Category: Politics and Economics

I daresay that marriage would not be in the state of redefinition that it is today if the earlier problem had been addressed. Matt Walsh, on his blog, writes in his characteristically direct and precise style:

I sat down to tell the world that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage.

But then I remembered this:

That’s a sign I saw on the side of the road a little while back. Divorce for sale! Only 129 dollars! Get ’em while they’re hot!

And then I remembered an article I read last week about the new phenomenon of “divorce parties.”Divorced is the new single, the divorce party planner tells us.

And then I remembered another article claiming that the divorce rate is climbing because the economy is recovering. Now that things are getting a little better, we can finally splurge on that divorce we’ve always wanted!

And then I remembered that — ebbs and flows notwithstanding — there is one divorce every 13 seconds, or over 46,000 divorces a week in this country. And then I remembered that, although the “50 percent of marriages end in divorce” statistic can be misleading, we’re still in a situation where there are half as many divorces as there are marriages in a single year.


And then I remembered how many Christian churches gave up on marriage long ago, allowing their flock to divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry, and each time permitting the charade of “vows” to take place on their altars. And then I remembered that churches CAN lower the divorce rate simply by taking a consistent position on it — which is why practicing Catholics are significantly less likely to break up — but many refuse because they are cowards begging for the world’s approval.

And then I remembered that over 40 percent of America’s children are growing up without a father in the home. And then I remembered that close to half of all children will witness the breakdown of their parent’s marriage. Half of that half will also have the pleasure of watching a second marriage fall apart.

And then I remembered that more and more young people are opting out of marriage because the previous generation was so bad at it that they’ve scared their kids away from the institution entirely.

I remembered all of these things, and I decided to instead write about the most urgent threat to the sanctity of marriage.


So whose fault is it that the institution of marriage is beaten and broken? I don’t think we want to contemplate that question, for fear that we might see ourselves in the answer.

Read more here:

Concerning Kim Davis and her recent stint in the news (and the slammer), I am undecided about the legality of her incarceration as well as the appropriateness of her refusal to issue marriage kim-davis-muglicenses to same-sex couples. My thinking at this point is that probably she should either perform her job or resign it, if she cannot do it in good conscience.

However, this post is not about clarifying my convictions about this.

Instead, I’d rather hear from my left-leaning friends who believe that it was criminal for her to refuse to follow the law, instead following her conscience and religious beliefs. The question I would appreciate your feedback on is this, in the same way that you now demand that Kim Davis do her job and obey the law, did you also protest the same circumstance when it went the other way? In particular, I’m thinking of the following instances:

2004 – San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of California law.

2014 – US Attorney General Eric Holder told states to ignore their own laws which defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman

2015 – US President Barack Obama refused to do his job of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

If you did not protest these similar acts of defiance against the law, or do not now see any double standard of justice, how do you justify that? Why have these three men (just to name a few) not served any jail time or been called out for law-breaking, even though they hold much higher ranking positions, and should be held to an even higher standard of legal accountability?

Please know, this is not a whining rant, and I’m not looking to start a fight. But this seems like an inconsistency. What am I missing, friends?

(h/t Frank Turek: Should You Do Your Job or Obey Your Conscience?)

From the transcript of testimony delivered on Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

What do you think?  Does he make a good point?  Does he miss any important points?

Foundation for Economic Education

Foundation for Economic Education (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is the audio from the great talk from this Wednesday’s meeting at Briarwood by Paul Cleveland on economic booms and busts and the causes.  Looks like he titled the talk “The Energy Crisis Yesterday and Today,” but I don’t really understand that title with this talk.  Maybe he got sidetracked.  In any case, he is a good speaker and I enjoy listening to his economics lectures.

Libertarian Party Logo

Webster’s New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as “One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action.”

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence—legal or illegal—to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

Watch this video.  It is long, but very worthwhile.  Edward Griffin explains the origins of the Federal Reserve Bank of America, what its stated goals are, and what its actual goals are.  This should make you angry; it did me.  Ron Paul is right; we should End the Fed.

…I came to the startling conclusion that the Federal Reserve System does not need to be audited, it needs to be abolished.  This is very intriguing to think we should audit the Fed but I discovered that probably if they audited the Fed it would get a clean bill because it’s undoubtedly doing exactly what it’s supposed to do according to the law. What it is supposed to do according to the law is justification for abolishing it, so all we have to do is understand what the Federal Reserve System is supposed to do and we’ll be pretty upset about it. The fact of the matter is that most people haven’t the foggiest idea of what it is in fact supposed to do.

I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I’d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking and maybe you’ll remember them.

1. The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
3. It’s the supreme instrument of usury.
4. It generates our most unfair tax.
5. It encourages war.
6. It destabilizes the economy.
7. It is an instrument of totalitarianism.

– Edward Griffin, from the PDF transcript of this video:

English: More formal image of self

The essential principles regarding the legitimacy of command can be established by reflection on our insular drama:

1. Adam may legitimately command Benjamin to refrain from action C if and only if C is a demonstrable initiation of aggression against the person or property of Adam or against the person or property of another innocent human being.

2. Adam may legitimately command Benjamin to perform action C if and only if C is an element of a freely (noncoercively) arrived-at binding agreement between Adam and Benjamin, and C does not violate condition 1.

3. In no other case may Adam legitimately command Benjamin.

4. If, in 1, Benjamin refuses to refrain from the action C, then Adam may use proportionate force to restrain or punish him.

5. If, in 2, Benjamin refuses to perform action C, Adam may use proportionate force to elicit compensation.

6. If, in 3, Adam commands Benjamin, Benjamin may refuse to comply with such a command and, where appropriate, may resist that command with proportionate force.

What is true of the one is true of the many so that if no one person has a right so to command me, no two persons acting severally or in concert have that right. They may, of course, combine to use their superior force to coerce me into doing what they require, but that is a matter of might, not right. Whether the number purporting to command me be one, two, seven, 1223, or 10 million, it cannot, except under the conditions sketched above, be a matter of right.

From “The Indefensibility of Political Representation” by Gerard N. Casey or MP3 version here.

What policies does Rand Paul believe in? Check out this interview.

Argonne Cross - Arlington National Cemetery - 2011

Following the results of this year’s Presidential elections, I’ve been feeling depressed off and on throughout the days since, and have been trying to determine the real cause.  Was it because my candidate did not win?  No, not exactly.  As a libertarian-minded conservative, I have been backing candidates this year with little to no chance of winning, so the results of the election were no surprise on that score.  The surprise was that Obama was reelected at all, after the economic and foreign events that have occurred, and the positions for which Obama has stood for in the last four years.

It seems amazing and unprecedented to me that America would choose him.  I’ve heard rumblings of voter fraud and intimidation, in favor of Obama, but I have no way I trust to verify or refute these.  I suspect there would be an equal number of cries of similar electoral shenanigans were the election to have gone in favor of Romney (indeed, even before noon on voting day, I saw articles about concerns for Republicans “stealing” Ohio).  America chose.  And what are we to make of this choice?  The choice was made in favor of increased debt, of further acceptance of abortions and gay marriages, of larger, nanny-state government, of class warfare and redistribution of wealth, and of socialized healthcare.

I’m so tired of the phrase “the lesser of two evils,” and frustrated that this has characterized the election choices of the last two cycles (or more, but I’ve only recently become politically aware enough to care).  Would Romney have been better?  I say marginally, but I’d rather see a completely different direction, instead of picking between flavors of statism.  Romney would have been a reprieve from the spiritual and economic collapse that seems impending, but only a temporary one at best.

So I’ve been grieving.  Grieving for the America we have lost – for the freedoms we have given away with our popular votes and for those taken bit by bit.  I grieve for the loss of Christian morals in our nation that no longer have a majority assent, however grudgingly given.  But I am late for the funeral; the Christian worldview as a dominant position has been dead for a while.  I am just now noticing that the corpse is dead, and no longer animated Weekend-At-Bernie’s-style.  As with grief, it hits me out of nowhere at various times of my day; as with depression, the brightest fall colors and bluest sky seem dim, like I am viewing them through an oily film.  But, also like grief, I can see a gradual lessening as my perspective begins to change.

This election is a wake-up call for Christians.  It’s no call to “take back America” – I submit it was never “ours.”  America is no theocracy, and we are best not to try to make it one; God got out of the human theocracy business when Israel crowned Saul king, and he won’t be back to take over until the end.  Besides, any human-led theocratic government could just as easily become Muslim theocracy, and that certainly isn’t desirable.  So what is this a call to?  It is a call for we Christians to arise from the laziness we are used to and be disciples and salt and light, instead of leaving it to our “Christian” presidents and our pastors and prominent ministry leaders .  I don’t think we can consider our duty done only with the few dollars we drop into the offering plate.

I feel the weight and urgency of the work we ought to be doing, but aren’t.  And by “we,” I mostly mean me.  But you, too.  There are organizations out doing the work that we need to involve ourselves in.  In fact, I feel rather overwhelmed and impotent in the face of it all.  We don’t have to go to Africa or Asia or the Middle East to do mission work.  America is part of the mission field, and there are real needs and issues that should be addressed, such as sex trafficking, abortion, homelessness and addictions of all sorts.  Relating the love of Christ to others through works of social justice is vital, but we must also couple the acts with the knowledge of God.  “Social justice without spiritual justice is not justice at all.” – Chris Hodges

Please Christian, open yourselves to big, specific dreams of ministry and teaching here in our country.  It may be that we are at an end to a chapter of American history.  If economic collapse occurs, it might even mean major political changes as well.  But if this is what it takes to get more of us awake and involved, then let it not be in vain.  Let’s show America something worth choosing.