Economics, Socialism, and the Demise of Constitutional America

Obviously there is an economic crisis.  The world is unable to borrow money.  As a result countries have stopped trading money.  People have stopped spending money.  Within weeks businesses will stop paying money to employees.  Unless something changes. 

 

The government of the United States has already acted.  They passed a $700 billion bill that, along with unnecessary tax cuts to special interests, relieves stupid and irresponsible bankers and investment agencies of their risk.  Initially confidence was back up, and the stock market regained some of its points.  I don’t know what else to call it, because there isn’t inherent value in the stock market, or money. 

 

Now the economy has regained its sense.  The people of the United States, those whose money fuels the investments and liquidity, told the government not to pass this imaginary money bill (a huge loan taken out by the US Congress in the name of the US people).  Now they are still not confident, still right that the bailout bill was the wrong thing to do.  The Congress went ahead and stole our free market.  So the stock market crashed more than it ever has before. 

 

The world is in turmoil, because most of the world owns stock in our financial stupidity.  Of course looking out your window no one seems to be in turmoil. 

 

I have been in tears.  Yesterday morning, watching news of voter fraud and financial collapse, an eerie thought crossed my mind.  Much like the compulsion to watch the news all day on September 11, 2001 and remember every event and emotion, I thought I should remember these days and their news, as though recording the last days of an era, an ideology, or a country. 

 

I’m generously predicting complete socialism in America in 3 months.  My dad says it could be sooner.  So, as a matter of fact, does President Bush.  The government has acted and will continue to act, he says with regards to the economy and the failing markets.  Our country may soon be socialist. 

 

That is, if country still means anything. 

Today the G7 world leaders are meeting to compose a unified plan for a unified global solution to the economic crisis affecting people internationally.  “In an interconnected world, no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another. We are in this together. We will come through it together,” Bush said. “There have been moments of crisis in the past when powerful nations turned their energies against each other or sought to wall themselves off from the world. This time is different.”

My friends don’t know who to vote for in the presidential election.  They’re discouraged with the options offered by major political parties.  We all know that neither candidate will accomplish much of anything toward fixing the massive problems in our government and economy (financial markets and health care), nor will they actually do much of anything for the social interests of people (education, immigration, abortion, and marriage).  The best answer I have is that it won’t matter what we vote.  Our government is rapidly running away from republican principles, the Constitution, and even its national existence. 

Have a good day. 

(My personal philosophy is that whatever is out of my control is in God’s.  He has the future thoroughly planned, and has revealed the end of the world in His word in several places.  What’s more, my personal welfare and provision is securely in his good hands, not ultimately in the government’s.  Whatever happens, however discouraged I may be by world events, I can trust His sovereignty, goodness, and grace.) 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

Two Countries of the USA

Christians occasionally run up against the argument that religious wars recklessly took the lives of thousands of people.  Take the Crusades…  So of course Christianity is a religion of hate and violence, and it is hypocritical for purportedly teaching about loving one’s neighbor at the same time.  Guilt by association is a hard reputation to shed.  It is hard for me to have to defend myself over a crime for which I don’t feel guilty, especially when I don’t feel guilty because I wasn’t alive then.  I want to be loyal, but consistency and honesty are more important to me. 
 
Pro-life groups have the taint of extremists who bombed abortion clinics.  But I didn’t do that or condone that.  In fact, I cannot remember a bombing of a clinic in America since I turned 13 and started paying attention.  Is murdering millions of babies ok because one of the thousands of protestors was inexcusably destructive? 
 
Zionists have been shamed by a branch of extremists who wanted to use terror to further their cause.  In the case of Zionism, as opposed to that of Islam, the difference was that they were condemned by the mainstream.  Strategists, leaders, and supporters of the state of Israel sought peaceful means of creating a Jewish homeland.  Only once attacked and threatened by hostile (to say the least) neighbors who denied their existence and legitimacy did Israel take a position of miraculous strength, and apply military power. 
 
Committing a crime yourself and framing your enemies for it is classic double-agent strategy.  The ultimate example is Emperor Palpatine and the Clone Wars in Star Wars.  Or if you’re more for history than fantasy, you might refer to Hitler excusing his invasions of Austria, Czechoslavakia, and separately of Poland.  Yes.  We’re talking the trigger for World War II. 
 
During our involvement in World War II, America made the distasteful and unjust decision to inter our Japanese civilians in labor camps.  In the interest of humble honesty, I always feel obligated to admit that occasionally my country is not defending virtue and liberty.  I’m a fan of history, not names and dates so much as the connections of the dots.  What were the politics, the motivations, the idealisms that drove countries to war and revolt, to peace and surrender?  What little difference in choices would have changed the course of the world? 
 
So I have to note that the president who ordered Japanese interment during World War II was a Democrat.  Knowing that makes me feel a lot less responsible.  There are almost two countries in this America.  They alternate power, a check and balance between irresponsible oppression and defensive freedom.  I never realized it before, but I’m more or less loyal to the Republican America. 
 
But. 
 
My Republican America participates and upholds the same Constitution that occasionally puts Democrat America in power.  Even if I’m voting against them, I’m still endorsing the system.  How much responsibility does that give me? 
 
Some lifestyles are a package deal.  For example, I’m learning that to believe Church should be held in homes is a lifestyle.  Substituting a gathering in a house doing all the biblical things for the Sunday morning “worship service” in a sanctuary isn’t sufficient.  My friends would call the package living missionally.  I already believe that Christian community does life together and that the most effective Church in history met more than once a week. 

 

Perhaps another package deal is living in a Republic requires political involvement.  I can’t just vote and say I’ve done my part.  In fact, for decades under the US Constitution there was no suffrage for women, and their participation in the government had to be more involved and influential than that.  They had to do marches and grassroots campaigns.  We must do that and more, like paying attention to our representatives in all three branches of government, and proactively holding them accountable.  Voting is saying, “Yes, I believe in and endorse this system.”  The responsibility, then, is ours to do everything we can to ensure that the system is honorable and efficient. 

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Presidents and Federal Government Reform

Resolved: The American Federal government is too big. 

The federal government has more employees than is legal or necessary. 

The federal government is inefficient. 

The federal government unjustly over-taxes the people of America. 

The federal government uses tax money (and debt) to fund illegal social, education, and scientific programs and departments. 

The federal government has infringed the rights of states in several areas. 

Resolved: A US president has power to rein-in the federal government. 

A US president can veto excessive spending bills referred to him by rogue congresses. 

A US president can speak out against the abuses performed by the federal government. 

A US president can restrict, resize, or dissolve any of the executive-appointed offices and departments. 

A US president can appoint secretaries, attorneys, and judges who will uphold the US Constitution. 

Resolved: The vote cast by a citizen of the United States for president should be affected by the above resolutions. 

Resolved: The above resolutions are not the only rod by which to measure a candidate. 

Inquired: Which candidates understand and affirm the above resolutions? 

Inquired: Which of those who understand and affirm the resolutions have an applicable plan for reforming the federal government back into legal limits? 

Inquired: Which of those with a plan would be able to implement their plan without destroying the nation?  In other words, would the government and country still be able to function,  or govern and defend itself? 

Ron Paul is almost completely a libertarian.  He offers very conservative principles to the disillusioned, betrayed conservative grass roots.  His speeches are full of the resolutions above.  But I have not heard him describe how electing him as president would make a difference.  What changes would he make, and how would he make them?  How would he deal with the fall-out?  I notice in my own life that God, who certainly knows all of my shortcomings and sins, will prune them a little at a time, so that I can still function.  I believe this is because He loves me, not just the mold of perfection.  I doubt that Ron Paul would have the patience to reform the government in a way that would leave a working system in place.  On the other hand, he has been in the legislature for some time without accomplishing anything aside from building a record for himself (not even a name for himself until he publicized it by running for president). 

Rudy Giuliani does not seem interested in restricting the government at all.  He is a social moderate, who therefore thinks government involvement in social matters are justified.  (On a side note I do not think that murder is a social issue; neither is abortion.) 

Mitt Romney is a businessman.  He has shown his capabilities as an executive.  Making an organization run efficiently and productively is his record.  In business, you do not want to cut the influence of your company, or reduce profits.  Yet in government, that is just what needs to be done. 

Though Huckabee was a pastor more than a businessman, he was also an executive of a state.  As governor of Arkansas did he exhibit any tendencies toward reforming the government?  Granted, he was working with a congress of democrats.  Is there anything he is saying now that indicates he will reform Washington? 

Are these men just going to treat symptoms?  Throw more money at problems?  Cut out the cancer so deeply that you’ve amputated vital organs?  Must we the voters be content with a man of the hour, who can get us through the next four years, but will leave the federal government unchecked in its decent toward tyranny? 

What do any of you readers know about these candidates or the others running?  Are my assessments wrong?  Do any of the other candidates meet the resolutions with strength, vision, and confidence?  Can you reassure me that a vote for Huckabee, which I am intending to cast, will be for the good of America? 

Can we the people do anything now to prepare the field of candidates in the future? 

Please comment. 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

The Freedom to Speak and to Peaceably Assemble (even to Protest Abortion)

In the pro-life movement, there are some tactics less popular than others.  For example, most everyone will support a pregnancy center.  Adoption agencies are good pro-life outlets, too.  Political involvement (like voting or signing a petition if it comes up) is an easy way to do a bit.  You can blog about pro-life, or give money to pro-life agencies.  Even sidewalk counseling, prayer vigils, and clinic protests aren’t that intimidating.  When you discuss loud, convicting protests or stark, bloody posters, then you rub some people the wrong way.  Finally something that really intimidates people is protesting in neighborhoods of abortionists and their accomplices.  (Ok, the idea of doing anything that could get you sent to jail isn’t popular either, but I’m not really advocating those things.) 

 

In fact a blogger who frequently supports Planned Parenthood was just complaining about the pro-life groups in Colorado who protested outside of a contractor’s house.  Her definitely not endorsed article can be read at this link.  I wrote the following as a comment, but I’m not sure whether she’ll post my refutation, so I’m tripling the effort by blogging it. 

 

Obviously contractors (and their neighbors) want to avoid the public opinion that doesn’t appreciate those who cooperate in the destruction of human life.  A good way of avoiding that would be to not participate in the murder of the most innocent of human life.  This is the point of the protests. 

 

Political campaigning is like this.  Members of the community have a right to communicate their position to their neighbors.  And they have the right to try to persuade their neighbors.  The fact that we have to persuade people to spare innocent children is a point in itself. 

 

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was peacefully and pointedly protesting the discrimination according to race, he was applauded (though resisted).  If the people do not gather to speak, their voice will not be heard.  Looking back we don’t feel bad about the teachers, clerks, drivers, and city officials who were made to feel uncomfortable about the policies of racial discrimination.  What they were doing was wrong.  The people knew it.  And the wrong was changed. 

 

Our constitution precludes lines being drawn about free speech, but I wonder where Planned Parenthood’s supporters would draw it.  The protesters are not on private property, but on public sidewalks and streets.  They do not prevent normal neighborhood activity like driving down the road, receiving mail, eating dinner as a family.  We are surrounded everyday by images and messages on benches, roadway signs, signs in yards, slogans on t-shirts.  Some are even directed at certain companies, policies, groups, or people.  Yet there is little outcry against these manifestations of First Amendment rights. 

 

The pro-abortion blogger used the word bully.  A schoolyard bully threatens the extortion of property or the physical health of his victim.  Debate and truth-telling, with no promise of repercussion, is not bullying.  There is no violence being done.  No theft is involved.  People are speaking their minds.  This is the patriotism on which our country was founded, by which it literally came into being. 

 

Pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice-to-take-another’s-life protesters are not objecting to the shame Planned Parenthood and their contractors feel over their projects.  We have serious concerns about the legality of deceiving the city officials and the public, of subverting zoning ordinances, and of potentially slandering the name of other companies (in the case of the Rocky Mountain facility, Planned Parenthood filed their permits under the name United Airlines, which unfairly correlates the murder of babies to them).  No one is questioning why Planned Parenthood wanted to hide their plans.  We simply object that they did.  Cities have ordinances to prevent such things. 

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Ancient Israel a Federal Monarchy

1 Chronicles 26:32, “And his brethren, men of valour, were two thousand and seven hundred chief fathers, whom King David made rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, for every matter pertaining to God, and affairs of the king.”

 

A shocking revelation: apparently the government instituted by King David (after God-provided release from the oppression of King Saul, but still while threatened by powerful and jealous neighbors) had great resemblance to the government of the United States originally set forth in the Constitution.  The one primary difference was that the government of Israel included oversight on spiritual matters.  There was no separation of church and state.  Rather the church served as part of the “checks and balances” alongside the king, much like our three-branch system of government in the United States. 

 

Levites were the judges (in religious, ceremonial, and cleanliness matters) and jailers, as instructed by Leviticus.  They kept the cities of refuge, in which men who had involuntarily committed manslaughter could live safely out of reach of the avenger of blood (not an official government agent, but a near relative of the victim; see the Second Amendment). 

 

David’s trusted military chiefs were made rulers in their respective tribal lands (states), but those men who were directly subject to King David were only responsible for matters pertaining to God and affairs of the king, implying that there are matters which are not affairs of the king or particularly pertaining to God/religion.  These are local matters (originally our country would have considered commerce, education, and ordinances like traffic laws to be the domain of state and local governments).  Elders in each city of Israel, on a clannish basis, were responsible for oversight of these more minor issues. 

 

See the definition of Federalism provided by dictionary.com:

 

Federalism

“A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. “ 

and

 “A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.”The king unified the tribes when necessary in defense against their hostile neighbors, just as the authors of the Federalist Papers defended as a prime reason for any kind of central US government (as opposed to a Confederacy). 

Of course we know that Israel’s federation endured a similar pattern to ours.  Solomon’s son became rather tyrannical, so a large portion of the tribes seceded, but in Israel’s case, successfully.  Eventually the people all fell to wickedness, and the government: kings and priests also became selfish and corrupt.  This was not a result, please recognize, of the union of church and state.  Rather, it was because the spiritual legacy was abandoned and replaced with paganism or humanism alternately, that the nation suffered decay. 

 

Warnings were given to Israel.  The people ought to have repented.  The government needed reform.  Refusing to heed, both sections of David’s kingdom were, short hundreds of years after his reign, conquered anyway. 

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

 PS: This is what I thought of when reading 1 Chronicles 26 last night.  Any other thoughts?  I could be wrong about some things.   

Read Full Post »

The Law of Sunset

Moms with kids who take naps hate Daylight Savings Time. 

I hate Daylight Savings Time.  I don’t like resetting my clock, and I do not like what it does to my sunset. 

My dad agrees that to leave work when the sky is already dark is depressing. 

I have a solution for half the problems: The sunset must always be after 6 PM.  We can set our clocks around that.  In this way not only do we leave work at a less depressing hour, but we get to see the sunset.  Also waking for the sunrise is less difficult, as the sun would currently rise in Denver at about 8 AM (I think). 

Dad had a different plan: employers must let their workers leave by sunset.  That way we don’t have to work as much.  I have serious doubts about the economic implications. 

Any thoughts or suggestions?  I think we should be democratic about this.  Benjamin Franklin invented Daylight Savings Time.  Don’t you think the floor should have been opened for others to present their propositions?  And then we could vote.  Moms get a vote for themselves and each child under ten.  If enough of you my blog readers exercise your constitutional right and address the government for redress of grievances (the grief over not seeing the sun!  over children who are hungry and sleepy an hour off schedule!), maybe our democratic efforts will effect change! 

To God be all glory. 

Read Full Post »