The Enlightenment

Is America exceptional? If so, what makes the United States of America exceptional?

Is it:

• the span and substance of its land ? Yes, but, except to possess it, what did Americans have to do with North America’s geography?
• the brilliance of its banners (ie. the flag)? No, Rome had brilliant banners.
• the audacity of its hope? Hope springs eternal among all the people. But perhaps in America hope has been less deferred—and hearts less sick with hopelessness and hatred—because of the rule of law which the Constitution contains.
• the diversity of its people? Of course, diversity is admirable. But are the differences between diverse peoples reconcilable? The Balkans are populated by diverse peoples—peoples who have often warred against one another over resources, ethnicity, and religions. What has been exceptional about America is not diversity but the unity and peace that has existed between diverse people under the U.S. Constitution—a unity that is now diverging.
• the courage and sacrifice of its soldiers? The courage and sacrifice of soldiers has been celebrated in many societies including ancient Greece and Weimar and Nazi Germany; it is, however, exceptional that the Constitution ensured American soldiers are citizens—and not a separate warrior class.
• the might of its arms? Yes, but it is easy to imagine a Balkanized  America divided and weakened by internecine wars—without the formation of the social contract that is the Constitution.
• the ethos of its administrators (ie. public servants, police officers, fire fighters, and etc.) Perhaps the ethos of its administrators is exceptional--as their ethos has conformed to the Bill of Rights?
• the enterprise of its merchants? Well, weren’t the Carthaginians enterprising? And didn’t the Spanish and Portuguese trade freely? So what set them back; was it war, rapine, succession struggles between kings, and the general absence of security without a rule of law (ie. the Constitution)?
• the innovation of its science? Yes, but science has come in fits and starts; and science has been set back by wars it militarized. For example, mathematics was invented over 3000 years ago; was math a subject, 1500 years later, in dark-age schools? In America, science has had a sustained pursuit—without, as yet, any real regression to repressions and dark ages. Will “science” now repress its American sponsor (ie. the Constitution—that great innovation in intellectual property law so beneficial to science)?
• the enlightenment and diversity of its social institutions? Perhaps, but isn’t all of that enlightenment and diversity just an outgrowth of its liberty and prosperity in a blessed land under a liberal Constitution?

There may be other reasons why America is exceptional.  Virtually all of these reasons derive from its Constitution and God’s blessing. Americans, if you don’t or won’t believe it, you must soon discover how unenlightened you are.

Progressing toward the Past

Dallin H. Oaks: "All (creeds, faiths, belief-systems) must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to follow our separate courses when that is necessary according to our distinctive beliefs". I wonder "when that (will be) be necessary" (distinctive or divergent or disparate beliefs or ideas--it once was necessary and admissible in America)? So, progress is toward the past according to some, but which epoch of the past would be truly progressive: the Persian empire, ancient Rome, the Spanish Inquisition, the First or Second or Third Reichs?

A Peaceful Revolution

Hitler’s Third Reich sprang, according to a recent thesis, from Nazism’s paranoia about ecological crisis and from its interpretation of history as a racial conflict: this thesis suggests that fear about the sufficiency of German resources lead the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union and to slaughter Slavic populations to conquer land the “Aryan” people could colonize and cultivate in the East. In other words, instead of using German technology to bring about a revolution in agricultural productivity, Hitler opted for paranoia, racial division, totalitarianism, militarization, imperialism, war, and genocide. To make war on the poverty, the debt, the inflation, the decline, and the fear faced by the German people, Hitler made World War II. To “save” 60,000,000 Germans, the Nazis precipitated the deaths of some 60,000,000 persons. Many people followed these totalitarians--lending important force to their deceits--inviting murders and mayhem for the sake of their own “salvation”.

Today, there is paranoia about ecological crisis. Today, there are racial grievances and persons fomenting them. Today, history is being interpreted and reinterpreted as a singular struggle for scarce resources between races and ideologies. Today, there is economic desperation and brutalization among many populations who face poverty, personal and public debts that cannot be paid, deflation (perhaps depression), decline, and fear of the future. Because their concerns are increasingly existential, these populations find little solace in stale promises and ideologies and in comatose, enervated religions that concern themselves only with the state of one’s soul in another world. How will we be saved? What means will we adopt to achieve our salvation? Must we revert to the precepts of Nazism for “salvation”?

Because they are increasingly desperate, because they are so economically interdependent, our populations are becoming undemocratic, even totalitarian. For the sake of socialized economic security, we stifle ourselves and others. Without a revolution in lifestyle, our wills, so subordinate to our subsistence and security, must become thralls to socialized employment and hostile to convictions, faith, and independent thoughts and actions because these are sources of division in an indivisible economy.

The ruts our leaders move in suggest to them that the only means to salvation is the course that they have pursued to this point: a course of social and economic collectivization. We get socialized educations to work in a socialized economy under socialized licenses subject to confiscation by the state and its agents if we diverge from their socialized plans. Through a process of globalization, federalization, specialization, regulation, and licensure, we have almost all come to depend on others for our sustenance. It is just this course that now has us all feeling so insecure; it is just this course that has us on the verge of global insolvency, a world war, and totalitarianism--and still showing up for the same work with the same ideas the next day.

It is time we rediscovered Thomas Jefferson. The foundation for republican values is formed, according to Mr. Jefferson, by independent farmers. Jeffersonian Democrats envisioned a diverse yeomanry independent as to their convictions because they were independent as to their subsistence. Apparently, this Democrat no longer exists. And, thanks largely to government subsidies to agriculture, few farmers are independent and few farms are family-owned. Most of us now work outside of agriculture. In other words, we depend on others for our food. Our economy is dominated by services, government, and public corporations. But individual liberty is a problem in a service economy. It is problematic because one’s demand in the economy, and hence one’s sustenance, depends on one’s deference to the wishes of others. And how can an economic servant be a sovereign—a sovereign unit of We the People? The obedience that is characteristic of economic servants, of government employees, and of those in corporate hierarchies may be admirable to their economic masters but will it keep them and us from being mastered politically to the adversity of all Americans? In an interconnected, socially-networked economy dominated by these deferential persons, we are all increasingly enjoined to a smiling obedience to others. But deference makes poor and pliant democrats because it makes them incapable of independence of thought and action. For this reason, Mr. Jefferson considered service (non-agriculture) economies, public stock corporations, Federalism, and central banks to be existential threats to democracy. And, as noted above, his fears have largely been borne out. We are becoming zombie citizens with carefully circumscribed convictions because we depend on others for our food. This makes servitude inevitable. It makes individual liberty ultimately impossible. It must, eventually, stand the state in God’s stead. And it will be the end of American democracy. Unless…

The technology already exists for a revolution that might avert the anthropogenic causes of anticipated ecological crises. The technology I speak of would reduce interdependencies, and hence, conflicts (ie. racial conflicts). In other words, there is an alternative to Nazism. There is no need for paranoia, racial division, totalitarianism, militarization, imperialism, war, and genocide. And America might reestablish a Jeffersonian yeomanry of independent farmers.

There is a revolution afoot in quiet quarters. Many of these revolutionaries have been derided as “preppers”. Perceiving existential threats, of necessity, these revolutionaries have mothered an invention (okay, maybe they just combined some existing technologies). In fact, the idea these persons have promulgated is an idea that, if applied on a large scale, could soon solve world hunger, could dramatically reduce carbon emissions, would revolutionize our economy and our health, and could preserve our individual freedoms.

Don’t dismiss this idea for its elemental simplicity; this is revolutionary: at most latitudes, in a relatively small greenhouse, perhaps situated efficiently underground, but oriented toward the sun, with geothermal heating and cooling, and drip or hydroponic or ceramic irrigation systems, utilizing high efficiency grow lights during some winter hours, even without a well (ie. using new dehumidifier technology), perhaps employing some aquaculture and/or poultry husbandry, one can grow a diversity and quantity and quality of organic food our ancestors only dreamed about—enough, apparently, in perhaps 500 square feet per person (ie. with some fast-growing microgreen crops and without grain crops) to almost feed oneself. In other words, it is possible, again, and perhaps as never before, to depend on oneself for food. In fact, with a very little land, an inexpensive structure (ie. some plastic and a hole in the ground), and some relatively cheap equipment, one might feed oneself even in northern latitudes and high altitudes, even in wind-swept and desolate places! Using this technology, the entire population of the earth could probably almost feed itself (and might house itself) on less than half of the underutilized acres currently under the control of the United States Bureau of Land Management or on about 1/16 of the land mass of the United States! The benefits of this prospective revolution are almost inestimable. The density of land use could increase. Transportation and energy and packaging costs would be exponentially reduced as would the potentially harmful application of commercial fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Consumption of healthy, organic food would cut medical costs. Dependency on government would be decreased: given the opportunity to observe the growth of the fruits of their individual efforts, many people, not now participating in the labor force, might become productive in both growing their own food and in other work, and in this way, might exponentially reduce their draw on food stamps and other welfare benefits. With food security, with an elemental education in production and saving (ie. preserving seeds and crops) and risk and reward, more Americans might elect to become entrepreneurs. In the shelter of an accommodative personal space, with no need to compete with younger, healthier workers, many retirees and disabled persons who rely solely on tentatively-solvent Social Security payments might work to achieve food security and self-reliance. In this way, our leaders might obtain relief from many of the burdens which they have shouldered—burdens that they have taken upon themselves to house, feed, clothe, and care for many millions of people—and thus avert the disappointments that must attend such superhuman efforts. A secure and personal supply of food will reduce the vulnerabilities of the people to economic depressions, to political manipulations and oppressions, to theocratic and secular fanaticism, to racial and ideological divisions, to terrorist threats, and to asinine incursions into the affairs of other countries. The prospective benefits of this revolution in food security, as presented so cursorily, are, by no means, comprehensive.

If our leaders are serious about anything but their continuing control over the people, they will vet, refine, and promote this technology by compiling proven research on yields and costs for small homesteads for publication to the public, by propounding smaller subdivisions of agricultural and ranch land and permissive agricultural uses on residential land, by opening public lands to small homesteads (ie. to welfare recipients in lieu of other welfare benefits), by offering tax credits for home food production facilities, by avoiding taxation of foods produced for oneself and family, by reinstating the Constitutional protections to property, and by encouraging lending to small homesteaders. If you consider this idea absurd, I would remind you that Albert Einstein once said “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” He also observed, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.

The Nobility in Ignobility

The bride had a reason to blush. And so did the groom. Their trepidation, the canopy couldn’t cover. Why the haste to wed? Why the dearth of preparation? Why the lack of ceremony? What did gossips say? Why so pale and faint the bride? Did they know that she was pregnant? That the baby wasn’t his? That their wedding would save her from a possible stoning and him from a loss worse than that of his good name.

Under the circumstances, this birth was inconvenient. And it came untimely. That it was accomplished obscurely--in a stall with livestock, far from the gaze of their wedding party, the groom as midwife--was not unwelcome to this meek little family. There would be gifts and admirers—even here.

And then, there would be sorrow: a narrow escape, an exile, a repatriation, obscure labor. And there would be joy and wonder: God with them!

Then, somehow, this Child would be alienated from His dear mother and kind step-father. But not because He did not know--not because they hadn’t told Him who His Father was. Consequently, they did not see him heal the leprous ten. And they were absent when He raised a dead man. And they were offended because He turned his own family away--in favor of His friends and Father.

Of course, there would be reconciliation. First, mother would be reconciled to Son, and then, to His fate. In this, her God-given hopes—that He would be heir to the throne of David--were dashed. When Rome hung him as a criminal, as only a mother would, she came. With nails, they hung her carpenter’s Son. As He bore a crown of thorns, she did too. As He hefted a cross, she did too. His death was a defeat for her and humanity. Or was it?

The story of the Gospel is a story of divine nobility in seeming ignominy. It is the story of a Father’s sacrifice in Abraham and Jesus, of Joseph—sold into slavery, of Isaiah—sawn asunder, of Jeremiah—cast into a slimepit, of Daniel—a princeling resolute in captivity, of Stephen—stoned to death, of Peter—crucified, of Paul—betrayed and beheaded. And that story continues and will continue until the promises of God are fulfilled.

According to his promises, God will ”stain the pride of all glory” and “bring into contempt all the honorable of the earth” as Isaiah averred (Isaiah 23:9). Much that is high will be low. And much that is low will be high: God will “exalt them of low degree”.

Tyranny of the Minority

Congress just moved our collective cheese. And swapped in a Swiss variety. This new cheese, their folks will consume, We the People can eat the holes.

Far more of the American populace supported the 2013 government shutdown than now supports Obamatrade (Trade Promotion Authority, fast-track authority) and its train of extra-Constitutional treaties. On its eve in 2013, 45% of likely voters favored a government shutdown according to Rasmussen Reports; while, at present, "public opinion is running 5 to 1 against" Obamatrade (TPP) according to Phyllis Schlafly. In other words, almost all Americans are against Obamatrade. And they know next to nothing about it. But neither do their representatives. Because its details, if they exist, are in a secret room these representatives apparently keep from even themselves. But neither their elective ignorance about it, nor the public obscurity of its details, nor their own future electability, nor their conservative exclamations, nor their Constitutional duty, nor their contempt for a President they affect to despise, nor their compassion for displaced American workers (ie. TAA did not pass), nor the reckless prospect of harmonizing deflationary economies can check "conservative" representatives and candidates in their sale of American sovereignty.

Controversies End

At a time of tumult, when what is true and just and right is often condemned and publicly confounded, we should remember that controversies will end with amicable at-one-ment: the "watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion" (Isaiah 52:8). After controversy, conflict, and calamity, God has promised, a remainder will rejoice. Will you?

Dolors Demise?

We face a specter of deflation. This condition, deflation, characterized the Great Depression. Prominent economists, like Harvard’s Lawrence Summers, blame secular stagnation: they blame slackening demand for the shriveling economic growth that has put downward pressure on interest rates, incomes, and prices in America and in the world.  They attribute secular stagnation to the accumulation of income in the hands of savers and lenders (banks and capital holders, corporations, the rich, the single and childless, and seniors) and to the relative depletion of means among spenders and borrowers (laborers, mom and pop businesses, the poor, parents and families with children, and the young). For example, about 20% of income goes to 1% of America’s population; and about 20% of wealth is held by 0.1% of Americans. In fact, excepting the period that just preceded the Great Depression, inequality in America has never been greater. For all of its virtues to the individual, saving was bad for the economy then. And it is now. It takes money out of circulation—away from those who would take risks to create new products or services and jobs and industries--away from those who would use it to buy a house or a business or an education—away from those who need food or clothes or diapers today. Mattress-money has utility only to him that hoards it. In circulation, money has utility to every hand through which it passes. The more it moves in a year, the bigger is our Gross Domestic Product. But savers don’t need to spend. They don’t consume much. They can wait until something they want is cheaper. And it will be cheaper if the economy is characterized by savers. When savers dominate, goods get cheaper and jobs get fewer. When the economy contracts, savers and lenders won't take the risks that return economic growth. In other words, the tendency of our economy was, just before the Great Depression, and is, at present, to distribute income to those doing the least to grow or sustain the economy. This trend, toward an economy dominated by savers and lenders, is deflationary and deflation is the condition that characterized the Great Depression.

According to economists, this tendency to secular stagnation is exacerbated by population trends in America. Birth rates are falling: in fact, in recent years, American births will not suffice to replenish the existing population. Moreover, the population is aging in America. The dwindling size of America’s population will naturally reduce the number of consumers and workers and shrink the size of America’s economy. Comprised increasingly of older adults without children, America’s population will spend less and save more. As more savers save more, a dreadful economic cycle will spin—spending will shrivel—wages will wither—jobs will end--dollars will rise—debts will crush—exports will fall--companies will fail—stock listings will shrink--rates will fall—as the returns on their savings fall, savers will need to save more or take more risks in order to retire--because the economy is in turmoil, savers will be more risk averse; some may resort to storing money in their mattresses. As more savers save more, this dreadful cycle will begin anew. In other words, this trend, toward a population of older adults without children, is deflationary and deflation is the condition that characterized the Great Depression.

In this light, consider the ideal economic man. This individual would selflessly do what is best for our economy. He would work hard. And spend everything (ie. on taxes). He would borrow. And spend the proceeds immediately. He would marry. His wife would work always. She would not save either. They would have children—many children like themselves—tomorrow’s workers, consumers, taxpayers, and parents—and not tomorrow’s savers or retirees. This coolie and his wife would never retire except in death. Now ask yourself, would you want to be this person? Would you want your children or grandchildren to live this way? Is this how our collective wisdom suggests that we should live in America? If not, please recognize that your culture is counterproductive to the economy. And if your personal agency is uneconomic--as it conforms to a counterproductive culture--it will ultimately be unsustainable.

Now, in the same light, let’s consider our new economic institution, gay marriage. This institution has largely been created by our courts without the benefit of economic testimony. Where are the economic witnesses on this issue? For some reason, the courts won’t hear them. Nonetheless, they should speak.

The U.S. Census Bureau (2010 ACS) reports that there were 594,000 same-sex households in 2010 and that about 115,000 same-sex households, or 19% of these households, were then rearing children. In absolute terms, same-sex households represented 0.5% of American households and they were raising about 0.3% of tomorrow’s taxpayers, workers, civil servants, and/or soldiers.  In relative terms, the data are more remarkable:  in 2010, married-couple households were more than twice (two times) as likely to have children at home as were same-sex households. This data suggests that the typical married-couple household should expect to expend at least twice as much on child care, extra housing expenses, food, furniture, clothing, transportation, school fees, lessons, and travel for children as the typical same-sex couple does. The typical married-couple had 1.25 children. To raise 1.25 children to age 18, the typical married-couple expends over $300,000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture--$241,000 per child. This expenditure, a sacrifice to rear tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers, civil servants, and/or soldiers, represents about 400% of the median net worth of an American family according to the Federal Reserve’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances. Apparently, while typical married couples expend 400% of their typical net worth rearing tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers, civil servants, and/or soldiers, same-sex couples don’t—or won’t. Consequently, the spending of same-sex couples is more discretionary. Consequently, they are able save much of the $300,000 others expended. Because same-sex couples are characterized by natural childlessness and by the discretionary income typical of savers and not by the compulsory spending typical of parenting couples, they are among those who do the least to grow or sustain the economy. In fact, same-sex marriage is a poster relationship for ebbing macroeconomic demand—an economic institution advanced at a time when economic demand is already ebbing and economic depression is already menacing.

While, apparently, same-sex couples buck the economic yoke of children elemental to a sustainable economy, they will, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, nonetheless, partake of the same (or better) social services and benefits. In some states, this relative economic advantage for same-sex couples has already been created by the courts: all of the social service schemes created over decades by legislatures on behalf of traditional families have been awarded to same-sex couples by federal courts without amendments or alterations that would equalize the disparate impacts. In this way, same-sex marriage is made an equal but separate unjustly enriching and unsustainable institution. In other words, these policies have made same-sex marriage relatively more economic and traditional marriage relatively less economic to the individuals involved therein. Consequently, the new same-sex unions have a competitive advantage in a competitive world characterized by economic and employment insecurity. This relatively disadvantages heterosexual married couples economically. This economic inequality, created by our courts, will discourage some traditional marriages, some child-bearing, some child-rearing, some consumer spending, and consequently, macroeconomic growth or longed-for economic recovery—simply because government-sponsored economic incentives already favor same-sex unions and thus tax traditional unions in some states. Perhaps it already has? For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, at present, birth rates in America, unsustainable since 2011 (per the Economist), have come to rely on unintended pregnancies—and not on deliberate decisions to parent. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering extending this perverse equal-but-separate economic regime to all of the states in the Union.

Like many other childless savers, gay marriage advocates have utilized their retained capital macro-uneconomically; unlike many other childless savers, militant gay marriage advocates have utilized their retained capital in ways that are destructive to the economy and to the economic prospects of others. To avert anticipated discrimination, some have sought to spoil the economic opportunity of those they consider their opponents. We have witnessed the destruction of livelihoods and businesses by gay marriage vigilantes to enforce a peculiar, personal moral code. Does this unchecked vigilantism conduce to security and stability—to the conditions necessary to the formation of families, of new companies, and of jobs? Vigilantes should remember that their means will be their ends: falsehood and force beget falsehood and force—not unanimity or even unity. Moreover, can spoliation yield economic security or sustainability? The scorched-earth strategies of militant gay marriage advocates are economically destructive and un-American.

To say that gay marriage induces economic inequality and macroeconomic decline and that vigilantism by gay marriage advocates is destructive to the economy is not to say that same-sex love doesn’t matter. It is simply to say that gay marriage is uneconomic--relative to traditional marriage—from a macro perspective.

Some have suggested that gay marriage will be the end of the world. This author disagrees. Legal gay marriage will not be the end of the world; it will, however, be the end of the American (and hence the world) economy as we have known it. Gay marriage will be the end of the economy because it will disadvantage faith—belief in the improbable providence of the American Dream, in children and child-bearing and child-rearing, in information (ie. in education and economic data; as Wes Pruden suggests "Fact and fiction deserve equal respect in an age when all things are equal."), in independent conviction and thought and action, in just laws and judges that will defend ideas and persons and property, in our leaders, and in a blameless, benevolent God who orders human affairs. It already has. It will be the end of the economy because it will elevate and empower an institution that is economically unsustainable and economically disruptive—because it will relatively demote and disrupt an institution that has always sustained the economy (the traditional family)--because it will induce a perverse inequality. Consequently, its effect, in tandem with other adverse economic trends, will be economic depression. It will be the end of the economy because the LGBT lifestyle, so socially ascendant in the present, is unsustainable unless the economy is planned—planned by an un-American government—planned as to population—planned to regulate childbirth—forcefully planned to redistribute the future income of one’s children to childless pensioners—planned by proponents of planning—planned by those practicing diverse but unsustainable lifestyles. And planned economies have always languished. In other words, although it would temporarily console a 1% minority of American couples, gay marriage will invite economic desolation and totalitarianism for all Americans. Can the consolation of the LGBT community last when the economy ends? Will your support and/or silence seem so economic or wise then?

Because current income distributions and childlessness are unsustainable, we have come to rely on government as our economic arbiter. We have come to expect government to sustain what is unsustainable through periodic extralegal redistributions: for example, to take money from those who save it, to give unearned income to those who spend it, to rescue uneconomic jobs and industries, to print money to avert defaults in government or interruptions to social services, to sustain consumption and demand with trade imbalances, to support childless pensioners on the labor of other people's children. This gives government power over subsistence and, according to Alexander Hamilton, "power over a man's subsistence is a power over his will". The more unsustainable is our macroeconomy, the larger, the more arbitrary, and the more intrusive must be this government arbiter. In crisis, the actions of this arbiter, once legitimized by laws, must become lawless, tyrannical, and totalitarian: conserving and enlarging its own power--rationing capital away from economic activity--underwriting uneconomic political and social programs--manipulating the collective opinion against the just claims of economic minorities--becoming the enemy of individual freedom, of self-directed activity, and of personal property--discouraging the investment, initiative, innovation, and liberality that could keep us from captivity. Does this seem familiar?

Let’s be clear, secular stagnation and its causes (which are inducing deflation) arise from secularism—from a lack of faith in anything except stores of money and the security this suggests. And secularism is bad macroeconomics. This leaves secularists torn between a) their uneconomic, secular autonomy and b) a strictly planned economy--an economy that is ultimately incompatible with individual rights.

Hypocritically, the culture of secularism—a culture that celebrates accumulation as the end of life--is counterproductive to the economy. In fact, our rodent-like focus on hoarding cheese as its own end shrinks and repels the macroeconomic cheese. For short-term satiation, we have resorted to eating baits from collective traps. Some say our culture is unsustainable morally and spiritually. Secular stagnation reveals that it is unsustainable economically. If economy is paramount (“it’s the economy, stupid”), why have we embraced a culture that is counterproductive to the economy and is incompatible with sustained individual freedom?


While economic data will defend this thesis--that secularism is bad macroeconomics--it is harder to explain why prosperity has generally departed from those who are the least secular in America (ie. the average, once middle-class, conservative Americans)--from those who do the most to grow the economy. In our economy, there seems to be a micro bias against what is sustainable on a macro scale. For some reason, the economy has relatively punished the unsecular (ie. conservatives, evangelicals, this author who writes about the economic unsustainability of secularism) and relatively rewarded the secular (ie. wealthy elites, technocrats, and gays). Call it the unseen hand. Today, as arbiter (ie. because mortgage credit was nationalized by bailouts), government is able to selectively reward its secular supporters (ie. with mortgage modifications) and punish the unsecular (ie. with foreclosures). And often, public policy secularizes (ie. state funding for abortions and birth control providers, specific tax credits for two-income households, grants to liberal educators). Of course, the secular are staunch supporters of interventions by government in their favor--though their ascendency accelerates inequality and macroeconomic unsustainability in America.


Because current macroeconomic conditions are not sustainable, NASA is warning about "inequality-induced famine" and an irreversible collapse.


Secular convergence was economically unsustainable in revolutionary France, in the Soviet Union, and in Maoist China. It will be in a godless America. For the sake of macroeconomic sustainability, the faithless must admit Providence into their society and the faithful into their prosperity.

It matters economic, in God, we Americans, do not trust. We have put our trust in paper dollars and deceits: we thought that experts could tell us what is productive--without approaching what is moral. We have applied principles of economic efficiency to everything--except the macro-effect of our own lifestyles. Because we thought our economic intercourse depended on it, we have become un-American--to some, the Great Satan--a force for unsustainable secularity in the world. Even believers have feared man more than God and the word of economic experts more than the word of God. We became so provident that we evicted Providence. And took secular economists as our prophets of plenty. Then, brutalized by an economy that is increasingly inefficient, distorted, and unsustainable, many believers became brutish--characterized by an anxious legalism and an abandoned acquisitiveness. Some, because they don't trust God, would have us sacrifice all of our sensibilities (moral, religious, and otherwise) to collective economic security. Some eschew conservatism of the social variety--imagining that inebriates can be made to balance budgets. As evidenced by U.S. trade deficits and budget deficits and debts and debt service, it is apparent that their "conservatism" has failed. It is time we recognized that it is conservatism of the social variety that sustains the macro-economy. It is time we admit that our economic choices haven't been provident without Providence. It is time we acknowledge that abominations invite economic desolations. Alternatively, if we persist on our macro-improvident way, in its fruition, will we find the secular-efficient, collectively-planned, and necessarily totalitarian lifestyle cushy? Is there nothing dearer to us Americans than the security of perishable substance?

There is much argument in America about which class of persons is culpable for our constrained economy. Some blame the 47%. Others consider themselves the 99% and blame the 1%. These arguments demonize others; predictably, they lionize substance. We are exploited by them. Ultimately, they will divide us because a) secularity is not sustainable and because b) we are unable to discover a unity between us that is not secular.

There was a time when statesmen concerned themselves with virtue as policy (ie. economic policy). For example, it was clear to Benjamin Franklin that: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Free Trade Within

Deflation, falling prices, is what defined the Great Depression. As prices fell, wages fell. Investment contracted with contracting returns. When the prices of goods couldn't cover their costs, jobs disappeared. Consumers without jobs couldn't consume. And animal spirits suffered.



Is it really a good time for America to pursue new bipartisan trade agreements--agreements that would further harmonize our economy with large markets like Japan and Europe where deflation is resurgent and menacing? Already deflation is contagious: American median household income is down $5,000 since 2007 and American consumer prices began to fall in December. Does deflation here really need encouragement in new trade agreements?



Is it really a good time for America to pursue new bipartisan trade agreements when external (ie. trade agreements) and internal disincentives (ie. regulation and uncertainty) to entrepreneurship already destroy about 100,000, or two percent, of America's private businesses each year according to Gallup and when young entrepreneurs are already an endangered species according to the Wall Street Journal and when small businesses still account for about two-thirds of net new jobs? As companies close, there is less competition for workers, which depresses wages. Does this deflationary trend need encouragement in new trade agreements?



In an increasingly desperate and deflationary world, why do we expect American small businesses to compete with companies that don't have to compete with American regulations (ie. the necessity to provide health insurance to their employees and the liability of withholding and remitting payroll taxes to government)? Why do we expect American workers to compete with workers who do not have to pay for the same social insurance schemes or public education programs or environmental protections? The company and worker who does not have these costs will be cheaper and more competitive to the end consumer. And the American worker, "protected" by a nanny state, will be less employed than his overseas counterpart.



Let's free trade within our borders. Otherwise, free trade is just mercantilism against everyday Americans--a run on our nation's dwindling resources by international capitalists encouraged by our policy makers--a run on our nation's dwindling resources which leaves us captive and impoverished (ie. selling personal services to each other to buy our manufactures overseas).



Let's free trade within our borders. Otherwise, free trade imports the labor of aliens to support the consumption of retirees while laborers in America are excluded from economic exchange. This would cause dangerous divisions in American society especially in a deflationary environment. Would a leader working to conserve his country pursue such a policy in the present?



It's time for American policy makers to compete with their counterparts overseas: a fair trade
agreement would equalize by reductions the wages, benefits, and pensions of administrators in the US with those of their counterparts in Mexico. A parity of regulatory costs would reduce the disparate burden on American companies and workers competing in the NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership markets. This would make American goods cheaper in America and Mexico. Regulators, whose consumption is curtailed in the short-term, could be retrained to do productive work.

Insecurity About "Infidels"

Only a quavering coward would seek to enforce his beliefs on others by taking or defacing their life or property illegally. Here is one who doubts that right makes might--who lacks faith in the ultimate justice of his cause--who fears the truth about his faith--whose god is a human or is circumscribed by human forces--whose god (ie. or science or philosophy) must rely on his compulsion to effect his ends. This insecurity about infidels is expressed violently by jihadists and repressively by those who act to enforce political correctness and moral complaisance (to effect their gain and influence). These extremists serve the same end. Do they serve the same vile "god"?

To The American Dreamers

Entrepreneurs are an endangered species, according to the Wall Street Journal, particularly among young adults. Do these young adults need a lecture from their Baby-Boomer parents' generation about work ethic and enterprise and thrift and risk-taking? Why have they turned from the pat answers of the past? Is there some defect of character in this rising generation? Or do their choices reflect a demise of incentive?



Perhaps they have discerned that it won't matter if they work hard and if they have indomitable resolve and if they have a revolutionary idea or service or product and if they have patents and trademarks and copyrights and if they have exclusive international supplier and distributor and consumer channels and if they have optimal invested capital and if they have an Ivy-League or graduate education and an abundance of industry experience and expertise and model employees--if the intellectual or physical property they create does not have the clear protection of immutable, egalitarian laws (ie. the Constitution). All their pain and labor might birth a state-sponsored abortion. Or, they might become a surrogate mother without any consideration ("you didn't birth it--it takes a village"). Or, they might subsist--breast feeding their baby for years until it is finally desiccated by a state demand for what was essential to its existence. Perhaps many surmise that government IS the risk to entrepreneurship and hence to the economy (do state-sponsored laundry inspection services constitute an economy?)--a risk that can only be mitigated by avoiding the responsibilities entrepreneurs assume--private responsibilities that are magnified daily by government--even as burgeoning government commonly breaches contracts of its own creation.



Like Cuba and Venezuela before her, America has arrived at a point where prosperity is political. Expressions of ideology are rewarded and punished economically. The cheese is moving and mice must follow. So, suspend your humanity. Censor yourself. And obey your rodent-like instincts. Your cheese depends on it.



To prosper, young Americans should seek experience in state-sanctioned (socialist) activism and enterprises. To prosper, they should promote revolutionary redistribution of wealth and influence. Only a principled pauper would resist this current--move in with his conservative parents--to confront anew notions of a bygone but longed-for America. So why are so many young adults choosing this anguished course? And waiting on the world, unsustainable as it is, to change for the better? From their refusal to be reconciled to our mad and maddening cheese chase--a chase that will end in a trap unless we consider its course--we, their seniors, might learn something about responsibility.

Daresay

It was in the free states of New England that William Lloyd Garrison, publisher of The Liberator, abolitionist, found "contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen than among slaveholders themselves." Among his own, he was considered a disturber of the peace. This did not deter him: "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language, but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen--but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat in a single inch--and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and hasten the resurrection of the dead. It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence--humble as it is--is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years--not perniciously, but beneficially--not as a curse, but as a blessing. And posterity will bear testimony that I was right."

In retrospect, how clear it seems that he was right--a fact then obscured, even in the most progressive section of the United States, by a fog of fears and falsehoods. History has vindicated his ideas when most of his contemporaries wouldn't--openly.

It is a delusion to expect what is right to be pervasive and popular--to expect that expressing or doing what is right will bring immediate recognition or riches. It was never thus. What is right will not enlist the already and many enslaved. Their chains will move them to speak and act to their own subjection. To reverse the networked economic and social enforcement of pernicious political correctness, to avert the slavery of former abolitionists, we should expect to earn some ignominy in the short-term. But while we can, we should speak and act--in spite of economic and social penalties--in favor of truth and freedom--content to bear the contempt of the decadent, the dissolute, and the daunted--to await the consolation of a future vindication.

Truth as a Superlative

Have you noticed that when Americans use the word truth, they often preface it with an adjective like perfectly or absolutely or definitely or very--as if what is true needs embellishment--as if what is true needs an exclamation point? This author was caught doing that yesterday and reminded by his wife that what is true just is. God bless her. In other words, it doesn't need embellishments.

I believe this reveals something about Americans: we consider truth relative--as if stubborn facts were subject to private interpretation. Like good, better, and best, to us, truth has degrees--verity has a hierarchy in America. We think some things are true, some truer, and some truest. So, what makes something that is true a superlative? Is a thing truer when we feel strongly about it or when it strokes our ego or when we know nothing about the facts but it concerns our friends? If truest is truly true, does what is mere "truth" verge on falsehood? And, will what is truest always be what is loudest or prettiest or most popular? Perhaps Winston Churchill, English statesman and historian depicted us well when he said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing (ie. tell the truth) - after they've tried everything else"?

The Unwritten, Evolving, But Enforceable Law

The Dodd-Frank Bill, a sweeping revision of dozens of laws regulating finance and credit--the lifeblood of the American economy--passed in 2010, outsourced much of Congress' discretion to regulators. Four years later, many of the hundreds of rules proposed by the bill have yet to be written by regulators in the Obama Administration. As critics predicted, the regulatory system has been in chaos for years as a result of Dodd-Frank. One critic of the legislation, law professor David Skeel, observed in the bill a "government partnership with the largest Wall Street banks and financial institutions" and "a system of ad hoc interventions by regulators that are divorced from basic rule-of-law constraints". That the rules remain unwritten burdens the economy with uncertainty. This law may explain why banks are hoarding, instead of lending, unprecedented amounts of money as the international economy contracts. Also, the unwritten nature of the law may enable ex post facto and arbitrary regulatory enforcement. In other words, Americans (ie. those in finance), may be culpable for non-compliance with an as-yet unwritten regulations. Note: ex post facto laws were expressly prohibited by the Constitution.  A couple of years ago, the argument was made that Congress must pass an unpopular law before we would know what is in it; in contrast, Dodd-Frank was passed before it was really written.

Responsibilities Without Rights

When Hillary Clinton alluded recently to a "basic bargain" for Americans who "work hard and play by the rules", she echoed Barack Obama's 2013 State of Union Address in which he said "It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country -- the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead." I am not sure where this basic bargain was discovered. It isn't in the United States Constitution. The rights enumerated therein are not conditioned on one's work ethic or even on one's adherence to responsibilities. In fact, even eccentrics have rights in America. The Constitution circumscribes the government--and not the rights of individuals. To accept the idea of the "basic bargain" is to accept the idea that our rights are conditional--that they are conditioned upon our exertions and/or our obedience (ie. ideological obedience). To assess the quantity of one's work--and thus to determine if "hard work" has been done--is to assess the quality and directionality of one's work: who dictates whether one's work is done, must determine what one's work is and whether it is done satisfactorily. And who dictates whether one has met his responsibilities, must delineate the responsibilities of those he superintends. In effect, he who has responsibilities without rights is as pliant as a puppet, but does not need actuation. Under the "basic bargain", will the hard work, contained in this blog, qualify this author for rights in America (ie. the right to get ahead)?

The Individuality of Integrity; The Collapse of Common Consent

Social science asserts that social preferences cannot be made intelligible in a democracy--that democracy must be either arbitrary or impossible. Proofs are provided by the Condorcet Paradox and the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. Stated differently, political science insists it is futile to expect to translate the popular will into coherent social policy in a democracy--that what is expressed by a close election must be either arbitrary or manipulated. This is, obviously, a very cynical concept.

But it is one that is held by many governing elites in America. It explains some of the cynicism toward the governed and the distrust of the governing in America: there is a belief among our foremost democrats that democracy is impossible. But they won't broadcast this belief: to do so, would be to controvert their own legitimacy; to do so, would be to confess their cynical manipulation of a political system they contest. When these "democrats" envision a "more perfect union" than our constitutional democratic republic, what is it that they envision? What form would their perfect union take--a form far more efficient than democracy--the form of a tyranny? Before modern social science had sway, Winston Churchill, the English statesman and historian, asserted that "democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others that have been tried".



Without the aid of modern science, our forefathers understood the perils of plurality: in arguing for the Constitution, James Madison observed that "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." To check this tendency of democracies, the founders implemented a republic--a representative democracy. The will of the people would be expressed by representative legislators and electors focused on governance. A republican form of government would mitigate many of the deficiencies of a pure democracy. For example, a republican form of government would address asymmetric access to information: electors and dedicated legislators would be drawn from the elites--from persons with better access to education and information--elected directly by the people. Dedicated and consequently better-informed representatives would express the preferences of a less informed and sometimes misinformed mass of voters in public policy debates. If this characterization of the masses (ie. as misinformed) rankles readers, consider the characterization that the "democrats" described above entertain: they consider the masses completely incapable of self-governance.



The founders recognized that a republican form of government would not mitigate all the deficiencies of pluralism. For example, it would be less efficient about decisions and resource-allocations than would be a dictatorship. It would probably be less constant but longer lived than a kingship. But administered faithfully, it would best protect persons from oppressions and private property from confiscations.



From the axioms of social science, it follows, (and reason confirms) that common consent lacks the integrity of individual conscience. Without unanimous solidarity in leadership, institutions (ie. parties) are incapable of real integrity and real honesty. Their course will be circuitous. An individual, only, is capable of a straight and narrow course--by the grace of God. But only if the individual refuses changing, inchoate collective wisdom. Integrity is an attribute of individuals; it is not an attribute of institutions based on common consent. And it defies leaders who chase mass consent--leaders who are lead by polls and collectives--and not by their conscience.

On In-dependency

What accounts for the disparity between predictions by national polls about the midterm elections and what the actual outcome of the election was? Post-election media revisionism might suggest otherwise, but pollsters predicted a near-draw in the U.S. Senate. Instead, before the election, Democrats held 53 of 100 seats and, after the election, Republicans held 54 of 100 Senate seats. Were the polls, as reported by the national media, a means to influence the outcome of the election--a means to nudge voters toward a preferred party and platform? Were the polled Americans lying to the pollsters before the election--lying because they were fearful about expressing their true opinions except within the closed curtains of a voting booth? Or, did they abruptly reverse their opinions after they were polled but before they voted? In any case, this disparity does not bode well for independence. Independence is for those who are capable of independent inquiry and honest, firm, and independent opinions.

On Prosperity in America

Prosperity was promised to Israel by God: "ye shall eat your bread to the full.....I will give you peace in the land.....none shall make you afraid.....ye shall chase your enemies.....(I will) make you fruitful....." (Leviticus 26)--if they would love their God and neighbors.  If they would not, He warned: "ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.....your strength shall be spent in vain....."

Prosperity involved the possession of a land in God-given security.  Without secure habitation, there would be no prosperity for Israel.

This promise of prosperity was a collective promise.  The judges were enjoined to "do no unrighteousness in judgment" and the people were enjoined to make provision for the poor (Leviticus 19:10-18) who would be "always with" (Matthew 26:11) them because the grave threat to prosperity (and peace and freedom) was internal injustice--or, in other words, enforced inequality.

Of course, Israel's fall was about idols--about things of antiquity--only about anachronisms that are anything but modern?!? But what is idol worship if it is not contrived inequality? Worshipping idols, men lifted up something other than love of God and man--offering it as a substitute for God's judgment. What men lifted up was self-exalting; it abased others--especially those who could not forge or promote an image of their own. In other words, idol worship subjected men to the whimsical judgments of idols and idolaters and not to the egalitarian, loving judgment of God. By lifting idols and idolaters up, idol worship invited inequality. By prohibiting idol-worship, God prohibited injustice.

Prosperity itself can be a pernicious idol. It is a model for false judgment. Presumptuously, wealth is attributed to the attitudes or merits or exertions of its possessors (ie. Americans). Presumptuously, the poor (ie. poorer nations) are faulted as cause for their own poverty. When prosperity is idolized, respect for truth and law gives way to respect for persons and possessions: the rich are received as righteous oracles; the poor are shunned as sinners. This idolatry makes men insecure, possessive, unstable, vain, foolish, proud, and misanthropic. It is adverse to speech, law, truth, faith, justice, and humanity.

To advance the self-made person thesis and the self-made nation thesis, a huge body of folk wisdom--a redoubt for a religion of materialism--is grown up here in America. You've heard variants of this theme: "to be rich is to be righteous". Its corollary: to be poor (ie. a relatively poor nation) is to be perverse. According to this theme, wealth is goodness--however gotten. A prosperous end will justify any means; a poor end will nullify the ideals of the impoverished--however honorable. This Social Darwinism masquerades as a priest among us: blessing the bounteous and cursing the impecunious and their ideals. He offers communion to those who prey in the name of efficiency, productivity, and the holy planned economy. He brings to ignominy ideals that are insubstantial: and freedom and faith and truth and morality are insubstantial (they really can't be quantified) ideals. His pragmatism is pernicious to thought. In this way, the American intellect is made a reserve for the contemplation of how to get the green produce of a paper press--which press has "multiplied wealth" four-fold in almost as many years. In this way, the values that survive and ascend among us are the values that enrich us materially. And because we think riches evince righteousness, there is no principle that would cause us to part from mammon. But at some point, in an era of ever more frenetic and frenzied profiteering, the values that enrich are the very values that defraud. Then, to thrive is to deprive. For example, at some point, the torque is too great to stay atop a twisted treadmill--as the failures at Sunbeam, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Countrywide and government sponsored enterprises will attest. Each of these failures represents a heavy human cost. But how many among us would have left stock options at any of these--in the heyday, before the crash, out of principle? Recognize that in the hands of crafty monetary administrators, our philosophic optimism and pragmatism may be nothing but a nose ring. But so long as we consider the nose ring an ornament, we will go, skipping to the sound of our self-assuring voices, in chains, to where the planners of our economy lead us. And for the sake of substance gotten, the rich will keep us skipping in tow. Perhaps Jesus preferred the poor because they are less compromising as to truth and principle--because they compromise out of necessity and not for the sake of abundance? In any case, the self-made thesis is nonsense as a stand alone: it denies God. Rarely, will the prosperous (ie. Americans) observe, more rarely, will they acknowledge that the causes of their prosperity were outside of themselves and outside of their control--that their prosperity is simply the stuff of God's generosity--of inheritance, of windfall, of vicinity. Without God-given gifts like a rich land and a constitutional rule of law and its attendant freedom and peace, the best attitudes and merits and exertions would have been as prosperous, even in America, as a lunar miner without air. In the easy air of America, the prosperous found their lodes and made their fortunes. But they clung to and counted their lodes. And forgot the Giver. And neglected the air of freedom. Some seem to think that their stash will save them without a supply of air. For their kin--now gasping--will they save the air? Which came first, the stash or the air supply? Of what use is the lode without the air? Will this idol, prosperity, save a suffocating world? Did idols save Israel?

History reveals Israel chose idolatry and injustice--that Israel put substance ahead of the spirit of God's love. Will America? Israel's institutionalized inequality caused dangerous divisions. It compromised peace. Ultimately, it dispossessed all Israel of its promised land.

Without prospective justice, there is no peace and there is no prosperity. Who can blame the oppressed of Israel for not gifting their allegiance to oppressors--for not rendering fidelity when it would yield servility--for vagrant, bewildering allegiances when their hope was vagrant--for not cherishing the prosperity that they could not partake of--for treachery against a increasingly treacherous, platitude-wielding legalism--for eventually, without prospect of equity, allying with the enemy of their enemy who would captivate their captors and overthrow the land of their oppression? When there is no prospect for progress in terms of justice (ie. when deceit displaces honesty), when there is no hope for amelioration, the oppressed, however magnanimous, will naturally thwart the peace and prosperity of their own people.

Wide and Deep

During the Civil War, in a great act by one of America's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln set apart a day for national prayer proclaiming "it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.....And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!....It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

The Civil War continued. Many of its bloodiest battles followed. Years passed. Still, Lincoln prayed, acknowledging God's justice in the startling duration and the depths of the nation's suffering: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Thankfully, it did not require slash for lash to exorcise American slavery.  The extent and intensity of the nation's suffering was not matched to the nature and severity of its sins--because God is merciful.

As our leaders and people have strayed from the true and righteous judgment of God--preferring vanity, false hope, oppressive peace, and deceit--what will it take to exorcise the spirit of perverse judgment that condemns what is true and righteous and consigns it to the corners of our society and speech?

They're Coming To America

Is it time for Americans to consider EFL classes (English as a Former Language or, in other words, Spanish classes)? The President has announced his intention to naturalize tens of millions of illegal immigrants with or without Congressional approval--to naturalize persons who value our constitutional republic so much that they came here and come here without invitation and without the rights of a citizen.

It is altogether fitting and proper that a God-fearing, freedom-loving, ingenuous, merciful, family-oriented, hard-working, and contrite people should possess America. Such a people will remember to thank God for the inheritance He gives them here--to rejoice in the boon that He has given them and not to undervalue or undermine it: they will cherish the Constitution that made America (ie. more than money)--conserve faith and freedom--establish a just peace--and not put gain and self above love for God and others. From God's perspective, this better state might be best accomplished by importation--by bringing people that already have those qualities into America. From His perspective, perhaps it is easier, at the present, to import these human qualities than it is to inculcate them? Already, God has tried gentle inculcation in America. Perhaps if they are less secure in themselves, perhaps if alien role models are introduced, some of the "natives" (former imports) will amend their ways? Perhaps abjectivity will bring objectivity?

Inadvertently, perhaps those who seek political gain through illegal immigration are fulfilling God's will for the repopulation of America and their own eventual displacement? Perhaps what the President "heard" from the two-thirds of American voters who did not vote in the mid-term election was not apathy or disdain for politics--as if politics don't matter a bit--but God's will for the repopulation of America or their wish for new, imported neighbors?

It is altogether just that this repopulation should arise from the corruption of the current inhabitants--that it should issue from breaches of laws by a lawless but legalistic people. God is just. But He prefers to show mercy to the merciful and penitent.

It is altogether just that a flawed public welfare system that has captivated so many minorities will probably be broken by this influx. This will reveal the bankruptcy of keeping brothers from any economic failure and all economic success for the sake of their votes. We will then realize--if we don't now--that when the law is not executed faithfully and justly, returns on labor and investment become uncertain; which destroys incentive; which burdens welfare rolls; which ultimately imperils all social contracts including promises to welfare recipients.

To many Americans--whose jobs may go to someone with like skills but less demands, whose schools may exceed capacity, whose checks from Social Security may cease--this development seems ominous.  But we will not fear if we are true to our national motto (in God we trust): we are assured that "all things work together for good to them that love God" (Romans 8:28).

In the short-term, some stand to gain by depressing wages and bankrupting government. But they are not the poor and the immigrants--in spite of all the demagoguery.

The political impasse over immigration seems so God-ordained. If He spoke to us now, perhaps He would say: "If you don't love your neighbor (as I do), find a new neighborhood; if you want stark change (not the constitutional republic that is America), you can be removed; if your resources are too scarce to be shared, I will give them to people who consider them plenteous--people who will be generous; if you prefer lawless license, let's try anarchy." Also, it is as if God has written a letter of emancipation to our brothers and sisters elsewhere--an offer to possess the land that they covet--a letter like the one that follows:


To My Dear Children of Developing Countries--of Central and South America Especially:

Give the United States your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to the United States:
I lift my lamp to them through my son, Barack Hussein Obama, beside the golden door.

With Love,


Your Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost

The 1980s Are Now Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back

Russia recently built a banned cruise missile--in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.  Then, Vladimir Putin announced his intent to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea.  Deployment to Crimea will place Russian tactical nuclear weapons on soil it just seized within 300 miles of Istanbul and Ankara.  But the U.S. Administration doesn't seem concerned.  In fact, the US appears to be dismantling its NATO nuclear deterrent in Europe and outsourcing NATO policy to Germany.  Is this, Russia's nuclear saber-rattling in Crimea and support of wannabe nuclear Iran, just a regional threat or the stuff of a NATO split?  Will our NATO ally, Turkey, finally join the U.S. fight against ISIS? Vladimir Putin just met with Turkey's Erdogan: a pipeline that would have conveyed its gas to Europe will be rerouted to Turkey; trade (ie. the services necessary to construct a nuclear power plant in Turkey) between Moscow and Turkey is growing while the rest of NATO sanctions Russia.

Will the 1940s be calling to ask for their foreign policy back? Will the 1910s? Will the 1860s?

Inevitable Apprehension

God bless Julia Ward Howe, author of The Battle Hymn of the Republic:

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on."

Ms. Howe looked beyond the bloody Civil War and saw the coming of Christ as promised by the Bible--with "fateful lightning".  She saw His triumph--His reign characterized by justice and peace.  She recognized that there is no such thing as holiness without the freedom to choose it--a freedom He expects us to uphold and defend for ourselves and others.

When compared to this Shepherd, Jesus Christ, all other shepherds seem contemptible--mere man pleasers and demagogic self-promoters. As anciently, those who love unjust authority will deny Him or seek to disgrace Him or displace Him or delay Him--they will consider His coming to be disruptive to their dominion over others. His coming will be characterized by apprehension: some will see--apprehend--His glory and truth and purpose; and some will experience terror and horror. When He comes, He will exalt the poor and the meek and the afflicted: they will inherit the earth.  Those who await Him--those who trust Him--are His people.  He has promised "they shall not be ashamed that wait for me" (Isaiah 49:23).

A Free Country?

Perhaps you have encountered a similar problem.  I was unable to access videos on the Fox News website on the night before the midterm election.  Should I look to a free country for my news?

The Criminalization of Political Expression

"personal life is being de-moralized" while "political life is being hyper-moralized", asserts David Brooks of the New York Times.  Policy prescriptions of opposing ideologues are already so irreconcilable, according to article commentator MFW, that they are dismissed as "akin to trying to paint a room in a house that is burning down".  Political-moral certitude has contributed to a "criminalization of politics" according to George Will:  conservative expression has been suppressed--examples of this appear in paramilitary raids on conservatives in Wisconsin and in abuses against conservatives by the IRS.

The hyper-moralization of politics, the criminalization of political expression in America is evident in and is traceable to its fount in the case of Catherine Engelbrecht.  In 2010, Catherine Engelbrecht sought IRS tax-exempt status for the organization True the Vote, a non-profit election integrity organization.  Soon thereafter, the Federal Bureau of Investigations Domestic Terrorism Unit visited the to-be non-profit.  The FBI informed Engelbrecht it was investigating a person who had attended the to-be non-profit's meetings.  It was only after six similar and intimidating visits that the FBI relented.  Next, the Engelbrechts were subjected by the IRS to an audit of business tax returns followed by an audit of their personal tax returns.  Then, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) abruptly audited their business.  And they were subjected to an examination by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  The BATF and OSHA found no violations.  But their visits resulted in fines of about $20,000.   Meanwhile, the IRS inquired into Catherine Engelbrecht's personal correspondence and beliefs, public communications, and the whereabouts of her activities and assets.

In the context of the IRS scandal, this story has been heard by Congress.  In the context of the IRS scandal, it has been reported in conservative media.  But it is a story with implications much broader than even the IRS scandal.  It deserves its own scandal headline and investigation.  This is a story of tyranny--of criminal collusion across federal agencies to stifle speech and assembly--by the executive branch of the federal government and complicit Democratic legislators.

The public servants at the IRS have yet to serve the public the truth about the IRS scandal (never mind the colluding public servants at the FBI / Justice Department, the BATF, and OSHA).  Instead, they have been complicit accessories in a criminal cover-up--putting their politics and livelihoods ahead of our freedom and ultimately theirs.

Because justice has been subverted, pathetic travesties proceed in our courts.  The House of Representatives, Catherine Engelbrecht, and others seek civil redress for criminal and unconstitutional acts--acts that caused damages that cannot be quantified and may include the mis-election of a President.  The supreme justice authorities and tax authorities in the United States were directly involved in critically stifling speech and assembly.

Under this license to criminalize political expression, how many obscure and undetected abuses have arisen?   For example, are banks which were nationalized by the bank bailout extending and refusing credit and prosecuting creditors based on political expression?  Parenthetically, on the day of the mid-term election, I received a summons from Zions Bank related to an unsecured line of credit.  Perhaps Zions doesn't know my assets were dissipated by an unconstitutional eminent domain taking?  Also, for example, are public schools preying on children whose parents express conservative political opinions?  Parenthetically, the Miller family just got three D grades at Ogden schools:  one for a second grader; one for a Middle School student--in a class her academic counselor transferred her out of at the beginning of the term, and one for a 10th grader in mathematics--a subject that he has always excelled in (ie. at a charter school).  Parenthetically, the public high school that awarded him this grade is ranked at the bottom of the state.  These are not children disadvantaged because they come from single parent households or children disadvantaged by their lack of familiarity with the English language, are they disadvantaged by their household beliefs?

Recognizing Terrorists' Territorial Claims--But Not Terrorists' Ideology

Many have adopted the acronym ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) to identify the army that is terrorizing the world from territory it holds on and between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.  And that is why it is so curious that this Administration insists on using the acronym ISIL.  Doesn't use of this moniker, ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), stupidly or tacitly recognize the territorial claims of the subject terrorists?!  And stupidly or tacitly menace the Levant--the geography that contains Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon?!  The persistent use of this moniker, by the once leader of the free world, simultaneously a) promotes the claims of avowed enemies and b) menaces our allies.  Use of the acronym ISIL is, in effect, treasonous.  If this Administration can recognize the territorial claims of ISIS, why can't they recognize the influence of Islam in the formation of the "Islamic" State?  ISIS is simply Islam in theocratic practice:  American leaders have stupidly or tacitly recognized terrorists' territorial claims, why don't they recognize their ideology?  At least, they might desist from using this treasonous acronym.

Animus as Impetus

It is likely that the issue of national gay marriage will turn on the definition of a single word.  The word is animus.  It means strong dislike or hostility or enmity or animosity or hatred.  As you can see, the word has a whole spectrum of meaning.  Its primary hue is red.  It denotes seething.  Some use it as legalese for 'hater'.  It is a good word for revolting teens:  "Dad, you are showing animus toward my friends and lifestyle."  Who feuds wielding this word, comes off sounding very sensible--as he or she expresses what is really only an opinion.  Animus is about heat and opinion; it is not a word for facts or reason.  It doesn't express something that can be measured rationally; for example, the advocates of its usage in same-sex arguments can't credibly say:  "the animus scale clearly reveals that this author falls somewhere between a hostile and a hater."  Animus has yet to be measured in individuals with any standardized method--let alone to be measured in a populace.  When it is, it will be measured using subjective standards.

In court, the animus assertion sounds like this:  the states "have given us no reason to think they have a 'reasonable basis' for forbidding same sex-marriage.....this suggests animus against same-sex marriage."  The courts have preferred to indict the masses for animus rather than acknowledge that our basis for moral judgment under the Constitution, including the notion of non-discrimination, is Judeo-Christian (ie. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you")--a basis which must finally yield up its place and authority in order to accommodate gay marriage for the 1%?

Isn't it curious that this highly variable, exceptionally sentimental word is expected to overturn laws that majorities made in many States--in our highest court?  By basing their judgment on this one wobbly word, will the Justices discover or devise some objective scale for weighing animus (ie. toward equal protection under law for same-sex couples) or will they reveal their animi (animuses) toward the People, their legislatures, the Constitution, the First Amendment, States rights, Judeo-Christian morality, and republican democracy?  These things would be rather a lot to cast on the ash heap for such a wobbly word--especially when the word might be best applied to the condemnation of a majoritarian sentiment.  Will the Supreme Court deem the People 'haters'?

Abraham Lincoln, Conspiracy Theorist (Continued)

Today, in an article entitled "At Supreme Court, Kicking the Tires on a Same-Sex Marriage Case Fit for History", the New York Times observed "The lawyers challenging the same-sex marriage bans (in many states) are confident they will win in the Supreme Court, which is why they have all urged the justices to hear their cases even though they had won in the lower (appeals) courts."  This is how the Times explained the inexplicable and generally unheard-of acts of appealing--en mass--verdicts deemed victories: it is simple glory-hounding by persons prescient about how the Supreme Court will rule!?!  Observe that these lawyers stand to gain--not just the notoriety of a historic verdict, as noted by the New York Times--but the standing of nobility in America for themselves and others of their ilk.  Imagine the importance of argumentation and presentation--their specialties--when laws become completely arbitrary and amoral.  This is precisely what national gay marriage would do: it would redefine law away from morality as we know it.  However moralizing the tenor of the arguments by its advocates, national gay marriage would make laws amoral and judgment immoral.  This would serve ambitious litigators:  when charisma is the only criterion in court, nothing will be outside the grasp of a good, licensed attorney.

I pity their gay clients.  Not because they found matrimonial bliss in spite of populist state laws.  But because they are being made to hazard their it anew for a runaway cause.  Their issue is no longer the concern of a mere 1-2%.

Their issue has become the foil of every gentile thrusting against God's objective moral code and against America's Judeo-Christian Constitution and legal system.  With this, they thrust viciously at the eyes and ears and mouth of legitimate justice.  Some human eyes are already dull; some ears are already missing; some mouths are already silenced.  Unchecked, these wicked strokes could blind the body politic, mute expression, and dumb truth; and thus, would foil freedom, faith, and hope--for everyone--eventually including those stabbing and slashing at the only real basis for law and justice.  Resist this national self-mutilation while you can still see and speak.  Eventually, if we let them "succeed", the only equality will be an equality of misery.  Unless they desist, they will discover that they brought their sword to a duel with God--that they brought their sword to a cataclysm.

God bless us with better sense than that of a swarm of fruit flies:  may we sense while we are still aloft (and not afloat) that vinegar, however presented, is not, after all, a fruit.