Category: Life

I’d blogged quite some time ago about the unwillingness of my brother’s mortgage lender to work with him so that he’d be able to make some kind of payments and stay in his home. I’d been amazed to hear about that unwillingness, because it’s obviously in the bank’s best interest to keep a mortgage-paying homeowner living there, even if it means the payments are lower for a while. The alternative is to lose those payments altogether and have to deal with what’s left of the property after the homeowner defaults and moves away to parts unknown. I would even venture that when the homeowner lives in an area or works in a field hit hard by a tough economy, the mortgage lender should be even more apt to work with the borrower, especially when the borrower contacts the lender in good faith to explain the situation and make some serious compromises.

Unfortunately, that theory was completely shot to pieces by the experience of my brother and his family. Why, why why?

The answer is now oh, so obvious and simple. Private Mortgage Insurance. Mortgage Insurance can also be public, that is, provided by the government. My brother’s was the private kind, in which the lending institution requires the borrower to pay a monthly premium (say $120 or so) to a third party, an insurance provider. In exchange for this service (provided by the borrower’s extra payments), the mortgage provider enjoys reduced or eliminated risk. With mortgage insurance, a defaulted loan is no longer such a problem for the lending institution. Voila! There is now little to no incentive for the lending institution to help its customers. That’s evil. Customers become, well, what would you call them? Targets? Victims? Suckers? Of course, this is just another facet of the evil already known: that too many publicly-insured mortgages have been provided to people who really had no ability to pay for them. But see? Private mortgage insurance is just as bad.

All of this leads me to conclude that mortgage insurance is intrinsically evil. Well, OK. It’s not evil like sin, but it is evil like temptation. It leaves its targets/victims/suckers with no recourse but to default. This is what happens when people and governments artificially change the natural forces of the economy. Look for more examples coming to a world superpower near you, only now with lots of hope and change.

I have to admit that I’m a novice in all three categories mentioned in the title of this post. However, I have taken a more than passing interest in them. Each one is a rich blessing from God upon everyone in the United States. I don’t have much time at the moment, so I will try to be brief. My attempts at brevity always result in confusion, so let me admit at the outset that it’s me. Feel free to ask in comments about anything that doesn’t hang together.

The God-given role of government is to curtail injustice, which naturally occurs in a fallen world with disturbing regularity. Government’s exercise of authority is entirely characterized by force. Laws are non-negotiable, and the best ones require little to no interpretation. They also ought to be just. Those on the wrong side of laws find themselves forced against their will in one way or another. It doesn’t matter if the law is “Don’t steal your neighbor’s car,” or “Pay your taxes on time.” Either way, government operates by force.

Economics is a system that originates with God as a part of His creation, but is often negatively influenced by man. It can be observed, described, and learned by man, but not created or improved. One way to describe it uses the concept of unfulfilled wants or needs. Based upon those wants or needs, people require things or services. That’s demand. Demand makes it profitable for people who can provide those things or services to do so. Based upon supply and demand, a cost may be evaluated, a price may be negotiated, and an exchange may be made to the advantage of all. This exchange is the polar opposite of things where government is involved, because it is 100% voluntary. Sometimes the alternatives to an exchange are terrible, like starvation. Still, the exchange itself is voluntary. By contrast, if paying your taxes would result in starvation, you’d better tighten your belt, because you have no choice. Government operates by force. A system based upon voluntary exchanges, where the people involved use good judgment, tends automatically to be efficient in any circumstance. It’s a glimpse of God’s wisdom in His creation. (See Veith’s book God at Work for more about this.)

The Public Library is a repository for knowledge accessible to anyone in the public. It’s a great force for good, promoting education, providing access to a volume of resources that would be far beyond economic possibility for most people, and allowing those who can afford buy some books for themselves to make those books available to the public (including themselves) indefinitely.

I can appreciate that last advantage especially, because my theological library has certain limits of shelf space, yet there are still many books I’d like to read that I don’t have yet. If I could be sure the public library would place them into its collection, I might donate some of my books to make more space for others. Or, I might find the newer ones already in the public library.

There is a problem with the way many public libraries are set up now. They rely for their operation upon a tax. Here, this tax is levied upon property owners by the local government. While the money is spent for a good purpose, this inevitably produces some economic inefficiencies, which tend to impoverish the entire community. Can I afford to pay the Library Tax? Maybe, but that’s not really the pertinent question. You see, every property owner will pay the Library Tax, whether they can “afford” it or not. The pertinent question is this: what other things will not happen because those property owners have been forced to pay the Library Tax? To illustrate:

• One neighbor would have bought a new pair of shoes. He would have done this at the local shoe store. Part of the purchase price would have gone to the shoe manufacturer. Part of it would have gone to the retailer, who is saving up to pay for his children’s dental work.

• Another neighbor would have donated his money as an offering at Church. There, it would have been used partly to pay for the living expenses of his pastor. Another part would have paid for the ongoing cost of operations at the church, which help to ensure that the gospel is preached in that community, which in turn (among other things) enriches the people with faith and enables them to live peacably together.

• Another neighbor would have spent that money on a new circular saw, which he would have use to enhance his property. The purchase would have been a blessing to the retailer and manufacturer, and the property enhancements would have pleased the community, raising their property values.

But none of those things (or many others) would now be done, having been replaced by the ongoing expense of the public library. Some might think that’s a good substitute, but certainly not all who were forced to pay for it. In the end, freedom was lost, the economy suffered, and so on, in order to pay for that public library. In short: when the government is asked to provide something like a public library, the expense is inevitably much greater than it would be if the economy were used to provide it. The loss of individual freedom bothers me as much as the economic loss.

What if there’s a better way? Can a public library be supported privately? I think it can.

Already, much of the work and many assets of public libraries come from private donations. The only thing lacking is a reason, a supply that the library can offer to private members of the economy, for those members to voluntarily provide for the library’s needs. The question is one of demand: How can the private members of the community benefit from the public library?

I already mentioned a few benefits to individual citizens. If those with the means to donate understood that the library’s existence depends upon their voluntary donations, there would certainly be more donations given. If you want evidence, compare the voluntary offerings given to churches in European countries that are government-funded to the voluntary offerings given to churches in America, that are funded voluntarily. If a Norwegian attends his state church, there’s no reason to put anything in the plate, because he’s already provided money for the church in his taxes. (Of course, taxes aren’t given up voluntarily, which removes any value of that “gift” in terms of sanctification.)

Beside individual citizens, I think local businesses could be enticed to support the public library as well. Make the list of donors public and prominent, including the amounts donated, and allow businesses to use that information in their advertising. Also, work with the businesses to promote the library’s use to their patrons and employees, which would reinforce the advertising done and encourage a better-educated community and workforce.

For acquisitions, the public library could accept just about anything into its collection, providing it does not already have copies in equal or better condition than the ones donated. I would not have such a space crunch in my personal library, and many more people could benefit from my donations.

I think public libraries need not be an extension of government. Now, it’s possible that there are places where there is not enough local wealth to support a public library. I think that would have to be proven by a sincere attempt. Therefore, why not let a library run as a private business venture, or as competing ventures? The management of the collection could be determined by contract with the donors, which could also keep the business in its locality. An early hurdle would be that any such business would have to compete with the government-funded libraries already in existence. It would also need full access to the electronic catalog and inter-library loan systems currently in place. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but that doesn’t mean the answers don’t exist.

I’d love to hear what you think. Once we solve the public library question, we’ll move on to public schools.

It was the last word of William Wallace, at least in the Hollywood history that I know. Now, be honest. When you heard Mel Gibson’s voice ring out that word in Brave Heart, did you not feel the thrill of victory even in the sadness of temporal defeat? Did you not recognize that something much bigger than our petty interests was being captured and demonstrated there, before our eyes and ears? Despite all appearances, Wallace died a free man.

This is not freedom for a class or group of people, as so many today measure freedom. It’s the freedom of an individual soul. That’s the basis of the United States of America, making the United States still the last, best hope — as far as nations go, anyway — for Freedom in the world. Again, not freedom for classes or groups of people, which exist only in the theories and calculations of those who do the grouping. This is freedom for real people, as they exist in real life; freedom for individuals.

What the founding fathers of the United States understood from their own upbringing and experience was that freedom is a gift from God. The opposite, bondage, is the work of Satan. Confessional Lutherans are in a particularly good position to understand this, because we still acknowledge the biblical doctrine of Original Sin. Without that, our understanding of freedom would be inaccurate.

The Fall of man brought the utter loss of freedom. Through the Fall, Satan was placing humanity into bondage to sin and to death. Where before the Fall, people could freely live in perfect harmony with one another, gladly assuming their proper place in the order of Creation, these things were lost when our first parents succumbed to the temptation of Satan. The spiritual effect of this upon us all is described in the Augsburg Confession, article II, as both an inherited sinful condition and concupiscence, with a somewhat archaic meaning of desire or lust for sin:

Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

Spiritually speaking, this loss of freedom means that mankind requires a savior, if freedom will be restored, and this savior must be greater than a mere child of Adam and Eve. Without that savior, the new human condition of sin and death would bind humanity under the yoke of Satan forever. The point of the Bible is that God did provide such a Savior. When Adam and Eve, and any of their children, believed the promise first mentioned in Genesis 3:15, God counted them as righteous (Romans 3:22-26), and deserving of eternal life.

There is also a temporal side to our loss of freedom, illustrated graphically in Genesis chapter 4. When humanity became sinful, it forfeited the right to live before God. But implicit in the promise of a savior, God effectively stayed the execution of sinners for a time, so that they would have opportunity to learn and believe the promise, and thus be saved through faith. (This became explicit in Genesis 6:3.) Yet sin still encroaches upon our God-given freedom, including the freedom to live. That’s what happened when Cain killed his brother.

Other freedoms that God has granted us despite the Fall include the freedom to work and enjoy the results of our work, and the freedom to marry and raise children. Genesis chapters 4–6 show examples of this freedom put to both good and evil uses, which God tolerated for a time.

Fast forward to Mount Sinai. In the intervening years, many people believed God’s promise, and were counted as righteous in His sight. They received this faith through the teaching of their fathers, and some through direct communication with God. But on Mt. Sinai, we see something new. There God was forging a special relationship with one nation, one very large family of people — descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That relationship was based upon a written word, the Torah or “Law” that Moses wrote down in obedience to God. On Mt. Sinai, we learn that God gave ten special words, or commandments, recording them on tablets of stone. These words summarized morality in God’s sight.

The Ten Commandments accomplish many things, and one of them is the preservation of freedom. Though they are counted in a variety of ways, they are not hard to understand. They constitute the first chief part of Luther’s Small Catechism.

The first three commandments, as ordered there, are called the first table of the Law, summarized by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-38, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5. Those commandments demand what humanity lacks by nature since the Fall: a right relationship with God. In terms of freedom, they also describe what God has provided as a gift through faith in the promised savior, i.e., believers are free to love God above all things, though our concupiscence remains as a constant temptation.

The remaining commandments are called the second table of the Law, summarized by Jesus in Matthew 22:39 (a summary also found in Leviticus 19:18). These commandments demand the earthly result of a right relationship with God: perfect love for our fellow human beings. In terms of freedom, they describe how God protects for us the basic freedoms He has extended to every descendant of Adam and Eve, i.e., the freedom to live, the freedom to marry and raise children, the freedom to work with one’s resources and enjoy the benefit of that work, the freedom from false accusations, and the freedom to keep a household together in peace. These freedoms are protected through curbs set upon human behavior, in the form of the commandments.

What the founding fathers of the United States understood was that these freedoms are granted by God directly to every individual. God does not guarantee that someone else will not transgress them, as Cain did, and as the murderers of William Wallace did, and as every tyrant or tyrannical government does. Yet despite those transgressions, the founding fathers recognized that God’s gift of freedom remains. You can’t take away what the Lord has given. That’s the point in the Declaration of Independence. It’s also the basic assumption of the Constitution later encoded in the Bill of Rights.

There have always been some who wish to take away the individual freedom granted by God. The previously-mentioned tyrants are some of them. They do this through legal means, though even legal tyranny is still an injustice. In the United States, where the government answers to the people, it is possible for the people to become tyrants by taking away the God-given freedom of their own neighbors. Of course, tyrants wouldn’t call themselves tyrants, which was Orwell’s point in using names like “The Ministry of Love.” In real life, they would use more positive-sounding labels for themselves, like “Progressives.” Or “Compassionate Conservatives.” But forcibly taking one man’s income or property (“taxation” if you must), even to help someone else, is still contrary to God’s gift of individual freedom. By contrast, using one’s own property to help one’s neighbors is pleasing in God’s sight, and a blessing to all.

William Wallace and Rob Roy were big-screen defenders of freedom. So was General Maximus Decimus Meridius. So was Robin of Loxley. It seems that a lot of people find satisfaction and enjoyment in the successful defense of freedom. It’s big money for Hollywood. Now, if only more people would realize how important that defense of freedom is in real life.

The Bible has a lot more to say about freedom and liberty, beginning with spiritual freedom from sin and death through Christ. That is the sense in which Paul wrote Galatians 5:1, yet Paul’s words there are archetypal for temporal freedoms too. Citizens of the United States and heirs of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Lincoln, and the rest can well apply them in both ways.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Cling to Christ alone for eternal life.
Defend temporal freedom for the good of your neighbor. See, there’s a lot more to it than “clinging to guns or religion.” It’s a matter of God-given freedom.

One of the responsibilities parents have is to teach their children the Way to heaven. Young children are very good at learning and memorizing things, so that is the best time for them to begin learning by heart what they will need to know later.

Well-run Christian schools are a great blessing to parents, because they are essentially the cooperation of many parents in teaching their children the Way to heaven, among other things. A long time ago in this land, it was understood that every school was supposed to teach the Way to heaven, but at some point, the state and national governments began taking the responsibility for education. When that happened, the quality and course of education was no longer determined by the judgment of parents, but by the judgment of experts associated with the government. Again, the great American experiment of individual liberty was replaced by something else. But I (a product of our public school system) digress. The point is that Christian schools today can still serve parents by teaching children the Way to heaven. Some do this better than others, which is why Lutheran Schools of America may prove to be rather important.

Whether children learn the Way to heaven at home only, or also at school, the very young should start learning it by heart as soon as practical. To that end, parents (and other teachers) should consider using Memory Work for Lutheran Schools and Homes, a rework of a well-thought-out curriculum for teaching the Way to heaven, by heart.

Some say that religious-minded people will believe anything. I have a hard time believing in mere coincidence, though it may be theoretically possible. Here are three things that appeared before me within half an hour of each other this morning.

This timely article.

This devotion text.

And the email tag below.

— For it pleased the Father that in Him [Christ] all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Speaking of adoptions, did you see what Gene Veith posted today? There are many more prospective parents wishing to adopt children in the United States — including minorities, ages 6-12, and children with disabilities — than there are children waiting to be adopted. Then why are any children waiting? Apparently, because of the bureaucratic adoption process..

Hey, I know how we should fix that. Increase government involvement!

The “abortion problem” is not really about choices. It’s not that some person has to decide whether an unborn human is also person. It’s not that s/he has to decide whether intentionally ending a pregnancy is better than subjecting the child to a particular start in life. The problem is almost as old as sin: some children are simply unwanted.

In some places, it may still be in fashion to dispose of unwanted children by exposing them to the elements, without care, until they die. When that sort of thing was done routinely in the west, Christians were well-known for objecting to it. It won them friends, and also enemies.

Abortion is pretty much the same thing: the disposal of unwanted children. There are differences, but it becomes apparent that the two practices are the same in kind, when you ask why someone would submit to an abortion. The answer is so obvious that the question doesn’t even need to be asked: to escape having a child.

In the United States there is an abortion industry, which we probably ought to call “Big Abortion.” It has at least as much influence upon the government as Big Tobacco and Big Oil. Ironic that Big Tobacco is accused of not caring about human lives, while Big Abortion is heralded by many of the same people as a humanitarian good.

The stem cell debate in the United States has become ridiculous. How many hundreds of treatments are there now from stem cell research? Offhand, I don’t know. It’s a lot. Now, how many of them are from embryonic stem cell research? Last I heard: none. All those advances were from so-called “adult” stem cell research, which can be done without any harm to a human life. As if that were not enough to show the vanity of destroying human embryos for research, medical research heroes have now actually made the equivalent of embryonic stem cells from adult stem cells — again, without harm to a human life.

So, why do some continue to insist upon federal funding (i.e. my money) for embryonic stem cell research? It’s not because of any therapeutic promise. It’s not for the economics. The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Because embryonic stem cell research depends upon harm done to human life. If you know of another reason that makes more sense, do tell.

If that sounds morally twisted, you’re right. But then, any student of history will gladly inform you that moral twistedness is nothing new. This insistence upon federal funding is an outgrowth of Big Abortion, which is founded upon the desire for (or at least apathy toward) the harming of human life.

All this leads us to an important realization. Our society is in a moral crisis. There are these thousands of frozen embryos, and Big Abortion salivates at the possibility of destroying them. Dubious claims are made that nobody wants them anyway. In most cases, the parents probably just don’t know what else to do with them, and have a praiseworthy moral reluctance to discard them. Christians like me claim it’s wrong to destroy them with medical experimentation, because they are human. But what can be done about these unwanted children?

I’m happy to say that people are already working on a morally acceptable solution. It’s possible for parents to adopt these embryos. See http://www.snowflakes.org . Meanwhile, maybe we should reconsider whether it’s a good idea to create so many fertilized human embryos in the first place. It may be a practical way to accomplish something, but is it a morally responsible way to do it?

I’m not saying there should be a law, necessarily, but that individuals should learn to exercise their freedom with good, informed judgment and love for their neighbors — even the ones yet unconceived. If that became the norm, Big Abortion might just go right out of business.

I recently heard a comment along these lines: perhaps many people who recognize the ideals of socialism in our president-elect actually think it’s a good thing. Can that be true? It’s bugged me since election day. I had thought that Americans in general were astute and freedom-loving enough to recognize a threat to our liberal (as in freedom) republican (as in a republic) ideals and neutralize it. On the other hand, it’s possible that so many Americans disregarded such an important issue altogether because of race.

Unfortunately, race has been a seriously divisive problem in the US even up to November 4. Others may disagree with me on this, but I believe that any discrimination based upon race, as such, is morally wrong — even the kind of discrimination called “affirmative action.” We are all descended from one gene pool: first Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his wife. (Well, I suppose there could be some rare instances where someone could justify racial discrimination, such as in auditions for a character in a play whose description calls for a particular race. But qualifications like that are not usually the case. In fact, notice Denzel Washington’s excellent casting in Kenneth Branaugh’s Much Ado about Nothing.) God created us to have many differences in appearance, and these are often manifested as family resemblances. Racial discrimination is exactly the same thing as discrimination based upon family resemblances.

Socialism is an economic philosophy meant to be a halfway point to pure communism. In reality, the ideal of communism was never realized by the communist countries, so that their economies — until China’s recent capitalistic infusion — were more accurately described as socialist.

The economic philosophies of the most famous fascist countries in the 20th Century (Italy under Mussolini and Germany under you-know-who) were also socialist. In fact, the full name of you-know-who’s infamous party even incorporated the word for socialism. During the rise of these governments, they were heralded as a wonderful thing by many Americans, particularly the Progressives. Even the German use of eugenics (the systematic elimination of “undesirable” genetic traits by forced manipulation of the reproduction of a populace) was welcomed in some American circles. By the way, that was also a form of racism as morally wrong as anti-semitism.

Speaking of Nazi anti-semitism, it wasn’t all about race. It was just as much about socialism. For historical reasons, many Jews had become an economically independent, capitalist force in Europe, standing in the way of the progressive socialist spirit. Genocide became another means for the advancement of socialism. (Interesting parallel today: the sterile genocide of unwanted children before they are born. Abortion also has racial overtones, since most of its millions of American victims are minorities.)

Mussolini was a rock star in America. His form of socialism was a bit different than the one in Germany, but they were kindred spirits. It’s interesting to note that one of Mussolini’s inspirations was the American national efficiencies implemented during and after WWI. Those efficiencies involved the loss of certain freedoms, which has often been justified in war, including the War on Terror, with the assumption that the freedoms will return afterward. I suspect that some freedoms do not return.

Socialism is all about the sacrifice of individual freedom and responsibility in the hope that a central government will be able to bear that responsibility for us all, and do it better than we could do it individually. By contrast, the United States was founded and flourished upon the principles of individual freedom and responsibility. This entails individual risk-taking, which means that everyone has the chance to fail in what we do, and in fact we will fail sometimes. It entails the assumption that hard work, wisdom, good character, and a godly life are the best way to earthly success. It’s what the founders of the United States called “the pursuit of happiness.” It can’t happen without “life” and “liberty.” Socialism, on the other hand, promises that if you give up your liberty — freedom to act and assume responsibility for yourself — the government will control your life to the extent that you will not have to pursue happiness any more. Instead, the government will give you happiness.

Socialism has never kept its promise. Why not? Because we live in a sinful world, after all. Read Genesis chapter 3. That still applies in a socialist economy. Socialism appeals to most people on some level, because we covet the success of our neighbors. Greener grass, and all that. The covetous part of us wants the government to “spread the wealth around,” to use recent campaign rhetoric in which Mr. Obama was defending his socialist agenda.

Capitalism, on the other hand, promises much less, and often keeps its promises. It doesn’t promise success, but rather the freedom for you to pursue it. It doesn’t promise wealth, but the opportunity for you to create it. Sometimes great injustices have taken place in a capitalist system, because again, we still live in a sinful world. That is exactly the reason why we have a justice system. But the existence of lawbreakers does not mean there’s something wrong with the laws. It means there’s something wrong with the lawbreakers.

Capitalism, not socialism, respects the Seventh Commandment: “You shall not steal.” It respects the concept of private property, which we should have the freedom to use as we wish in the pursuit of success. While for many, this pursuit may be motivated by pure selfishness and greed, for Christians it is motivated by love for our neighbors. When we succeed, it’s a blessing upon our neighbors in a capitalist economy. It creates and improves jobs, and provides the Christian with wealth which we can use to spread the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ and also alleviate the physical suffering that naturally occurs in an imperfect world. If we don’t do this as well as we should, it is not a reflection upon capitalism, but upon the sinfulness in each of us.

Because socialism favors the collective over the individual, it doesn’t recognize individual rights, such as we find in the Bill of Rights. Even freedom of religion, particularly Christianity, is inimical to socialism. Just hear what happened in East Germany first under you-know-who, and later under the communists. Socialism’s advocates have trouble implementing socialism where the people cherish and make use of those rights: freedom for the free exercise of religion, of speech, of assembly, of the press, and to petition the Government for redress. That’s only in the first amendment, but the second amendment gives those individual freedoms teeth.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose for allowing the populace to keep and bear (carry) weapons is not only to provide a last line of defense against foreign attack, though it does have that good effect. It’s also to better secure the freedom of the people from the tyranny of the federal government, which might some day try to take away that freedom. In other words, the second amendment is a defense against socialism.

The president-elect has pledged not “to take away your guns.” But will he try to prevent Americans from acquiring new arms? Will he try to prevent us from buying ammunition? Will he seek to make the keeping and bearing of arms prohibitively expensive through punitive taxation? That’s what’s been happening to the cigarette industry: taxation as a means to shape society. I don’t advocate smoking, but who can deny that what’s being attempted there is the loss of freedom and individual responsibility? Some fear that the president-elect will use the same strategy against the second amendment.

Why? Why would a socialist work against the second amendment? The reason should be obvious: because a well-regulated (armed) Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Socialism is not a good thing. Its advocates pander to the sin of coveting, and break the seventh commandment by not respecting private property. Some of its advocates go further, breaking the fifth commandment by either seeking the harm of some individuals or at least failing to protect them.

Capitalism, as an alternative, does not fix all our woes either. In fact, no economic system can do that, because this is a sinful world. However, capitalism encourages individual liberty and responsibility, which are in accord with God’s will.

As I write this, I’m not fully certain of the outcome of this presidential election, but it looks as though Mr. Obama will be elected. It is a hard-fought win for him and his followers, involving every kind of tactic and strategem. If it’s not too soon, I congratulate them. Raising and spending nearly a billion 650+ million dollars on a political campaign has got to be a record-breaker all by itself.

Assuming an Obama presidency, the bad news is that he espouses a classic socialist point of view (as in the USSR, the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy of the 1920s and 1930s, and to a lesser degree the New Deal and other American embarrassments), advocates the barbaric, morally indefensible, and swiftian practice of butchering the weakest humans in our society while victimizing their mothers for convenience and profit (as in two go into the abortion mill, but only one comes out), has a short but consistent record of eliminating freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (as in the individual right for Americans to keep and bear arms), and has no experience actually running an organization larger than either his senate office or his neighborhood in Chicago. He’s reportedly on personal, friendly terms with terrorists, both foreign and domestic, so maybe his lack of foreign policy experience won’t be a problem.

The good news is that regardless of who wins the election, Christians can still rely upon the providential rule of our Creator. His job experience goes back to the Beginning, whether people acknowledge it or not. More importantly, His plan continues: the salvation of sinners through the message of the gospel and the sacraments, leading to the imminent destruction of this entire world, when He will bring His people to live forever in paradise (as in a place where elections are unnecessary). The blood of Jesus Christ still cleanses those who repent from the guilt of all our sins.

What strikes me now, regardless of who wins the election in the end, is the wisdom of this nation’s founding fathers. Reading the Constitution, it seems that safeguarding freedom was rather important to them. With the separation of powers, and their understanding of how long it takes for a large group of people to decide something, the founders clearly wanted us to have a rather weak federal government. It seems amazing, but somehow they answered the question, “What kind of earthly government can best protect this nation many years from now, in case a socialist, morally-twisted strong-arm somehow finds enough of the right votes to be elected president?” The answer is the balance of powers, the checks and balances between the three branches.

“Yes,” you say, “but Congress may be in his back pocket.”

Maybe. But at the moment, not the Supreme Court. Beside that, the members of Congress have to find enough agreement between them to jump when their Leader says “toad.” If they don’t jump together, they will automatically mitigate the damage done by our government in the next four years. You and I can contribute to the disagreement between them, because we are the ones who send them there. Political gridlock is nightmare for socialists, but it’s usually a godsend for Americans.

The portent darkening our skies is the word “change.” It’s well known that Mr. Obama does not consider the Constitution to be the essence of our national government. Would he change that, too? Just how far might this “revolution” go?

I’m also sort of wondering how long it will take before the next major terrorist attack comes to the American homeland. I’ve got to hand it to “the failed policies of the current administration:” they’ve kept us safe from another 9/11 for 8 years. That can change too. We might be dealing with the fallout for quite a while. Maybe a half-life. Maybe longer.

The harvest is still coming in, but this is most of it. It’s a year of plenty. I think some squirrels have been stealing nuts from the bottom shelf in back, there. I don’t know why. There are still plenty in the grass.