For God, Family and Republic

Welcome to my personal web page, or blogspot
My name is Ryan Matthew Setliff. I'm a sinner saved by God's grace. I look to the tender mercies and grace of my Lord Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am theologically Reformed, and was raised in a Congregational Christian church. In fact, I've given pulpit sermons on occasion from a Baptist pulpit, participated in evangelism outreach, and taught Sunday School.

In my early twenties, I served as Chief Operating Officer for SelectSurf.com, a family-friendly Internet guide to the World-Wide Web. It has ceased operations. I architected the web site from the ground up, gained valuable IT experience as a programmer and web developer, and I authored a fifty-page business plan. We secured a number of strategic partnerships with major corporations from media providers to financial information services. SelectSurf carries the distinction of being the first Internet guide to offer real-time stock quotes. We came close to getting venture capital, but our timing was off. After that debacle, I went back to finish college and became fascinated with the study of the law. I graduated from Liberty University with a Pre-Law Degree in 2003. Shortly thereafter, I studied at Regent Law for almost a year, but I ran out of money and motivation and was forced to dropped out. I was hoping to earn a commission as a JAG lawyer beforehand in the U.S. Army. I really have no idea what God has in store for me—I just want to keep trusting, and embrace discipleship. Though, I have contemplated pastoral ministry, I look to follow the example of the Apostle Andrew who took heed to the small things.

Why Puritanhead?

FYI My blogspot is prefixed puritanhead.blogspot.com. Why? First, Puritanhead is my handle on the Puritanboard. Second, I'm a descendent of English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters, and Welsh Presbyterians. In fact, one of my namebearers Sir Matthew Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, is mentioned in the 1620 Charter of the New England Confederation, and he was a personal friend of Captain John Smith. Matthew was a sizable investor in the Plymouth Adventurers Company. His brother John was chaplain to the King. My forefathers helped found colonies in America from its earliest days in the 1600s. They eventually found their way to the south, and the southern branch of the family became the Setliff family. And by God's grace, I embrace the sovereign grace faith of my forefathers.

"By perseverance the snail reached the ark."
—C.H. Spurgeon

For those that don't know already, I like to collect militaria. I don't have much anyway, but one of the hallmarks of my collection is a Continental Soldier from the American War for Independence from 1776-1783.

The official blurb is as follows:

Created by Congress on Dec. 9, 1775, and lead by Col. John Haslet, The Delaware Regiment, according to some sources, were the best-equipped and best-uniformed unit in the army of 1776.

As part of the Fife and Drum line, Sideshow Toys brings you the Continental Soldier 12" figure, representing the Delaware Regiment at the Battle of Monmouth. The figure includes Delaware uniform coat, gaitered trousers, buckled shoes, short land pattern musket and bayonet with shoulder carriage, haversack, knapsack, canteen, cartridge box, and military ed hat with Alliance ade.

Only 3,000 of these are on the market. I think it is amazingly detailed and life-like. And to settle any morbid curiosity, I do not play with it. I would just assume no one touched it! This figure graces the top of my American history bookcases at eye-level, beside a desk flag set of historical colonial and revolutionary flags from the period.

The Numbers Behind the Lies
According to a recent article The Numbers Behind the Lies on MSN Money, "economist John Williams says ‘real’ unemployment and inflation numbers — figured the old-fashioned way — may be two or three times what the government admits. Here’s why, and what it means for Social Security." The article further notes,

Corporate America likes to play that game, the better to boost stock prices. Folks might be surprised to learn that "Governmental" America also plays the game in its compilation of macroeconomic data. Beneath the surface are undesirable, sobering consequences for us all.

For this reason, I cannot help but to get incredibly ticked at those hypocrites in Congress on the House floor running their mouth about Enron and the evils of corporate America. They have a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease. The Congressional Budget Office has used shady accounting tricks for years, and cover up the staggering size of budget deficits, by omitting special supplemental funding from the published U.S. budget as well as looting the so called Social Security Trust Fund, thus expediting the insolvency of the abysmmal government pension system. As economist John Williams notes,

The bad boys of Corporate America, though, still were subject to significant regulatory oversights and the application of GAAP accounting to their books. In contrast, the government's operations and economic reporting have been subject to oversight solely by Congress, America's only "distinctly native criminal class." [quote attributable to Mark Twain]

But should any of this be a surprise?

The Republican Congress shows its indifference to curtailing the growth of federal spending, and annual federal budget deficits are almost $400 billion now. In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney sardonically surmises, "deficits don't matter..." We shall see Mr. Vice President. As a Reaganite in the 1990s, I confess I find that supply-side economics do not work in practice, for the simple reason that the Congress fails to control spending. Supply-side monetarism was simply a reaction to Keynesian economics, and in practice, the advocates of supply-side economics seem to think that the central bank can prime-pump the economy in perpetuity. Their achilles' heel is that they think and act just like Keynesians, they just favor lower taxes. Just as the phenemonon of stagflation disproved Keynesianism, the steady decline shall prove the folly of our heavy indebtedness and inflation.

Besides ill economic discipline by our government, personal and corporate debt, as well as bankruptcies remain staggering. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan earned the reputation as an inflation-fighter when in reality all he did was continiously prime-pump the economy with steady inflation, and now we're feeling the shockwave of the Greenspan economy.

Related Articles
The End of Dollar Hegemony by Rep. Ron Paul

The discontinuation of the M3 Money Supply Measure
To further, their economic manipulation, the Federal Reserve discretely announced that they will no longer compile M3 money supply statistics. The official release was uneventful and without much explanation.

While the official recorded estimates for last decade are suspect, the discontinuation of this important economic indicator is indicative of the Federal Reserve's capacity to conceal the consequences of its monetary manipulation and inflation. The Consumer Price Index official statistics are being increasingly questioned by economists. Since the 1990s, the accuracy of government economic statistics is ever more questionable, particularly as they relate to unemployment, GDP growth, and the monetary supply.

Jim Jubak, senior markets editor for MSN Money, noted in a recent article:

The Fed wants you to think it's fighting inflation. So why did it kill an important measure of the money-supply boom that feeds rising prices?

The U.S. Federal Reserve made big news at the end of March. And almost nobody noticed. Here's the headline you didn't see:

Fed kills M3, decides money supply doesn't count
Move raises risk of higher long-term inflation and new asset bubble

I'm obviously not talking about the March 28 decision to raise short-term interest rates one more time to 4.75%. That got headlines all right, and most of them portrayed the Federal Reserve as a tough fighter against inflation.

For economic laity, the M1 money supply includes all physical money like coins and currency, as well as demand deposits in banks. The M2 money supply is simply the M1 in addition to short-term time deposits. The M3 money supply is M2 in addition to long-term institutional long-term time deposits, money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. The M3 is a helpful indicator.

Related Articles
Fed kills a key inflation gauge

Other inaccurate government statistics
It should not come as any surprise that the GDP, real economic growth, unemployment, monetary supply figures, and other key economic indicators are manipulated by the government. Figures produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Reserve are increasingly suspect. The political class and the sitting administration have a vested interest in making things appear better than they seem. But as John Williams asks, "Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences?" Williams' Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting and his subscription-based service is an eye-opener to the machinations and manipulations of government. He elucidates why the budget deficit is underestimated, and how accounting practices misrepresent government spending, government deficits, and the true extent of government liabilities. The U.S. federal government is one of the most horribly mismanaged institutions in the country. Economist John Williams explains,

The Pollyannas on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. The concept of looking at the "core" rate of inflation-net of food and energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two) volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile. Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long. Nonetheless, it is common to hear financial pundits cite annual "core" inflation as a way of showing how contained inflation is. Such comments are moronic and such commentators are due the appropriate respect.

In conclusion, we should expect more economic turbulence in the years ahead. "The U.S. economy is not growing, it is shrinking, notes Walter Williams. Bill Bonner says we should prepare for a 'hyperinflationary depression.'

As I mentioned before, because of the U.S. Dollar's unique status in the world as the reserve currency for many central banks in the Second and Third World, as well as its status as an OPEC reserve currency, more than 65-70% of U.S. Dollars are in circulation abroad. An economic collapse could send those dollars flying home with foreigners buying up U.S. assets.

Related Articles
The Hyperinflationary Depression by Bill Bonner
Poor Ben Bernanke by Bill Bonner
Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting by John Williams

A good time to buy gold and platinum?
Gold and Platinum!!! I think now is perhaps good time to consider buying gold and platinum. Right now, silver carries quite a premium compared to other precious metals as investors often look to silver since it costs much less per ounce in comparison to platinum and gold. Thus, more profits are to made in other precious metals. Gold is almost $500 ounce now.

Buyers are already taking notice and precious metals have made steady gains over the last few years, as the U.S. Dollar continues to decline. (Though, I'm an indebted, impoverished recent college graduate who cannot take my own advice at the moment.) Anyhow, there are lot of macroeconomic factors that make for a bleak prognosis for the United States economy and the U.S. Dollar in the years ahead. (Just revisit my proprietary article on federal spending binge as well as those from Rep. Ron Paul that I have posted since February.) In sum, the federal government cannot pay its bills, and the national debt is almost $8.4 trillion. Personal and corporate indebtedness is staggering as well, and we may be in for a soft depression and a managed decline of the U.S. economy. The Republican-controlled Congress has hiked the legal debt ceiling time after time.

If you're interested, visit the web sites of Kitco and Monex and check out the spot prices for precious metals. By the way, I don't own a gold mine, I'm not a broker, so I have nothing to gain recommending this. Invest at your own risk and make an informed decision weighing financial data on your own.

Review by Ryan Setliff

Arator is very much a distinctive "series of agricultural essays-political and practical" written by Virginia statesman and planter of the Old Republic which was first published in 1813. John Taylor of Caroline, also deemed the Sage of Hazelwood, dedicates a considerable portion of this book reflecting upon the socio-economic and political order of an agrarian republic which he sought to defend. In his book Arator, John Taylor speaks to a multitude of subjects and issues. He also offers practical and perhaps dated advice on farming (i.e. manuring, livestock, draining, etc.) as well which though extraneous to those interested in the socio-political aspects of his thought may be a historical curiosity to some modern readers.

To sketch a brief biography of the man, John Taylor of Caroline, in the words of M.E. Bradford, "became the classic figure of 'old republican' theory: the exemplar of an almost Roman virtus, the Virginia Cato, who soldiers, enforces the law, writes in its defense and of the life it secures, and serves the state well when called to office because he has something better to do-because there are lands and people of whose good is a faithful steward." He rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel serving in both the Continental Army and Virginia militia. He adopted the profession of his stepfather, and became an accomplished attorney in the 1780s. He turned his oratory abilities to the task of statesmanship and became a legislator in the Virginia House of Delegates and the United States Senate. He grew restless in the practice of law and politics and eventually retired to his plantation where he farmed. Though, he was not aloof from political concerns and discourse, as he wrote a number of books and political tracts in his later years.

John Taylor of Caroline dedicated much of his political life in defense of the Constitution as a strict constructionist and a principled republican. Likewise, he fought against the perceived depredations of the artificial aristocracy of "paper and patronage" that was wrapping itself around the edifice of the federal government like some sly serpent. He assailed the corrupting mercantilist system of patronage and privilege that the centralising nationalists sought to import from England. According to Taylor, if this moneyed oligarchy thoroughly entrenched itself then the inevitable dire results would be consolidation, empire, monopoly, special privilege, jobbery, patronage, legal plunder and theft by taxation. Taylor no doubt had nothing but disdain for Hamilton's scheming to conscript legions of children and women to work factories. He felt strongly that either imperial consolidation or disunion would be the end result, and in any case, it entailed the ruin of the republic. Taylor minced no words in his vehement denunciations of the "paper aristocracy." Taylor saw this mercantilist class committed to plundering the productive agricultural, mechanical and labour interests so as to endow opulence upon the manufacturers, financiers, speculators and stock-jobbers. This scheming oligarchy driven by material avarice was hardly averse to the creation of legal monopolies and the spoliation of the taxpayers so long as they were enriched through bounties, subsidies and interest from government debt. "Monarchies and aristocracies, being founded in the principle of distributing wealth by law, can only subsist by frauds and deceptions to dupe ignorance for its benefit; but in genuine republics, founded on the principle of leaving wealth to be distributed by merit and industry, these treacheries of government are treasons against nations" [p. 94]. Taylor remained a principled republican and resisted the temptation to mount a campaign of counter-plunder for the benefit of the agricultural class. Taylor surmised, "If a scheme could be contrived in favour of agriculture, similar to the protecting duty scheme in favour of manufacturers, it would enslave the farmers... The utmost favour which it is possible for a government to do for us farmers and mechanics is neither to help nor hurt us" [p. 95]. Thus, in his political capacity as a Senator who championed the agricultural and landed interest, he did not fall prey to the philosophy of legal plunder, but preferred an economic and social vision of laissez-faire instead. Though, he recognised the need for a civil framework to protect property while prosecuting the twin depredations of force and fraud. He was eerily prophetic in surmising that the usurpations of this plundering class would ultimately led to civil war: "...it will begat new usurpations of internal power over persons and property, and these will begat dissolution of the union." Taylor committed his pen and oratory skills to confronting such despotism, and wrote a number of treatises, political tracts, and made some poignant filibuster speeches as a legislator.

The progress of history has vindicated Taylor's concerns in my humble opinion. Taylor was a nimble Unionist, and saw it necessary to preserve the liberties of the people in their natural communities with the concert of thirteen separate commonwealths tethered together by friendship, mutual consent and the fraternal bonds cultivated during the Revolution. Though, neither Union nor power was an end in itself for the Old Republicans. And just as the John Adams-the quintessential Yankee had spoken of States as being "nations," Taylor no less considered Virginia to be his country. One must surely be a Virginian, Marylander or Georgian as they are an American; and this was the understanding of patriotism that our forefathers embraced and espoused. In the early 1800s, John Taylor alongside John Randolph of Roanoke rose to become sectional leaders of the Tertium Quids (i.e. Latin for "the Third Thing.") They represented the uncompromisingly principled wing of the Jeffersonian Republicans. The Quids saw themselves as authentic expositors of classical republicanism, and their principles compelled them to oppose the artificial aristocracy and the compromises of both Jefferson and Madison, et al. within their own ranks. They were especially averse to the machinations of the High Federalists (viz. the Essex Junto, Fisher Ames, Aaron Burr, et al.) who sought to disrupt and fragment the Union.

Taylor, the leader of the pastoral republicans looked to certain classical exemplars like Cato the Censor. Likewise, as an Old Whig he was no doubt influenced by Cato's De Agri Cultura and by Virgil's Georgics. These classical works connect virtue and the proper order of human life with the discipline of the farmer and husbandman. For this reason, Taylor tended to treat agriculture as a species of moral instruction. Moreover, agriculture represented a noble and honorable calling to Taylor. The landed farmer relied on prescriptive wisdom, experience, patience, hard work, and a profound sense of duty and reverence to the divine. Such a way of life cultivated independence which made for good solid citizens, or vir bonus—the plain good man. The Roman republic of hollowed antiquity called upon the independent freeholders-indeed farmers and yeoman—to provide for her defense. This militia consisted of citizen-soldiers which were always deemed preferable to standing armies or hired mercenaries. Taylor deemed the citizen-militia the "rock of our liberty." For Taylor, the classics offered a breadth of historical insight and wisdom, and he saw that the pursuit of empire undone the Romans. Taylor confronted the perils of slavery with surprisingly candid commentary, and like Jefferson, he saw the existence of that peculiar institution as a catalyst for sparking future conflict, and social strife. He was emboldened to admit that the continuity of slavery might very well kindle the judgment of God. "Virtue and vice are naturally and unavoidably coexistent... Perhaps the sight of slavery and its vices may inspire the mind with affection for liberty and its virtue" [p. 124]. The exploitation of slave labour by the landed interest, conversely reflected a subtle hypocrisy on the part of Taylor as he and other agrarians were so quick to condemn the spoliation and organised legal plunder perpetuated by the "paper aristocracy."

All things considered, this is a good window into John Taylor of Caroline's political thought which represents the "Old Country Whigs." His other books such as Tyranny Unmasked and New Views on the Constitution come highly recommended as well. If you're just looking for a cursory look at Taylor's political thought than I recommend that you check out New Views first. Historian W.A. Williams opined that Taylor made "the best case against empire as a way of life."

by Rep. Ron Paul

March 27, 2006

Last week in this column I wrote of a perfect economic storm facing America, caused by a federal government that spends, borrows, and prints so much money that our dollars are eroding in value at an alarming rate. Year after year our federal government spends beyond its revenues, prints new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. With too many dollars and debt instruments in circulation, and no political will in Washington to cut spending, we've created a monster. Our perceived prosperity depends on keeping the great debt and credit engine pumping, but the only way to attract new lenders to fuel the engine is higher interest rates. At some point one of two things must happen: either the party in Washington ends, or the supremacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency ends. It's a sobering thought, but a choice must be made.

How did this happen? How did we get to such a state? The answer is found in the nature of politics itself. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

I believe one of the greatest threats facing this nation is the willful economic ignorance of the political class. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.

I certainly have seen firsthand a great deal of economic ignorance in Congress over the years. Few members pay any attention whatsoever to the Federal Reserve Bank, despite the tremendous impact Fed policy has on their constituents. Even many members of the banking and finance committees have little or no knowledge of monetary policy. Perhaps this is why so many in Congress seem to believe we can all become rich by printing new dollars, or that we can make 2+2=5 by taking money from some people and giving it to others.

We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy.

I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frederic Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.

If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.

--------------------------------------------------

I whole-heartedly acquiesce with Ron Paul here. As a matter of fact, I've read four out of five of the books that Paul recommends, and I actively endorse those I've read minus the Callahan book which I have not read. Anyhow, economic ignorance enslaves people to the financial machinations and manipulations of their government, and the central banks. Economic ill-discipline can destroy nations as assuredly as moral decay and conquest by foreigners.
—Ryan

These are the words of the Prince of Preachers C.H. Spurgeon, not mine. I admire his tact writing style and knowledge of the Scriptures.

"Jesus said unto them, If ye seek me, let these go their way."
—John 18:8

Mark, my soul, the care which Jesus manifested even in his hour of trial, towards the sheep of his hand! The ruling passion is strong in death. He resigns himself to the enemy, but he interposes a word of power to set his disciples free. As to himself, like a sheep before her shearers he is dumb and opened not his mouth, but for his disciples' sake he speaks with almighty energy. Herein is love, constant, self-forgetting, faithful love. But is there not far more here than is to be found upon the surface? Have we not the very soul and spirit of the atonement in these words? The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, and pleads that they must therefore go free. The Surety is bound, and justice demands that those for whom he stands a substitute should go their way. In the midst of Egypt's , that voice rings as a word of power, "Let these go their way." Out of slavery of sin and Satan the redeemed must come. In every cell of the dungeons of Despair, the sound is echoed, "Let these go their way," and forth come Despondency and Much-afraid. Satan hears the well-known voice, and lifts his foot from the neck of the fallen; and Death hears it, and the grave opens her gates to let the dead arise. Their way is one of progress, holiness, triumph, glory, and none shall dare to stay them in it. No lion shall be on their way, neither shall any ravenous beast go up thereon. "The hind of the morning" has drawn the cruel hunters upon himself, and now the most timid roes and hinds of the field may graze at perfect peace among the lilies of his loves. The thunder-cloud has burst over the Cross of Calvary, and the pilgrims of Zion shall never be smitten by the bolts of vengeance. Come, my heart, rejoice in the immunity which thy Redeemer has secured thee, and bless his name all the day, and every day.

This is my proprietary review of The Law: A Classic Blueprint for a Just Society. This is a masterful treatise first published in 1850, which brilliantly elucidates the legitimate ends of the instrumentality of the law, and it likewise diagnoses the subversion of the law and the phenomenon of legal plunder.

The author Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) is best remembered for his tongue-in-cheek cliché, "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Bastiat was born as the son of a merchant in 1801 at Bayonne, France. He was later orphaned before his tenth birthday. Bastiat was a farmer by trade who became a statesmen. Hence, his observations about man and society are derived from personal experience, observation and as a student of history, rather than the abstract theories of intellectuals.

Bastiat opens his landmark treatise on the law with natural law premises acknowledging that life, liberty and property are the gift of God, in declaring:

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Bastiat was no Enlightenment secularist, though a classical liberal in a sense, he acknowledged a deep conviction in a personal and transcendent God, and he makes this integral to his treatise on the law. The law itself is a gift of God. At the onset, Bastiat rhetorically asks, "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." He further notes, "Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property." The instrumentality of the law carries force he admits. "Such a perversion of [that] force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights." He summarily encapsulates the purpose and nature of the law:

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Offering a view similar to that enunciating in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Bastiat postulates basic a priori presuppositions about human nature, labor and property. First, man has a rational self-interest. Second, men are most productive when they hold title to the fruits of their labor. Likewise, human beings are fragile, imperfect and inherently sinful. "The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies," opines Bastiat. He astutely surmises the origins of property and plunder. "Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property." Secondly he notes, "But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder." Plunder often proves more advantageous to men than labor, particularly those without moral scruples. In point of fact, the law exists to protect against plunder, but as Bastiat observes even the law itself - and its agent of force, the state - may be subverted into an instrument of plunder. He astutely enunciates upon the "legal plunder" phenomenon:

Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so....

The spoliation of taxpayers for illegitimate ends, such as subsidies, wealth redistribution, government largesse for unneeded bureaucrats, and other socialistic schemes act to subvert the law. "Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy," he declares. How does the law quell injustice, when it simultaneously aids Peter in his efforts to plunder Paul?

Bastiat identifies two forms of legal plunder: "They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer. ¶Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property." Slavery represents the coercive spoliation of labor, by confinement and coercive labor. Protective tariffs represent the spoliation of various sectors of economy to the betterment of a politically-connected constituency. In point of fact, many in the American founding generation, including George Washington, as well as a subsequent generation of antebellum southern statesmen opposed protectionism and affirmed that the chief object of tariffs or duties was revenue, and they questioned the constitutionality of protective tariffs. The outrageously exorbitant confiscatory protective tariffs of the nineteenth-century in the United States had an effect of diminishing revenues because of the law of diminishing returns. By the mid-nineteenth-century, protective tariffs severely depressed agricultural prices, hurt U.S. export markets and facilitated a massive redistribution of wealth from south to north as most revenues were collected in southern ports and most expenditures were made in the north and the beneficiaries of protection were mostly northerners. Ultimately, the resistance to the legal plunder led to disunion, as onerous taxation at rates in excess of fifty and sixty percent proved detrimental to southern interests. In the U.S., the export-driven southern states shouldered over eighty-percent of the tax burden in the mid-nineteenth century. Not surprisingly, the break away Confederacy formed in 1861. The politics of plunder are conducive to war, as plundering parties may wage war to protect their spoliation. Bastiat once remarked, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." This maxim is timeless.

Bastiat elaborates movingly upon the proper function of the law in remarkable detail.

When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

He critiques the ideas and premises of socialist ideologues who seek to subvert the law for their utopian schemes of transforming humanity or effectuating legal plunder schemes in the name of equality and social justice.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

Furthermore, he incisively analyzes the desire of socialist lawmakers to manage mankind, pursue redistribution schemes, and play God. Socialists and statists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. To them—"the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter." They want to play God. Bastiat recognizes that socialists fear all true liberties. Under socialist logic, voluntary freedom of association (and its attendant freedom to disassociate) is replaced by forced fraternity and corporatist schemes to form cohesive bonds among desperate elements of society with or without their consent. Likewise, the liberty of trade and of labor maybe restrained as well. Equality too, is subverted, because the only desirable equality, that is equality before the law is dispensed with, in favor of more elusive forms of equality of condition and and equality of opportunity that leftists extold. Inequalities are simply attendant to human nature.

Like the founding generation of America, Bastiat rejects legal positivism, and holds a negative concept of the law. Bastiat notes,

this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

He further critiques legal positivism, and explains:

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

The negative concept of the law is manifest in the Ten Commandments, (hence "Thou shall not...") Likewise the negative concept is manifest in the U.S. Bill of Rights, (hence "Congress shall make no law..." in the First Amendment, etc.)

Bastiat offers an astute polemic against the French Revolution, Napoleon, and various demagogues. In Bastiat's time following the Revolutions of 1848, France was precariously staged to embrace a level of socialism unprecedented of in history. Bastiat saw it as a duty to rise to the occasion as a statesmen and economist, and he sought to diagnose and analyze the socialist fallacies and the logic of legal plunder in his various writings. Likewise, he offered this cogent legal treatise to manifest the true and just purpose of the law. Bastiat has disdain for all artificial systems that seek to subvert the law whether protectionism, mercantilism, socialism or the peculiar French brand of étatism (statism) that blended all of these elements.

According to Bastiat, when society's social arrangements are not properly ordered, the lines between society and state are blurred, and the natural and spontaneous order that needs to function freely in order for social harmony to be achieved is impeded then social strife and chaos will ensue. He observed:

The doctrine that places the moving force of Society in the legislators and Government results in imposing crushing responsibilities on them in matters where they ought to have none. If there is suffering, the fault is that of the Government; if there is poverty, the fault is that of the Government - Is it not the general and sole motor of society? If the motor is not good, it must be discarded and replaced by another.

Today, sadly in the United States, the law has egregiously been subverted into an instrument of legal plunder. (Incidentally, I recommend reading a Cato Institute research paper entitled The Transfer Society by David N. Laband and George C. McClintock which documents the costs of legal plunder in America in our time.)

In conclusion, Frédéric Bastiat's legacy is being a tried and true defender of the principles of the law. Though, he was a Frenchmen, his treatise is no less valuable to those of us beholden to the Anglo-American common law tradition, as much of the vitally requisite principles of the law are transcedent and universal anyway. His work gives our generation a means of diagnosing the problems of contemporary civil society and effectuating a meaningful restoration of the law to its proper function.

Related Articles
Government by Frédéric Bastiat - Bastiat.org
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat - Bastiat.org
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat - Constitution Society

by Rep. Ron Paul

March 13, 2006

Today our national debt stands at $8.2 trillion, which represents about $26,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Interestingly, the legal debt limit is only $8.18 trillion, a figure that was reached a few weeks ago. This means the Treasury department must ask Congress to raise the debt limit very soon, most likely as part of a larger bill so it can be hidden from the American people.

Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Congress raised it many times over the last 15 years, despite the supposed “surpluses” of the Clinton years. Those single-year surpluses were based on accounting tricks that treated Social Security funds as general revenues. In reality the federal government ran deficits throughout the 1990s, and the federal debt rose steadily.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made it easier for Congress to obscure the extent of federal debt. He endorsed a change in the law that redefined Social Security and veterans pensions. In reality those obligations are debts, just like any other bill that must be paid in the future. But Mr. Greenspan urged renaming these obligations “intergovernment accounts,” which magically changed them from debts to “accrued liabilities.” This semantic shift frees up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing.

Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes at least 25% of the American economy and still can't balance its books is a government that vastly overspends.

I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn't matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much ultimately will destroy its own economy. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.

When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.”

For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
—James Madison

Today, March 16, 2006 marks the two-hundred and fifty-fifth anniversary of the birth of James Madison. James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was the fourth President of the United States serving two terms from 1809–1817. He was co-author, with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, of the Federalist Papers. Born to a prominent family in Port Conway, Virginia, he was the eldest of twelve children. Madison entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. At maturity, Madison was not a very tall man, nor a master orator, but possessed of an amazing political acumen and trenchant pen which won him the respect of his colleagues. Madison stood at only 5'-4" and weighed little over one-hundred pounds Washington Irving described Madison as "but a withered little apple-John."

He graduated in 1771, completing a four year degree in two years. Madison then studied theology, history, & law, both at the college and his own proprietary studies. For a time, he prepared solely for ministry in the Episcopalian church, though he became possessed of a profound melancholy, depression and sense of isolation which elicited the concern of his family and friends.

At the age of 23, he began his civil service career with appointment to the King George County Committee for Public Safety in Virginia at the age of twenty-three. In 1776, he became a member of the Virginia Constitutional Committee, the body which drafted the Commonwealth of Virginia's new constitution and Bill of Rights.

In 1779, Madison was elected to represent the state of Virginia to the Continental Congress. He participated in the abortive Annapolis Convention in 1786 to discuss the perceived defects of the Articles of Confederation. He was instrumental in the commencement of the Convention to draft a new Constitution. In point of fact, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison was at the heart of the turgid and tense debates. He zealously recorded the proceedings thereof, which were sealed for many years. Likewise, he advanced his Virginia Plan though unsuccessfully. He urged for ratification of the Constitution in a serious of pamphlets in George Clinton's New York. Likewise, he was a major player at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention.

Madison also spearhead the initiative for the U.S. Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment which affirmed the federal character of the Constitution, and how states' rights were integral to federalism, as the central government was possessed only of enumerated objects of power. And despite being a strong nationalist in the Convention, after the 1790's, Madison came to find common cause with the Jeffersonians. Now, that the federal government was sufficiently empowered under the new Constitution, the States he recognized had to be vigilant to guard their reserved rights, powers and authority from any encroachments by the new government.

Likewise, he followed the Republican Party. As all of them served together in Washington's cabinet, Madison and Jefferson developed an antagonism towards Hamilton's intrigue and schemes such as the "Report on the Manufacturers" and his proposal for the Bank of the United States. In the 1790s, Madison considered the Hamiltonian camp as subversive of republicanism, and began to see Hamilton as Jefferson did. Madison considered it a perversion of the republic, "[t]o make power the primary and central object of the social system, and Liberty but its satellite." Yet, he recognized that is essentially what Hamilton hoped to do. Madison remarked candidly to his friend Jefferson, about how Hamilton lamented the political order under the Constitution in the after hours of cabinent meetings. In fact, Jefferson and Madison were both convinced that Hamilton wanted that same unitary state on the of Great Britain that he had previously urged for at the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton, he thought, had hoped to achieve by loose "construction" of the Constitution, what he could not achieve at the Constitutional Convention, and he garbled his essentially monocrat arguments in republican forms. Madison initially opposed the plan for a central bank.

In 1794, Madison married a Quaker Dolley Payne Todd in September 1794. Madison was allured by her charm, blue eyes, fair skin, and black curls. Before their courtship, Dolley reported to her best friend that "the great little Madison has asked... to see me this evening." Madison was seventeen years her senior, but they had a happy marriage, though childless. "[O]ur hearts understand each other," she assured her husband. Dolley became renowned for her social graces.

When John Adams was elected President, Madison retired from Washington's cabinet to his home in Virginia. In 1798, Madison penned the Virginia Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, and affirmed 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."

In 1801, after Jefferson was elected President, Madison entered the cabinet again as Secretary of State. During this time, Madison protested to warring France and Britain that their seizure of American ships was illegal, an encroachment upon American sovereignty and violation of the rule of nations. His opposition to European encroachments upon the United States eventually paved the way for the War of 1812. Madison was elected President in 1808, despite the unpopular Embargo Act of 1807, which did not make the belligerent nations change their ways as Jefferson had hoped but rather caused a severe depression in the United States. The Embargo Act continued throughout Madison's administration. Not surprisingly, during his Presidency, his administration was plagued with difficulties. Madison challenged the British impressment of American merchants and sailors on the high seas, and lobbied Congress to inaugurate a Declaration of War against Great Britain, the so called War of 1812. This was a conflict marked of deprivation for the Americans, and the humiliating desecration of the capital city Washington, D.C. by the British. It was only diplomacy and the military prowess of Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans that turned the conflict in favor of the Americans.

Madison felt opposition in both the north and the south. New England Federalists commenced the Hartford Convention and threatened secession, while some among them ignored the Embargo Act. The Old Republicans such as John Randolph of Roanoke, John Taylor of Caroline and Nathaniel Macon tended to see Madison as they saw Jefferson, as a compromiser of principle driven by expediency and an otherwise pragmatic politician.

Madison eventually retired from public life, though he communicated regularly with active and retired statesmen and he followed current events. At their plantation Montpelier in Virginia, the Madisons lived in pleasant retirement until Madison died in 1836.

Related Web Sites of Interest
Answers.com - James Madison
James Madison Center at James Madison University
Montpelier - Madison's Estate
Papers of James Madison at the University of Virginia

The proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2007 is an astronomical figure of over $2.7 trillion. Since President Bush took office he has yet to veto a spending bill, and over the life his administration by FY2007, federal spending will have increased 45% (under the proposed FY2007 budget.) It seems that almost every annual budget, Bush mutters some duplicitious rhetoric about how it illustrates his party's renewed commitment to fiscal conservatism, cutting spending and balancing the budget by 2009. Likewise, there is a projected $400 billion budget deficit under the new budget. The economy is more sluggish, and big government continues to grow and grow. As Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute surmised, "The deficit problem is caused, not by a shortage of revenues, but by an excess of spending." Over the life of the Bush administration, under the present proposed budget, federal spending will have increased 45%, which doesn't account for supplemental funding for the Iraq War and the military black budget. Edwards notes, "There have been very large spending increases for the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs."

The Tenth Amendment plainly states, "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." Yet, this falls on deaf ears to Congress, who never fathoms that much of their appropriations are unconstitutional anyway. Dealing with budgetary constraints and a commitment to fiscal conservatism should began by 100% cuts in all unconstitutional federal spending. Half of the cabinet-level departments should be dispensed with and scraped, and their functions if at all, should be performed by the several states and localities. Not addressing this in our time, will excacerbate a future economic collapse on the horizon.

I've come up with an impromptu plan to illustrate how one could trim almost $1 trillion dollars off of the federal budget. Most of the cuts are deep, and involve wholesale abolition of cabinet-level departments. But virtually none of the spending is within the federal government's constitutional authority as per the Tenth Amendment or Article One, Section Eight anyway. Other cuts include reducing troop deployments in Europe and Asia by one-quarter, and the privatization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I believe Postal Service and Social Security privatization is certainly worth considering, but didn't even put that on the table in this proposal. People will say drastic budget cuts will inhibit the states, and guarantee state tax increases. Possibly, but states are far more likely to prudently evaluate their spending priorities and to decide how much they willing to pay for certain government services if at all. With the budget cuts, the savings are over $989 billion and the federal budget is reduced to Clinton administration levels of around $1.7 trillion. Deep spending cuts and eliminating budget deficits would invigorate the economy in the long-run. It is a shame we do not have the political leadership with the resolve to embrace fiscal conservatism in our time.

Related Articles
Cato Institute Tax & Budget Bulletin. No. 31: "Improving on the President's 2007 Budget," by Chris Edwards, Feb. 2006. (Adobe Acrobat PDF, 49kb., 2 pp.)

One hundred and forty-four years ago, the Battle of Hampton Roads, sometimes called "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack" transpired. It was a naval battle of the War Between the States, and it occurred from March 8–9, 1862 off Sewell's Point, a narrow place near the mouth of Hampton Roads, Virginia.

On March 9, 1862, a watershed moment in naval military history took place when the ironclad ship U.S.S. Monitor clashed with the Confederate ironclad ship, the C.S.S. Virginia.

However, the day before this great engagement, on March 8 the Virginia had performed a feat no less impressive. Departing from Norfolk, the Virginia set sail for the blockade of Union ships that were trying to strangle the Confederacy by blockade. No less than fiften minutes from the first shot, the Virginia rammed and sank the 24-gun Cumberland, and thereafter immediately attacked the 50-gun frigate, Congress. A half-hour later, the Congress was pummeled, and as she surrendered, the Confederate forces set fire to her. Union shore batteries, however, began to launch fire on the Virginia and she returned to Norfolk for repairs. The next morning, on March 9, 1862, after undergoing repairs at port, the C.S.S. Virginia returned to finish off the grounded U.S.S. Minnesota. The way was blocked by the newly arrived U.S.S. Monitor. The Confederate commander later described the Monitor as "little more than a cheesebox on a raft". The battle was inconclusive and resulted in a draw, but its historical significance is great because it was the first battle between two ironclads, the C.S.S. Virginia and the U.S.S. Monitor.

The Union Navy burned the U.S.S. Merrimack during the evacuation of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia in 1861. However, she was rebuilt at the Gosport Shipyard at Portsmouth by the Confederates, in the first dry dock in America, complete with ironclad plating and a reduced superstructure from her old burned out hull. Thereafter, she was commissioned as the The C.S.S. Virginia on February 17, 1862. Historian Allan Nevins describes the formidable ship (formerly the Merrimac,) as it was refitted and sent out to sea:

The Merrimac, a 40-gun frigate of 3,200 tons, left a ruined hulk at Norfolk, was now a formidable monument to Confederate industry and ingenuity. Her scuttled hull had been cut down almost to the water line, pumped clean, floated, and repaired. Lieutenant John M. Brooke and J.L. Porter had shieled the top and sides with heavy timbers, plated with railroad iron; had installed guns, 4 of them rifled and 6 of them 9-inch smooth-bores; and had fixed a powerful iron beak to the prow. The cost was trifling, the result astonishing. When the ship suddenly lumbered out of Norfolk into Hampton Roads to meet the Union frigates, it looked like a huge floating fort, its black iron sides sloping up from the water, its guns protruding from the small square portholes, its flat deck toppled by a flagstaff and one great funnel spouting smoke and cinders. With a length of 262 feet 9 inches, and a breadth of just over 51 feet, the Merrimac (which the Confederates called the Virginia) bore a complete cuirass of three inches of armor.
War for the Union 1862-1863. (New York, NY: Konecky & Konecky, 1960, p.50)

Later in April 1862 the Virginia, under Capt. Josiah Tattnall, again challenged the Monitor, but the Union ship declined combat and disengaged by fleeing to sea. After the Union troops captured and occupied Norfolk, the Virginia fled in May 1862, and unable to sufficiently lighten the Virginia for an escape up the James River, Captain Tattnall opted to destroy the ship with es so it could not be salvaged and the crew her abandoned her. Later that year in December 1862, the Monitor foundered and sank in heavy seas off Cape Hatteras.

Related Articles of Interest
Civil War Center - The Battle of Hampton Roads
National Geographic - The Battle of Hampton Roads

Answers.com - C.S.S. Virginia
C.S.S. Virginia Home Page
The Story Of The Confederate States Ship Virginia

Answers.com - U.S.S. Monitor
The U.S.S. Monitor

"He that can rule his tongue can rule his whole body. Alas! that unruly member destroys peace and happiness in thousands of cases. The tongue can no man tame, but the grace of God can tame it; and that man begins life with a prospect of happiness whose tongue has been tamed by grace."
—C.H. Spurgeon

I've been reading the Biblical exhortations about the tongue. Colossians 4:6 reminds us, "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." I have not always been sound in this area. It relates to how we answer people in our day-to-day conversation, and we should be reflective and considerate of our brothers, and speak with Christian grace. Sometimes, there are matters not appropriate to speak of to others.

"My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body. Indeed, we put bits in horses’ mouths that they may obey us, and we turn their whole body. Look also at ships: although they are so large and are driven by fierce winds, they are turned by a very small rudder wherever the pilot desires. Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things."
—James 3:1-5, (New King James Version)

Likewise, for any victims of slander (which I know of adequately), you learn to fathom the grave implications and wrong caused by the tongue.

"For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults."
— 2 Corinthians 12:20 (New King James Version)

Some sin with their tongue by assuming the worst of others, and gossiping and backbiting. Others just have lack of self-control and are quick to respond with spitefulness and scorn, and some misread people and are overly sensitive.

"Love...thinks no evil..."
—1 Corinthians 13:5

The person who gossips maliciously doesn't really care about others, especially the ones they're gossiping about. They really care more about themselves. I have grown disgruntled over certain types of personalities that get their satisfaction in belittling others and being quarrelsome. Some are so flagrant as to convey their insults in front of the person to others. Those with a penchant for fomenting strife and discord cause a lot of unnecessary harm. It's a shame that Christians seem to be worse than your non-Christians in this area.

With online interaction, misreading an e-mail or chat conversation is quite easy compared to in-person interaction, so people need to be sensitive and not to quick to react.

Myself, I see the folly of spiting an antagonist with foolishness and hasty remarks. I've made the mistake of getting angry, and sitting on it, and then telling someone off. In my mind, I rarely get angry without just cause. Nonetheless, Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, and bless our enemies as surely as we bless our neighbors and loved ones.

Gossip too, causes problems. It is an attack on the life of our brother or sister, and eggregious offense that should be shunned. Though, there is a Biblical mode for telling others of offenses committed against us by a sinning brother, but only after we patiently pleaded the cause with our offending brother.

In college, I have known of respectable Christian women to suffer immense slander and backbiting by others, though some may never have even realized it. Sometimes others belittle the reputation of women and wrongly question their chastity and allege promiscuity. Women may do this to other women often out of jealously. I've seen it happened, and tried to tacitly tell them they shouldn't do that. Guys do it to get back at women. Such offenses are in many cases slanderous falsehoods, and this is a most eggregious way to hurt a person. Yet I have known people to be casual in this arena.

Some persons have no love for peace; they love to stir up trouble (Prv. 15:18; 16:27-28; 26:21; 29:22). Good men bury the past and forgive (Prv. 10:12; 17:9; I Pet 4:8). The good seek to make peace at all times (Jas 3:17-18).

"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
—James 3:17-18

This is a general exhortation, and I step on no one's toes, but I think everyone should consider heeding Scriptural exhortations about the sins of speech, and making a commitment or recommitment in this area. All of us struggle with it, to varying degrees. Some are so malicious and flagrant in their gossip and don't recognize the gravity of their sins.

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one."
—Colossians 4:6

Where I fall short in this area, my hope is that I would be more attentive to guarding my tongue, and practicing what I preach here today.

The Confederate States of America adopt "Stars & Bars" flag, on the same day that Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated. The first official flag of the confederacy was the Stars and Bars, and was reported to the provisional congress of the C.S. by the flag committee on March 4,1861. Later, this was the same flag that first flew over Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina in 1861. This flag appears in many variations with stars ranging from seven to fifteen stars. The first wave of secession was done by seven states in the deep south. In time, over eleven states seceded from the Union in 1862, two border states (Kentucky and Missouri that had confederate and union governments), and another one (Maryland) that attempted to secede but had its legislature disbanded by the Lincoln administration by force and was thus unable to join the confederacy. Though, Maryland furnished considerable troops for the cause.

And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
—2 Corinthians 12:9

Among those who speak of the marvels of God's power, scant attention is ever given to the necessity of brokenness in the Christian walk. We should shun those teachers who marvel at the power of God and of the blessings of God while they ignore the necessity of brokenness. As Matthew 6:33 declares, "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." It is brokenness that men marvel at their own insignificance. It is in brokenness that men fully realize their unequivocal dependence upon the free and unmerited grace of God. "When I am weak, then am I strong" (2 Corinthians 12:10). It is brokenness that men find a real conviction of their sin, and their necessity for a redeemer.

Oftentimes a poor broken-hearted one bends his knee, but can only utter his wailing in the language of sighs and tears.
—Oswald Chambers

Weakness, humility and brokenness—this is the lot of the true believer. Those who seek worldly riches, the accolades of men, and have religion and self-righteousness are too apt to shun the Cross.

"Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered."
—Hebrews 5:8

"For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering."
—Hebrews 2:10

But the suffering of the Cross is requisite for true discipleship, and every believer has a Cross alloted for him. He just has to take up his Cross and fight the good fight, and endure the race of faith. We have to share in the suffering of the Cross. As 2 Timothy 2:3 declares, "You therefore must endure hardship, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus." And as C.H. Spurgeon says, "God gets his best soldiers in the highlands of affliction."

For those of faith, our solace is the blessed assurance of the resurrection to come, through faith in Christ.

With the World-Wide Web growing strong since the early 1990s, it has brought a new plague of objectionable content onto the scene. It is quite is easy to unintentionally stumble upon something on the Internet that you're better off not seeing. And the best counterweight is to simply have a third-party filter either through the Internet provider on the server-side or a software-based option like Cybersitter. I couldn't conceptualize letting kids have Internet access without it.

Christian parents often seek to block out worldly influences, and pull the plug on premium pay TV like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and MTV because of licenscentious entertainment that comes, especially on at night. So, why would you have the Internet as a free-for-all surfing environment? Filtering software eliminates temptation and accidental exposure. It is only a matter of time, that someone in the family accidentally clicks into something. Seemingly, trivial pursuits like software download sites or joke web sites may have offensive ads, offensive content, and links to offensive content. Time spent web surfing is the only prerequisite for the risk of exposure.

A few years ago before I went off to college, my father installed a free Internet provider called Free-n-Safe, which filtered on the server side. That Internet access service was discontinued. By that time, I was in Christian colleges, they filtered the Internet on the server side as well, on the dorms and at the library, and our network blocked out objectionable materials. The seamless integration on the server-side does sometimes seem advantageous, but software-based solutions can be just as effective.

Overall, I highly recommend this software. I got it and installed it sometime ago. It was the PC Magazine's Editor's Choice in August 2004 issue. CYBERsitter provides over thirty categories of filtering making it the most complete Internet filter available. The filters are updated automatically, and there are no subscription charges. A sophisticated "content recognition" system recognizes and blocks new objectionable web sites even before we know about them. In addition to a regularly updated list of filtered web sites, it has a concurrent measure that filters pages on the basis of objectionable keywords. Granted, the filters can be too strong initially on default settings where they block trivial keywords like death, and even things from BibleGateway.com. Before you start, you usually have to tinker with it and find the optimal settings, but they offer support. It also can screen and record chat conversations which maybe useful to parents keeping an eye on their teenagers, which is a good thing I guess.

If you search for it on EBay odds are you can find a new copy for $25-30.

For the last few years, the U.S. Dollar has been in steady decline. The M3 money supply has boomed in last year by almost $700 billion, but we have not felt the true costs of monetary inflation, because we find an outlet in the purchase of foreign goods and services. Ultimately, America's day of economic reckoning will come and she will face a soft depression, and perhaps economic dismemberment, stagnation, hyperinflation and significant liquidation of her assets by foreigners.

Demagogues in America continue to find convenient scapegoats like free trade, or perhaps blaming foreigners for the United States’ perils. But blame for the soft depression that is on the horizon and a possible economic collapse can find more domestic culprits than many Americans are willing to admit. In a country where savings are negligible, where public and private sector borrowing is exorbitant, where public sector growth continues to outstrip private economic growth by leaps and bounds, where fiat monetary policy doesn’t allow the market to set interest rates, and where millions embrace idleness and enjoy the benefits of the entitlement state—than you have a recipe for an economic crisis in the making. Either a steady managed decline or hyperinflation will become the end results. Our national indebtedness—within both the public and private sectors—continues to grow astronomically. The best solution the fractional-banking cartel (specifically the Federal Reserve) has offered is the continual loosening of credit strings and the injection of more inflationary monetary policy into the equation. The various economic distortions it causes in the economy (such as overdevelopment in the housing sector), and the vicious cycles of boom and bust are among its many bitter fruits.

Myself, I personally subscribe to the Austrian Theory of Trade Cycle.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises offered remarkable insight on the disastrous psychology that the inflationary booms inculcate among the masses—including the businessman, entrepreneur and investor:

The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. The individual is always ready to ascribe his good luck to his own efficiency and to take it as a well-deserved reward for his talent, application, and probity. But reverses of fortune he always charges to other people, and most of all to the absurdity of social and political institutions. He does not blame the authorities for having fostered the boom. He reviles them for the inevitable collapse. In the opinion of the public, more inflation and more credit expansion are the only remedy against the evils which inflation and credit expansion have brought about. (Human Action, p. 574-576)

In the depression aftermath of a boom, people are sapped, “despondent and dispirited,” and because everything seemed to have come easy during the inflationary boom, it further undermines the work ethic of a populace, and deadens the value of thrift, industry and hard work. All of these ill effects will be exacerbated in the aftermath of a collapse.

Mises further surmised, "...credit can be easily expanded and rates of interest temporarily lower. However, the boom thus created cannot last. It must sooner or later result in a slump and depression with all their disastrous consequences." In the United States, our wise and benevolent former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has long been heralded as an inflation fighter, but we shall see that this is a myth. Economist Murray Rothbard ventured to explain the ill consequences of prolonging an inflationary boom, and why the cure for its downsides always seemed to be more inflation and loose credit policies. In reckoning with the consequences of it, the contraction appears all the more violent and destructive, and the severity of the correction is greatly magnified. Rothbard proceeded to explain:

Why do booms historically continue for several years? The answer is that as the boom begins to peter out from an injection of credit expansion, the banks inject a further dose. In short, the only way to avert the onset of the depression is to continue inflating money and credit. For only continual doses of new money on the credit market will keep the boom going and the new stages profitable. Furthermore, only ever increasing doses can step up the boom, can lower interest rates further, and expand the production structure, for as the prices rise, more and more money will be needed to perform the same amount of work. Once the credit expansion stops, the market ratios are re-established, and the seemingly glorious new investments turn out to be malinvestments, built on a foundation of sand. It is clear that prolonging the boom by ever larger doses of credit expansion will have only one result: to make the inevitably ensuing depression longer and more grueling. (Man, Economy and the State, Ch. 12.)

Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of Treasury has been sounding the alarm for sometime now, but I think he misses the mark in scapegoating free trade. Inflationary expansive monetary policy is the real culprit.

Who Owns the Dollar? Our currency and our economy are held hostage by Asia. by Paul Craig Roberts.

Roberts is certainly perceptive, however, Rep. Ron Paul is more accurate in his prognosis in my humble opinion. Paul traces the developments of the U.S. monetary system and illustrates how it has endured so longed, and manifests why a day of reckoning will become inevitable. He astutely illustrates how it came to be the world's reserve currency and why that will inevitably cease amidst economic stagnation, monetary inflation and exorbitant public and private indebtedness in the United States.

After the stagflation of 1970s proved the illogic of Keynesian economics, the post-Bretton Woods monetary system was realigned. When the Dollar became OPEC's reserve currency, as oil transanctions were denominated in U.S. Dollars, in a sense, the dollar was backed by oil. Though, this system has a fatal flaw as our money supply abroad steadily aggrandizes, and as much as 65-70% of U.S. Dollars circulate abroad. As budget deficits and the national debt spirals out of control, and our government's borrowing abroad to pay its bills continues, the United States will be economically dismembered and bought up by foreigners. An economic decline will be the end result. Our government's efforts to hedge off the debacle will prove to be a failure in the long run. We can put off the inevitable downturn through monetary manipulation, but it will only exacerbate the size of the coming bust.

Mark my words, the stack of cards will crumble and fall. It's not wishful thinking, as I wish it could be entirely avoided. But it's Economics 101. And as we shall learn, for all the hue and cry about American exceptionalism, we cannot transcend economic reality. If I had money, I would buy hard money, platinum, gold and silver, but I'm pretty broke right now. In the speech below, the distinguished Rep. Ron Paul astutely explains the economic peril that awaits the U.S. Dollar.
---------------------------------------

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006

The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar nce is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the