Category Archives: Biblical Worldview

Commentary, Biblical Worldview, Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar

Valuing Civil Dissent

Dr. Mark Hamilton, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ashland University

In November 2008 I was attending a conference in downtown San Diego.  As I exited a Saturday session and emerged out of the hotel onto the street for a breath of warm fresh air, I was struck by a distant roar.  It was low and constant but seemed to be gradually increasing.  I walked in the direction of the reverberating echo  and in about two blocks came to a brigade of humans about six across marching orderly and chanting in rhythm.   As I carefully read the signs and listened to their repetitious outcries, I realized it was an organized march on behalf of gay marriage protesting California’s passage of the Marriage Amendment.

I was shocked by the massive turnout of people, but I was equally surprised at the relative control and respect demonstrated by the crowd.  My only previous experience with a gay parade had been over a decade ago in Boston when my wife and I, along with our two daughters, drove into Boston for a walk along the famous historic Freedom Trail and while on our casual walk encountered a shocking gay parade.  We were forced to step into several stores to shield our eyes and the eyes and ears of our young children from the profanities being shouted and the visual obscenities.   The San Diego march was quite different.  The signs made their points, the crowd was loud but orderly, and they were respectful to the surrounding citizenry.  They allowed me to politely cross through their midst to meet my ride.  I later found out that there were dissents like that all across America that day but that the San Diego one was the largest, estimated at between 20-25 thousand people.   And though I disagreed with the content of their political statements, it was important to recognize they were appropriately exercising their political rights and freedoms and doing so legally and without infringing upon the rights of others.

It has been rightly stated innumerable times that America is a nation built on dissent.  The founding fathers began the rebellion against England as a form of dissent and had the insight to protect the rights of others to dissent through the First Amendment.  America’s great strength has been its ability to allow disagreement and dialogue.  I am a conservative yet I often dissented with the Bush administration on issues like spending, the increasing size of government, the War in Iraq, the use of what I would consider questionable means of extracting information, the lack of foresight in developing renewable sources of energy or the inability to make a decision on the status of the detainees in Guantanamo prison by placing them on military trial.

One of the great failures of the Bush presidency was its breakdown to dialogue with friendly dissenters, with conservatives.   I have been frequently disturbed by so-called conservatives who blindly followed his policies thinking that Republicans are naturally conservative, are always right, or that because Bush confessed Christ he was making “Christian decisions.”   Unfortunately many conservatives mindlessly think that a dislike of war is a lack of patriotism or that the more one refuses to support the use of force the more un-American a person becomes.  We fail to look at the complexities that are involved in defining a truly “just war.”   America is becoming a country of mindless conservatives and mindless liberals where dissent is seen as unpatriotic or as immoral where we must fight back or silence the dissenters.  Just look at the recent events at the University of North Carolina where students violently disrupted and shouted down Tim Tancredo.  One UNC student defended the action saying, “He was not able to practice hate speech.”  Have we become so afraid of words?

We can no longer just blindly trust our government’s interpretation or our media’s reporting on these events.  They all seem to want disagreement shut down.  I want to live in America because it is a place of dissent and discussion.  I feel threatened that we contrarians are being forced to be silent by both the liberals and the conservatives.  People no longer understand what free speech is; it is a necessary freedom with great responsibility.  We may disagree with the content of what fools may say but we cannot take away their right to speak.  I’ve known the freedom to peacefully demonstrate against nuclear build-ups, against abortion, against hazardous waste incinerators, or against child pornography in mainstream bookstores and the freedom to discuss openly great issues of controversy in the college classroom.  Do we dare annihilate this freedom?

Many liberals used to be strong supporters of free speech.  Sadly this has eroded from their midst.  Even the supposed “Tolerant Mr. Obama” has prided himself on this, but if this is so why does he mock those who attended the Tea Party rallies?  Was his ridicule of the Tea Baggers a form of “Hate Speech?”  Why has the media failed to fairly cover these Tea Party events the way it covered similar Gay Rights demonstrations?  My eyes were opened to this liberal failure several years ago when they wanted protestors outside abortion mills prosecuted for racketeering (RICO act).   I had always thought that liberals knew what free speech was.  That may have been true in the past but it is no more.  I am greatly disappointed in my American friends who are liberal.    Boy, was I fooled by thinking all these years that one of the real positive things that liberals stood for was the First Amendment.  I can no longer be fooled.   Ideology has replaced American ideals.    Certainly it is politics and not ideology or justice behind the desire for “Hate Speech” legislation and the desire to silence talk radio. I’m an American and dissent is at the fabric of my being.  Do not take this away from me and do not shut me down.   If you do so you shut down the last vestiges of America.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse- Hamilton’s Disciple: How John Marshall Subverted The Constitution

This entry is part 5 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurseIs the Constitution a grant of powers, nigh unlimited, or a restraint on the reach of governments run by self-serving (sinful) men?  What answer have we been given in our modern era?  Most of us would be honest and say that operationally, the former is the answer; some might go so far as to be totally honest and say that the latter is technically and legally the correct response, but our country has been taken down a path away from adherence to the letter of the law, in exchange for being “led by the Spirit”, divorced from the context of the words.

Hamiltonian “will-worship” is to blame for the current state of affairs.  Specifically, according to DiLorenzo, it was the adoption of Hamilton’s view of the ever-growing power of the central state carried out through the machinations of court decisions that have carried us to the murky waters of the swamp of socialistic impulses that our government wallows in today.

Who is the chief priest of the nationalist idolatry?  It was none other than John Marshall, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, the man who, according to Ron Chernow in his sycophantic biography on Hamilton, stated that beside Hamilton, Marshall felt as a “candle beside the sun at noonday”.   DiLorenzo points out that Marshall relied more strongly on the Hamilton-influenced Federalist Papers than on the Constitution itself as his basis for interpretation of the document.  Hmmm, that seems somewhat akin to relying on the salesman’s word that there are no hidden costs rather than reading the fine print of the contract yourself before signing.

I was definitely struck by one specific point in this chapter:  the vital difference between courts using the Constitution and using constitutional law.   It’s the difference between Jeffersonian federalism and Hamiltonian nationalism; between seeing the governing compact as decentralized or seeing it as consolidated.  This is a significant difference indeed.

Through a series of decisions of the Marshall court, constitutional law has taken the place of the Constitution in deciding our nation’s direction.  Beginning with the infamous (though not for the right reasons) Marbury v. Madison, which, in DiLorenzo’s telling, created a virtual “judicial dictatorship” in the Hamiltonian model (though Hamilton, a master of gamesmanship, would try to belie that in Federalist No. 78), to Gibbons v. Ogden which so broadly defined commerce for federal regulatory purposes as to put all business under the shadow of central control, the courts have made our Constitutional republic “Hamilton’s America”.

Let’s sketch a brief list of the Marshall Court’s “hit parade” on our republican form of government:

Marbury v. Madison–The court gains power to review legislative or executive decisions and declare them void–putting the courts as the final arbiter of the power of supposedly co-equal branches;

Fletcher v. Peck–The court uses the Contract clause to invalidate state law–neutering state courts;

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee–The court uses the supremacy clause to extend national governmental power beyond Article 1 Section 8 limitations;

McCulloch v. Maryland–The court finds a novel definition for the word “necessary” in the Necessary and Proper clause; now it means “useful” or “convenient” when it allows the national government to assert for itself powers “implied” (not “enumerated”) as it sees “useful”;

Gibbons v. Ogden–The court’s lexionary prowess expands the definition of commerce to an absurdity–giving the national government de facto control (negative sanction) over all business.

Given this list (and there are more examples), it is now very clear that what some of us today would classify as “judicial tyranny” by an oligopoly of nine black robed demigods is really only judicial midgets walking in the footsteps of giants of the imperial judiciary.  The analysis that DiLorenzo gives as to where this truth leaves us now is something that will help you to understand why Hamilton may have been this republic’s own worst enemy.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse- Hamilton’s Bank Job

This entry is part 4 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurse

Alexander Hamilton is widely credited with being the father of the modern American economic system. In fact it can be said that Hamilton is the Victor Frankenstein to the monstrosity that Henry Clay, a master propagandist, dubbed the American System. The American System consisted of a central bank, permanent debt, corporate welfare, centralized authority, heavy taxation, “protective tariffs,” fractional reserve banking, etc. Prof. DiLorenzo describes this system as Hamilton’s attempt to adapt the British system of Mercantilism, one of the primary causes of the War For Independence, to the new republic.

DiLorenzo delves into the opposition to a central bank that Hamilton faced from divided sovereignty advocates like Jefferson, a recently converted James Madison, Edmund Randolph and others. At the request of Washington reports were prepared on the constitutionality of the bank. The strict constructionists all declared it illegal, based on the explicit rejection of the power to create  a national bank by the Constitutional Convention while Hamilton prepared a masterpiece of equivocation in which he revealed his strategy for getting the Constitution he really wanted but couldn’t get at the convention.

Hamilton introduced the idea of “implied powers” based on an expansionist interpretation of the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses of Article I.  Further, Hamilton introduced the doctrine that the Federal government may exercise ANY power not expressly prohibited to it by the Constitution, flying in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments and ignoring the state ratification debates.

Foreshadowing much worse abuses to come, a national bank bill was passed and signed by Washington as the result of a compromise involving the expansion of the District of Columbia to make it adjacent to Washington’s property on the Potomac river. Senators threatened Washington that they would withhold their votes on the DC bill until he agreed to sign the bank bill.

DiLorenzo shows that the creation of the Bank of the United States (BUS) resulted in what fractional reserve banking on a national scale must do- inflated the currency, prices rose 72% from 1791-96,  and created cheap credit for northern industrialists, but increased costs for southern planters via import tariffs to pay the service on increased government debt. Thus the regional cracks became sectional divides.

One of the most interesting aspects of the BUS is that the corruption and growth of centralization it spawned at the national level created resentment and opposition at the state level. Several states imposed exorbitant taxes on state branches of the BUS. One of these was Ohio which actually imposed a $50,000 per year tax  in spite of a ruling by John Marshall’s Supreme Court claiming that it was unconstitutional, which it collected (two-years worth) from the BUS branch by force of arms.

The BUS sued Ohio deputies on the basis of Marshall’s decision which earned it the equivalent of a legislative “raspberry,” the Ohio legislature declaring the Supreme Court’s decision meaningless under Ohio’s 10th amendment sovereignty. One wonders if the current Ohio legislature will pass a resolution (HCR 11) in the current session which simply declares that Ohio retains its sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, no forcible collection of taxes necessary?

DiLorenzo explains the common view that while Marshall’s court had usurped the authority of “judicial review” many of its decisions were simply ignored as mere opinion until after the War Between The States and why.

The book chronicles  Hamilton’s BUS legacy in terms of its impact on state banks after it usurped regulatory authority over these banks.  It did so by buying their bank notes, which necessarily kept them afloat, then redeeming their notes demanding payment in specie (gold,  silver and precious metal coins). In so doing it forced many state banks to overextend well beyond their specie reserves causing bank runs.

Favored state banks were not subjected to such treatment but state banks opposed to the BUS were savaged by it.  DiLorenzo explains how policy set by the BUS continued to wreak havoc even after the BUS was de-chartered in 1811 and went out of business. The US Treasury continued many of the BUS policies and even expanded some, due largely to the War of 1812, wreaking inflationary havoc and leading to a re-chartering of the BUS.

The re-institution allowed an inflationary, cheap credit (based on the fact that the BUS had paper out at about 10 times the specie available) real estate boom and an inflation of real estate values followed by a huge bust, the country’s first depression, the Panic of 1819, where real estate values plummeted causing a huge increase in bankruptcies and a lack of available credit causing a decrease in production. Sound familiar? DiLorenzo uses the details of what has been related here to quickly explain, in simple terms, the Austrian theory of boom-bust cycles caused by centralized credit interventionism.

Andrew Jackson, a Jeffersonian, was so appalled by the blatant abuses of power and economic corruption engaged in by the BUS, especially its president, Nicholas Biddle, that he determined to destroy it before its charter expired. Jackson also offered his opinion that John Marshall’s Supreme Court opinion that the BUS was constitutional, was just that, an opinion. And he declared that he believed it to be unconstitutional.

Jackson’s actions toward the BUS were based on a number of factors which DiLorenzo explains well. Jackson stood for free-market economics, reduced tariffs, hard money (money backed by gold) and paying off the national debt. Thus Jackson’s Democrats were the sworn ideological enemies of Hamilton’s Federalists later Whigs and even later Republicans.

The book explains the brilliant methodology by which Jackson managed to drive a stake through the heart of the BUS vampire, though Biddle did not give it up without a fight. Before its death knell, Biddle attempted to manipulate credit so as to create a depression and he was successful in creating a short-lived recession. DiLorenzo chronicles how Jackson and Van Buren worked to establish the Independent Treasury System, considered by many to be the most stable monetary system of the 19th century. It was a hard money system.

The book goes into deeper detail regarding the continued legacy of Hamilton’s economic system; inflation, currency debasement and constant boom-bust, also called bubble-burst, cycles. Inflation can be a boon to unscrupulous politicians (a redundancy?) who use the newly created money to pander for votes, as long as they can slough off blame for the problem onto non-participants (the ubiquitous “middle-man,” private sector, “unregulated” businesses, etc.) or rival political parties.

The book chronicles how inflation is actually a hidden tax and how government interventionism essentially causes businesses to mis-allocate assets due to a lack of knowledge about future values. Hence, depreciation schedules are often meaningless and replacement of old equipment is discouraged. Consumers are also effected because they are not sure of the cost of an item in the future. Thus, they adopt a “buy now” philosophy which discourages savings  meaning less assets are available for investment. Once their credit is used up they retrench. The resulting boom-bust cycles are then blamed on a “lack of regulation” and new centralized restrictive policies are introduced to “fix” the problem, making things, in reality, worse.

In the concluding section of the chapter DiLorenzo asks the question- “how can someone as obviously brilliant, if not a  genius, have been so politically naive as to not know the destruction his system would bring?” He also begins to go about answering it. You’ll have to read it to find out that answer.

Next chapter- Chapter 4- Hamilton’s Disciple: How John Marshall Subverted The Constitution

Commentary, The Church, Biblical Worldview

Christian America Has Vanished!

The Crumbling Church…Or Maybe It Was Never Real in the First Place.

You might want to read this week’s cover story in Newsweek magazine.

It’s entitled “The End of Christian America”.

As I sit writing this report in my hotel room, the TV is on in the background with live calls to the host, and a young man came on line to say how he thought it impossible for any Christian to vote for a Democrat.

The Christian host responded with a question: “Do you believe in the death penalty?”

“Why no,” said the young man.  “No man should be able to take life . . .”

And there he was cut off by the host to illustrate that Christians are not united on the death penalty, nor are they united Democrat or Republic.

Come to think of it, Christians are not united on much at all.  We can’t even agree on what are the criteria to determine if America or any other country, is Christian.

And therein lies the reason for the apparent collapse of “Christian” America.

I have made comment before, that the Christian West has been in decline, at least since the rise of the monarchy and the eventual decline of the Papacy as they fought over this issue: Who was to control the earthly kingdom?  That’s a decline starting 800 years ago approximately.  How can say we have “Christian” America when the very foundation of the nation was built on questionable activities.  Patrick Henry really did smell a rat –everywhere.  And he had the decency not to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787 because of its questionable legitimacy.

This struggle between church and state over this issue only goes to illustrate the problem.  A decline in real Christianity leads to the rise of the secular state.

Christianity is on the decline because it has no “Christian” answers to many issues.  Christians are not united, and a house divided cannot stand.  That’s what Jesus thought, anyway.  Maybe he has a point worth listening to.

If you’re interested, go to The End of Christian America and read the article.  It’s worth the read.

Then go to work to fix the problem.

God bless you in your efforts for His kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse-Public Blessing or National Curse?

This entry is part 3 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurseIs public debt a blessing or a curse?

Recent developments in our country, including a pending multi-trillion dollar spending package being pushed by the administration, would lead one to believe that if we just spend more, and thus embrace more debt, then the economy will take off: a blessing.

But is it, really? How did our founding fathers view public debt? In Hamilton’s Curse, Tom DiLorenzo addresses the roots of the issue, and the current crisis. In fact, he lets a cat out of the bag in the opening paragraphs of chapter two, when he states: “Goverment debt is every politician’s dream: it gives him the ability to buy votes by spending on government programs (with funds raised through borrowing) that will make him popular now, while putting the lion’s share of the cost on future taxpayers, who must pay off the debt through taxes.” Is this really the system our founding generation sought to bequeath to the American public when they instituted a government to secure the God-given, unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Take for example the current burden of the federal debt on each and every American, whether their votes have been bought or not, whether aged or just born this very minute: $184,000 per person in 2008 dollars, according to the national debt calculations performed by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (www.pgpf.org), with a total national debt in the vicinity of $56.4 trillion. What, you say? Just recently you were told that the debt load was a measley $44,000 per person.

Not surprising, really, considering that the “national debt” that most commentators talk about does not include Medicare and Social Security obligations, but instead focuses on just the publicly-held debt (bonds) and money that the government borrows from itself, which is now in the neighborhood of $13 trillion alone. However, our government treats debt like a junkie treats his next fix: absolutely necessary, and the bigger, the better.

Jefferson considered debt to be a curse which “has decimated the earth with blood.” He wanted government debt obligations limited to at most a 19-year term, in order for the accrued debt to be paid off in the same generation in which it was entered. Jefferson had the right idea.

Hamilton saw debt as a blessing, holding the notion that debt gave “energy” to government (hmm, my junkie analogy seems fitting here), and that it was essential for growing the state. As the first Treasury secretary, Hamilton had an opportunity to see his program be adopted and exerted great energy in creating reports to the Congress to persuade them to adopt extensive government debt and taxation.

DiLorenzo explains how in at least two instances Hamilton used his position and policies to benefit himself and political cronies: not unlike what we see today in the politico-financial complex. One scheme saw the Hamilton faction being able to speculate on war bonds at a significant profit (and at significant loss to the veterans who held these obligations which the federal government, unbeknownst to them but fully known to the Treasury secretary and his New York associates, had fully funded to be repaid); another Hamilton scheme was to have the federal government assume each state’s war debts, thus nationalizing that debt and chipping away at state sovereignty.

However, Hamilton’s plans for a permanent debt cycle were generally thwarted, with exceptions of the periods of the War between the States and the Spanish-American war, until the eclipsing of Jeffersonian fiscal restraint by the policies (adopted by the politicians) advanced by John Maynard Keynes and his followers in the first half of the twentieth century.

DiLorenzo explains this legacy, and how this “debt culture” is a curse, not only on the nation, but upon individual enterprise and prosperity. We truly now have “Hamilton’s Voodoo Economics”: read the book and see why.

Executive Usurpation, Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse- The Rousseau Of The Right

This entry is part 2 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurseRecently my two oldest daughters and I were talking about a “test” they’d taken on Facebook- Which President Are You? My youngest and oldest daughters were both Millard Fillmore. My middle daughter and I were both Calvin Coolidge. This goofy little “test” sparked a deeper discussion of a series on the presidents on the History Channel. I was given a copy of this series for Christmas and had already taken note of an interesting phenomena that is quite prominent in this series.

How do you judge whether a US President is good, bad or mediocre? What are the exact criteria that you use to make your determination? Careful. How you answer that question says a lot about your philosophy of American government. It is a direct indicator pointing to whether you are a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian, as described in the first post of the series.

In this chapter of the book, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland, lays the foundations necessary to explain which of these two basic philosophies we either consciously or unconsciously employ when evaluating the actions of government. Dr. DiLorenzo, a self described library rat, accomplishes this with research into the writing and correspondence of both Jefferson and Hamilton as well as other important thinkers in the Hamiltonian Federalist and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist traditions. What his research uncovers is the vast differences between these two camps regarding constitutional interpretation, the relationship between state and federal governments, presidential power and the extent of judicial authority.

DiLorenzo chronicles the tireless efforts of Alexander Hamilton from 1780 onward to create a centralized national government. As the philosophical leader of what would later, during the two-year battle to ratify the new Constitution become the Federalist faction and then the Federalist party, Hamilton proved to be a shameless propagandist. He was critical of Jefferson’s supposed adoration of French radicals but he himself adopted the ideas and language of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the  philosopher whose ideas led to the terror of the French Revolution,  regarding the existence of the “general will” which is not necessarily expressed by the public but is “sensed by the ruling elite.” Hence, the “Rousseau of the right” moniker. Terms like “the public interest,” “the general interest,” and “the welfare of the community” pepper his work which was designed to gain democratic favor for his attempts to concentrate and centralize authority. The brilliant Hamilton wrote in a fashion designed to manipulate “the general will” into demanding “more vigorous government.”

It was this talent for constructing nebulous but compelling phraseology that made him one of the chief apologists for ratification of the Constitution. DiLorenzo points out that Hamilton took great pains to reassure the opponents of centralized national authority that the states would maintain their sovereignty. He also points out that this was pure deception on Hamilton’s part. Having worked for years to get a Constitutional Convention convened, he bolted the convention in June of 1787 after it became clear that both his own nationalist plan to eliminate the state governments and appoint an executive who would serve during “periods of good behavior” and James Madison’s plan that also eliminated the state governments were completely stymied by a strong TRUE federalist faction which wanted strong state governments and wanted them to be powerful enough to resist a vigorous central governments attempts to consolidate power.

Hamilton only returned to the Constitutional Convention in September after his true federalist New York colleague delegates, Yates and Lansing, had left and he had worked out a plan by which the new Constitution could be gradually “reinterpreted” to achieve his vision for the government. DiLorenzo does a masterful job of uncovering and explaining the strategy that Hamilton used in his day and which continues even today to weaken the state governments and grow the power of the presidency and the judiciary. In short, Hamilton is the father of the “living document” philosophy of constitutional interpretation.

DiLorenzo finishes the chapter with by recounting Hamilton’s role in the suppression of the Whiskey rebellion of Washington’s second term. Hamilton’s despotic actions in dealing with western farmers, many of them Revolutionary War veterans is one of the most revealing parts of the chapter. Hamilton eschewed negotiations in favor of conscripting an army to invade and conquer the rebellious areas, marching old, sick men through the snow in chains and then attempting to force confessions including implications of others, presaging the actions of one of his philosophical direct descendents, Abraham Lincoln’s actions in the southern states 67 years later.

Next- Chapter 2; Public Blessing or National Curse?

>

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview

Constitutional Government 101

This entry is part 6 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

constitutionOne can get so used to watching career party politicians stretch, bend, fold, spindle, mutilate or openly flout the Constitution that it comes as a shock when one of them actually makes a correct reference to it.

And that correct reference when wielded by a courageous legislator can be a “shock and awe” spectacle striking fear in appointed bureaucrats who have never seen the Constitution used as it was designed.

Just such a case has happened recently as Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R) Minn. as a member of the House Financial Services Committee asks a question that is rarely uttered and obviously a subject of dread among both the unelected nomenklatura and the elected representatives in attendance. The question that wreaked such havoc? “What provision in the Constitution can you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of  ’08?”

Posted below is a video of the hearing on from Youtube. Things to watch for:

  1. Chairman Barney Frank’s seeming (but not shocking) gender confusion. He seems to calls Rep. Bachmann “The gentleman from Minnesota.” Having met and conversed with Rep. Bachmann, this author can testify that there could be no mistaking her for a gentleman.
  2. The complete inability of Secretary Geithner to cite a single constitutional delegation of power, explicit or “implied,” for what he, the Treasury Dept. or the Fed are doing to the economy.
  3. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke’s a) suicidal tendency to rush in where angels fear to tread b) a complete inability to point to any actual constitutional authority other than an undefined congressional authority to appropriate funds and c) the American public should be kept in the dark because we are too stupid to discern how central banking works.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9DgMG-_6Ls[/youtube]

What Rep. Bachmann gives here is a quick lesson in Constitutional Government 101, a class that should be required for all freshman Representatives and Senators an all members sitting for 2 terms or more. Note too, that Rep. Frank gives a lesson in old-style partisan political hackery. When Bachmann asks a question that will,  frankly, cause Geithner and Bernanke to only make the inescapable hole that they have dug even deeper, he quickly steps in so that they will not have to answer the question, since there is no good answer to it.

This is the kind of representation that Christian constitutionalists want. What we need in the United States Congress is 435  Michelle Bachmann’s and Ron Paul’s and 100 more like them in the Senate. Then we might, if we are as a nation sufficiently repentant and reliant on Christ as our guide, begin to dig out from the unconstitutional nightmare that is the federal leviathan.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Book Review–Hamilton’s Curse

This entry is part 1 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurseThere are times in some of our lives in which we have seminal moments of epiphany where something occurs or some information is presented to us that allow for disparate pieces to fall into place, creating a full and clear picture of how things really are. Some never are able to see the full view, thinking instead that the out of phase vision they have in front of them is all that there really is.

Reading the book Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution and What It Means for America Today by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (New York, Crown Forum, 2008, $25.95) was one of those seminal moments for me. It is an important work of scholarship, definitely not hagiographic in nature, that causes a thinking person to reassess the common assumptions that are fostered in this modern age about the way in which our government should conduct itself. As a matter of fact, it is such a volume that a mere review is an injustice; which is why Camp Director and I are planning on giving you the reader an analysis of the central theme and message of this work in a chapter-by-chapter, back-and-forth dialogue.

Please allow me to begin by conducting a small personality assessment. I am going to provide two lists of words for you. Review those two lists, and determine which list you are more attenuated to. Here we go:

limited, diminuative, divided, lassiez-faire, express, steward, de-centralized, curse, benefactor, master, servant

unrestrained, leviathan, consolidated, interventionist, implied, imperial, centralized, blessing, beggar, servant, master

O.K. then: which one is more to your liking? Unsure? Maybe a little context might be beneficial to you:

Governmental authority: limited or unrestrained

Governmental size: diminuative or leviathan

Ultimate governmental sovereignty: divided or consolidated

Economics: Lassiez-faire or interventionist

Governmental powers: enumerated or implied

Presidential attitude: steward or imperial

Governmental control: decentralized or centralized

Debt as an engine of finance: curse or blessing

States’ role: benefactor or beggar

The People: master or servant

The State: servant or master

You see, if you chose the first list, you are likely a Jeffersonian and an adherent to the original view of the compact between the states. If the latter was your preference, you are likely a Hamiltonian. Most people today, especially those in government, finance and politics, are definitely Hamiltonian.

It’s sadly ironic, really. Hamilton’s ideas of unrestrained governmental expansion, unlimited taxation and central planning were expressly rejected in the formation of the Constitution, but we live with the fruits of his legacy, not Jefferson’s, in our body politic today. DiLorenzo points to this fact in the opening chapter “The Real Hamilton” when he astutely summarizes that even so-called “conservatives” such as Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich are Hamiltonians economically and, in many cases, politically. The spate of modern biographies, fawning paeans to a flawed subject, issued on Hamilton verify the adage that the “victors write the history” indeed.

It is because ideas do indeed have consequences. The ideas of Jefferson that helped influence the Declaration and in many respects the Constitution have been overwhelmed by the actualization of Hamilton’s philosophy. DiLorenzo summarizes this succintly: “This battle of ideas–and it was indeed a battle–formed the template for the debate over the role of government in America that shapes our history to this day. The most important idea of all, in the minds of Hamilton and Jefferson, was what kind of government America would live under.”(pp.1-2)

As we journey through the chapters of this work, we will also be taking a journey through the shattered landscape that is the consequence of adopting the Hamiltonian philosophy of governing over against the Jeffersonian vision of liberty.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview

A Financial Idiot’s Guide To The Economy

The Sinking Dollar

How do you tell if a 6,500 Dow is good or bad?

I know, you tell by whether or not you’re making or losing money.  But that’s not the answer I’m looking for.

We live in interesting times.  How is your perspective on things such as the state of the economy?

To help you put things in perspective, in 1987 there was a stock market crash.  The Dow Jones did not fall as far as other stock markets in the world.  But this was a “correction” that was apparently necessary.  Just a little while after that a recession took place and the then Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, referred to this as “the recession we had to have.”

Well, recessions are not always comfortable events for many people.  But for those of who have been around long enough, a 6,500 point Dow at one time was a significant event.  It was not considered a recessionary number.  In fact it was a boom-time number.

Now, a decade or more later, everyone bemoans and complains about a 6,500 point Dow.  Why?

Because of the starting point that is used.

Complaints about the market assume that the starting point of the assessment is the “right” one.  Not too many commentators complained about the increase in the numbers.  After all, too many people were making money off the higher numbers.

Is this you?  If so, you have a false perspective on the numbers.  You have been conditioned into thinking that increasing numbers is better for you while falling numbers are worse.

This is an idiotic perspective.  Here’s why.   Prices are a ratio between money and goods.  All things being equal, as economists like to remind us, if you have ten gold coins on one hand, and ten bright red apples in the other, the average price is one gold coin each.  Change one hand to 20 apples, then the average price is half a gold coin each (or two for the price of one).  But if you doubled the number of coins while keeping the 10 apples, then the new average price is double what it was before.

Now ask yourself this question:  Under which circumstance are you better off?  Higher prices ($20:10) or lower prices ($10:20)?

This is not rocket science.  This was the older view of economic theory until a perverted group of people decided price theory ruined their ideas of how an economy ought to function, so they either ignored price theory altogether (as C.H. Douglas does in his Social Credit theory), or changed the way price theory is discussed if it is discussed at all (as John Maynard Keynes.)  For more details, see my book Baptized Inflation, available here.

If you are going to maintain any part of the free-market system, you must maintain price theory and the underlying assumptions of free exchange.  If you did all this in the past, you would have argued for a halt to the increasing prices of these past decades.  Rising prices the most important indicator of a manipulated economy.

But many people have instead ignored the warning signs that higher prices indicate, and with a “since you can’t change or beat the system, we might as well join it” attitude have remained silent while the economy has apparently boomed as indicated by the higher numbers.

The trouble is, your price theory when it is right, tells you the exact opposite.  The economy is booming when prices fall.  The GNP maxes out when all the money is allocated to the purchase of goods and services.  The only way it can increase is if there is more money around.  Thus, a rising GNP is not necessarily a sign of health.  It may be a sign of impending disaster.

So, where has your mind been in these recent decades of expanding prices, booming markets, and now the falling indices?  Where is your starting point to make the evaluation if the times are good or bad?  What, in other words, are the criteria you’re willing to use in your assessment of the economy?

More importantly, will your criteria have at its center the idea of just weights and measures — the foundation of a stable, God-honoring economy, and the relevant theory of prices that flows out of that foundation?

If you’re waiting for the next recovery, like many people, you’ve missed the point.  This is the recovery phase now — the return of the market to lower prices. Why on earth would you want prices to go up again?  This is nuts.

So if you don’t mind me asking, what are you waiting for?

God bless you in your activities for His kingdom.   Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.

Commentary, Biblical Worldview

…For Such A Time As This

Queen EstherThis author doesn’t normally waste too much time thinking about or paying much attention to what goes on in Hollywood, except during the once-a-year trip there for a conference when attempting to ignore the place is nearly impossible due to having to drive in it. But once in a while our attention is drawn to someone or something that happens there that might actually have a positive impact on the way Christians think (or whether or not they do think) about culture.

I was confronted in one of these rare cases today. In an article in Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood Blog by Cheryl Felicia Rhodes , The Actress In The Glass Booth,  she demonstrates the impact that a single individual, especially one that has earned the respect of those being addressed, can have on a seemingly entrenched culture. Like most confronted with similar situations, Ms. Rhodes was at first reluctant to speak out. She feared for her professional status and chose to keep quiet about a virtually constant barrage  of rude, insulting behavior and blasphemous speech being perpetrated in her agent’s office while she was there for professional purposes. The agent was unaware of Ms. Rhodes political sympathies and apparently assumed that everyone that would come in contact with his agency would be in ideological lockstep with his views.

Like the biblical Queen Esther, Rhodes spoke out at just the right time in just the right way. She risked being blacklisted (don’t kid yourselves; the Hollywood blacklist has existed for decades- its target? “Conservatives”. Hollywood “conservatives” except for a very few very big stars  are forced to keep their politics to themselves if they want to work. Hollywood insiders deny this. They are liars. Hence the Breitbart blog.) from her chosen profession. She kept her cool and didn’t break into a shrill rant, decrying the obvious bigotry of her agent and his employees. She went to the agent privately, explained in a reasonable manner what her objections were and especially that she had been personally insulted by things the agent had said and let it go at that. While the agent claimed that he was shocked- SHOCKED!- to find that there were any political posters in his office and indicated that he had never thought that someone might not agree with his personal opinions it obviously made him think about his actions and those of his employees.

Ms. Rhodes made a decision to speak out in a manner that comports with the Matthew 18 methodology for bringing someone who has stepped out of line back into line. She didn’t necessarily say so but that’s what she did. And the fact that she had a 19 year long professional working relationship with this man who obviously respected her professional abilities to the point that he was willing to accept the possibility that the manner in which he expounded his opinions might be insulting or otherwise offputting to people he knows well and respects (not to mention makes his living with).

This is a lesson that many in conservative circles need to be cognizant of. In order to re-claim culture you must first have influence in some specific area of culture. Influence comes with respect which comes from ability and a willingness to work and sacrifice for the cause of Christ. Influence does not come from showing up unannounced at places of business, demanding that things be done your way “or else!” then making highly visible and embarrassing demonstrations to “bring attention to the problem (not that demonstrations don’t need to be made sometimes- after the more subtle approach has failed).” Every conservative and Christian, no matter what his vocation and avocation,  should be working to build up the kind of capital that Cheryl Rhodes has built and each should be willing to spend it when directed by God to do so in the manner demonstrated by her example.