You are hereWhy I Hope Obama Wins

Why I Hope Obama Wins

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By TheIdealNate - Posted on 29 March 2008

by Nathan Dubois
This election year is turning into the most complicated and gut wrenching year I have ever seen for many socially conservative Christians. As far as I can tell, the three remaining candidates that have any shot at winning are all social liberals, making a vote by conservatives who have the guts to follow their conscience, a vote of protest. More than likely through voting third party. This should spell a loss for the Republicans. This year more than any has left me hoping that is exactly the case. The death of social conservative ideals within the Republican party has finally hit it's climax. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected that hard line stance on abortion, homosexual rights, and the illegal immigration issue. So if this is the year they lose power completely, so be it.This election year is turning into the most complicated and gut wrenching year I have ever seen for many socially conservative Christians. As far as I can tell, the three remaining candidates that have any shot at winning are all social liberals, making a vote by conservatives who have the guts to follow their conscience, a vote of protest. More than likely through voting third party. This should spell a loss for the Republicans. This year more than any has left me hoping that is exactly the case. The death of social conservative ideals within the Republican party has finally hit it's climax. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected that hard line stance on abortion, homosexual rights, and the illegal immigration issue. So if this is the year they lose power completely, so be it.

Now is the time to explain my statement above. My conscience may not allow me to vote for any of the three strong candidates, but my heart hopes that of those three that even have a shot, that we find Barack Obama in the White House next January. I would have a hard time voting for him because he does not view abortion as murder in the strictest sense, and therefore sides with the "rights" of the mother to murder her child. He also views the homosexual agenda akin to the plight of black America, as a discrimination issue that is unfairly restricting the rights of gays in society. He unfortunately fails to see that blacks are born that way, and therefore holding them in a lower status in society is evil and ignorant, but that homosexuals are choosing to behave socially deviant and dangerously to society, and therefore holding them out of the same class and benefit status of married men and women is not only legitimate, but necessary. We need to respect the differences of color and treat people equally, but we are not bound to support and reward deviant social behavior.

The other side of this dilemma is this. We who are social conservatives and patriots tend to love our forefath3ers who created this nation. Men like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, etc. These men were imperfect but I guarantee you many Christians would vote for them in an instant. This being said, many of those men were slave owners. Many Christians were involved in the process of politics during our nations founding and slavery continued to exist. Slavery was actually practiced by some of these men today's Christians heroize. We make exceptions for them because we have the high end sight to acknowledge the difficulties of the day and the complications of their time. Knowing not all slave owners were evil men, we see the culture was under the oppression of that disease.

Today's disease is abortion. We can hold to the only major party that votes pro-life using our one "litmus test" issue, yet we are not accurately viewing today what we can so clearly see in our founders 200+ years ago. The climate will not allow abortion abolition. Period. We have had, over the last 28 years, 20 years of Republican, pro-life Presidents. We have not made a dent on the pro-life issue. This sin against humanity and God will not be solved by votes and one man in the bully pulpit of the Presidency. To believe this is becoming another delusional ideal of the modern church. God demands justice for these types of sins. We won't escape it so easily as getting a new President who solves the problem with one appointed judge. Besides, weren't the two appointments by Bush supposed to already take over the Supreme Court in a 5-4 conservative majority? Where is the ban on partial birth abortion?

No, Christians. The Republicans are not the answer to abortions evil. God's impending justice is (anyone remember the civil war and reconstruction from history class?) We will not get out of this so easily. That being said, what the Republicans HAVE done is destroy our nation in many different ways through corporate greed, neo-conservative/Zionist ideology, and one heck of a superiority complex.

That said, here is why I want Barack Obama to win:

My #1 Issue is the Iraq War

Defending this war is defenseless. The Right cannot excuse the invasion anymore. Now the defense of the war is in an effort to make sure we at least “win." Now that we have been duped, and we are between a rock and a hard place, they play on our pride to not "let the terrorist win" or to "support our troops." It has become a political ploy to let those who got us into this mess continue gaining power and money. They have been defenseless for some time and the only thing they can do to keep the people allowing this war to continue is to appeal to a false sense of patriotism and scare them into believing that pulling out of Iraq would somehow make us more vulnerable.

Here are the major holes in their argument.

First: There have only been two major attacks on the United States by our enemies in 50 years. Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. Some minor threats by terrorists have occurred around the world and even here, but they were relatively harmless. We have had more casualties by domestic terrorists in our own land than by Islamic extremists. Jones' poison, Waco's massacre, and Oklahoma City are some examples. Not to mention the Uni-Bomber. So the fact that there has been no attacks by Islamic terrorists in the 6.5 years since 9/11 is an irrelevant point. We did not average attacks every 6.5 years or less by Islamic terrorists even before the Iraq war.

Second: Using the flawed logic I exposed above, they claim we are keeping the terrorists occupied in Iraq so that they will not come here. Again, there is no proof they are keeping them from coming here. 6.5 years is not enough time to make that call. The fact is, the terrorists we are fighting there are not made from a limited supply of Muslims that are slowly running out as we kill them in Iraq. Instead, they are not only being grown, trained and brainwashed to kill us here, but now we have them being grown, trained and brainwashed to kill some of the over 100,000 Americans in the Middle East. We have CREATED more terrorists by going over there and fighting in Iraq unjustifiably. Not diminished them. They train more for two fronts, not less for one front.

Third: I agree with Pat Buchanan. A war against terrorism without a face cannot be won by soldiers. They always end up winning as history shows (in his book "Where the Right Went Wrong.") Sooner or later we will resign to the fact that Iraq will remain a war zone of some type forever, as the Middle East has for over 2000 years, or we will realize that pulling the troops out is the only way to keep more troops from dying. The fact is 4000 troops have already died in vain. In vain means "for no good reason." If it was not to prevent Sadaam from using weapons of mass destruction, if it is not to keep our country safer or keep the terrorists occupied, which I showed is faulty logic, then pulling out now makes only 4000 die in vain, rather than the 5, 6, and 7000 that may die in vain before those in Washington get the point.

My limit is 4000. That is why Barack Obama is the right man for this issue.

My #2 Issue is the "Patriot Act" ("Movement Toward Fascism" Act)

Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and countless other founding fathers would role over in their graves and mourn for the nation that has lost it's way if they new about this. This act has led to an assault on our rights in many other ways as in the cell phone records issue and Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Ben Franklin "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Thomas Jefferson "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. "

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "

Thomas Paine "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Let's think about an example of what happened in 9/11. Of all the people that died, and of all the places that were attacked, which plane was unsuccessful and why? Who was responsible for protecting citizens and the government? Was it our all knowing President and his military staff? Was it the pedestal standing police force? No, it was the citizen, empowered by free flowing media and free market telephones provided by big business looking to turn profits. They acted to a situation, not reacted. They had the power and ability. Not Uncle Sam. Citizens stepped up and took Thomas Jefferson’s words to new heights.

Sorry folks, the way to protect people in America is not to throw away the First Amendment. It is not to hold "suspected" terrorists without bail, indefinitely, to be tortured. It is not forcing public companies into giving up private phone records with immunity. It is not more safe to have Big Brother monitor our every move.
First, it is impossible for them to do so. The tax dollars, the personnel needed, the equipment needed. The secrecy and ability to become tyrannical and pervert justice without the checks and balances of the media will destroy this nation. It has already weakened this nation. If we can throw out the First Amendment without 2/3 majority vote in Congress and a ruling by the Supreme Court, we have already become tyrannical.
The fact is the Act was passed while the First Amendment still stands. In the name of fear we have given up freedom to Big Brother. Someone who has proved in able to protect themselves without the help of the media and free citizen. Who is right. George W. Bush or Thomas Jefferson.

If Barack Obama can get this repealed, he is the winner on my #2 issue as well.

My #3 issue is Abortion

I have already addressed this issuer above, but I have not actually ripped the Republicans like I should have. Yet, inability to do anything in 20 out of 28 years, a Republican majority for two years, and more conservative Supreme Court has done nothing to help the anti-abortion, pro-life cause.
Why?
Because the Republicans want the sole hold on this issue. They will not give up the conservative vote so easily. If there is ANY chance that the Democrats would have actually support a ban on partial birth abortion, and therefore save some face in the circles of the conservatives, then the Republicans will find a way top make their own attempts fail.

How? Listen to Obama on this issue from a Q&A session he had in Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?s...
"Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies. Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk."

Now as I said before, it is clear Obama does not hold to the strict sense of the issue that abortion is murder, but with the compromise he is willing to make to outlaw late term abortion as long as there is a health of the mother clause, and him being the most liberal of the candidates, why has nothing passed? Millions could be saved!!
I will tell you why again. It is as I said above. Any compromise, even to save millions of babies, will not be made by the Republicans. They will hold to the most radical law only, rather than give ground. Instead of starting at the beginning and saving millions by allowing a "health of the mother" clause, they would rather save no one.
The pro-lifer elite will say that this is because no late-term issues ever arise which force a mother and doctor to actually choose. GREAT! Then allow the clause! Because the situation will barely, if ever, arise!

So the pro-lifers respond, "But we are allowing a loop hole where this can continue!" To which I say that it is better to start small, attack the fabric of the heart of the individual in the nation little by little. If lawmakers start with a partial ban, the people will start to view some abortion as a crime. This may, in the long term, help resurrect the "when life begins" debate. With some abortions outlawed, and millions saved, we at least starting somewhere.

So, due to the ability to compromise and begin small, set aside party lines and save some, Barack beats even the most staunch pro-life politicians who refused to include a clause out of the need to maintain their base and continue partisan politics. So more babies are dying, because of the Right's politics trumping their beliefs.

My #4 and #5 issue is The Economy and Health Care

This goes hand in hand with the war. We are in a horrible bind because of the military industrial complex, banking greed, war mongering neo-cons, and self-righteous politicians. Again, the Republicans get this wrong.
I ask you one question, is it better to spend a trillion dollars on a war that kills American troops and Middle Eastern people or to spend that same money on affordable college tuition, health care for minors, better educational facilities, etc. The same self-righteous people who think and believe it is NEVER the governments job to help the poor out of a jam, or assist parents in providing medical care for their families, are the same people that have no problem keeping porous borders open, spend a trillion dollars on killing, and earn billions of profit in oil company revenue while we pay four to five a gallon as projected in the next year or so.

Oh yea, and this is the pro-life party.
Those same politicians blame the housing crisis on individuals. It is the individuals fault they do not read every fine print of a mortgage document that is over 60 pages long. it is the average Joe's fault that they believed the lenders that the market will only keep getting better, so if you can project five years ahead of time and believe you can afford a 30 year fixed then, go ahead, no, we encourage you to take a negative amortized loan. With the equity rise and the rates low, you will be able to refinance or sell at a profit no problem. It has been proven, and personal experience that I have had shows that lenders and brokers fudge income numbers (ie. commit fraud), created negative amortized loans soley for the purpose of individuals getting caught and being forced to sell in a market that was going up so that the banks could do the cycle over again, etc. The lenders and banks created an impossible situation, gambled on the market so that in the short term they could make mega profits, and intentionally deceived the average, non lawyer, high school graduate into a purchase they could never afford.

I do not only blame the banks, I blame the real estate agents, the appraisers who intentionally inflated the market, and the individual. yes, the individual. It is still ultimately the responsibility of the person to make the responsible choice, not the market gambling one. However, the powers that be are the ones with the money, legal experience, economical outlook, and oil salesmen tactics.

The Republicans would rather make billions in profit than lower oil costs and mandate alternative fuel production and blame the average citizen over the "slick oil salesmen." Funny, I thought there were consumer protection laws on purpose. Are we back in the 1800's? Barack Obama, who has less pork barrel and large corporation contributions than Hillary wins this issue. he can be trusted to remain separate from the influence of the corporations than any of the other. McCain would watch the nation drown from a self-righteous perch, while spending billions on the killing machine instead. Barack wants to lower State college tuition and give tax breaks to students. He wants to insure every minor, but leave the adults to chose for themselves. Last but not least, he wants to invest in alternative fuels and make us energy independent.

Obama wins my #4 and #5 issue.

So, I am in a dilemma. I see myself getting closer to that line daily. What will I do? It is tempting to break my longstanding third party or rare Republican voting record so that I can help ensure the war ends, the poor in this country are worth more than killing others, and move past partisan politics.
You tell me?
God Bless
Nate

tess's picture

I don't believe God pronounces judgment on whole societies anymore. We're in a new heaven and earth. Every person is dealt with individually now in their own heart. It would be useless for Him to judge a group of people.

James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us."

OSTRALOA's picture

PP Readers,

By the way, good comments Ed. I want to say that Congressman Ron Paul's book entitled "The Revolution" is due out this month. It was a pre-publication no. 3 on Amazon's best seller list.

You will find it in the same vein as Congressman Lindbergh's, "The Economic Pinch" or his "Banking, Currency & the Money Trust". These books earned the wrath of Pres. Woodrow Wilson after he signed the IRS and the Federal Reserve into law. Angered him so much he ordered government treasury agents to raid Lindbergh's publisher the National Press Club and break his book plates.

Don't think they can do that today, but I am sure they would like to in their hatred of Ron Paul. Like I said and as Lindbergh warned almost a hundred years ago, the international money trust will break the nation. It did once in the 1930's and it is at it again. There is more than principal at stake here, it's for the sake of the country and for our families. We have our opportunity God has given now...

VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN 08'!!!

In Christ,

Paul Anderson

tom-g's picture

Paul,

As you can see from my response to Ed above, Ron Paul is a one world advocate as a candidate for the Presidency.

It is interesting that you would continually allude to Lindbergh, for if there is anything he was not, he was not a one worlder. Lindbergh's nationalist, protectionist and isolationist philosophies are so well documented that I question how or why you would attempt to equate his policies with the libertarian one worldism policies of Ron Paul.

Tom

OSTRALOA's picture

PP Readers,

I cannot quite believe I am basically agreeing with something Ed has said here on anything but here it goes.

What I cannot believe even more is that anyone here would actually fathom voting for anyone else other than Ron Paul. He is still in the race and on the ballot in all 50 states. He is the only none CFR member and the only one to come clean on the IRS and the FED and what this no win war in the Middle East is all about. No Skull & Bones in his closet either. He is a honest committed Christian. Just try reading the recent columns posted by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on the net like his "What is Up With All these Clueless Christians?".

Make your choice. We have not had such a man of courage in Congress since Congressman Charles Lindbergh of MN and we are asking which is the lesser of three evils to vote for? How about vote on principal America rather than polls or which candidate the one worlders say to vote for. I will be upon my own return to the US soon Lord willing. Blessings.

VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN 08'!!!

In Christ,

Paul Anderson

tom-g's picture

Hey Paul,

I agree with you we ought to vote on principle. If it is not for a one-worlder then it would be for, perish the evil thought, a NATIONALIST (that's such an ugly word I almost couldn't print it).

And if we are opposed to outsourcing all of our high paying jobs and unlimited illegal immigration, then that would mean we would vote for a PR----------- (that word is so vile and ugly I just couldn't bring myself to print it).

Can you imagine that, a President of the U.S. whose first concern is his own country and the protection of his own workers and nation's economy? A patriotic, protectionist, isolationist American President? Where are the four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore when you need them?

That sure let's out Ron Paul though doesn't it?
Tom

Ed's picture

Are you saying that Ron Paul is a protectionist? Or am I misreading you?

Ron Paul is hardly a protectionist. Have you actually read his position on Free Trade? While he certainly disagrees with NAFTA (a governmental agreement that rewards certain industries, while condemning others), he has maintained from the beginning of his political career that individuals (that would be you and me) should have the right to trade freely with anyone we so choose. That's called Libertarian Free Markets.

In re: to his immigration stand. He certainly is against illegal immigration, but only because it is "illegal." Ron Paul would support as many immigrants entering this country LEGALLY as we could possibly handle, for he knows, as does any free market capitalist, that "the more the merrier." IOW, the more people in an economy, the more wealth that can be created.

Wealth creation is the main reason he is against the Federal Reserve. Their inflationary policies mitigate against wealth creation by devaluing the common man's dollars, while the rich, who can afford real estate, gold, silver, platinum, and any other hard asset, maintains their net worth.

However, if you are saying that Ron Paul ISN'T a nationalist, patriotic, protectionist, then I'd challenge you on that one too.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Ed,

you are correct Paul is a one world market candidate. A one world immigration candidate and by implication a one world non-national candidate.

As far as a federal reserve system that is a domestic fiscal policy not an international fiscal policy, but having a one world economic policy he would be a world bank candidate also, unless you think commerce can be conducted world wide without the need of a banking system to facilitate that world commerce.

So, no I am not saying Paul is a protectionist, or a nationalist. He is the consummate one worlder.

Tom

Reformer's picture

IMO . . . THE ONE MAIN REASON CONSERVATIVES SHOULD NOT "WASTE" THEIR VOTE IN ANY MANNER BUT RATHER SHOULD VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN VS. THE OTHER TWO IS THIS:

THE TYPE OF JUDGES HE WILL APPOINT.

TheIdealNate's picture

Reformer,
This is why I made the point I made. Christians are tricking themselves(as I have been for years) to think we will escape the abortion issue by electing Republicans. 20 of 28 years have been republicans. The fact is they are more concerned with maitaining the face of the pro-life movement, but not actually doing anything about it.

Also, like the Civil War, God will not allow us to go unpunished by simply getting rid of abortion though a voting process.

I cannot be a one issue voter.

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Starlight's picture

‘With a Few More Brains ...’
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

“Ten days ago, I noted the reckless assertion of Barack Obama’s former pastor that the United States government had deliberately engineered AIDS to kill blacks, but I tried to put it in context by citing a poll showing that 30 percent of African-Americans believe such a plot is at least plausible.”

Read the full article at this link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion

I find this article this morning in the NYT as somewhat relevant to our discussion of Obama but more importantly this author gets to the heart of what turns out to be the Achilles heel of America in general.

The gist of his argument is the dumbing down of all Americans as this statement helps illustrate.

“The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill O’Reilly. It’s enough to make one doubt Darwin.”

I think a lot of what has happened to America and its intellectual demise can be attributed to one of our past strengths. It is the turning over of our Religious convictions in America to the anti science religious crowd. The Henry Morris’s, Hal Lindsey’s, Tim Lahaye’s and John Hagee’s are systematically helping destroy American ingenuity with their false religious science that they foist on the American public.

This article though you may not agree with the tenor of the author is confronting one of America’s great weaknesses. It is the pride that we exhibit in our scientific ignorance. Our propensity for embracing conspiracy plots is proportional to our collective ignorance and rebellion against acquiring knowledge. We are only as a nation slightly above some of the Islamic countries in our population’s propensity to embrace radical conspiracy theories. It is found in direct proportional to our Fundamentalist Evangelical embracing of this new found ignorance in which many of our religious faithful are the unfortunate leaders of this American failure.

Norm

tom-g's picture

Wow Norm,

Why are you so vague, why don't you quit beating around the bush and just come right out and plainly say what you mean?

Tom

Islamaphobe's picture

I view democratic (lower case) politics as largely an exercise in choosing the lesser evil. Therefore, I shall hold my nose and vote for McCain. As for Obama, I am convinced that his understanding of Christianity comes very close to what I comtemptuously refer as the social gospel. As far as I am concerned, liberation theology--and certainly black liberation theology--is not Christianity. Now maybe there is something to be said for bringing in the greater evil in order to hasten the resulting collapse, but I do not want to go there.

John S. Evans

EWMI's picture

Hello Nate,

Interesting sentiments, may I refer you to:

http://www.libertyforlife.com/military-war/73_thousand_us_gulf_war_casua...

which reports that 73,000 vets may have perished in Iraq. Apparently 4000 have died on the theater of war itself BUT any who have perished at hospitals like Ramstien etc are not reported.

If this is correct we reached 4000 in the opening days of the conflict.

On Abortion

Personally I feel that this is the tragedy of our time. God destroyed nations that shed innocent blood in Bible times. If that still happens today we are in a spot of trouble.

On Iran and the Dems

I doubt seriously that the Dems will provide any solution to Iraq. We will continue there and start a war against Iran at any time. If a Gulf of Tonkin incident etc occurs both sides will be in it.

The Economy

... is being collapsed intentionally by our central bankers. Both sides of politics are part of the package.

PS I used to need to convince people here at PP that the economy is being intentionally destroyed from within ... seems I get less criticism for saying that now.

al

Ed's picture

Al,
I won't disagree with you on the economics, and I even agree that we need to get the heck out of Iraq, and you know that I agree with you on Iran...with that said, Liberty for Life's claim that 73,000 veterans have died since the start of the Gulf War is like saying that 120,000 American citizens have died since Virgil started this website. It has no correlation whatsoever.

I reviewed that article on my own blog, and while agreeing with the sentiments against nation-building, I cannot allow false claims to stand. What the study did was to count the number of veterans alive at the start of the war, and subtract the number currently alive. This means that the veterans who died may have died in Walla Walla WA of skin cancer, and never served in any war (like myself).

I don't disagree that the numbers of the dead are most likely underreported, and we are also not considering the considerable loss of capital as a result of all those wounded First of all, the loss of their productivity, at least for a time; as well as the benefits that they SHOULD receive as disabled vets - it all costs American billions and billions (done in the voice of Carl Sagan).

I would say in reply to your last comment that the general sentiment of what you have shared in the past is now, and perhaps always was, embraced by a much larger number than before; however, some of your "way out" claims are still disputed by many of us; e.g., that Bush planned the Trade Towers, that this is some big vast banker conspiracy, etc.

I believe that the bankers are complicit, but I maintain that, short of trying to pull a "Joseph in Egypt" deal, where all the land is confiscated and turned over to the gov't and big corporations, they are just plain greedy, seeking to make money from their counterfeiting - i.e, they are criminals. But, they're legal criminals, thanks to the "wisdom" of Woody Wilson, and his predecessors (every damn one of them).

As Jeremiah Wright would say "the chickens are coming home to roost." Our economic system is collapsing, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can, as individuals, carry on the free market traditions of our ancestors. Bartering and other forms of exchange may become necessary eventually.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Hey Ed,

I really like that analogy of: "trying to pull a "Joseph in Egypt" deal, where all the land is confiscated and turned over to the gov't and big corporations."

I think you have hit the nail right on the head with that. I think that is one of the best descriptions I have heard of the ecumenical world socialist goal of the free market capitalist system advocated by libertarians.

Thanks for that insight,
Tom

Ed's picture

Yeah right Tom. I suppose you think that smoking cures cancer too.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Hey Ed,

I thought your comment was a great explanation of Al's comment and I thought his comment was a great example of Abraham Lincoln's observation that: No foreigner could ever set foot upon the Blue Ridge Mountains or drink a drop of the Ohio River, if we were ever to be defeated it would be from within not from without.

Tom

Ed's picture

whatever Tom. You know to what I was responding. We'll leave it at that.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Nate, for all practical purpose, Obama is a Communist. There is nothing anyone can do or say to convince me to vote for someone like him.

I will likely either write in a name or vote libertarian as well.

TheIdealNate's picture

Hey Virgil,
Not sure I would go that far. But to each his own. I was a Ron Paul supporter in the primaries but now am without a candidtate.
Either way, this is by no means an attempt to convince anyone, maybe just myself. Hopefully it will start some good conversation and give me some more food for thought before November.
God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Ed's picture

For the record, I'm voting Libertarian.

I want to address one of your points here Nathan. It's your notion that it is the appraisers that are raising the housing prices, and that it is the GOP that is raising the oil prices, etc. Let me clue you in...

The price of a barrel of oil, when adjusted for inflation, is up about 12% when compared to the value of the dollar. When compared to gold, the price of oil is DOWN about 12%; 6-9% with silver, and 30% with platinum. IOW, it is the inflating currency in our economy that is causing the high price of oil. Were we to return to Hard, commodity-based, money, we would see that the price of oil has actually dropped in the past 20+ years.

So it is with the housing crisis. It is our Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking that is causing the housing inflation. Lower interest rates by the Fed cause housing prices to go up in two ways: 1) it devalues the dollar, so prices of all goods (just like the oil in the last paragraph) goes up; and 2) cheaper interest payments allows sellers to raise prices.

Normally, in the second example, if you have a $100,000 loan at 8.25%, your payment would be around $750/month. If you lowered your interest rate by 2 points to 6.25%, you could finance a $122,000 loan for the same monthly payment. Better yet, drop that interest to 3.25%, and you'll be able to get a $173,000 loan for the same payment.

Lower interest not only inflates the economy, but it drives up the prices because people can afford more house for the same payment - and that's all people look at anymore.

So, the real problem with this economy is the Federal Reserve (Ron Paul was the only candidate that talked about it). Both Republicans and Democrats are in bed with the international bankers who control the Fed. As long as that's the case, we are heading for disaster, even IF Obama wins.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

plymouthrock's picture

Ed,

On the price of oil; the dynamics of oil futures trading plays a role here as well.

plymouthrock!

Ed's picture

That's very true. Nonetheless, competition is good - supply and demand and all that rot. Were it not for the inflating of the dollar, the price of oil would be about the same as it was 20 years ago. Were we trading in gold, as I stated in the first post, we'd see that the price of oil has actually dropped.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

plymouthrock's picture

Oh, you know I agree Ed, I was just adding a layer.

And I also agree that until this Federal Reserve problem is addressed, it doesn't matter who becomes the next president - he or she will have to answer the international banking elites just like their predecessors.

plymouthrock!

TheIdealNate's picture

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, but unfortunately true libertarian ideals will never have a place in elected politics here in America.

Thanks for the economics info. Good stuff!

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43