Last week, on 21 September, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve System issued a press release.  The second paragraph reads,

Measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability.  With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time before rising to levels the Committee considers consistent with its mandate.

Just a couple of hours later, I attended a seminar hosted by the Nashville Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.  The speaker was Michael F. Bryan, vice president and senior economist in the research department of the FRB Atlanta.  He explained the FOMC statement, but I never got past the double-speak.

The Fed believes that it has a "mandate" to encourage inflation and thereby promoting "maximum employment and price stability."  The question raised in my mind is, How does inflation equal price stability?

Reference was made to a speech given before the National Economists Club on 11 November 2002 by Ben Bernanke entitled, "Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here." (full text here)

Apparently the only thing the FED fears worse than prices that don't go up, is prices that go down.  The solution to all our problems according to Bernanke is...print more money.

It would be wonderful if we all had a printing press to solve our every desire both great and small, but we are bound to live by the productivity of our own hands.  The Empire operates on a different system-it creates the means to spend out of thin air.

More of the green paper available for the same amount of goods means that the price of the goods goes up - that is inflation!  More paper means the paper is worth less.

How does inflation equal price stability?  Sorry, but I just can't find the answer.  Maybe I'm just not sound enough in my reasoning...or perhaps, it just ain't so!

From Solitude,
David O Jones

In reading Economics in One Lesson again, I am amazed at what a jewel this little book is.  Henry Hazlitt was truly a teacher of the first magnitude!

I have given copies of this book away to home educators for over fifteen years, but in the course of those years forgotten just how much information in packed into so few words.  I will continue to give copies of it away with a renewed enthusiasm for its content.

Each chapter focuses on a different topic, such as Taxes Discourage Production, Disbanding Troops and Bureaucrats, Saving the X Industry, and Minimum Wage Laws.  All are only five to a dozen pages long and so arranged as to make even the most difficult concepts simple to understand.

At the end of a chapter on "Stabilizing" Commodities, Hazlitt writes:

...if the planners succeed in tying up the idea of international cooperation with the idea of increased State domination and control over economic life, the international controls of the future seem only too likely to follow the pattern of the past, in which case the plain man's living standards will decline with his liberties.

Every action of the government to manipulate the economy will eventually affect every citizen.  Nothing can be done in a vacuum and every area of the economy is ultimately linked to every other area of the economy.  Any government action which benefits one will penalize another.

If you are serious about living in a truly free society, you need to read Economics in One Lesson.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

The Nashville Tennessean reports that this Sunday, seven Tennessee pastors will "bait" the IRS by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. (see the article here)  The Alliance Defense Fund based in Arizona had encouraged approximately one hundred pastors nationwide to do so this Sunday.

The ADF has apparently previously sent audio or videotape of sermons to the IRS with no response other than a standard response of restating IRS rules for exemption.

Seems to me the IRS is doing a good job of bluffing!  Their rules state that "a church" cannot make an endorsement of a candidate.  A pastor can do his personal endorsements all day long and it does not violate their rules.  But the IRS doesn't like to make any clarification when they already have 99.9 percent of white pastors groveling in fear of jail time. 

It would seem to be a simple procedure to gets the facts before reacting.  This all reminds me of the annual eMail (it used to come by snail mail) that we must all write/eMail the FCC because the atheist Madelyn Murray OHare is trying to get all religious broadcasting banned from the airwaves (even though she has been dead for nearly two decades)!  Uninformed minds are a certainty to make for really stupid action.  And that is something the Church just doesn't have enough of.

The pastoral reaction to IRS intimidation certainly doesn't remind one of Daniel's confidence in divine protection as he was lowered into the lions' den.  Haven't any of these profits (certainly not prophets) noticed that black pastors make endorsements all the time?  They are not disciplined by the IRS not because they are black (or liberal), but because they haven't broken any rules in the first place!

So this Sunday a total of SEVEN Tennessee pastors will enter their pulpits and display their bravery in the face of the Empire by doing what the Empire already allows them to do.

O Lord, please look favorably upon You Church and bless us with pastors who are both wise and brave.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

Last evening I heard Tennessee gubernatorial candidate Mike McWherter give a campaign pitch to the Nashville Chapter of the Tennessee Firearms Association.  He tried desperately to prove he was a supporter of the Second Amendment (because he is a member of the NRA and hunts), but when pressed could not give his interpretation or understanding of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

McWherter stated support of a ban of guns where alcohol is served revealing his obvious lack of knowledge that carry permit holders are prohibited from drinking while carrying. 

He also did not know what the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act" was. Even though he had been questioned about it months earlier, he had not bothered to research the issue or read the law, but immediately asserted that every gun ought to be registered.

My question was of a different nature and is stated here:

Tennessee used to be known as the "Hog & Hominy State," but not it is recognized as one of the most heavily regulated states in the Union.  A number of the most profitable farm products (such as milk, beef, eggs and pork) cannot be sold direct to the consumer.  A family with 10 acres and a small dairy herd could gross over $100,000 per year, yet Tennessee's Department of Agriculture and the Tennessee Farm Bureau have put the small farmer out of business.  Will you support the elimination of Tennessee's agricultural regulations?

After having earlier extolled his virtues as a farmer and small businessman, McWherter claimed not to know of any restrictive regulations.  After some brief comments back and forth, he never answered the question to any degree of satisfaction.

Looks like November will be a good time for a vacation.  We certainly have no acceptable candidate for Governor of Tennessee.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

I am constantly amazed at the utter lack of knowledge possessed by elected officials at every level of civil government.  I sincerely doubt that more than one out of a thousand have within the last year read a single book about economics or the philosophy of government.  Yet they will freely make the most appalling decisions about your finances and your business in an instant.

Decided recently to re-read a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.  It is a classic in every sense of the word.  First printed in 1946, it has never been out of print.  It contains twenty-five chapters of absolute precious truth.

I can be rather confident in saying that no one in the past several administrations of the Columbian Empire has ever read it...or paid attention to what they read.  As proof, I offer a portion of a paragraph from Chapter VI.

The advocates of government-guaranteed mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A.  Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise.  They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses.  They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford.  They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things.  They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion.  In brief, in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment.

Nuf said.  We have problems because those running the show are uninformed idiots.  We have those idiots creating the problems because Joe Plumber won't get off his throne long enough to learn anything himself.  Joe enjoys electing politicians whose education stopped at "How to Get Elected."

Give me a people yearning to be free.  Give me a people who will not be satisfied with a diploma, but desire to be educated.  Then we will have a Free Tennessee.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

P.S. Economics in One Lesson can be ordered from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

We have come to the point in our culture in which practically every problem is countered with the question, "What is the government going to do about it?" or with the statement, "There ought to be a law!"  Down to the most mundane and minute problem, most people expect the "government" to fix it.

Most recently, we have been faced with major abuse of the financial markets - the government "fixed" it.  We have been assaulted with disastrous unemployment - the government is fixing it.  We are challenged with run-away medical costs - the government "fixed" it.

Interestingly, closer observation will show that the great majority of our problems are the result of government fixing some previous problem, which was the unintended consequence of an earlier fix to an even earlier problem, which was the unintended consequence of an earlier fix to an even earlier problem, which was ... well, you get the idea!

In the book Unmasking The Sacred Lies, author Paul A. Cleveland offers a question and answer:

What are the sacred lies?  The first, and biggest lie, is the notion that the institution of government is capable of successfully and adequately addressing all human problems. 

Why have people accepted the BIG LIE?

The process of embracing the sacred lies came about in two ways.  Some people actively promoted and perpetuated them because they materially benefited from them.  ...Most people, however, come to embrace the lies in a misguided fashion. ...They are largely ignorant of the political process and are too busy with their own affairs to devote time to understanding the problems associated with collectivist action.

President Lincoln introduced effective centralization of the economy in Washington, but it was the Congressional response to the plight of mid-western farmers in the 1880s which became the tipping point.  In 1887, the Imperial Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to control railroad use.  Ever since, the solution to any problem has been the creation of a commission, an agency, a department, or a service.

We must reverse the process if we as a people ever expect to regain our liberty.  But "sunset" provisions are rarely heeded, if ever established in the first place.  The only real solution is the positive action of the legislatures of the Sovereign States to interpose themselves between the Columbian Empire and the citizens of the States.

We need legislators who will actively promote a Free Tennessee.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

We are constantly bombarded with the assertion that we live in the "land of the free."  Is it really true, or is it the BIG LIE which is believed only because it is repeated so often?

Over fifty years ago in 1956, Cecil B. DeMille introduced his new film, The Ten Commandments to the world.  In his remarks, he said,

The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God's laws or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Rameses.  Are men the property of the State or are they free souls under God?  This same battle continues throughout the world today.

Yes, the same battle continues today.  There are many within the Empire who truly believe that every living being, every raw object, and everything manufactured or built belongs under their jurisdiction.

In the seat of the Columbian Empire (Washington, DC), there is an agency for everything under the sun.  Each exists for the purpose of promoting and propagating their ideals, and planning and perpetrating their sanctions upon the public...all, of course, for our protection from ourselves.

Because the change has been so gradual and because every little bit of our liberty has been given up to a good argument, we have become the property of the State.

The Israelites may have been uncomfortable as slaves in Egypt, but at least they knew they were slaves, today very few Americans can see their shackles.  We have become blinded to the chains which bind us because we are allowed to vote for our masters.

As I was growing up, the adults (and even the media) around me would comment on the foolishness of Russians voting for candidates who were part of "the system" and would never make anything better.  They were believing in a BIG LIE.

I wonder who is commenting on us today?

I remain in favour of a Free Tennessee.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

Not since Rick Warren's inaugural prayer to every pagan god under the sun have I heard such sniveling from so many Christians.  The men who would burn the Koran are making a legitimate statement that it is NOT a "word of God" but rather the fanciful rantings of a madman.  Our Lord Jesus Christ is more than able to protect and defend those who will stand for TRUTH.

Unfortunately, standing for truth is not a popular nor common event in our day and age.  We have become much too familiar with the droning waffling of politicians and businessmen who don't want to lose a vote or a sale.

And preachers usually lead the pack in side-stepping a confrontation with truth.  Let a single parishioner complain about some point in a sermon and it goes away the next time.  A pastor who I overwise respect made a statement a couple years ago while preaching that Christians need to get out of the statist school system because their presence only props up its corruption.  I purchased a CD of the sermon, only to find out that it was a recording of the second service's sermon which did not include his bold call to righteousness.  Someone got to him between services...maybe someone with deep pockets (we were in the middle of a building program at the time).

Congratulations to those who will stand for TRUTH, even when it is unpopular.  When alive, those people are "troublesome."  When dead, they are heroes and martyrs.

From Solitude,
David O Jones
.

I sometimes wonder why there seems to be such a malaise among those around me when there is any discussion of our political/economic situation, what got us here, and how we can be delivered.  My answer came as I viewed once again the video series How Should We Then Live? by Francis A. Schaeffer (available from AmericanVision.org).

Concerning our culture, he stated,

As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence.

Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city-to live one's life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed.  Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren.  Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity-a life made up of things, things, and more things-a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.

Schaeffer was describing the conditions which prevailed in the 1950's and 60's and which produced the counter-culture of the 1960's and '70s.  Schaeffer died 15 May 1984, so he never saw the tremendous rise in attention to personal affluence which crested in the late 1980s and 90s.  He wasn't a prophet, just an astute observer of world cultural history.

When driving along the rural roads of Tennessee, I am intrigued by the number of high-end pickup trucks and fishing boats parked in front of modest houses.  It is also interesting to see the high percentage of satellite TV receivers on the sides of mobile (manufactured) homes.

Why should anyone be concerned about experiencing a swift slide into an earthly hell when we have the MBA, ABL, NFL, and NHL to entertain us?

In a recent survey of why young people join the military, the dominant response was not "to defend my country."  Young people from both rural and urban areas join the military hoping to either "get out" of where they grew up or to get money for an education so they can "get out" of where they grew up.

There is no thought toward the future in either of these groups (adult or youth) above.  What happens to their children and grandchildren is nothing more than a fleeting thought.

When a person loses their hope for any personal future, they die.  When a culture loses its expectant vision of a future, it collapses.

We must have more than a simple Christian revival, there must be a return to Biblical ethics and Biblical cultural mores.

For a Free Tennessee.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

Yesterday (2nd Sept) The Times (London) published an extract from Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design. Hannah Devlin's article begins as follows:

Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain's most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no".

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," he finds.

With all due respect to Mr. Hawking, there is a serious and simple flaw in his argument.  He says, "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."  But when Hawking says, "nothing," he doesn't mean NOTHING.  Rather, he begins his theory with the assumption that matter itself was preexistent. 

Without matter there is no spontaneous anything.  But even if matter were preexistent, the mathematical probability of a spontaneous big bang is so small that it defies both reason and logic. 

A couple of years ago, I read a book by Dr. Richard A. Swenson, More Than Meets the Eye.  Chapter after chapter reviews different aspects of nature which completely contradict the possibility of evolution being anything more than a fanciful fantasy for those who have willfully chosen to deny the reality of the God who is there.

Recognizing the reality of creation is the first step to being able to recognize Truth.  And without the ability to recognize Truth, there is no ability to rule with justice.  Therein lies the problem with the Empire.  Those who deny Reality and Truth will never be anything more than tyrants.  And tyranny is the only manner of rule which the Empire knows.

From Solitude,
David O Jones

Most who read this blog are familiar with the fact that I support and promote home education.  Besides the obvious positive advantage for familial relationships, it is a one-on-one style of education which gives the greatest opportunity for learning.

Another unrelated aspect of home education is that it is a legitimate and specific expression of personal secession from the Empire.  The educational establishment is becoming more and more Machiavellian as the years go by.  While education a hundred and fifty years ago was centered in the local community, education is now directed from the District of Columbia-state officials now have very little latitude in schooling.  Local schools are manipulated from "experts" completely removed from the reality of teaching children.

Because of their absence from reality, the orchestrators of today's public (make that statist) education have no concept of the personal nature of learning.  This filters down to the local levels.  An article of an Orwellian nature was pointed out by an Arkansas friend committed to home education.  It seems that the Contra Costa County (California) school district is outfitting their preschoolers with tracking devices.

When at the school, students will wear a jersey that has a small radio frequency tag. The tag will send signals to sensors that help track children's whereabouts, attendance and even whether they've eaten or not.

When the "teachers" at a school have such a high degree of attention deficit that they cannot keep track of their classroom (? 20? to 30? students?) the system is completely bankrupt...intellectually AND morally.

School officials say it will free up teachers and administrators who previously had to note on paper files when a child was absent or had eaten.

When "teachers and administrators" lack the ability or desire to make a check-mark on a list of thirty or less names, why should they be paid?  Mommas don't need tracking devices to know where their children are.  As a teenager, I remember being consistently amazed that as I walked in the back door of the farmhouse, my mother already knew where I'd been and what I'd done.

Tennesseans might say that placing tracking devices on school children would never happen here, but remember ...what begins on the Left Coast always sweeps the continent.

Let's go ahead and individually secede from as much of the Empire's system as we possibly can.  We will not only be beginning the trek toward liberty, but our children will be safer as well. 

Give me a free Tennessee, but most of all give me free Tennesseans!

From Solitude,
David O Jones