who-is-this-manEven those who do not believe he was God must find the life of Jesus of Nazareth incongruous. Yet do they ever wonder? How did a mere man, a man unbelievers say was not God and never did anything, ever become the most famous man in history?  Well, the unbelievers are wrong. Jesus did quite a bit, and that is the point of John Ortberg‘s book, Who Is This Man?

In chapter 1, Ortberg begins his book by observing that Jesus did not become famous in any of the usual ways. He was not a conquering general of armies. He was a teacher, but not just a teacher. He was not particularly famous in His lifetime, but He left a church that grew and spread His Gospel.

Made In The Image Of God (Chapter 2)

We live in a nation — in a Christian culture — that believes that we were all made in the image of God. There was a time men did not believe any such thing. Some men, like the emperor or the king, claimed kinship with the gods, but rest of men? No. Some men were thus thought literally better than other men.

Until 2,000 years ago, when Jesus taught about the virtue of humility, the elites did not bridle their pride. In fact, except for those unfortunates at the bottom of the pecking order, most men thought it appropriate to “peck” upon those lower than themselves in the pecking order. Their justification was simple enough.

The king was divine, or semi-divine. The king was understood to be made in the image of the god who created him. Only the king was made in the image of god. This was the dividing line between the king and the rest of the human race. Peasants and slave were not made in the image of god; they were created by inferior gods. (from Chapter 2, page 25)

Jesus taught differently. He said there is only one God, and He made all of us in His image. Jesus destroyed any justification for a pecking order. In Jesus Christ we are all God’s children.

Colossians 3:5-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Because of Jesus, the men who wrote our Declaration of Independence added these words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, (from here)

To be continued


Hillary Clinton's new home? (from here)
Hillary Clinton’s new home? (from here)

In A WORD TO REPLACE “POLITICALLY CORRECT”?, I suggested that we replace the phrase “politically correct” with “obsequious”. Here I will show how we might want to use the word “obsequious”.

At this post, WHY IS VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON MADNESS?, I got a comment from an unhappy Hillary Clinton supporter. Here it is.


When you get a second, poke your head up and outside of your dark little maze of echo chambers here Tom and into the light of the real world.

The Republican Party is in a full scale implosion. Instead of seeking unity, Trump and his rabidly outraged supporters are engaging in a circular firing squad with the establishment of their own party. The math has become almost inexorably on course to make this an Electoral College landslide for Clinton, and the popular vote does not look much better. Trump has no ground game. Republican chances of retaining their Senate majority and strong House majority are being dragged down along with the national tickets.

To move undecideds, Independents, and moderates from both political parties, and to even have a chance to win at this late date, Trump and Trump supporters would need to pivot away from talking about sex and sexism, a topic that has proved absolutely damning for Trump with decent people of any political persuasion, and yet all he and you want to do is talk about sex, sex, sex.

Please keep up the good work Tom. ☺️ (from here)

What follows is my response. Keep in mind that wherever you see some form the word “obsequious” I could just as easily have used some form of the phrase “politically correct”.

Tom’s Response

Well, I suppose I could just obsequiously defer to the infinite wisdom of the news media and give up. After all, news media has rigged the election — I mean “called” the election — so there is no possible way anyone but the most intelligent woman, the most experienced woman, the finest female foreign policy expert of the age can win.

Yeah, this is the year of the woman. There is nothing sexist about Hillary’s campaign. She has never pointed to her genitals and asked women to vote for her just because she is a woman. No, nothing so undignified. Such hypocrisy has nothing to do with Hillary’s campaign. So I suppose I should be politely obsequious and just submit to the pressure of news media tirades.

Still, I have a problem. When Democrats are so absurdly obsessed with the subjects (Here is a local example on the gender neutral bathroom issue => THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT),  I cannot figure out why Democrats keep insisting that Conservatives must obsequiously shut up. Conservatives have to stop talking about sex and sexism so Democrats can do all the talking?

Are Conservatives trying to alter the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions using the courts? No, but Democrats are, and what Democrats doing is voting for people who have no problem breaking their oaths of office.

Our officials are supposed to support and defend both the U.S Constitutions and their state constitutions, not amend them. Therefore, to obsequiously defer to Democrat demands for “sexual equality” (really just sexual fantasies), Conservatives have to go along with oath-breaking. I don’t think my conscience will support that, thank God.

Moreover, Democrats make this same demand for obsequious submission with respect every “social” issue. It is absurd. Isn’t everything Democrats want to spend gobs of money on a social program? Don’t Democrats break both Federal and state government budgets on health, education, and welfare programs, that is, social programs? Nevertheless, Democrats castigate Social Conservatives and laud Fiscal Conservatives, as if there was any such thing as someone who can be fiscally conservative without certain moral standards.

So no, I am not going to obsequiously give up. I will do my part to support Donald Trump and put Hillary in prison instead of  the White House.

PS – I already know Trump is not Conservative, but he is also not Hillary.


branches of governmentHere is a thoughtful email from Delegate Scott Lingamfelter. He sent it out Friday, but I thought it best to hold over for Monday morning.

Scott Lingamfelter

Don’t be Fooled: You’re Actually Electing a Government

This is a bit long, but I hope you will take time to read it.  I think it’s important.

People have said to me, “Good grief, we have 320 million people in the US and look at the choices we have for President!”

True.  On the one hand we have a fellow, Donald Trump, who is brash, outspoken, politically incorrect, and one of the most successful businessmen in the US.  On the other hand, we have a person, Hillary Clinton, who is contemptuous of the military, thinks Americans aren’t smart enough to manage their own lives, wants to raise taxes even when the economy is growing at an anemic 1%, was a horrible Secretary of State, and jeopardizes our national secrets with an illegal email system (and then lies about it to your face).  But worst of all, she has become wealthy by duping money out of Clinton Foundation donors or through pay-to-play schemes using her government position to give access to those donors for their support of her political objectives.

Trump’s and Clinton’s view of foreign policy, the economy, jobs, the role of government, and the Supreme Court could not be more different.  It’s a stark contrast.  A brash outsider vs. a corrupt insider.  He insults.  She lies.  He says what he’s thinking instead of thinking what he’s saying.  She says what she thinks you want to hear and thinks what she says is truth, even when it isn’t.  His mind “arcs” from one politically controversial comment or thought to another.  Her mind “short circuits”, her way of justifying her lies.

Moreover, Clinton’s view is that if you’re supporting Trump, somehow you are a “deplorable” person at best and filled with “implicit racism” at worst.  This is an insult to all Americans, and it says a lot about how Clinton will approach the Presidency: with a smug moral superiority that says she is better and far smarter than the rest of us.  She isn’t.

Which brings me to this point.  You may be in a place where you are not happy with either candidate.  I understand.  But you need to remember this.  We’re not just voting for a person; we’re voting for an administration.

Much in the same way that a parliamentary system “votes-in a government” that will control the policy of the country, maybe we should look at this strange election through that lens.

Trump has chosen a strong, effective, and conservative governor in Mike Pence to be his Vice President; which is a good indication of the kind of solid people he will choose for his cabinet. And don’t be fooled, we’re not only voting for a Vice President, but also a cabinet; the senior people who will run the government, the administration that will choose judges, the policies that will be ended or begun, and the executive structure that will work with or oppose Congress.  We are voting for an administration in the fullest sense of the word.

A Trump or Clinton administration will take dramatically different paths.

  • He has made clear that he will work with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Federalists Society in choosing Supreme Court nominees.  She will depend on the likes of left-looney Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to pick judges.
  • He will lower taxes, Clinton will raise them.
  • He will take on ISIS, she will be as weak as she was as Secretary of State.
  • He will grow jobs; she will grow government.
  • He will shift power back to the states. She will create a vortex of power from state capitols to Washington.
  • He will be about us; she will be about her.

That’s what their respective administrations will look like, folks.  So as you consider the choices, think beyond the two candidates before us.  Because who we elect will have a bigger impact than you may think beyond their personalities.  You are electing an entire government. In that regard, this election may be the first that is truly about an entire approach to government, an administration.  Don’t forget that when you ponder what to do in November.

Share this with a friend and VOTE!



bad economySome time back I got the itch to write WHEN ECONOMISTS BECOME THE COURT MAGICIANS — PART 1. With the title I promised there would be a Part 2. So here it is. Why the lack of enthusiasm? Well, I don’t see economics as a dismal science, but I do weary of pointless argument.

Consider. Here of late I have had a debate (see here, here, and here) with Stephen. wants to redesign our entire socioeconomic system. He is smart, but he has a warped understanding of the purpose of government and how economics works. He has a very limited understanding of that thing we call money. He equates interest with usury. What can I say that would change his mind? I don’t know, but I have tried.

Am I an expert on economics? No, I am not. I actually wonder if there is such a thing.

Ask five economists and you’ll get five different answers – six if one went to Harvard. (from here) Edgar R. Fiedler

Instead of promoting my expertise in economics, I am just writing to observe that we don’t know enough to identify an “expert” we should trust as much as the ones are trusting. Look at how we “manage” our economy. How many of us voters even have a clue as to what the “experts” are doing? Let’s see what we know about fiscal and monetary policy.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy is the more transparent of the two policies.

Fiscal policy is when our government uses its spending and taxing powers to have an impact on the economy. The combination and interaction of government expenditures and revenue collection is a delicate balance that requires good timing and a little bit of luck to get it right. The direct and indirect effects of fiscal policy can influence personal spending, capital expenditure, exchange rates, deficit levels and even interest rates, which are usually associated with monetary policy. (from here)

According to some “experts”, Congress is supposed to exercise control over the economy thru taxes and spending. Instead of taxing us and spending our money just to do what the Federal Government is supposed to do, according to some economists  “good” fiscal policy requires Congress to also tax and spend to regulate economic growth. Somehow or another government spending is supposed to stimulate economic growth and taxes are supposed to bring economic growth under control.

As a practical matter,  Congress tends to use “good” fiscal policy as an excuse to tax and spend to excess. So we are in debt up to our ears. Congress has wasted huge sums that undoubtedly would have been better spent by the people who earned that money in the first place.

Want a “good” laugh? Check out some of these quotes on fiscal policy.

Monetary Policy

Almost everyone is familiar with the expression “Federal Reserve“, but what does the Fed do? Here is a brief description.

The “Fed” is an independent agency, one that is self-funded (see here). The Fed is a powerful group of economists, “experts” who regulate the banking industry. We routinely hear the Fed’s latest announcement of the Fed funds rate. The other thing we hear from the Fed these days is its latest announcement of quantitative easing. That’s a fancy way of saying the Fed is electronically “printing money” out of thin air. These two activities are the most visible aspects of the Fed’s role in monetary policy, that is, controlling the money supply.

Since the Fed also supervises and regulates banking institutions, the Fed does stuff in the background that only the financial experts notice. These activities relate to the risky nature of fractional reserve banking.

Fractional reserve banking is a banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties. Many U.S. banks were forced to shut down during the Great Depression because too many people attempted to withdraw assets at the same time. (from here)

Not enough money in the vault? That is called a bank run. The bankers want us to believe that that problem is not real. I guess it depends upon one’s point-of-view. What if you want your money, and the bank says you cannot have it?

Audit the Fed

The Fed is one of the Federal Government’s most powerful institutions. It operates as an independent agency.  Some people think the Fed is too independent and needs to be audited so we can find out what it is doing. That proposal has created considerable controversy. Partly, that is because the Fed is already audited to some extent. The issue is that not everything is audited, and what is not audited is actually quite important.

Bottom Line

Our experiments in fiscal and monetary policy have failed.

  • We do not have a fiscal policy, and it is doubtful whether such a policy would be moral. Why should the government spend other people’s money to stimulate the economy? The idea doesn’t even make sense. We cannot spend our own money? Our elected officials just want to spend and spend and tax and tax. Fiscal policy is just another excuse. Unnecessary Federal Government spending diverts capital and human resources into low priority or even unnecessary projects and programs. Most Federal Government spending now goes into Social Security and Medicare. The Constitution does not even charter the Federal Government to spend money on such programs, but these programs serve to bribe voters old enough to know better.
  • Our fiscal policy is also a dubious enterprise. The Fed exists to prop up fractional reserve banking, a dubious practice that most likely would have been replaced with something less risky without government interference. In addition, the Fed works to “hide” Congress’ huge deficits by manipulating the currency and the banking industry. This puts unelected officials in control of huge sums of money, officials who can operate in relative secrecy. That is just a recipe for thievery and other sorts of trouble.

So what is the alternative? We probably ought to try reading our Constitution and doing what it says. Most of the government in this country is supposed to be at the state and local level. The Constitution does not empower the Federal Government  stimulate or regulate economic growth. The Federal Government was supposed to borrow money, if needed, and to regulate interstate commerce to keep the states from interfering in interstate commerce. In addition, the Constitution says the Federal Government is supposed to coin money.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (from Article. I., Section. 8)

How did we get from that to the Federal Reserve?

The bottom line is we need to elect Donald Trump. Will he get rid of the Fed? Probably not, but who knows what might happen if we thoroughly audit it?