Category: Civics

The politics of this year keep coming back to “the Bush tax cut,” often pilloried as a “tax cut for the super rich,” who already “fail to pay their fair share” of the tax burden. I remember that tax cut fondly, because my family began seeing a lot more money in our bank account. I must say that it’s nice to be super rich. Maybe some day our household annual income will break $100k. In fact, it seems more and more likely now, with all the new money being created out of thin air to make possible the record federal spending of the last four years. The only question is what all that super-wealth will be able to buy when it’s over.

Seriously, I think this talk about the super rich is meant to make us envious of our neighbors. This might be a good time to revisit the 9th Commandment, among others. Yes, they apply even in the voting booth. So why not review what they mean? Just keep in mind that your neighbor’s legal income is really his, not yours to obtain through the political process, in the Orwellian name of “fairness.”

There’s usually a bit of discussion about gun control laws following the tragic, murderous attack of innocents. Lawmakers obviously feel somewhat responsible for preventing such attacks. In the same way, the 9/11 attack on the United States has resulted now in our airline travelers being herded around without recourse, like cattle in chutes, until they can be viewed naked by a special government officer through highly-specialized x-ray equipment.

Lawmakers and government officials have taken upon themselves the responsibility of preventing any further attacks through the airlines, and when government steps in to act, in can’t help but force everyone else to acquiesce. I had to go through the backscatter machines the last time I flew. To my dismay, we were forced to hold our arms up in the air inside the machine, sort of like when the FBI has you surrounded, with all its weapons aimed at you. It was a little disconcerting, since I also had to remove my belt. Up until that fateful moment, the only thing holding my pants at waist level were my hands. When I was forced to “reach for the sky,” I could only hope that the tension in my leg muscles would be enough to hold my 36″ pants on my 32″ waist. I think my guardian angel may have passed a finger through an empty belt loop at the last second, because the pants stayed up.

You might wonder why I have 36″ pants, when my waist is only about 32″. Well, I’d recently lost a bit of weight. In addition, most of my pants have larger-than-usual waists so that when it is appropriate, I can exercise my civil right to bear arms. I take that right seriously because it’s really the only way we have effectively to prevent murderous attacks like the Aurora shooting or 9/11. Well, I suppose those particular examples would still not have been prevented, because private citizens are not trusted to be armed on airplanes (including pilots, at the time), and the Aurora theater where the attacks took place was a so-called “gun-free zone.” But there are still other places where it is allowed for private citizens to bear arms, and with people who take this civil right as seriously as I do, those places are much safer.

While there can be private citizens everywhere, all the time, that’s not possible for law enforcement officers. Their response time may be measured in mere minutes, but a murderous attack may be well underway by the time they arrive. But even with that disadvantage, law enforcement officers can do much more against a violent attacker than lawmakers can do.

Some lawmakers seem to feel compelled to do something about the problem. The thing they do best, however, is of almost no use. Lawmakers make laws. Last I checked, there are already laws against murder. The only other way to use laws would be to strip away the civil rights and the convenience of all citizens in the hope of making it harder for murderous attackers to do their worst. Unfortunately, those attackers have little regard for laws. In fact, they are not constrained by the much more basic social norms and natural law that permit a civil society to exist. Their motives are sociopathic at worst, sometimes induced by mind-altering chemicals that also make them very hard to stop with anything short of lethal force.

So let me try to help our frustrated lawmakers find peace in these matters. They are not responsible for preventing such attacks. I repeat, they are not responsible for preventing murderous attacks by those who disregard the laws. They can’t be, because the most powerful tool at their disposal is completely ineffective. In fact, if they try to curtail violence by dismantling the civil rights of private citizens, they will end up increasing the likelihood of violence by disarming those who do respect the laws and who may be present when a violent attacker could be stopped. If they tie the hands of those who might have stopped murder and grave injury, then they do bear some responsibility for the suffering — not all responsibility, but some.

Believe it or not, there are things that laws cannot accomplish. There are things even government can’t do. When it fails to recognize this and tries to do them anyway, nothing good results. When government takes full responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens by disarming and incapacitating them, we have a recipe for disaster.

This post is dedicated to the memory of the private citizens on United flight 93.

If you have been paying attention to the news in the last week or two, you know about the national controversy concerning mandatory insurance coverage of contraceptives. The recently-passed national health care law includes a requirement that employers or insurance companies offer free coverage for contraceptives with no co-pay. It’s hailed by some as a great advancement for women’s health in the United States. It has also met with strong objections from many, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. You can view congressional testimony from LCMS President Matthew Harrison on YouTube concerning that objection.

This controversy is another great example of two irreconcilable views on the basic principles that define American society and government. More on that later.

It has been claimed by some, including Senator Merkley of Oregon, that allowing employers or insurers to refuse coverage for free contraceptives without co-pay would be tantamount to denying essential health care to women, and it would lead to the denial of any number of procedures or products based upon the whim or prejudice of an employer or insurer. This claim is demagoguery, an appeal to the emotions of the public instead of reasoned discussion. It’s also based on at least two fallacies.

In the first place, an employer or insurer who refuses to pay for a product (especially an inexpensive one like the most common contraceptives) does not thereby prevent the employee from obtaining it. In a free society, that employee is still able to prioritize his or her own spending and buy the product. If I don’t buy you a beer, I’m not coercing you to refrain from drinking. In this case, there are some who claim that free contraception is a basic human right, and therefore it can’t be denied. I wish that I could say the same for beef jerky, but I fear it would be hard to prove.

Secondly, if an employee is unhappy with the limits of his health care plan, that employee is also free to find a different one, or even to find a different employer. This may not be welcome news, but it does raise the question of priorities. What’s more valuable: free contraceptives or a particular job with its own health insurance? It’s the employee’s choice, because there will be another employer or insurer who doesn’t have the same objection.

Finally, the objection to contraceptives, especially those that can end a newly-conceived human life instead of merely preventing the conception, is a deeply-held moral objection based upon natural law and religion. This is no convenient whim or prejudice. It’s based upon both good science and well-founded, long-accepted moral principles. There are even multiple things at issue here, including the moral principle of protecting fragile human life, but also the future well-being of our society and nation. That future requires naturally-married men and women to beget and raise virtuous children in stable families. Therefore, government should promote this, instead of hindering it by undermining the purpose and benefit of natural marriage. But there is a view of society that places little value on such things, which leads us to our main point.

The Progressive Movement was popular through the first quarter of the 20th Century. Its champions included Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson later followed the same path. Progressivism carried a lot of momentum during the administration of FDR, even as its echoes carried through the ranks of the avant-garde in 1930’s Germany, Great Britain, and probably other places too. Its influence is widely felt today across party lines, though it’s really the Democratic Party that has officially embraced it. The present controversy is only one example where we can clearly see the difference between the Progressive concepts of liberty and justice on one hand, and the same concepts as proposed in the founding of the United States on the other hand. These are the two worlds colliding over free contraceptives.

The founding principles of the United States are listed in the Declaration of Independence. It asserts that these principles are self-evident, so that they stand without proof. Each leads into the next, though, so that they build upon one another. Here are the five propositions upon which the nation is founded:

• That all men are created equal.
• That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
• That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
• That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
• That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Notice that the last proposition describes the intent of the Framers, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form….” The principles upon which the Constitution was framed, and the reason for its built-in limitations upon the powers of federal government, are the very principles listed above.

First, all men (a classic term for all humans, used also in the Nicene Creed) are created equal. This is an equality of kind, requiring that every human creature be accorded the same respect and dignity. Some will argue here that many of the Founders were slave-owners, so that this proposition is nullified by their hypocrisy. That argument is unsustainable. First, hypocrisy in a speaker or writer does not determine the truthfulness or value of what he says. Second, a number of the Founders worked to end slavery, on the same principles listed in the Declaration. The fact that their work did not come to fruition until four score and seven years later does not negate the principles under which they labored. In fact, it shows great foresight and humanitarian idealism on their part. Some of them considered it to be a greater cruelty to release slaves unprepared to live on their own at that time, than to care for them as fellow human beings until conditions were right for them to enjoy their liberty. It’s hard to judge that decision when we are over 200 years distant from its circumstances.

Others will point to the awful treatment of the Indians (the native inhabitants of America at the time of Columbus) by Americans in later years. Laying aside the fact that this treatment was often based upon particular wars waged between the Indians and the Americans, and that the butchery of war was two-sided, we should recognize again that the Founders attempted to establish relations with the Indians based upon their status as equal human beings. To some degree, it was successful. To the degree that other Americans helped to destroy that cordial relationship by contradicting or ignoring the principle of equality, it must be pointed out that the abuse of a good thing does not destroy its value and use. (Abusus non tollit usum.) The principle of equality stands, despite the sins of those associated with it.

Proceeding from the universal equality of human beings, the Declaration says that every human individual is endowed with unalienable rights. Remember that these rights are connected to each individual human creature, by virtue of its humanity. The rights are called unalienable, which means that they can never be separated from the human individual, since they are attached to his or her very nature. The three rights listed are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The right to life is trampled when someone else kills the individual. The right to liberty says that an individual ought to be free from coercion by anyone else. The only exception to this is the case of children, who are under the guardianship of others until they are capable of exercising the liberty inherent in their own nature. Finally, each human being has the innate right to pursue happiness: to take advantage of his or her own labor and receive the benefits that come with it. The chief tangible benefit is material possessions. The right to pursue happiness, then, is the right to convert your own work into property, and to enjoy the ownership of that property with its advantages.

It bears repeating that these rights exist because every human being is created equal. There is no difference based upon intelligence, race, gender, or any other distinction that may be in vogue. Simply by being human, an individual possesses these rights alongside every other human being. By the same token, justice between human beings must be blind to all of those distinctions, and laws must apply equally to every citizen.

The Declaration builds upon these basic rights by saying they are the reason government is necessary. Government’s purpose is to secure and protect these individual rights as much as possible. In that respect, the Declaration provides the reasoning behind the design of the United States Constitution. Since government can only accomplish its work through coercion, but its purpose is to protect the liberty of each individual, it operates under a compromise. The Declaration calls it “the consent of the governed.” Government must be limited in size to minimize the coercion it imposes upon its citizens, and to maximize the protection it affords against such coercion by others. That explains the Constitution’s separation of powers and other limits upon the growth and operation of the federal government.

The Bill of Rights expands upon the three rights listed in the Declaration. The first nine Amendments to the Constitution are all about protecting the liberty of the individual against abuse by the government. (The Tenth Amendment does the same for the autonomy of states within the union.)

Because individual rights in the Constitution limit the sway of government, Progressives disparagingly call them “negative rights.” By contrast, they would like to see the addition of “positive rights.” Examples proposed by Franklin Roosevelt include the right to a job, the right to a house, and others. Another example would be the right to free contraception, which supports a right to engage in sexual activity without the risk of becoming a parent. Though this “right” undermines natural marriage and our free society, Progressives are happy to include it into their family of new, “positive rights.” This new type of right may also be distinguished from the classical liberties of the nation’s founding in that the Progressive rights are not for individuals to enjoy because of their identity as human beings. Instead, they are “collective rights,” which an individual possesses inasmuch as it belongs to a certain group of people identified by government as in need of protection.

The reason for advancing these collective or positive rights, is not to safeguard the liberty of individuals, but to provide security and opportunity for groups of people judged to be at a disadvantage. A common word for such groups is “minorities.” The Progressive position on free contraception is to characterize the debate in just those terms. To the Progressive, the debate is all about the rights of women as a minority group (though they actually outnumber men slightly; go figure). They can even make their argument sound like it’s about individual liberty, saying that government should not coerce women in their health care decisions. But the lie becomes evident when they do not afford liberty of conscience to those who must pay for the collective “right” of women to receive free contraception.

For the Progressive, the positive right for women to engage in sexual activity without risk of parenthood is far more important than the individual liberty of anyone to live according to his conscience. The Progressive sees the role of government being to coerce individuals into providing all that is necessary for the securities and opportunities identified in the collective rights that Progressivism promotes. This ends up being enormously expensive, requiring a massive bureaucratic government, but more importantly, it runs roughshod over the principles upon which the nation was originally founded. It disregards and destroys the individual liberties of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in exchange for the promise of equal security and opportunity. It exchanges the classical notion of blind justice for justice that favors various groups that are considered to be minorities or disadvantaged.

From the perspective of the Declaration of Independence, Progressivism turns liberty into the tyranny of every individual who would like to stand on his own merits and work. It’s no wonder that Progressives would like to do away with the Constitution’s limits upon the powers of federal government. Those limits still safeguard the liberty of individual Americans, to some degree, and restrain the Progressive agenda.

It’s also noteworthy that the Progressive ideal is utopian in nature. Harrison Bergeron is one critique that demonstrates some of the problems. Progressivism shares many features of communism and socialism. This should not be surprising, since it was born and matured in the same world-wide echo chamber as Germany’s national socialism and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It’s not far off the mark when conservatives today accuse Progressives of being socialists. In a sense they are socialists, even if the label is not an exact fit.

This controversy about mandatory free contraceptives is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s a skirmish in a much larger war for the soul of the United States. If the classic liberal principles of individual liberty that were incorporated into the foundation of America will endure, then American citizens need to learn the true nature of this debate, and what’s really at stake. Progressives may really want to provide a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway, and the idea may appeal to many citizens, but the cost of such a vision for America is the individual liberty that has been America’s greatest heritage and blessing for almost 236 years. May God continue to bless the United States by awakening her citizens to the dangerous and precipitous loss of liberty that could result from the next few election cycles.

“We were sure that they would understand, but I guess all those words about marriage rights didn’t mean much after all.” So said Jan Newman as I sat in her living room last year, on one sunny September day. We were sipping iced tea and discussing the recent experience she’d had with her life partner when they applied for a marriage license in California.

“After Proposition 8 was struck down, it seemed that California would finally be ready to accept us for who we are. Certainly our love for each other is genuine. But marriage discrimination really hurts.” Clearly, the memory was fresh in Miss Newman’s mind, and the pain was real.

Jan Newman and her partner John have been committed to their life together for five years. In a world where about half of marriages end in divorce, and where many state governments are now allowing homosexual marriages, they are frustrated by the hypocrisy they have encountered. To avoid discrimination, they have had to relocate twice to larger, more progressive-minded cities. Yet each time, it has continued to affect them.

The most recent example began when they were at the office of their local county clerk. Since they now live near San Francisco, known for its acceptance of nontraditional couples, Jan and John were not expecting the discriminatory bombshell they received.

John recalls how the attendant noticed with interest that they shared the same last name. “Have you already been married?” he asked.

“No, we haven’t.” John replied. “But we’re glad that neither of us will have to change our name.”

“You still could, if you like,” quipped the attendant. “We have a brochure here about The Name Equality Act of 2007. It allows both of you to change middle or last names in the marriage process.”

But his friendly, accepting attitude fell apart when they answered one fateful question. “Are you related to each other? Cousins, or closer?”

John suspected that the old discrimination would arise again, and was hesitant to answer the question. But Jan felt comfortable, perhaps because of the rainbow-colored LGBT pin on the attendant’s lapel. “Yes, we’re actually twins. Fraternal, of course.” That’s when John’s fears were realized. The attendant refused to proceed, and they were unable to obtain a wedding license. But worse still, they heard the “I-word” that John and Jan regard as a personal attack: incest.

Apparently, it’s still a felony crime in California for consanguine couples to marry. The county clerk was happy to explain the law to John and Jan, and the reason why they were being denied the right to marry.

In our meeting, Jan explained her frustration. “Why should the state care about children born from a consenting, consanguine relationship? The science shows a high probability that they will be perfectly normal! But the central issue, I think, is that the government has no place in the bedroom. These are our decisions to make, and we know that our love is completely natural.”

John added, “True marriage equality should allow anyone to marry anyone else. We’re not asking for anything ridiculous, like marriage to pets or livestock. But I think we should have the same rights as any heterosexual or homosexual couple out there. It’s simply unjust. We can’t stop being who we are any more than a hispanic or a homosexual.” Later, he wryly suggested that perhaps the LGBT movement should remove one of the colors from its rainbow pins, if it is not willing to accept and promote consanguine relationships together with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gendered.

Clearly these two people share a deep love for each other, made only deeper by the fact that they grew up in the same household. Their plight raises some important questions about the continued intrusion of society into the personal lives and choices of individuals. If California’s laws can embrace and recognize committed LGBT relationships, then should they not also embrace consanguine relationships in exactly the same way? After all, it is not unusual for LGBT marriages to produce children, and we no longer question that such children can be just as healthy as those raised in heterosexual marriages.

Should age-old concerns about “the I-word” be allowed to hinder loving couples like John and Jan from enjoying the full rights and privileges of marriage? Even as LGBT freedom-fighters rejoice in their recent victories, the example of Jan and John Newman shows that our society’s progress toward a brave, new world has only begun.

(The Newmans’ names have been changed to protect them from further harassment and discrimination.)

This case of denying a teacher’s First Amendment rights is worth following for anyone who considers the Bible to be God’s Word. A public school is attempting to discipline a well-liked, award-winning teacher for expressing personal views that contradict the politically-correct understanding of gay marriage. He did not express these views during school hours, nor even at school or in a school-related forum. He expressed them on Facebook, which regularly asks me the question, “What’s on your mind?” Whose mind? My mind. An answer to that question, on a social forum like Facebook, without any connection to the school, seems to be just what the speech section of the First Amendment was meant to protect. Those who argue otherwise are showing totalitarian, statist tendencies as well as rank intolerance for diverse points of view.

Now, if the school were not an arm of the government, but a private school instead, then the teacher would be subject to the terms of his employment contract. The Bill of Rights, including the protection of free speech, is not meant to limit the behavior of private citizens or employers. It’s meant to limit the behavior of government, in order to protect the innate rights of individuals.

It’s ultimately the mother and father’s responsibility to teach their children, but the civil government has undertaken this responsibility (among many others) because of its interest in future generations. Unfortunately, the civil government is in no position to teach all that children need to learn. In the United States, government is also prohibited by the First Amendment from teaching that a particular religion is truth. That’s a good thing as far as law, order and justice are concerned, but it means that government education is necessarily inadequate. Most people don’t understand this inadequacy, though, concluding that religious instruction is inessential to a complete education. This conclusion could not be more wrong.

This case illustrates another shortcoming of public education. Though it is supposed to reflect the mores of society in general without favoring one tradition over another, the inevitable compromise will not only impoverish the education program, but also blur the basis on which teachers may be disciplined. Opportunistic idealogues will leap into the breach in an effort to impose their own views upon society through the influence of government. That’s what’s being attempted in this case, leaving the destruction of this individual’s First Amendment right and his teaching career as collateral damage.

The solution for Christians is to establish and support our own schools. We can use a curriculum in harmony with God’s Word, and we will be free to run the schools in accord with the principles of our faith. If our statist neighbors succeed in destroying the protections of the First Amendment, our schools would have to close. In that case, Christian education would have to proceed in the home, and maybe even behind closed doors. (It’s happened before, under other statist regimes.) But for now, the best solution is to support our own Christian schools.

Do you know about the Schechter fiasco during the Great Depression? It’s a classic case of overreaching by the federal government, one of the things that the separation of powers is meant to minimize or even prevent. It also shows the kind of thing that Uncle Sam was doing at that time to “fix” the economy. Subsequent history shows how well that worked. So first, you may want to read a bit about the Schechters. I was introduced to them in Amity Schlaes’ book The Forgotten Man. You can read about the Schechters online. Wikipedia has an entry, but you can also find primary source material.

Okay, now to see shades of Schechter, see the recent news about the USDA vs. evil rabbit-raising hobbyists. Makes me glad there’s someone to protect us from such people. They probably have big pointy teeth.

But seriously, I’m glad that there are elected officials who care enough to keep the USDA in check. Who would have thought that the Food and Drug Administration would tyrannize American citizens that way? Defense department, maybe. DHS, CIA, FBI, or NSA, perhaps. But the USDA? Thank God for representation in Washington! May it always work so well.

Updated 5/25: s/FDA/USDA/g That’s what happens when writing a post when I should already be asleep. The difference only makes the point stronger! The Department of Agriculture? Wow.

Your answer to this question depends upon your doctrinal heritage. The Augsburg Confession actually answers this question, and sets us up well for a good understanding. But as you read the quoted article XVI (from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions) below, notice the dramatic difference between the Lutheran position and the position labeled “Anabaptist.” The latter comes from the radical reformation, which has ended up rather splintered in our time. Not all of the present-day theological descendants of the Anabaptists agree with their position, but some still do. More significant, I think, is the divergence between the political “Christian right” and those who would make a complete separation between matters of faith and government.

The “Christian right” seems to be most interested in social issues, unless you include the interest of some in the future of modern-day Israel. That interest really has no scriptural support, stemming from 19th Century dispensationalism, and perpetuated by a fascination with misusing the Bible as a code book. However, social issues generally relate to the Ten Commandments and the moral law, which is intended for all people, in all times.

Those who would like to separate matters of faith and government also have a point, in that there are two separate kingdoms of God, which we do well to distinguish. What some fail to realize, however, is that on an individual level, a Christian’s activities related to government are sanctified by faith. That means a Christian citizen is never a mere citizen, and a Christian office-holder is never a mere office-holder. Faith cannot be divorced from life, even where government is concerned. Those who try make a wreck of faith, or of life, or of both.

In fact, one of the main premises of this blog is that necessary connection between faith and life. It applies to faith both in the sense of “having a belief” and in the sense of “a doctrine.” I use it specifically of the Christian faith.

1 Our churches teach that lawful civil regulations are good works of God. 2 They teach that it is right for Christians to hold political office, to serve as judges, to judge matters by imperial laws and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take oaths when required by the magistrates, for a man to marry a wife, or a woman to be given in marriage [Romans 13; 1 Corinthians 7:2].

3 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these political offices to Christians. 4 They also condemn those who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in forsaking political offices. 5 For the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart (Romans 10:10). At the same time, it does not require the destruction of the civil state or the family. The Gospel very much requires that they be preserved as God’s ordinances and that love be practiced in such ordinances. 6 Therefore, it is necessary for Christians to be obedient to their rulers and laws. 7 The only exception is when they are commanded to sin. Then they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

I’ve heard about people who printed off “money” on their inkjet printer, and then successfully passed off the counterfeit dollars at McDonalds. I’ve also heard about people who invest heavily in more sophisticated counterfeiting operations. The goal in both cases is for the perpetrator to enrich himself with the buying power of real money by producing it all himself. It’s dishonest. It’s also illegal.

But now I’ve heard it all. Someone making an alternative currency has been convicted of… terrorism? Sounds like a real muddle. Without knowing all the facts of the case, I leave open the possibility that the convict was doing something dishonest. It may have even been illegal. But it doesn’t sound like it was the same thing as counterfeiting money, though the conviction has that ring.

It sounds as though the perp was creating a local currency that could be used as an alternative to US dollars. It’s been done before, and apparently is not usually considered a form of terrorism. In fact, I’m told that the old saying about wooden nickels goes back to a local currency in southern Oregon made from myrtle wood. So what’s different this time? For one thing, the charges give the impression that this particular local currency shared too many design similarities with US Treasury money.

The coins were marked with the dollar sign, the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins.

I can understand why the US Treasury would want any local currencies to appear completely distinct, and would assume that the jury found these to be confusingly similar. On the other hand, real counterfeit money is always worth less in materials and work than obtaining the actual US money it represents. Otherwise counterfeiting would be a complete waste of time and effort. It sounds like this currency is actually worth more than American money, because it’s minted with valuable metals, which are not subject to having their value erased by inflation.

The government also is seeking the forfeiture of about 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals valued at nearly $7 million.

OK. What should we make of this? A US Attorney described the government’s investigative and prosecution efforts in very strong language: “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” How does a superior local currency “challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of goverment?”

Answer: it provides a means for some American citizens to safeguard the value stored in their money, in a time when the monetary strategy of the United States is to devalue all of our money in an attempt to shrink the impossibly-large debt burden our government has accumulated, and perhaps lessen the titanic trade imbalance that threatens to destabilize our economy. If certain (i.e. the “wrong”) Americans find a way to preserve the value of their savings over against the rest of the country, then it will throw the whole strategy out of whack, as their economic influence increases disproportionately against the rest. That’s my theory, anyway. I hope expressing it doesn’t amount to terrorism.

Does the monetary policy (when to print, when to retire money, how to introduce it into the economy) of your country fall under the fourth commandment (to obey earthly authorities)? It seems there are laws about money, but there seems to be a gray area here. We must pay our taxes in US Dollars, but is it wrong to barter for everything else? Is it a form of terrorism to use a local currency? Maybe it’s wrong only when your money is better than an inflationary fiat money.

Apparently, it means whatever a person may say it means. This, at the Washington Times, as linked from Drudge, says

The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

So the President has ruled that an act of Congress is unconstitutional. Does that sound a little strange to anyone? Anyone?

I don’t know about the President’s experience, but when I was in grade school, my teachers taught me that it’s the Court’s job to decide whether an act of Congress is constitutional. If the Executive Branch thinks something is unconstitutional, shouldn’t it follow the same procedure as anyone else? What if I decide that it’s unconstitutional for me to pay the federal income tax? I’m pretty sure that the IRS would come down on me sooner or later regardless of my opinion. But if the Supreme Court decided the same thing, there would be dancing in the streets for days. Literally. In the streets. (Of course, then we’d have to get busy and reconstruct our economy, since the federal government would have to default on its unconscionably, ridiculously, and irresponsibly enormous debt, and all international trade with the US would cease.)

This is just another volley in the corruption-of-our-culture war, but I find it especially disturbing, because of the apparently callous disregard of the Constitution. Hey, here’s an idea. Maybe we should all read it, especially those in elected office. I dare you.

My congressman reports today:

Speaking of items on to-do lists, first and foremost in the nation’s capital is making the difficult decisions to get the runaway spending under control. The most recent estimate now puts this year’s deficit at $1.6 trillion.

How much is 1.6 trillion? A lot more than 1.6. Here’s the number written out: 1,600,000,000,000. A millimeter is really small, right? One point six trillion of them is still one point six million kilometers.

But then, a kilometer is shorter than a mile, so maybe it one point six million kilometers isn’t really all that far. Go to Google and type “1.6 million kilometers in miles”. It seems a BMW car racked up that much mileage on a treadmill, but don’t try it at home. It’s almost a million miles, 1.6 trillion millimeters. You could drive around the earth at the equator about 40 times: 1.6 trillion millimeters.

So the currently-projected federal deficit for 2011 is 1.6 trillion dollars.

My congressman also gave this example:

Here’s an example of how far things have gotten away from us. In 2007, the deficit was $160.7 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP, and had decreased every year since 2004.

In 2006, the year before Nancy Pelosi took control of the Speaker’s gavel, CBO projected that the deficit in 2011 would be $117 billion. Because of the runaway spending since then, the 2011 deficit will be an astonishing 1,367% higher than what CBO predicted just five years ago.

OK, so how many times could you travel around the world at the equator before you’ve gone 160.7 billion millimeters (the 2007 actual federal deficit)? The first number (the 2007 federal deficit) in millimeters is 99,854 miles, or about four times around the earth.

For 117 billion (the 2006 projection of the 2011 federal deficit) in millimeters, it’s 72,700 miles, or about three times around the earth.

Only four years ago, the congressional budget office predicted a federal deficit for this year comparable to three laps around the earth, when converted to millimeters. Since a deficit means that the federal government is spending money it doesn’t have, I think that’s a bad thing. I believe that government, like people, should live within its means. That is, it should seek to spend no more than it receives, but if that happens anyway, the resulting imbalance should be corrected as soon as possible. That’s just the principle of the matter. But when I realize that the government’s debt is really on my shoulders as a taxpayer, and on the shoulders of my children, those three laps around the earth seem almost criminally irresponsible.

So has the hope and change introduced in 2006 resulted in an improvement? Well, if our goal is to consign all of our descendants to slavery, then yes, we’ve seen a great advancement toward our goal! Instead of the horrible three laps around the globe, we’re expecting to rack up in one year alone, the equivalent of 40 laps around the globe.

Either somebody is incompetent beyond belief, or somebody is actually trying to bring the United States to its knees. Which is more charitable? I’m not sure.

So I’m glad we’ve got people like my congressman in Washington, people who understand that the future of our country, and the future well-being of American children depends, at least partly, upon how responsibly we conduct ourselves in the present.

As Christian citizens, we have a responsibility to “render unto Caesar” with the wisdom we have received from God’s Word. Please try to understand these mind-boggling numbers that float across the news, and their connection to the future of our civilization. Certainly, God is in control, but He has also given Christian invididuals a responsibility to exercise good judgment and act accordingly. We have the privilege of voting in the United States, but also the constitutional right of free speech. Speech can be a powerful tool for good or ill. I know, because it’s most of what I do.