Everyone Has an Opinion and They...

Aw Shucks!

I posted my opinion on my social media page...

And someone said I was wrong!

BUT, their point wasn't about what I said, their response intimated that I was wrong to say it.

What nerve! I was over it, until...

They used the same form of argument (what I call, "the fight for truth") to support a different cause.

***WHAT?!***

Does this person "get it"? I don't think so. And if I said anything...I don't think we'd be friends on social media after that.

So...

Instead, I take up my "pen" (keyboard) to get my thoughts straight and put them out of my mind (literally) and onto the screen.

First, I'll record my 4/30/20 post here (in response to this video):

No arrests were made, thank God.

Do not read the following if you cannot handle [your own] cognitive dissonance:

In my internal monologue, Christians should never have stopped their religious rites. From the beginning there were contrarian epidemiologists who said Do Not Quarantine.

Interestingly, there were epidemiologists (not contrarian) who said We Are Already Too Late to implement mass quarantines.

I really do believe that we are obeying man out of fear (God is not the author of fear), instead of God. God says, "do not forsake gathering together."

'But God, we have livestreaming, video conferencing, and virtual communion!'

"Hmm. You're right. Your virtual obedience will be granted a virtual reward."

Remember, this is my internal monologue...

If this is acceptable, then it will be acceptable if I "virtual church" after the hysteria passes. If that is not acceptable, then why is forsaking gatherings acceptable now?

The science doesn't even support it. I want to be faithful to God and science (immunology). Both say you must have contact to Live.

But my God ordained authorities [civil and religious] say, "stay home." Since I haven't heard of any religious leaders in my area still meeting, I am resigned to unconscionable obedience or unconscionable rebellion.

Though my conscience has been violated, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. So that's worse. Hence my example of obedience from the beginning.

I ask God to break in on my internal monologue: should I move to a state/county where they didn't shut down? Should I move to a denomination that didn't shut down?

It doesn't exist. You can only find small pockets of resistance. Even I'm not resisting, but I am speaking out. Now you know why. Now you know my dissenting opinion.

But I've always been a contrarian. So this is no different. There is no place where this son of Adam can lay his head. Which is why, "here" is as good a place as any to take my stand.

Here I stand, I can do no other. I'm not resisting. It's not in my nature. But I'll not forsake truth.

I think breaking up this funeral to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion. I think quarantining the healthy and forbidding church gatherings to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion and peaceably assemble.

I believe the religious leaders' absolute obedience to the state to be a violation of God's law.

Before anyone tries to break into my internal monologue (which you are obviously free to do as I'm posting this publicly), I will tell you my basis of belief (so you don't have to waste your time).

I believe in the absolute inerrancy, infallibility of the Holy Scriptures as the Words of God. I hold a conservative approach to theology. Thus, I reject modernist interpretations (evolutionary theory, etc). I reject elitist interpretations (new perspective on Paul, etc).

I believe in obedience to authority and in holding our authorities accountable to the truth. No schism; unless they want to take off your head, then maybe schism.

I believe laissez faire is a biblical approach to the civil sphere. So my economics are Austrian (free market), my sociology is conservative.

I hold that most people are scientifically illiterate, to some degree. And those who fashion themselves to be "of science" are like the scientists that Isaac Newton was deathly afraid of (he was neurotic, but they were too political).

There is nothing "settled" in science. What "we know" is really what we believe based on our current understanding. You will always find reputable scientists disagreeing on the correct interpretation of the evidence.

You will always find scientists in politics, who seek to impose their view as the only orthodox position. Sadly this happens in the church too.

If you want to argue, I will always come back to these foundations, because it's why I believe what I believe. I know my "Why", do you know yours?

There were several decent comments and I gave thoughtful responses whether the commenters agreed with me or not.

One comment rubbed me the wrong way.

It has been my experience that, no matter how much you disagree with your bishop, it is best to work to agree with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

I responded:

 It has been my experience that, in order to "work to agree", the disagreement must be clearly stated.

I lack either truth (egregious), understanding (major), or clarity (minor).

Without searching out the matter, your medicine may be prescribed in error.

Without a conversation, how am I to know what I need to repent of?

I have a blog length, stream of conscious response if you're interested. It should be enough to help you understand where I'm at and to properly assess what kind of assistance I may require.

Thank you for your concern and taking the time to comment, I appreciate all feedback, even if I disagree or dislike it. I can only grow from the interactions :)

They did not respond.

Oh well.

I don't know if they lack either the ability or desire to respond. It surely makes it difficult to "speak with my enemies [frenemies, and even friends] in the gates."

I wrote a much longer, stream-of-conscious response that I did not post. I considered making it a blog post, but did not do that either. I thought the short response was better. But, I'll include my longer response here [with minor edits].

What I wanted to say...

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate the sentiment. 

But [your point is] similar to what I was sidestepping when I started attending and joined my current [Anglican Church in North America] ACNA parish. 

Although I didn't abandon my former [Presbyterian Church in America] PCA church or the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] OPC to which I considered myself to be an adherent of. I waited until the Navy moved me from SC to WA, to make the switch.

I would have agonized over leaving if I was a permanent resident in SC and still member of that church.

In consideration of the argument of authority that you brought in, should I go back to the PCA? Should I seek to formally transfer my membership out of the PCA? Does authority mean that I cannot disagree? Is it a silencing? When can I speak out for truth? When can I pursue it without fear of man? Any man?

I'm merely an aspirant [assuming you think I'm ordained, I'm not]. The ordination vows are one of the things that holds me back from relentless pursuit of ordination. My lack of [a Master of Divinity Degree] MDiv is what stops them from pursuing me, so to speak. 

One of the main reasons I left the PCA was my being convinced of paedocommunion. How could I stay and work towards agreement in that case? What about the lack of true Christian discipleship [that I did not get]? Not a lack of desire, but effective implementation. Or is assent merely enough?

I'm good enough at "playing the game" to know that I'm terrible at it and I don't care as much [about that] as I should care. I say, "No, no!" But then I obey anyways. Others say, "Yes, yes!" And get advanced to further their agendas. Who has done the will of the Bishop?

I am obeying. Am I to be silent? If I do not speak/write constructively, the fire in me will burn destructively.

If you can teach me to quench the prophetic spirit, I will follow your advice. I'd rather not carry this burden to [seemingly] feel everyone's pain and [ostensibly] know the truth being withheld from them.

My professional employers to date have tried to snuff it out. But I get the feeling that I can't give up, that I'm not supposed to. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do everything right, it means that I'm going to do what God has created me to do, but I'm willing to be corrected along the way.

How can I incorporate your correction? Can we sharpen iron and get to brass tacks in this matter?

Please don't mistake my questions as resistance. I really want to know. But I go deep into whatever I pursue, so you've got to be patient with my questioning and not take it personal (hard to do, I know).

To let you in on my process, I reduce everything into propositional thinking, if I can. This is why it can be tiring. If I'm wrong to do so--is it wrong for me to have left the independent Baptist Church when I left home for college and attended the OPC? Is it wrong for me to have left behind homophobia, legalism, bullying? No? Then after all that I've left behind in the pursuit of truth, why now have I seriously misstepped? Why is there a tendency among the ordained to mistake [what should be] servant leadership with authoritarian leadership (often in minute [or "seed"] form)?

Why do I notice and why does it bother me so much? And yet, I say nothing. Where is the forum in which I can faithfully express myself? I don't hold self-expression over faithfulness. But neither do I hold faithfulness as a lack of self-expression.

Matthew 18 suggests that if you're correcting me, that you do so privately. And if I resist, that you bring along others to establish the two witnesses requirement of biblical law.

I am not correcting my Bishop or priest [otherwise I'd be violating Matthew 18]. I have seen my priest act in [obedient to God] subversion to the state (according to my understanding), for which I am grateful, but I wasn't going to state it in the [original post] OP, for fear of getting him in trouble. 

More than correcting, I am writing in exasperation. And asking the question, which you did not answer, but instead told me to accept it and seek to agree with it.

I cannot seek to agree with it IF you give me no reasons. I must have the "why?" answered to be able to agree with it, given everything that I know. 

IF I did not post, everyone would think me in alignment. I would be certified "good" even if I [actually] disagreed or did not understand.

Instead, I question, in hopes that my concerns can be addressed, which makes me "bad" and not able to be certified [as "on the team"].

This is how it was in the previous bureaucratic hierarchy that I was employed by. I do not wish for this to be my future once again.

How am I to employ the gifts that God has given me? I'll rear seven boys with the same beliefs, but [to your apparent chagrin] they'll have more courage than I to stand and fight. Unless someone can tell me where I err on my thinking [I won't be changing how I bring them up].

Can you? Will you? I'd love to chat. I have no fear of being absolutely transparent. Either I'm mad or a "true believer". You tell me. Could I know if I was mad?

Everyone tells me I have such great kids, but they don't like to hear how I get the results. [Biblical, I'd say, but others think uncivil.]

Everyone thinks I'm a certain kind of person, but they have no idea as to the internal warfare going on in my [head,] heart and soul. You now have some clue.

Welcome to my internal thought life! Am I right or wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong, I need no reward for where I'm right, that's grace at work. I need Spirit and Christian community to tell me where I'm wrong, so I can continue to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. 

Sadly, [many] people love darkness more than light. I have sought for discipleship within the church and have been let down by those whom I've asked. The church hasn't failed though. My discipleship has happened through their unkind corrections, through internal conviction by the Holy Spirit, and a lot of reading [late] theologians/pastors.

So, while I glean what I can from others, I'm seeking to reestablish a modern catechumenate. One that redeems the totality of the person for Christ. It's scary because I've learned that servant leadership means getting held accountable by those whom you serve!

I drafted this, but did not publish it. Recently however, this person made social media posts that advocate the fight for truth. They essentially made the same point I was trying to make. The only difference is in what social issue they chose to fight for. I suppose they aren't inconsistent with their post. The Bishop would have to disagree with their stance on that social issue, so I'm not accusing them of being inconsistent.

Rather, I'm saying that I can take their posts and seamlessly substitute my social issue for theirs. I am about to quote their posts with my social issue inserted in place of theirs. Here is their 5/28/20 post [with my edits].

I "Loved" what they posted...

As a theologian it is easy to fall into the trap of a [sic] worshipping a God who has become a specimen for examination, dissection, and analysis. A God that lives in a petri dish or in jar of formaldehyde or in a cage next to the other rodentia upon which we subject our experiments only to be left in the lab at the end of the day, apart from the daily messes that our short lives on this spinning ball in a seemingly endless universe is no God at all.

This sort of God stands silent in the face of the atrocities that [the powers of this world] inflict upon [the oppressed] and remains silent as we politicize those atrocities. But this is not the God of Christianity. Yes, our God stood silent in the face of [persecution] and [tyrannical] power and remained silent in the face of [despotic rule] ending in his own execution at the hands of both an oppressive power structure and the zeal of those who lived beneath its foot. But he did so then in our stead...so that we, His people, need not stand silent. His silence before Pilate leading to the cross is the space into which we now speak - not before a Roman Governor but before our own failed systems of power and control [promoted by our states' governors and legislators].

We speak into it neither with lack of self control nor with fear but with purpose. We are not called to speak as oppressors or oppressed, slave or free, jew or greek, male or female but as citizens of a Kingdom in which such atrocities as the [depriving people of their livelihoods] have no place. We speak from a place not of what we are trying to make the world into but from a place of what we believe God is doing, here and now.

We challenge power when power becomes [corrupt] precisely because such power has no place in the world. We challenge zeal when zeal has lost the plot and becomes about [fear-based control] and not justice. Our words are actions, our actions our prayers, [sic] and our prayers, we believe, can change the world.

Let us pray for the soul of [each person deprived of their livelihood] and of all other victims of [state] violence and atrocity...let us pray for our city, our world...and then let us go out into that world as those sent to live in it as it ought to be in opposition to the imperfect and oppressive status quo.

I wish I wrote my original post with such passion! Not really, I would have been seen as too extreme, so my words were more measured. Only because this person wrote in line with the mainstream rhetoric could they write so freely.

Oh that my beliefs walked in silver slippers!

And their 6/5/20 post [with my edits].

Keep writing letters to your various political leaders. Keep making phone calls.

They have [questioned the constitutionality of the lockdowns], but change has still not come to our system of government. Especially important is citizen review for the [governors' executive orders] - where we the people have a say in how we are [governed] and served.

Don't forget to include city officials as well. We need change on a city by city basis too!

So, in response to their improved words (tongue-in-cheek), I will respond as they responded to me.

It has been my experience that, where my bishop has remained silent, so will I. If he is not speaking out against the systems of power, neither will I feel compelled to, though society demands it. No matter how much you disagree with your bishop's silence, it is best to work to align with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

Hmm. Not a fan, though I use their words back to them. You can see what Jesus meant when He said, judge not...

For your own judgment will be used against you. If your own words used against you seem to reduce to absurdity, then they were absurd when first uttered. That is my judgment. Please, for my own sanctification, use what judgment I use against me. If I am found wanting, I shall repent.

Go and do likewise.

So what is my point? 

I'm not leveling a charge of inconsistency, but one of justice. It is not just to try to silence me by appealing to a vow which I have not taken. Even if I had, it seems to me that it would still not be just. When we switch the issue to their pet social issue, it becomes glaringly obvious.

They would not stand by in the face of a Bishop that follows society into a violation of social justice. 

Why should I be compelled to follow my Bishop into what I perceive to be a violation of true justice.

I'm not accusing my Bishop of malice. I think there is a discussion to be had, which hasn't happened. I think even if my Bishop agreed with me, the path chosen may still have remained.

Why?

Because discretion is the better part of valor. If enough people in the diocese would feel mislead by a Bishop going against the state, he would be hard pressed to lead them against subtle tyrannies. 

"Live to fight another day," or in this case, live to fight against egregious tyrannies.

Church-State...Christians-Politicians

I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).

What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.

This country needs reform, let alone its prisons.

"Fleming is among more than 1,350 inmates exonerated nationwide in the last 25 years."

Wow, that is heart-breaking. How do we stop wrongly convicting the innocent? Is it better to err on the side of more or less people in prison? Traditionally we say to err on the side of safety...don't assume more people in jail is the "safe" option. We place non-violent "criminals" in prison with violent criminals-literally creating criminals that will surely never leave the US criminal "justice" system. Rehabilitation occurs in the real world, not in lockup with [really] bad people.

Political Groupthink

If you think like we do, you deserve the freedom and liberty to be enslaved by groupthink.

If however you exercise the freedom and liberty to think differently you will be enslaved to the court of public opinion.

Enter Bundy.

His words couldn't be less palatable to contemporary sensibilities...but the question isn't "is he right or wrong?"; the question we should be asking is "does he have the right to think differently?".

We Have a Crisis in America

We have a mental health crisis in America. I cannot condone the violent actions of the tortured souls that have responded in the only way they thought that they could make their voices heard. It's sad, pitiable, but absolutely a problem that must be addressed. It's also a place where politics should not be involved, but alas politics is already involved. I have a friend who works in special needs and he says we have problems.

Some of the things he outlines:

Segregation

We segregate those who need to have healthy-minded individuals around them to only be around others whom have mental health issues. So instead of the "town fool" of yore, we have mental hospitals (where we don't have to see, experience, or feel responsible to help those whom need it) where those who could live fairly normal lives learn bad behavior from other mental health patients (i.e. we treat them like prisoners; it has been observed that we have created a wicked process by which non-violent criminals are segregated from society with violent criminals and they themselves typically become violent criminals).

Poor Treatment

Who wants to work with the mentally ill or at nursing homes? My friend told me that the treatment is typically poor because the caretakers feel they can easily get away with it (similar to parents who mistreat their children). What recourse do the victims have? Who will take their side? I have seen what it's like in nursing homes.

I'm not saying everyone under care is mistreated and all caretakers are evil. I am saying we should not take the mentally ill out of society. We need to keep them in society. We need to embrace them as members of our community. We may have to watch them a little closer as we would with our children (because we care) but not "treat them as children." With positive peer pressure they will try to fit in as best they can and will be a part not set apart. They will feel heard not ignored. They will feel that they matter, that they have a voice. We need to listen on our terms not their terms because we have a responsibility to care. If we ignore the problem, this is what will continue to happen:

Study: All But Two Multiple Public Shootings Since 1950 Took Place Where Guns Were Banned (I disagree with the "aggressive institutionalization" statement. Mental health point made.)

Why did the Ft. Hood gunman do it? Because a gun-crazy country let him (Self-admittedly this author has made slop of argumentation, and when corrected stuck to his non-sequitur conclusion, otherwise note his pointing out of the mental health crisis we are in. Instead of advocating for help on this point he simply has a gun agenda.)

Fort Hood Victim's Dad: Gunman Snapped After Seeking Time Off

On the Other Hand

James Holmes: Mental Illness or Social Frustration? (Exactly! Regardless of whether it's mental illness or social rejection or some combination, it is a societal problem not an institutional fix.)

So really, we have a social crisis in America. We have forgotten how to be a community. Mental health is an issue, but how much of an issue would it be if we had true community? We would help each other physically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, et cetera. We do this to a small extent but on such a small scale. There are pockets of community in this country. Certain churches practice community (but there is a line between community and cult). Certain neighborhoods practice community. In the military there is a sense of community but it's two-dimensional and needs expanding. I will pray for the cultivation of Christ-centered community which will truly enrich the world, because that is what we need now.

The Rise and Fall of the Political Ultra-Rich

The Rise of the Political Ultra-Rich

The most important statement made in this article is the heading of the final paragraph: "How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges." This is the most telling data point of the whole piece. It clues us in to the reality of the situation: the Supreme Court's decision doesn't affect the Rep-Dem stranglehold on political posturing. The writer indicated that there will be a short-term benefit to Reps but that it would only be short, really short.

So in the least pontificated "paragraph" of the article do we find an exquisite exposition of the incredible implications? No. It reads almost as if the article was truncated. It ends abruptly.

So in the spirit of charitable free-lance, allow me to finish the article which was just starting to get good before it got gone.

How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges

Turning to Senate contests, we’re seeing examples of how establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges. In North Carolina, American Crossroads is airing a TV ad for establishment GOPer Tom Tillis highlighting his work for voter ID laws. And in Mississippi, Thad Cochran is using guns and abortion as way to strengthen his conservative bona fides.

But saying that they are merely challenges is to obfuscate the symptoms with the source of those challenges. As indicated earlier in the article, the power of influence is via the power of the dollar, traditionally speaking. However the "Republicans" of today are less traditional. In fact, this is a problem for establishment Democrats as well. The establishment's base of support is dwindling due to changes in the culture, largely brought about by reactionary changes from generation to generation as well as the technological changes that have sparked the information revolution.

The response is revolutionary. What is becoming ever obvious to ordinary citizens is that the bureaucratic machine continues to polarize the public and pander to the politically minded. The establishmentarians fail to realize that the new generation of collective, political activism known broadly as the Tea Party is an idealist, intellectually-grounded, free-thinking, and politically-centrist movement of ideologues that cannot be bought by anachronistic advertising. They deal in the currency of ideas. They are neither republican, nor democrat. They are neither conservative, nor liberal. They desire the one thing that a bureaucratic machine cannot deliver: freedom. And like their forefathers, they are ready to fight for it.

Billions of dollars spent on smear campaigns won't deter the coming tide. If the establishment will not change to suit their constituents, their constituents will change the establishment. The rise of the political ultra-rich is also, paradoxically, the fall of the political ultra-rich.

Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...

Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.

I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant

Who are your SC Legislators?

Find out here: http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe.

Results for 29445-9614:

U.S. Senators
Senior - U.S. Senator Lindsey O. Graham
Junior - U.S. Senator Jim W. DeMint

U.S. House District 1 - U.S. Representative Henry E. Brown, Jr.

Your South Carolina State Senator is SC Senate District 37 - Senator Lawrence "Larry" K. Grooms

Your South Carolina State Representative is SC House District 117 - Representative Thomas "Tom" M. Dantzler

Now I can figure out who to vote for in the State races...Too bad I don't have any SC Constitution Party Candidates running in my districts. There a few of them:

Declared Candidates for the 2008 Elections:

South Carolina - Constitution Party of South Carolina

Candidate: Frank Waggoner Office Sought: U.S. Congress - District 5 Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured Residence: , SC

Candidate: Polly Nicolay Office Sought: State Senate - District 1 Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured Residence: , SC

Candidate: John Langville Office Sought: State Senate - District 7 Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured Residence: , SC

Candidate: Patricia. Matthews Office Sought: State House - District 104 Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured Residence: , SC

Candidate: Matt Jarfi Office Sought: Horry County Council District 6 Ballot Status: Ballot Access Secured Residence: , SC

Update: Links fixed!

SC Legislature

http://www.scstatehouse.net/index.html

Posting post-election...sry 'bout that...

My crude historical outline of Free-Market thought

Mercantilism gave governments an excuse for privation of their countrysides for the benefit of their "country" or royal coffers. (Terms to google: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV)

Physiocrats or economistes came into existence under authoritarian France. They coined the term laissez faire. They applied the enlightenment ideals of freedom and liberty to economics during a time of growing enlightenment in the culture at large. (Terms to google: Francois Quesnay)

Adam Smith was an intellectual heir to the physiocrats and also English. His Wealth of Nations popularized free market theory. (Terms to google: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)

Carl Menger and others in Austria (I do believe they were also under an authoritarian government) had amazing insights into what really drove the market's pricing of goods: demand. The next generation of Austrian free market economists Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, explained the trade cycle in terms of economic theory thereby discovering the source of the "boom-and-bust" cycle. (Terms to google: supply and demand, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Austrian economics)

Today there is a thriving school of thought call Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute is the de facto headquarters. Some famous or infamous people associated with it are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, et al. (Terms to google: austrian theory of the trade cycle, Murray Rothbard)

To aid in the learning process I am including a list of links to sites promoting liberty in politics and economics:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics."

I also subscribe to GaryNorth.com which is where I get most of my knowledge from. But it costs $15 a month. You can get most of the same information for "free" but you'll have to work harder for it (it'll only cost you time...).

Congressman Ron Paul's website.

Lew Rockwell blog and site.

Constitution Party. I vote for their candidates.

Chuck Baldwin's website (Constitution Party Candidate 2008).

Chalcedon Foundation. A Christian educational organization.

Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul Archives.

Gary North Archives. And his Freebooks website.

If this list isn't daunting enough Google: Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Frederick Hayek, Frederick Bastiat, Adam Smith...

What did they expect?

Lawmakers steamed over ritzy AIG retreat after bailout

Should you vote for the lesser of two evils?

It depends on the reason why.

I will not, because I will vote my conscience. I cannot in good conscience vote evil into office and thereby be a part of perpetuating evil in our elected leadership.

But I have colleagues who I deeply respect voting for the candidate whom I would call "the lesser of two evils." Are they wrong in taking this course of action? I think not, if their actions are well reasoned. By this I mean that they actually have valid reasons for voting for a major party candidate. Their "good" reasons alone I cannot take issue with...So why do two people who hold such similar beliefs take actions so dissimilar?

I have concluded that we are approaching this particular issue from different perspectives. I am a conscience voter. I believe my friends are approaching the issue from a practical/pragmatic viewpoint. The next question is: How ought one to presuppose this issue? I don't think this question is valid however. I don't think that it is wrong to decide to vote by conscience or vote by what is practical, so long as the issues are clearly understood.

Not one of us believes in salvation by state. This is fundamental. This must never be lost on those who like to debate politics from a distinctively Christian perspective. Another issue which may cause some division is that; that which is pure cannot be elicited from that which is impure. Politicians with faulty views will fix nothing. I hope my friends are keeping this in mind. A vote for a major party candidate will at best slow the descent into chaos. There will be no reversal in policy. If they understand this then I fully support them in their vote; in fact I could almost join them...But I think we need people like me as well as them.

One faction votes to slow the descent into chaos while working for restoration; the other faction votes only for the candidate which "would" bring political restoration while working to bring this country to a point where they would actually vote for him (i.e. "restoration," s.a.a.).

Conclusion: Note that both factions must work for restoration. To ignore this critical element is truly casting a wasted vote (even if the vote is an abstention; God bless the political dissenters). Ultimately salvation is by the cross. Preaching Christ crucified is what will bring restoration. Preaching Christ's Lordship over every area of life will bring restoration. Obedience to the preaching is what will bring restoration.

FED: Private or Public?...er...Hybrid?

In response to a comment; Gary North on his Q&A forum:

If the FED is not private "at all," then why do all the 12 regional Fed banks have .org in their web addresses? Why do they all pay postage, unlike the Board of Governors?

The Board of Governors has .gov. It is a government institution. It mails out under the government's frank.

You learn something new everyday. The FED really is a monstrous hybrid from Jekyll sland.

Gary DeMar on Third Party Candidacy for President

Third Parties and Political Presumption, Gary DeMar

I understand the point being made. And I agree that we ought not ignore local politics, but by the same token we ought not swing to an extreme in the opposite direction.

In my mind, I have to make one of two choices: vote my conscience or abstain. I will not vote for evil when it is in my hand to vote for righteousness. Don't waste your vote!

So far it looks like my candidates will be:
President/VP - Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution Party)
U.S. Senate (SC) - Bob Conley (Democrat)
U.S. House - District 1 - NONE
Anyone running below that doesn't appear to have competition and I haven't (yet?) evaluated their platforms.

SC Voting...

Are you registered? Too late if you are not, but if you've forgotten where you need to vote check out the SC State Election Commission website.

Berkeley Co. Candidates

Charleston Co. Candidates

Dorchester Co. Candidates

Vote No for those who voted Yes

Find your Representative in the roll call for the vote on the bailout...er, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

My SC Rep Brown is down. Whoever the Democrat running against him may get my vote...

"Nobody really wanted to do this" and yet they did. They didn't want to vote against "their conscience," so they ignored the voters who put them in office. Pardon me!? Honorable Sir/Madam, I am your conscience. You are answerable to me, not Wall Street bankers. But I guess I have no sway with you because I don't pander to you. But I thought you worked for me...

If you (reader) want to make a difference, know that we are in the fight for the long haul.

1. Educate yourself (Google: campaign for liberty, restore the republic, ludvig von mises institute, austrian economics, Christian economics, gary north, ludvig von mises, frederick hayek, carl menger, murray rothbard, laissez faire, austrian theory of the trade cycle, rousas john rushdoony, david chilton, greg bahnsen, ron paul, constitution party, howard phillips, etc.)

2. Stay away from D.C./get involved locally ("All politics is local.").

3. Educate/catechize/indoctrinate your children in the same, thereby perpetuating the growing ranks of freedom lovers (who will do the same, and on and on and on).

Senate roll call vote on the bailout bill.

Senate roll call vote on the bailout amendment.

Update: Gary North's post that inspired my call to arms: A Civics Lesson for Very Slow Learners: American Voters

A small victory for liberty

Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails

CP Email Newsletter; 9/8/08

Rep. Ron Paul Asks Only “Secure Borders” Presidential Candidate to Join His Press Conference:

Chuck Baldwin of Constitution Party to be Joined by Border Agent’s Wife

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) will join former GOP presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul (R-Tex.) at a News Conference at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Baldwin, who joined other constitutionalists at Ron Paul’s “Shadow Convention” on September 2 in Minneapolis, will be joined by Monica Ramos, wife of imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Baldwin has called for the immediate pardon and release of Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for attempting to uphold immigration law.

Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate, invited Chuck Baldwin, the only anti-illegal immigrant amnesty presidential candidate, to the September 10 News Conference. Baldwin, a long-time critic of the open-borders policy,will join concerned Americans attending the annual Hold Their Feet To The Fire Radio Row protest and Lobby Days sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) Congressional Task Force.(www.feettothefire08.com)

Baldwin, a popular political commentator on national TV shows, is a radio talk show host, author of two books, and pastor of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola. Florida. He is the only candidate who received an “EXCELLENT” rating by pro-secure borders group Numbers USA .

The group rated Obama and McCain “abysmal” and rated Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr “bad” on the immigration issue. (http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ImmigrationIssues.pdf)

“The United States government aids and abets illegal criminals, and jails its own law enforcement agents for doing their job. Despite these injustices, both parties controlling our government offer us more of the same with identical pro-amnesty presidential candidates,” Baldwin said.

“Neither Obama nor McCain will end the invasion from the south, nor have they called for the release of our brave border agents. I am the only candidate representing the 75% of Americans who want illegal immigration and amnesty to end.”

In April 2008, Chuck Baldwin was elected by delegates of the nationwide Constitution Party to be their presidential candidate. The CP, founded in 1992, was initially called the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission. It's expected to be on the ballot in almost every state.

____________________________________________________

You can read it online here.

Just further proof that voting "Republican" is a completely wasted vote. Sarah Palin seems to be conservative...Great. What is she going to do when someone else (McCain) gets elected...That's what I thought.

If you want a better political climate in America vote CP, especially if you're a Christian; you won't have to compromise your values for a bowl of porridge.

Impale...Pale-Im...Palin

Just Politics as usual...And people don't see it.

If you do, read Sarah Palin as Stalking Horse and Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice?.

The answer for America is not a dream of a better America but a reality of a better America. You want reality...People are stupid, lazy, power-hungry, greedy, gluttonous, and such the like...I apologize if you take offense to my calling you out, but it is necessary.

Truth is the only answer. Not edited truth, mind you. Austrian economics and Libertarian politics have a measure of truth but they are not enough to solve the real problems. "Larceny in our hearts" can only be solved by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Greenhouse Gas, Coal and more Gas

I thought this was an interesting article: Santee Cooper offers zero-interest loans for solar panels. Hmm, I wonder how much it would cost to get solar panels and how much I would get paid for selling energy back. My guess is that it would be too expensive for me. But if this is any indication, then I'll wait a while (Bright and sunny S.C. offers few incentives for selling solar power).

The article was not listed in the Charleston Regional Business Journal. I couldn't find it but I did find a whole host of other stories on Santee Cooper.

A few in particular caught my eye. Groan. Environmentalism...And other interests are trying to prevent Santee Cooper from building additional coal-fired power plants (Santee Cooper’s coal plans fire debate).

Are people stupid? Do they know what drives up energy prices? Use. Demand. Whatever you want to call it. We need more and there is not enough. Economists call this phenomenon scarcity.

I understand that no one wants a plant in their backyard. But it has to go somewhere. And it would be better in areas with less population, sorry folks. But I'm glad to see some efforts to push nuclear power: Utilities sign contract for nuclear construction. Sigh...When will people learn?