Category Archives: Commentary

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

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.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

The Return of “Divided Sovereignty”

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

constitutionThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution

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

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. -James Madison in Federalist 51

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.- The Virginia Resolution of 1798

At least 20 states are currently crafting or holding hearings on legislative resolutions that re-asserts the original jurisdictions and powers guaranteed to them in the 9th and, especially, 10th amendments (quote above).

And now that list has expanded to include Ohio. Just this week (Wednesday March 18, 2009) House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 11 was introduced into the Ohio House. Virtually all of the resolutions in the various states cite what has become in the last century or so the largely forgotten 10th amendment to the US Constitution. All of the various state resolutions have slightly different language and motivation behind them, according to the needs of the individual state.

In Oklahoma, for instance, the underlying motivation is the attempt by the federal government to force Oklahoma to allow a NAFTA superhighway (actually a HUGE multi-lane car, truck, rail, communication corridor under international control; just imagine being pulled over for going 66 in a 65 zone by a law enforcer who answers not to some local elected body but an unelected international board and may not even be an American citizen) that allows foreign rail and trucking, beginning in Central America and terminating at a hub in Canada, onto US territory without benefit of Customs inspection until they reach the main terminal in Kansas City (no terror threat to see here; move along), to cut a huge swath through the center of the state. Of course, the federal government has been busy denying that any such corridor actually exists.

Unfortunately, Texas Department of Transportation let the cat out of the bag a couple of months ago by holding a press conference to announce that Texas’ portion of the project that never existed had been canceled by popular demand of Texas residents. Enterprising Texans had gotten control of local and regional zoning and planning boards and simply refused to allow the corridor permission to begin construction within the confines of their jurisdiction. This was forcing an exceptionally large detour in the highway (3 counties or so). Further information can be obtained by purchasing DVD’s of last July’s Freedom 21 Conference in Dallas TX, available here. The details of this was one of the best presentations at Freedom 21 last year. This year’s looks to be at least as good.

In Ohio the fulcrum is unfunded federal mandates. This is a brilliant move on the part of the drafters. The drafters also wisely cite Article IV, sec. 4 and the 9th Amendment of the US constitution. Article IV, sec. 4 guarantees each state a separate republican form of government, meaning that each state has the right of self-determination through the action of its duly elected representation. The 9th Amendment states that men have many more inherent rights than are mentioned in the bill of rights and that the fact that they are not mentioned does not mean they may be usurped by an omnipotent federal leviathan but are to be protected as strenuously as the others which have been mentioned. This has become an extremely important consideration but has been virtually ignored since the War between the States.

“OK,” you might be saying, “but why is this such an important consideration?” The answer lies in the Virginia Resolution, quoted above. Passed immediately following the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts, federal laws which openly violated the 1st and 5th Amendment protections of the right of free speech and press and the right to due process of law. Virginia and Kentucky each passed resolutions declaring their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendment and furthermore declared their intention to interpose on behalf of citizens of their own states whose rights were being trampled by means of federal usurpation.

It is interesting to note that the word interposition has virtually disappeared from modern legal dictionaries even though, obviously, it was a well-known legal concept in the early part of the American Republic. The War between the States nearly killed the concept.Interposition takes place when the lesser (state) authority places itself between the greater (federal) authority (exercising its authority unlawfully) and the citizen subject to both authorities.  Thus, the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government for each state.

It must be understood that the Constitution is a negative law document. In contrast, the old Soviet Constitution was a positive law document; the Soviet government assumed all authority and the peoples rights were specifically outlined within the document. The US Constitution, on the other hand, assumes that all authority rests in the people (there is an important distinction that the Christian must make here, discussion of which we are going to forego right now. Suffice it to say that the Christian knows that ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus Christ. Individuals have authority to establish government insofar as Christ delegates it to them) and that the government’s power is strictly restricted to those specific powers that the people willingly delegate to it. All other authority is forbidden to government and reserved to the individual. Hence, the enormity and complexity of positive law documents and the simplicity and, often, eloquence of negative law documents. It’s much simpler and easier to say “you have all rights except these” versus “here is a specific list of your rights.”

The purpose of government in the limited authority model is the protection of the rights of the individual both from other individuals and from government abuse. In this light, the lesser authority has not just the right to interpose in opposition but the duty to do so since the whole of his authority was given to protect the rights of the citizen.  So what does this have to do with unfunded mandates? Because of the loss of the original balance precipitated by the growth of federal power at the expense of state authority and individual liberty in violation of the 10th Amendment, the federal authority has assumed the power to dictate to the states that they must administer certain programs at their own expense.

In essence the federal authority is shirking its responsibilities to pay for the state administered federal programs that they have forced on the states, usually over the objection of the citizens, mostly because of political considerations. It’s a lot easier to let state authorities take the heat over unpopular tax increases that must come with unfunded mandates than to increase federal taxes to cover their cost.

The former insures that political wrangling at the state level over how to make it look like the other political party was “really at fault” for mandatory tax increases from federal mandates will both disgust and eventually numb the citizens to the real problem which is with their federal representation. The latter option would quickly result in a change in federal representation and a quick end to the programs that are increasingly consuming the citizens’ assets against their wills. In this light it is easy to see why the unfunded mandate is the method of choice for the federal politician.

“But aren’t you talking about nullification with resolutions like these?” you might be asking. Quite simply the answer is no. Interposition is not nullification. Nullification is a complex political activity. It requires the calling of a special state convention independent of the state legislature, the selection of delegates to represent the people of the state and debate of the issue followed by a vote of those delegates based on whatever criteria that convention develops on whether or not to declare the federal legislation null and void within the confines of that particular state.  Interposition is an act of a state legislative body saying simply “you can’t do that here because you don’t have the constitutional authority.”

Some might be saying “you just want to use this as an excuse to start a secession movement, don’t you?” The answer is obviously no. Interposition and nullification are both remedies: one legislative, the other political, for grievances against federal usurpation of state authority and individual liberty. They are specifically designed to eliminate the possibility of  secession, not make it more likely. No one who thinks is thinking of secession.

What sovereignty resolutions like HCR 11 are about is the re-balancing of the state-federal government equation. It is a re-distribution of authority, already constitutionally restricted to the states and local bodies, back to its intended delegates.

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.

The Vote, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

How Not To Think About The Electoral College

This entry is part 4 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

Voting MachineAn article in The Oregonian for March 12, 2009 has one of the most surreal headlines this author can recall.

“Oregon House votes to end the Electoral College” screams the headline. All efforts to find other gems like Oregon Senate Passes Bill Rescinding The Law of Gravity; Awaits Governor’s Signature With Austronaut Pen Designed For Weightlessness or Perpetual Motion Machines Now Possible As Oregon Legislature Repeals Laws of Thermodynamics came to nought. Apparently there is still at least some sense of the impossible in Oregon journalism.

Not to be too snarky, but the Oregon legislature has no more authority to end the Electoral College (EC) than it does to create the laws mentioned repealing basic laws of physics. Journalists (not to mention editors, a problem noted earlier in this series of articles) should have at least a general working knowledge of the basic design and operation of the Electoral College before being turned loose to distort the facts of stories and misinform the public on the subject.

What are the problems with the article exactly? Here’s a list-

  1. The Oregon House voted today to end the electoral college system in favor of the popular vote in electing a U.S. president-

    WRONG! The Oregon House voted to surrender it’s sovereign authority to choose electors pledged to a specific presidential candidate. Oregon already awards its EC votes on the basis of the popular vote- within Oregon. The proposed legislation would ignore the will of Oregon voters  and awards its states precious EC votes on the basis of the national popular vote winner.

  2. Four states have endorsed legislation to ban the current system, which awards all the electoral college votes in a state to one candidate-

    Where, oh where to start with this mish-mash of disinformation? First, states have no constitutional authority to “ban the current system.” What they can do is pass a law thumbing their collective noses at their own state’s popular vote to impose a tyrannical system that would hand over EC authority to choose a specific candidate to the the 10-15 largest cities in the United States. They can perform this supremely irresponsible act because states are guaranteed nearly unlimited constitutional authority to choose presidential electors in any way that suits the state. But, legally speaking, they must still appoint presidential electors. Thus, the claim that the legislature passed a bill to  “ban the system” is an egregious display of journalistic buffoonery.

    Second, not all states award their precious EC votes on the basis of the popular vote, at least not entirely. Maine and Nebraska award their share of EC votes representing their members of the Federal House of Representatives on the basis of the popular vote within that specific congressional district. The EC votes representing the 2 federal Senators are awarded on the basis of the popular vote statewide. This most fair and representative of  systems insures that the cities cannot overwhelm the vote of the countryside and a truly proportional result is achieved.

  3. “For Oregon to join this interstate compact would move the nation one step closer to making sure every vote counts in presidential elections,” said Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, who carried the bill-

    Except for the voters of Oregon whose explicit wishes may very well be completely ignored in favor of the combined votes cast in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Atanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, etc. Rep. Cannon’s quote is possibly one of the most cynical and asinine utterances we’ve seen since…well…since the last presidential election cycle.

  4. The National Popular Vote would take effect when and if enough states equaling 270 electoral votes — a majority –approve the legislation to join the multi-state compact-

    How about some details here? What does this “multi-state compact” say exactly? What are the details of the agreement? Can states withdraw? If so- how? If not- why? What happens if, for instance, Oregon voters give presidential candidate “A” 60% of the popular vote but the rest of the country give presidential candidate “B” 50.01% of the popular vote in a squeaker with obvious fraud and Oregon then awards all of their electoral votes to candidate B on the basis of the compact? What if Oregon voters strenuously or even violently object to their electoral will being thwarted? Worse yet, what if the 50.01% of the vote was completely dependent on the votes cast in a single large state, the popular votes of the remaining states in the compact going to presidential candidate “A?” Has anyone asked these questions? How about it journalists?

Frankly, this effort appears to be one of the most poorly thought out attempts to circumvent the Constitution that has come along in some time. No one seems to be think through the possible scenarios and no one seems to be taking the time to examine the original intent of the EC, beyond talking in platitudes about its being “outmoded” (and stumbling badly or suddenly remembering an appointment when asked to be specific) and the like.

Last summer this author had the privilege of teaching a class on the EC at Camp American. They  will be posting some of the more relevant sections as class samples in the next few days and we will post some of them here to illustrate that while the EC is not perfect it is most certainly superior to the grossly  ill-considered and irrational reaction to the 2000 election outcome that is the National Popular Vote movement.

General, Commentary

My Favorite Liberal

God certainly seems to have a sense of humor.  Take the “global warming” fearmongering for example.  Isn’t it curious that almost every time these folks schedule a major conference to beat the drums on this issue, a major snowstorm or other “global cooling” happens!  After a while, one might get a complex over this, happening over and over again.

Take Al Gore for example.  Now there’s a man on a mission, who won’t let a little thing like facts or the truth stop him.  Al definitely has a complex when it comes to “global warming”.  For anyone who has been forced to sit through “An Inconvenient Truth”, you know that Al loses sleep at night worrying about San Francisco becoming part of San Francisco Bay (and we’ll forego the easy quip on that one).

Now Al has to deal with detractors.  LOTS of detractors, it is starting to look like.  These detractors aren’t just your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill folks like me who can read and reason that the “global warming” hysteria is an utter farce.  These are major-league level detractors, like the founder of the Weather Channel,  a former NASA astronaut, various climatologists and meterologists, and even the President…..of the European Union.

My favorite liberal is none other than EU President Vaclav Klaus, who has been extremely vocal about his rejection of the “global warming” (or “climate change” for those who want the edited version of it).  In January, Klaus directly took on Al Gore’s complex, and his diagnosis:  hysteria.  Klaus stated unequivocally at the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland that there “is no global warming.  I don’t see the statistical data for that.”  Klaus had met directly with Gore during the Summit.

Now, my favorite liberal has come to America to give you, as the recently-passed radio great Paul Harvey would say: “the rest of the story.”  Klaus is a participant in the Heartland Institute’s summit on global warming, speaking last evening on what he sees as the major thrust of the “climate change” crowd:  control of the public, ala communism.  Minceing no words, Klaus said that the thrust of the “global warming” effort is behavioral change and energy rationing, all a part of a socialist/communist central planning framework for human behavior.  That’s the real “inconvenient truth” behind the “global warming” scam.

Oh, and Al…temperatures in New York, where the Heartland conference is being held, is an early-March average 42 degrees.  God does indeed have a sense of humor.

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.


Commentary

To Begin Baseball’s Healing

bizarro-baseball-without-steroidsI love baseball.  I’ve loved it for as long as I can remember.  I have vague memories of Tito Francona (my first favorite player) hitting .361 in 1959 and watching on television the Dodgers/White Sox World Series that year.  As a child growing up in the ’60’s the numbers that I knew by heart were 61, 2,130, 56, .406, .367, and the previous year’s .era and batting average of every Cleveland Indians player.  I loved Bubba Phillips, Daddy “Wags”, Jim Perry, Jimmy Pearsall, and Woody Held.  Friends called me “Pedro” after Indians second-baseman Pedro Gonzalez.  Baseball records and statistics were only surpassed in affection by glossy pictures of my heroes and bubble gum.  And when a great record was broken, it was so impressive, I could hardly believe it.  But my days of heroes long ago ended with Pete Rose’s betrayal of the game I thought we both loved.  I captained my college baseball team in SW Ohio while Pete played in Cincinnati and always wished I could play like him.  But Pete sold out.  How could he betray “the greatest game ever invented!”

But Pete Rose now looks like a choirboy.  The “Roid Boys” of the last twenty-five years now have destroyed the game in ways “Shoeless Joe” and “Charlie Hustle” never imagined.  There is now only one solution-throw out all the statistics of the last twenty-five years.  They never happened.  It was only a St. Elsewhere’s dream.  Let’s begin the season of 2009 all over again.  We can put 2009 in the record books right after 1985 and throw out all championships, records, all Hall of Fame inductees, and all records as if they never happened.  For forty years I followed the mediocre to horrible Cleveland Indians, until the teams of the mid-nineties arrived.  Tears swelled my eyes in 1995 when the Indians actually made the World Series.  I really didn’t believe that I would live to see that day.  My dreams of pennants had always been trashed by injuries to the arm of Steve Hargan or discovered holes in the swing of Cory Snyder the year he and Joe Carter graced the cover of Sports Illustrated predicting the year of the Tribe.  But were my 1995 tears wasted on players who were juiced?  Will we ever know what caused the rapid demise of Carlos Baerga, whether Albert Belle’s outbursts were roid-rage, how Jim Thome became so big, or whether Manny Ramirez really is the greatest “natural” right-handed hitter of this era or any era?

The recent revelations concerning A-Rod are the final straw.  Like Raphael Palmeiro he looked into the camera and lied about being juiced.  Now we know that truth about Bonds, McGuire, Clemons, Sosa, Giambi, Rodriquez and many others, some named, some yet to be revealed.  Is the lowly Jose Canseco the only one who has been speaking the truth in the last few years?  I want to know the names of the other 103 who tested positive in 2003.

Nothing about the steroid era can now be believed or trusted.  These users and abusers must be castigated.  There is no place in the game for cheaters and law-breakers who “doctor” not the equipment but rather their own bodies.  Do we really realize how immoral this is?  Can we begin to grasp the depth of theft involved in illegally obtaining statistical success for fame and fortune?  They have significantly diminished the immense challenge of the grand game of bat and ball.

I’ve read stories of those who swam in the 1972 Olympics against East German women who had the muscles of men from their steroid usage.  They had an unfair advantage as do any who distort the game by perverting their own bodies.  Ben Johnson had his medals removed when it was proved that he tipped the scales in his favor to win Olympic Gold; the baseball rings, championships, and records of baseball players who betrayed the game, their opponents, and the fans by “fixing” the challenge of the contest in their favor should suffer the same fate as Ben Johnson.

Asterisks are useful and can be placed in the record books, but why stop there? Let’s remove their names altogether.  No juiced player should enter the Hall of Fame.  They should be whited-out from the game and quarantined like Rose.  And what are we to do with a commissioner who has turned his back on the game while lawlessness prevailed?  Selig ignored the obvious in the 1990’s while Sosa and McGuire were reviving interest in the game through their mythical home run race.  Selig sold his soul and the soul of the game for the enhanced revenue brought in through these bionic behemoths.  Every owner and journalist who truly loves major league baseball should immediately jump on the bandwagon to derail Bud from his position of authority for failing to be the watchdog of integrity during his reign.  We are angry and disgusted.  We want justice through prosecutions, suspensions, bans, asterisks, whiteouts of records and resignations.  These actions and time alone will provide the healing for the game and the fans who have been pierced to the heart by those we trusted as its stewards and inheritors.


Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

Grasping The Size Of The Economic Bubble

The Sinking DollarGary North has written an important and, frankly, frightening  analysis and explanation of the current economic crisis, paying special attention to the banking crisis. The article appears on the Lew Rockwell website and is entitled Ben Bernanke’s Wild Ride (and Ours). North bases his article and his argument on a video presentation, which is in reality an ad on Youtube for an alternative view financial advice blog.

The video demonstrates the absolutely awesome (in the true sense of the word) growth in borrowing from the Federal Reserve during economic crises of the past and present. For those who prefer to belittle North for being a scaremonger on the Y2K “crisis” please note the Y2K precautionary borrowing in the year 2000 on the video. Gary North wasn’t the only one scared

There were many of us who had a hand in IT systems at the time who also thought that Y2K was potentially disastrous. Ask any IT/computer professional recruiting specialist, if you can find one that is, about what business was like during the 1998-2001 period and what it’s like now. Billions were spent to make sure that Y2K didn’t happen. The Y2K borrowing peak is to the current peak(s) as a pebble is to a mountain.

Here’s the video- brace yourselves.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZsY1rFr_yw[/youtube]

The bottom line in North’s article is that he thinks (and he has a very sharp eye on economics) that we are in for an extremely long, deep and disastrous round of inflation; think in terms of Weimar Germany, Argentina and Zimbabwe. Yes, that bad. And not just here. Around the world.

Through a biblical economic lens, and yes the Bible teaches about economics at length, the world has adopted a system which it cannot sustain. Fractional reserve banking which creates money from nothing, fiat currencies backed by nothing but “consumer confidence (read FAITH, thus making the dollar into an idol)” easy credit and bailouts are harbingers of looming disaster, just as promised in the Old Testament.

How did the American economic system, not to mention the world’s get in this condition? The answer to that question is complex but decipherable. We will do our part to help explain it by reviewing some books you should think about reading. We will start by doing a series of reviews of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse, which explains the fatal flaws of the central banking system and explains how deficit spending for “internal improvements” which some have labeled “Hamilton’s blessing” have helped lead to the present situation.