheds his neutrality with regard to the law and substitutes his “judgment” for “will”. He, in effect, has become a legislator and changed the law because his decision will influence subsequent court decisions. This is very dangerous to liberty because judges, being appointed instead of elected, are unaccountable to the people. The people have no recourse against policy created by the judiciary.

It is important that the public begin to understand that they need to consider qualifications over ideology with regard to judicial nominees. What is important is that the nominee be able to discern the meaning of the law and rule in strict accordance with it. The courts should not move in either a “more conservative or liberal direction”. For the sake of liberty, they should simply decide cases based on the written text of the law, regardless of the political views of the judges.

References

1. Poll: Public Image of Supreme Court Falls. (June 15, 2005). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_su_co/supreme_court_attitudes
2. The Federalist #78. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

Dishonesty Surrounds CA Gay Marriage Bill

2005-06-06T15:30:00.000-07:00

The State of California dodged another radical, leftist bullet with the defeat of AB 19 in the State Assembly. With AB 19, the pro-gay crowd has proven once again that the law and the will of the people are of little consequence when it comes to enacting their radical, anti-family agenda. The bill, introduced in December 2004 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would have changed California marriage law to make it "gender-neutral". Assemblyman Leno does not seem to be concerned that California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2000 with the approval of Proposition 22, which was passed with a 2/3 majority. Additionally, the Assemblyman does not seem to be concerned that statewide referendums such as Proposition 22 cannot be overturned without the consent of state voters, according to Article II, section 10(c) of the California State Constitution. Leno even goes so far as to assert that AB 19 does not violate the state Constitution at all with respect to Proposition 22 because, according to him, it “was designed to prevent California from being forced to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were married outside of California” (emphasis added). 1 This is a blatant falsehood. California voters knew exactly what they were voting for when they overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. The Proposition was not designed to simply prevent the recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, which were not legal anywhere in the United States in 2000. The efforts of the Assemblyman are just another example of the rampant elitism of a radical left that is even willing to overturn the 2/3 vote of the California electorate.

Many thanks and congratulations go out to those members of the California Assembly who are on the record with “No” votes on AB 19! The votes, as tabulated by Capitol Resource Institute, are as follows:

Noes: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill, Daucher, De Vore, Emmerson, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Vargas, Villines, Walters, and Wyland

Ayes: Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava, Oropeza, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Torrico, Wolk, Yee, and Nunez

Absences, abstentions, or not voting: Dymally, Gordon, Jerome Horton, Negrete McLeod, Richman, Salinas, and Umberg

References

1. Assembly Judiciary Committee Approves Leno’s Marriage Equality Bill. (April 26, 2005). Retrieved 6/6/2005, from http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/
a13/press/a132005008.htm

The True Role of a Christian Husband

2005-06-03T21:56:00.000-07:00

Feminists have maligned Christianity for years as a religion that seeks to oppress women. Lashing out against the supposed oppressive, patriarchal tyranny of the Christian church, they accuse Christian men of oppressing their wives based on the text of Ephesians 2:22-23 (NAS), which reads as follows:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

The example that the Apostle Paul uses in Ephesians to illustrate the role of a husband is Christ himself, who is the head of the Church as the husband is to be the “head” of his wife. The Biblical text does not portray Jesus as a domineering, oppressive leader over the Church. Neither is a husband to ever conduct himself in such a way. The Bible paints a very clear picture of the type of leader that Jesus was on earth.

In Jewish society, there was no humbler task then washing a man’s feet, yet the Bible describes Jesus, the Creator of the Universe, on his hands and knees doing this for Peter. Clearly, the role of a husband as the “head” is to be a humble servant. Jesus was flogged viciously, then executed in one of the most brutal fashions ever devised so that an undeserving humanity could spend eternity with him. Clearly, the role of a husband as the “head” includes self-sacrifice and putting the needs of his wife before those of himself. When feminists cite Ephesians 2:22-23 as evidence that Christian husbands are supposed to oppress their wives, they always conveniently leave out Ephesians 2:25 (NAS):

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;

The ultimate example of love is Jesus, who loved the church so much that He gave up even His life for it. Husbands are to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the Church. The husband’s service in the role of the "head" does not mean that he is to be a military commander in his own home, barking orders and demanding subservience. The husband who honors and brings glory to God is one who acts as a servant-leader, loving his wife, honoring her, and placing her needs before his own.

The Truth About the First Amendment

2005-06-01T19:37:00.000-07:00

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” – First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The phrase “separation of church and state” is so often heard in today’s public debate that many Americans actually believe it to be a part of the Constitution. Amazingly, this phrase, which has had a tremendous impact on public policy over the last 50 years, appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is, in fact, derived from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptists had previously expressed to Jefferson their concern that the federal government could restrict their religious freedom by establishing a national church. Jefferson, writing them back, reassured them with the following:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. 1

The “wall of separation” phrase from Jefferson’s short letter has been the basis of 50 years of court decisions that have twisted the First Amendment into something it was never intended to be: a tool for unelected judges to restrict religious freedom at all levels of American society. According to the modern courts, prayers at graduation ceremonies and displays of the Ten Commandments in state courthouses are prohibited under the First Amendment. History demonstrates that what truly is unconstitutional is the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by the modern courts. An amendment that was originally intended to secure religious liberty has been turned into a tool to restrict it.

In order to begin to uncover the true meaning of the First Amendment, it is important to understand a little about the Founding Era. After the Revolutionary War, the colonies united loosely under the Articles of Confederation, which was a document that functioned more like a treaty between nations than an actual constitution. The Articles provided for a weak central government only, and the states were allowed to largely act as autonomous nations. Because of this, each of the states managed their own trade, defense, and diplomatic concerns. Over time it became apparent that the system was unworkable because the central government had too little authority to address common concerns. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened with the initial intent to only rework the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the Articles were scrapped altogether and an entirely new constitution drafted.

Because the states were so autonomous at the time, it is very important to understand that many of them were reluctant to relinquish sovereignty to the new federal government. And having just endured a brutal war against a tyrant in England, Americans were not anxious to trade one tyranny for another. Because of this, the Constitution established a federal government with very limited powers, providing it just enough authority to handle common concerns such as trade, defense, and foreign diplomacy with the least possible restriction of state sovereignty. Despite the meticulous efforts of the Framers, many states still objected to the original draft of the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, which was seen as essential to protecting individual liberties from an abusive federal government. Of twelve that were proposed, ten amendments were adopted and became what we know today to be the Bill of Rights.

A critical point to understand is that, because the Constitution established a federal government, the limitations on federal power written into the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government. The Founders were less concerned that the state governments could become tyrannical and abusive because of their close proximity and greater responsiveness to the people. Therefore, the Establishment Clause prohibits only the federal government from establishing a religion. Thomas Jefferson confirms this:

I consider the government of the United States [the federal government] as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [the Tenth Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States. 2

Joseph Story also confirms this by explaining that the First Amendment requires that “the whole power over the subject of religion” be “left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice.” 3 Because the First Amendment was intended to only limit the federal government, it would be completely permissible for the individual states to establish a state sponsored church if the citizens of that state wished to do so. However, “none of the State constitutions from the time of the American Revolution (or thereafter) established any single State denomination; most provided equal protection for all.” 4

The greatest contention in the church/state debate seems to revolve around the word “establishment”. There seems to be little agreement about what legitimately constitutes a prohibited establishment of religion. The modern courts have made it clear that they interpret “establishment” very broadly, so much so that just about any public religious expression is an “establishment of religion”. Religious expressions such as prayers at graduation ceremonies, displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and nativity scenes in public parks have all been prohibited as religious establishments. Historical evidence demonstrates that the modern understanding of the word “establishment” is very different from the meaning the Framers understood. The House Judiciary Committee Report of 1853-1854 describes what is required for something to be a religious establishment:

It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. 5

The Senate Judiciary Committee provides even more insight:

The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion’. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country . . . . [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. 6

The Committee continues by stating that the Founders intended the First Amendment to “prohibit ‘an establishment of religion’ such as the English Church presented.” 7 The Founders were fearful of two things when they drafted the Establishment Clause: tyranny and rivalry. Joseph Story addresses the first when he points to the “parent country”, which “afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions” regarding the potential tyranny of a state-sponsored, national church. He accuses the Church of England of creating a “chapter” in history filled with “dark bigotry and intolerance”. The Church of England was guilty of making such things as “apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity” to church teachings “standard crimes for public appeals” 8. In other words, people were being prosecuted for being unwilling to conform to the dictates of the Church of England. Tyranny was a major concern, but so also was rivalry between religious sects. It is no surprise that religious rivalry would be stirred if a specific religious sect or denomination is elevated above the others to a favored position with the government. The Founders sought to prevent such rivalries with the First Amendment, as Joseph Story explains:

The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohametanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry between Christian sects. (emphasis added) 9

The best example of an establishment of religion, and the one to which the Founders pointed, is the Church of England. The object of the First Amendment was not to prohibit or limit religious expression, but to prohibit the tyranny and rivalry possible under a nationally sponsored church similar to the Church of England. If the Ten Commandments in a state courthouse do not create a national church, then they do not violate the First Amendment. If a prayer at a graduation ceremony does not create a national church, then it also does not violate the First Amendment. For anything to be in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, it must fit the criteria of a religious establishment similar to the historical Church of England.

So far, it is clear that the First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, applies only to the federal government. Only the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national church like the historical Church of England. Though states retained the authority to create state churches - religious establishments at the state level - they chose not to do so. Though the Founders sought to prevent the establishment of a national church, they never intended for the national government to be irreligious, contrary to what the modern secularist asserts. According to Joseph Story, the “general, if not universal, sentiment” during the Founding Era was that “Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state” and any “attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation” among American citizens 10. This is no surprise since most Americans were of a Judeo-Christian persuasion, again, contrary to what the modern secularist asserts. This why America still has longstanding traditions like prayer in Congress and the Supreme Court along with nationally declared days of prayer. For most of America’s history, such traditions were perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. It is only under the interpretations of the modern courts that such traditions have come into question.

References

1. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. (June 1998). Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
2. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion
3. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1987), pg. 702.
4. Barton, pg. 28.
5. Barton, pg 30.
6. Barton, pg. 30-31.
7. Barton, pg. 30-31.
8. Story, pg. 702.
9. Story, pg. 701.
10. Story, pg. 700 (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 25.

About Discerning Citizen

2005-05-30T07:26:00.000-07:00

By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them. - John Jay

Discerning Citizen grew out of an interest I have developed in recent years for learning about the Founding of our nation and its philosophical underpinnings. This site is a "brain dump" of sorts for the things I have learned in my studies over the past five years. Considering the incredible volume of material out there I know that what I have studied thus far is only scratching the surface, but it is clear to me that our nation has strayed far from the original course of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and religious freedom that our Founders set for it. Our government is not as limited as it once was, having evolved into a $3 trillion fiscal sinkhole with endless red ink that grows more meddlesome and intrusive with each passing year. We are no longer a "modest republic" that seeks peace through trade and otherwise largely minds it's own business. Instead we have become a global empire with military bases all over the world that topples sovereign governments and uses bombs and missiles to "export" our way of life. We no longer have free markets due to regulation and taxes that have encouraged companies to take their jobs to cheaper nations overseas. Our savings are being robbed through an intentional policy of monetary inflation that has resulted in the debasement of our currency and the accompanying rising cost of living. Most critically, we have forgotten that our rights come from God and that it is the proper role of government to "secure" our rights and otherwise leave us alone.

As citizens, we must never forget that the leaders we select and the decisions they make will have a direct impact on our freedoms and the character of the nation we leave to our descendants. Will we leave our children a nation as free and just as the one we inherited from our ancestors? My hope is that what I have learned will help others see today's issues through the lens of the Judeo-Christian, classical liberal* worldview that birthed this nation. My hope is that it will be apparent how important it is that Americans today not evaluate policies and candidates through a Democrat or Republican lens, but through the lens of our Founding values. Only by doing this can we we protect our freedoms for future generations and be more discerning citizens.

- M. Roberts

June 16, 2008

* Classical liberalism, as referenced here, is a philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment that emphasized natural law (the laws of God), reason, individual liberty (as embodied in our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property), private property, free markets, and limited government. Classical liberalism is at its core a philosophy of freedom, emphasizing the belief that the proper role of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people and otherwise leave them free to manage their own lives.