Thank you all so much for reading, and for your kind comments. Jesus Christ has radically transformed my life and perspective, and it brings me great joy to share His truth with you all. God bless,
-J

Praise God for all three of you, Jeremy, Paige and Nobody. I stand with you and our Saviour. Jeremy, you write a very elegant blog, once again, and thank you for putting your life out there. I have walked in your shoes and also thank God He put a stop to so many of my reckless plans when I was young. To those of you who understand what he is saying, hats off to you. Hold fast and pray.

Hey Jer,

I’ve seen your stuff several times and praise God for it. In case you’re interested, I have a similar site to American Clarity over at Another Slow News Day (http://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/). I don’t have as much to say as you do (at least not on ASND) but I present a great deal that others have said in my (and your) stead. Just FYI and thanks again for AC.

@ His feet,

Nobody Important

Fantastic post. And exceedingly clear in today’s thinking that everything should belong to everyone; not just those that earned it…

Thank you for your response! As far as Biblical Law is concerned, the only moral application of usury is when a foreign, non-citizen, non-Israelite was involved. In our day, a usurious loan would be permissible if lending to non-citizens: Christians, Jews (just to be safe), and citizens would be protected by law from any usurious debt, and all citizen loans would be released after a seven year period.

The article’s title seems to focus the topic on private lending, but the article does not clearly define whether it is referring to some loans and not others or whether it is discussing all loans. Can you clarify what, if any, loans for which usury would be acceptable?

Very good thinking. A quote from Lincoln (Abraham) would seem supportive: “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration” (from First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861).

I refrain from using the term “capitalism” to describe our economic system. First, the term was coined, I believe, by Karl Marx. Second, it infers our system is based on money rather than what you have more than adequately described. I tend to use “free enterprise,” but even that falls a bit short.

I wish you were wrong, but your statement is realistic: the laws of God are fine-tuned to promote liberty and prosperity, and any — any — move away from them will destroy the society which trends toward the Godless. Thanks for your comment.

-J

Counterintuitively, this trend toward dual-income families is only (in the grand scheme of things) a short-term trend. As socialism promises its state-sponsored hedonist utopia, those who embrace the gospel of selfishness, pushing for a state-sponsored society in which nobody is allowed to judge you for promiscuity, homosexuality, legalized drug use, abortion on demand, etc., will tend to congregate, as will moral and religious persons. County by county, and state by state, the nation will continue to polarize. In the end, the cities that are held by the entitlement-based welfare advocates are doomed to tear themselves apart. This may happen city by city, over the long term, or it may happen in a giant social upheaval. But it will happen when good people everywhere can no longer support their own families due to the burden placed on them by those who tax ordinary workers to support entitlement programs. When it happens, and the workers refuse to support those who won’t work any more, the cities will make Detroit look like a day in the park. Cities never fare well in social upheaval. After the revolution is over, who will be left? The family-oriented workers who make the economy go in the first place. This is very unpleasant to think about, but those who violate nature’s law can only do so for a short while before being brought into check by natural forces.

A very interesting comment! This is the first time I’ve seen a difference distinguished between liberty and freedom, and it’s an interesting one. I’ll have to do more studying before accepting that they are different, as I believe that liberty and freedom are both bought with blood, and exist within the unalienable interpersonal boundaries set forth in Scripture, but your definitions are worth a look. Thank you for reading American Clarity.

-J

This really belongs with your AT piece of 8/27/11.

Civilization versus the Barbarian
By Jeremy Egerer

For all of this Noble gobbledygook neither Mr. Egerer defines the difference between Freedom & Liberty, nor does JSM. John Stuart Mill was a “Utilitarian” which is the polar opposite of our Founders and Framers vision.

Simply put, Freedom can be given because it requires no personal responsibility on the part of the receiver. Liberty on the other hand requires personal responsibility, the will and ability to live by the social contract (David Hume), to assimilate in other words.

“Utilitarian ism” is the pretext for the Government minding YOUR business under the pretext that it knows best what is good for you. This is the pretext for “Consolidation” & “Collectivism”.

The antidote for this was and always must be in a Country this large & diverse is “Federalism” (Montesquieu & Federalist #10 & 51). Our Founders and Framers knew that the basis for ALL truly FREE interactions amongst people, States and Nation was the ability to form Legal and binding CONTRACTS or COMPACTS.

The sacred basis of the Union was just that: the Contract. Here is the definition of Federal as Madison et al. understood it. Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/federal

The basis of North America’s discovery & Colonization from Christopher Columbus to John Cabot to the May Flower Compact all have one thing in common: They are all based on contracts as was the Articles and the Constitution (“Strict Construction of the Constitution”). The Declaration by contrast was the official dissolution of the Colonist’s contracts with the Crown (George III). It severed our legal ties to England.

The Barbarians, on the other hand, do not respect, allow nor honor contracts. That is the fundamental basis of modern “Progressive” Liberalism which has its basis in the principles espoused by George Fox. We know it as: Quakerism.

When the Barbarians are at the gates one has to actually fight & die for one’s beliefs. It is here that Quakerism and modern Liberalism intersect because it is precisely at that moment that both philosophies collapse by ducking the responsibility enforce the social contract by force if necessary. They shirk this responsibility by claiming to transcend such Earthly matters.

This is how the Republic, as the Founder’s envisioned it, ended on July 4th, 1861.