Our family has been carefully following the economic situation that has been riveting the attention of many other families, I’m sure. The technical lingo that obfuscates the issues keeps many people scratching their heads and wringing their hands (though maybe not simultaneously, unless they are also able to walk and chew gum at the same time), and that makes it easy for tricky demagogues to make political hay from the confusion. If only they were Rumpelstiltskins, spinning gold from all that hay. I’m afraid there’s a lot of spinning going on, but instead of gold we are getting inflation and the depreciation of the dollar.

One way we are trying to make sense out of all this is by reading some solid economics books written from a conservative and biblical perspective. In our selfish chronological snobbery, we are inclined to believe that the bad situation we are facing is unlike anything that has ever happened before, and we forget that there have been times in the not-so-distant past that may have been far worse. The 777 point drop in the Dow today sounds frightening (a 7 percent decline), until you recall that in October 1987 there was a one-day drop which was a smaller number but a decline of over 20 percent. Today’s drop was only the 17th-biggest decline. That doesn’t mean things are hunky-dory, but it gives a little perspective and takes some of the edge off the doom-and-gloom threats we are hearing if we don’t fork over the financial pie to the federal government. Reading sensible books and articles about other economic downturns and understanding the reasons we are in this mess is one practical way you can help your family to deal with the frightening issues we are facing.

I have been slowly reading to my children the chapter called “Idols of Mammon” in Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg. If you go to page 88 on the link I just gave, you can read a great deal of the chapter online, but I highly recommend the entire book for a biblical view of many cultural issues. I also got out Clarence Carson’s fifth volume in his A Basic History of the United States: The Welfare State–1929-1985. Does history repeat itself? Listen to the first paragraph in the introduction, in light of the current attempt to wrest $700 billion from American taxpayers through a “bailout” for irresponsible financial institutions:

A major thrust toward establishing the welfare state came swiftly in 1933. In a special session, which lasted from March 9 through June 16, 1933, Congress, prodded by the President, asserted the authority of the federal government over the American economy in an unprecedented fashion. Never before, certainly not in a time of peace, had such far-reaching legislation been passed by any Congress. The swiftness of it has led some historians to ponder whether or not it was a revolution. That is, it was not a successful revolt against the established authority, carried out by force of arms. If however, the term be taken to taken to signify a swift, as opposed to a gradual change, the change in direction was made quickly, and it did have a considerable impact on the country.

One major impact he says it had was a shift in the view of the government’s role. “But the premise of the welfare state was vigorously asserted, and it became established. The premise of the welfare state in the United States is that the federal government is basically responsible for the material well-being of the American people.”

That premise is now a given for most people. The powers-that-be have been spinning the current financial “crisis” and bailout proposal as necessary for the well-being of the American people, when it is really for the well-being of Wall Street. As Ron Paul said, if the government does nothing, we will have a bad year, but if they get their way with a bailout, then we will have a bad decade. Isn’t it funny how Congressman Paul’s opinions about this mess are suddenly sought by the media, when he was persona non grata just a few months ago?

I just read a great article about how we got into this financial meltdown, and why a bailout would be a disaster. Even though Congress thankfully refused to pass the bailout proposal today (Ludwig von Mises’s birthday, by the way), I’m sure a revised version will be brought forward soon, so read this, inform yourself, and write to your representatives to let them know why you don’t want them coming to the rescue.

You can get contact information for your congressman here.
You can see how your congressman voted on today’s bill here.

Pastor Bret has been writing quite a lot on the shenanigans of Wall Street and D.C. In answer to a question from a reader about the creepy Federal Reserve and a request for further economics reading, he said:

Should the Fed be axed?

Axed, burned, crushed into dust and sprinkled on your cornflakes for breakfast.

The book recommendations on this subject are a little difficult. Gary North has done some good stuff but you have to careful of his over Libertarian economic philosophy. Chilton’s book “Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators” is good. R. C. Sproul Jr. has a book out entitled “Biblical Economics.” I haven’t read it but I tend to trust Sproul’s counsel. A lecture you can find online that you should read is “I pencil” by Leonard Read.

Other books I would recommend are

Belloc’s “The Servile State”
Hayek’s “Road To Serfdom”
Rushdoony’s “Roots Of Inflation”
Ropke’s “The Social Crisis of our Time”
Nock’s “Our Enemy The State”
Hazlitt’s “Economics In One Lesson”
Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island”
Sowell’s “Basic Economics”

To really understand Economics from a Christian perspective you have to get an understanding of what Socialism is. The appropriate chapter from “Idols for Destruction” should be consulted for help on that score. Also “You Can Trust The Communists To Be Communist” would help you here.

Well, that gives you a beginning. If you get all those done come back and I’ll recommend some more.

Also, for some articles which can guide you through the morass, you might find The Recession Reader helpful. It offers this good insight, with which I heartily agree…I hope you will take it to heart and make the effort to educate yourself and your family about these things, which unlike fiat money are not ephemeral, but profoundly affect you now and your children and grandchildren in the future.

What’s important is not necessarily the specific political opposition to this bailout, but rather educating people about the dangers of nationalization, central banking, and government regulation. Only when people recognize the dangers of the government’s “socialism for the rich” will we be able to get back on the road to prosperity. Unfortunately, a correction is necessary. There is no such thing as a free house. The more the government intervenes, the longer and more painful it will be. But this crisis gives the country a chance to rethink its previous assumptions about the economy and the government’s role in it. Hopefully, this reader will be a first step for many into an exciting, growing branch of economic thought.

This article is in response to Gary De Mar bellyaching about Christians voting third party in a recent article written by De Mar electronically e-mailed to his mailing list.I want to make it clear at the outset that Gary De Mar is not an enemy. Indeed, Gary is one of our best friends in the fight to defeat the pagan left. The disagreement here is tactical and not strategic. Gary and I both share the same strategy of defeating the pagan left. The disagreement here is whether or not Gary’s tactics are counterproductive to achieving his strategy. The disagreement here extends to Gary’s accusations that the tactics of those of us who advocate voting third party are counterproductive to our shared strategy of crushing the pagan left.

First, Gary, like so many others, does not seem to comprehend why voting third party is necessary. Voting third party is necessary to communicate, in the only way that the major parties can understand, a profound discontent that will require substantive change in the major parties before those major parties can hope to attract again the votes of those who are voting third party. If Christians keep voting for Republicans, as Gary advocates, what is communicated to the Republican Party is that there is no necessity for the party to change in the direction of the political convictions of those who have bolted the party to vote third party. If the Republican Party believes the “Christian” vote is in its back pocket it will have no incentive to improve on issues that Christians care about. A Party that believes that it has a constituency that it can’t lose, no matter what, will ignore that constituency.

Second, building third parties, historically, has been a means by which the American Parties segue ideologically to new political positions. In the first couple of decades of the 20th century the Socialist party was a third party that ran Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas as Presidential candidates. Both Debs and Thomas were soundly trounced in the presidential elections. What most people don’t know is that the Democratic Party, under the candidacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eventually adopted large portions of the Socialist party platform into the Democratic Party, thus going a long way towards remaking the Democratic Party into the image of the Socialist party. Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were never elected President but their third Party and its ideas changed the Democratic Party forever. Other examples of this phenomenon in history can be recited. Gary, doesn’t seem to understand that a third Party movement, supported by a healthy minority, though never winning, can work to be the means by which a party transitions ideologically. When Gary chastises people for voting third party and uses his influence to keep Christians from lending third parties their strength he is insuring that the Republican Party will never take the Christian vote seriously.

Third, Gary seems to operating under the assumption that if Christians can manage to take over the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance their convictions that those styled “country club” Americans will support the Party. Gary’s reasoning seems to be that if Christians support the Republican Party now, while holding their noses, that what will happen is that other elements of the Republican Party will support De Mar type candidates while holding their noses. This is a questionable assumption on Gary’s part.

Fourth, voting third party is necessary in order to communicate that there are sizable portions of the electorate that are not generally satisfied with the two parties. The way the current two party system works is to funnel people into the major parties so that their vote communicates “general agreement” with the Party. Voting third Party gives a voice to people who are not in “general agreement” with the two Parties. Gary may be able to use his vote to communicate “general agreement” with the Republicans, but I find nothing in the Republican party with which I am in general agreement.

Fifth, voting third party is necessary in order to bring change through incremental gradualism. Those like Gary who advocate voting for Republican as a means by which to incrementally bring about change in the Republican Party would be hard pressed to reveal where any incremental progress has occurred. Indeed, if anything, it would be quite easy to point to incremental regress in the Republican Party (Mega growth in the size of the Government during the Bush administration, Increase of Entitlement programs, Increase in the extension of Empire, Attempt to Socialize the Financial sector of the economy, etc.). Gary, by voting for the Republican Party, communicates approval of this incremental regress.

Finally, on a practical level, we ought to be asking ourselves if we follow Gary’s advice how we are to prevent young Christians who get involved in the GOP to keep from being subsumed by the Borg. One only has to look at Patrick Henry College and their support for anti-home schooler Mike Huckabee to see that while in theory building a college to change the Republican Party from within might have seemed like a good idea, in the end it has just contributed to another educational establishment  making good little soldiers for the fascist state as opposed to  rebels who will fight the pagan left Borg.

Will Republican sycophants follow these tactics for bringing about significant change in our political process? Probably not. They will bellyache about how some Christians will remain true to their principles and those sycophants will continue to compromise trying to achieve their strategic goals by using tactical means that are counter-productive to those stated goals.

I know very few people who are as good at argumentation as Doug Wilson. In fact, I admire Doug’s ability on that score. Doug’s brilliance is especially seen when he is arguing a weak point. Nobody is better than Doug at making a weak, indefensible point look like the Rock of Gibraltar. Doug goes very slippery when he is arguing a losing hand, but for as slippery as Doug is when he is arguing a losing proposition, I think we will try to use some vice grips to hold him still long enough to see the weakness of his point.

Doug continues to try and suggest that it might be Biblical for Christians to vote for women magistrates in the article located http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5910>here.

I am fisking the whole thing below.

Just a few things right out of the starting blocks. First, I agree with Tim Bayly’s argument on the creation order and women in civil leadership. Second, I don’t really agree with Geoffrey Botkin’s argument that the Sarah Palin move on the part of the GOP is the mother of all sucker plays. I agree with Botkin that it could be that, but I don’t believe that it is by any means self-evident yet.

First, I agree with Wilson that Bayly’s argument on the creation order was excellent. The only exception I took from Tim Bayly’s fine article was when he ended by saying that he hadn’t ruled out voting for Palin.

Second, Wilson’s willingness to believe that Palin isn’t the mother of all sucker plays makes him Charlie Brown to the Republican Party’s Lucy who continues to promise Doug that she’s not going to move the football this one time, after moving it every time previously she promised Charlie Brown (Doug Wilson) to hold it still so he could kick the ball. Republicans have consistently played the evangelical crowd for suckers. What makes Wilson think that anything is different this time? When one looks at Wilson’s suspension of belief it almost seems like he is practicing wish fulfillment.

Now having said that, I admit that Palin may indeed be a case where the Republicans have been to smart by half. But given Republican history I seriously doubt it and so should Doug.

While I don’t differ with anything in Tim’s post, there might be a possible quibble down the road – picking up on a comment made by someone else on his post. The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is (Is. 3:12), does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient, and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that.

First, Doug says that “rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse.” Can Doug give any example where Scripture explicitly states that being ruled by women is not a curse? Doug says it is generally a curse, as if Scripture communicates there are times when it is not a curse. What times in Scripture do we find it was not a curse?

Second, I agree that “any given instance of a woman ruling” does not have to mean that the woman is disobedient. I’m not sure about the idea that the men around her, in such cases, aren’t wusses. I’m still undecided on that one. But all because a woman is not disobedient because God has thrust leadership upon her doesn’t mean that God’s people can be disobedient to the creation order that God has established by voting for a woman to be leader. It is God’s prerogative to raise up non disobedient woman leadership. It is not our prerogative to use what God has ordained in His eternal counsels as a reason to disobey what God’s word clearly teaches regarding the creation order. This is a point we will return to time and again.

In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace. A woman pastor is not an anomaly; it is disobedience. But a woman who runs the household of her quadrapalegic husband would be in disobedience if she refused to do that. But such a virtuous action on her part does not keep it from being anomalous. That is not the way it usually goes, but it has to go this way in this instance – and not because her husband is abdicating either. In short, the oddball situations here and there that result in a woman holding political office or occupying the position of leadership in a family don’t bother me at all, not even a little bit. And to use the kind of example I have used before (and which no one in this debate has answered yet, incidentally), can a father or husband leave an inheritance to a daughter or wife if that inheritance includes the laboring jobs of males? Can a Christian woman inherit a factory that employs fifty men? The answer is of course. That’s not feminism. It is not egalitarianism. It is not common, but life is funny sometimes (Num. 27:7), and we should all of us just loosen our shoelaces. This kind of thing can happen without anybody being disobedient.

I’m glad to affirm that when God creates anomalies we should be at peace with that. I seldom tie my shoelaces so I’m good there. However, Doug can’t use this reasoning to say that since God creates anomalies we are therefore sanctioned to create those anomalies by disobeying God’s revealed Word.

Second, it was an oddball situation that resulted in a true anomaly when a King died without having sons and so the regency was passed onto a daughter. It is not an oddball situation that resulted in a true anomaly, in the same way, when in a Republic, God’s people contribute to the creation of the anomaly by disobeying God’s creation order by voting for female magistrates. The first is an anomaly that we can pin on God’s eternal counsels. The second is an anomaly that, while still according to God’s eternal counsels, came about, in part, because of those who violated God’s clear teaching on the created order. It is difficult for me to see how Doug isn’t arguing that we should do evil (voting for a female magistrate) that good (the end of abortion, somehow in some strange way connected to the person of Palin).

And this brings us to that poor warrior Barak, just one of many giants of the faith who ran afoul of modern sentimental pieties. The Bible describes as righteous a number of men and women who are dismissed by us in the most cavalier way – Jacob is the premier example, but this also applies to Tamar, and Jepthah, and Barak. And in the one place where Barak missteps, it is not because he was subservient to a woman. His problem was that he refused to do what a woman required of him – just like some people on the Internet stoutly insist they would also do. But even so, the Bible describes him as a man of faith (Heb. 11:32), and not as some kind of pencil neck.

We need to be more precise here then Doug is, since Doug’s imprecision leads to wrong impressions. To be precise, Barak’s failure was that he refused to do what the Lord God commanded him as communicated through a prophetess. If he had obeyed God, he would have been being subservient to God and not to a woman, who was a only a mouthpiece of God.

Next, we have to keep reminding ourselves that the time frame of Barak and Deborah in Judges is a time-frame that creates oddball situations which in turn leads to all kinds of anomalies. This is a time where the children of Israel were doing evil in the sight of the Lord. Because that is true it is very precarious for us to try and take what is going on in Judges 4 and make it prescriptive.

At the same time, if women are being thrust into positions of leadership generally because everybody is in the grip of egalitarianism, and the assumption is made that men and women should all be doing the corporate and political thing fifty/fifty, what’s wrong with you people?, then that is a clear sign of the Isaiah 3 curse.

And that is just the time we live in now. Sarah Palin was chosen precisely for the reason of that kind of egalitarianism that Doug describes. Nobody with a ounce of political moxie would ever argue that on the basis of qualifications alone that Palin was the best VP choice. Palin was chosen because of identity politics with hopes that she could peel off some of those female Hillary Clinton supporters that were discontent with how Barack had treated Hillary. And now, even in light of that reality, Doug seems to continue to want to wiggle towards advocating that Reformed Christians can vote for a clear sign of the Isaiah 3 curse.

Just a couple of comments about Botkin’s article. First, I was genuinely surprised at his attitude toward football – not just objecting, as every Christian gentleman should, to the travesty of putting girls in pads and out on the field. He also plainly objecting to putting our sons into “organized combat on the football, soccer and hockey circuits.” At Logos, the contact sport is lacrosse, what the Iroquois appropriately “the little brother of war.” This objection to contact sports for everyone was more than a little revealing, in my view.

Yeah, I thought that was goofy also.

And second, Botkin summarized the Plan that usually keeps evangelicals voting Republican. His summary: “The other candidate is a Democrat. He is therefore scary. Be very afraid. Vote Republican.” I actually think that this is a very good summary . . . but we should also note that it is a compelling argument. The Democrats are really scary – that is not a bugbear, but is rather kind of like the truth. While it is customary to say that we have two parties in Washington – the Evil Party and the Stupid Party – the reality is not quite so simple. Twain once said the music of Wagner was better than it sounds, and we have to realize the Republicans are not as stupid as they behave.

First, I don’t agree with Doug’s characterization. Both Republicans and Democrats are evil. Democrats are practical communists while Republicans are practical fascists. Now certainly there are individual exceptions in each party to that broad stroke characterization but in general it holds true. We are not embracing less evil by voting Republican. We are only embracing different evil.

Second, at this point Doug is invoking the “lesser of two evils” canard. Doug is suggesting that it is reasonable to vote for lesser evil out of fear of greater evil. Even if that were true (and I don’t believe it is) what Doug is saying is that we should be governed by our fears. A great part of the problem with this argumentation is that we ought to be motivated by our fear of man. And yet Scripture teaches us over and over that where there is fear of God only there exists no fear of man. As such, Christians who fear God shouldn’t be able to be motivated by fear of man. Christians should fear God and do what is right and let God handle the results. Instead Doug seems to be suggesting that we should fear man and so disobey God by voting for what he perceives to be the lesser of two evils.

I recently read a better summary of the way things are from a friend who detests McCain, but who is planning on voting for him anyway. Why? Because he would rather live under a crime syndicate than under the utopians, a sentiment that I fully share. That is certainly my preference, and that is also what I believe our choices to actually be – the Republican Mafioso or the Democrats of the Shining Dawn. Give me the former every time – far less blood.

Doug is only saying here that he would prefer the fascists to the communists. A Christian stance would be to stand up on two legs and loudly pronounce a pox upon both their houses instead of lending the fascists (Dougs, Mafioso) their strength with their vote. This is as if a wolf and a bear are fighting in order to see who can make a lunch out of Doug with Doug concluding that since being eaten by a wolf would be less painful then being eaten by a bear he’ll vote for the wolf.

I’m sorry, I will die not understanding that kind of reasoning.

And so the issue is not what I would personally prefer – no question, the Republicans. The issue is what is legitimate for me to vote for. The thing I am working through is whether the Palin choice represents a blundering crime syndicate or a very tricksy crime syndicate. I am leaning strongly toward the former.

What is legitimate for any Christian to vote for is obedience.

And please don’t give me that I’m looking for a perfect candidate. That is just not true. If I were looking for a perfect candidate I wouldn’t vote at all. What I am looking for is a candidate that keeps us from going in the direction of destruction. I would be glad to vote for a candidate that had all kinds of flaws if only they would operate out of a worldview that is other than some kind of socialism.

Doug’s has a weak hand here and he is being slippery in his argumentation. I respect Doug Wilson but I must do what little I can to expose him for the naked emperor he is on this issue.

This may be old news…things are rapidly changing with the economic meltdown to which we are helpless spectators right now…but it’s worth noting and passing on that Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president. I am posting the entire announcement, but I do want to say that as we helplessly watch our financial future become bleaker by the second, we don’t have to helplessly vote for those who would prolong the pain many people in this nation will suffer.

McCain admitted a few months ago that he didn’t know much about economics. Then he hired Phil “People are Such Whiners” Gramm to be his economic advisor. Ron Paul knows a lot about economics. Watch him pin down unelected Dictator-in-Chief Ben Bernanke who was in the hot seat before Congress, where one honest man still serves.

We have a children’s book called What If Everybody Did? The point is to show what bad things can happen if everybody—not just one insignificant person, but the whole gang—does one bad thing at the same time. But if everyone does a good thing all at the same time, that’s powerful. What if everybody who truly cares about constitutional government, fixing the economy, and hanging onto the freedoms that were secured by our nation’s forefathers voted for the one righteous man who believes in all those things? What if?

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Congressman Walberg,

I am one of your constituents and style myself a conservative who does not vote Republican because the party has sacrificed the principles of conservatism for the sake of expediency and the ability to be enriched by the system. Still, I am a voter and you are my Representative in the US Congress.

It is in that capacity that I am urging you to oppose the 700 billion dollar bailout that is being pursued by the politico-corporatist agenda that exists between Washington and Wall Street. The insiders who have created this problem should have no say in fixing the problem. Sooner would I trust the fox to fix the hen house after slaughtering all the chickens then I would trust that brood in Washington to fix the mess they’ve created.

First, a 700 billion dollar bailout of the existing structure would serve to grow the Federal Government well beyond its already bloated size. Something that conservatives used to be universally against.

Second, a 700 billion dollar bailout of the existing structure would eventuate in the explicit socializing of our financial sector. This, likewise, is something that conservatives used to be against.

Third, a 700 billion dollar bailout of the financial markets would, I fear, only forestall the inevitable rupture of our economy leading to a subsequent and future economic condition that will be worst than the one we are facing now with a bailout. It is hard news, but this artificially created bubble must pop and the markets must find their natural bottom.

Fourth, such a 700 billion dollar bailout (is it really only 700 billion or is this like the senior citizen pharmaceutical plan that suddenly became much larger then advertised once it passed?) would likely create an inflationary cycle that would be like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

Fifth, this attempt to rescue the politico-corporatist interests will have the effect of punishing Main Street for the crimes of the criminal politico-corporatist class. As a member of Main Street I am not interested in being the whipping boy for elitist thugs.
Congressman Walberg I am as angry now as I’ve been in quite some time. The fiscal irresponsibility of Washington has finally returned home, and now middle class America is going to face the economic whirlwind created by the malfeasance and torpid behavior of the money men and their political hacks.

Please do not make that economic whirlwind worst by voting to bailing out those who’ve made this mess.
I will be keeping an eye on how you vote.

Rev. Bret L. McAtee

1) If the Feds have bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that means that the Federal Government is the owner of millions of homes that have been foreclosed on. Those homes are no longer private property but belong to the State. This for all of you who didn’t think that the State didn’t already own enough public property. I guess the good news in this is that the new owners of all those homes don’t have to worry about going through the hassle of eminent domain procedures.

Of course this also means that with the Federal Seizure (”bailout”) of these institutions, the size of the Federal Government has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few days. This observation is for all of you who didn’t think the State was large enough already.

2) Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan, whose policies have brought us to this place on the edge of disaster, recently said, “This crisis is different; a once or twice in a century event deeply rooted in fears of insolvency of major financial institutions.

Jeepers Alan, you think that those deeply rooted fears of insolvency might be rooted in reality?

3) The US economy is so intertwined that it is just ridiculous to think that if the whole thing went “Black Friday” that anybody could escape the consequences. This is a case where if the financial institutions go we all go.

4) For those of you counting on Social Security, open your eyes and look around you and see what is happening. Those financial institutions that have finally gone “nipples high” have been operating for some time on smoke and mirrors. Social Security is in exactly the same condition as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were. What you’re seeing happening now is merely the appetizer for the main course when it is finally admitted that Social Security is insolvent.

5) The good news is that the world has an interest in making sure that the US economic system doesn’t go into the tank. It certainly isn’t advantageous for all those countries around the world holding our debt to be told, “Sorry, Charlie.”

6) Look for one result of this crash to be that US assets will be even more foreign-held than they already were. Those Arabs and Chicoms know a good deal when they see one and so will be there to pick up the fire clearance sale on US infrastructure.

7) Hopefully this is the end to private public co-ventures. The idea that financial risks can be shared by the public while profit can be privatized was just one more example of an attempt to defy reality.

Anybody want to take any bets on whether or not there will be people held responsible for this? In recent history we’ve been given Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Lay, and Michael Milliken as evil capitalists who had to be spanked because of their naughty behavior. Who will be the ones spanked for this naughty behavior?

Answer – Nobody will be held responsible for this meltdown because all of this is of the State’s making and since the State is God, God can’t be held responsible for his actions by mere mortals.

9) The answer to this is to let the market find its bottom. If we continue to try and prop up this mess the end result will only be more disastrous than it already is. We made a mistake already by bailing out Freddie and Fannie. Having sown the wind, we should have let them reap the whirlwind.

10) Now we all know that the the Fed and the US Government are largely interchangeable, but now I’m wondering, given the cozy relationships between the Fed, the US government, and these moneylender mortgage companies, credit/investment banks, if this isn’t really a bailout of the US government and the Fed.

11) I don’t think the presidential candidates are clueless in all of this. I think they are hip deep in this mess and share in responsibility for it along with the whole political class, minus Ron Paul. They are all practicing CYA at this point. They are all crap-deep guilty in this matter. Nobody is going to squeal on anybody in this mess because if one goes down they all go down. McCain has been in Congress forever and Obama took over half a million in campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The whole political class, minus Ron Paul, is covered with the shame and guilt of this financial blowout.

Be assured that once this all shakes out it won’t be the money men or their political hacks that are going to be left holding the bag.

12) When do the bank runs begin? I want to get a good seat for those.