Had we, as a nation, learned the lessons that Davey Crockett learned and recorded for us, we would not be facing the prospect of national bankruptcy and financial failure.

May the triune God grant us national repentance for our continued practice of theft by majority vote.

Davy Crockett’s “Sockdologer”

I (Davey Crockett) was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker,

“I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount.

There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them.

Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements prevented me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning, and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about 10 minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

“Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.

“When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves.

“They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.

‘“Yes,’ said he, ‘such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.’

“With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’

“He replied, ‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’ “I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—’

‘“Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight.

“But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

‘“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.’

‘“Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn’t break your gun for one snap.’

‘“No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay’s purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

‘“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

‘“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true!’

‘“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

‘“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’

“Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

‘“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

‘“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government.

‘“So you see that, while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.

‘“You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.’”

‘“If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

‘“There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.

‘“The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’

“I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying: ‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you, I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

‘“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.

“If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

‘“If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.”

‘“My name is Bunce.’

“Not Horatio Bunce?”

“‘Yes.’”

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

“We shook hands and parted. It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

“He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

“Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children – he had about seven of them – began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother.

“Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymnbook. He turned to me and said:

‘“Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.’

“He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: ‘The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.’ It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer ‘Our Father, who art in Heaven.’ No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him.

“I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love, which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah.

“The whole prayer was grand – grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

‘“Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths, which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

‘“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

“He came upon the stand and said:

‘“Fellow-citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt that could not be paid by money – and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.

“Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

Thus concludes “Sockdologer.” If you’ve enjoyed reading this story as much we have enjoyed bringing it to you, why not share it with a friend? We’re told that the longest journey begins with a single step. Getting more people to read “Sockdologer” could be the beginning of a step back toward honoring – and obeying – the Constitution.

The article below can be found at my eldest son and daughter-in-law’s website: http://inashoe.com/

You will find it full of helpful tips, observations, and rumination by a mother and father of almost 9. (She is expecting any day now!!!)

I find her observations about child training to be most helpful.

Among the many life lessons young children need to learn, two are of vital importance:

1)Joyful submission to authority
2) Contentment and thankfulness

______________________________________________________________

On the discipline of children
by Kim Coghlan

This is a touchy topic for many and one that we generally steer clear of, but I’ve had several emails on the subject recently so I’ll share just a bit.

We believe the Bible is crystal clear about using the rod, i.e. corporal discipline. (Proverbs 13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15) We have found that children who are disciplined in a loving and consistent manner are happy children. Children who have learned to bend their will to the visible but limited authority of parents find it much easier to bend their wills to an invisible but all-powerful God.

A woman once marveled that we had so many children and actually enjoyed their company. “I only have one, and most of the time I want to hit him on the head!” My husband replied, “Ma’am, we hit ours on the other end so we won’t want to hit them on the head.”

I won’t go into the details of discipline because that is an area that will look different from one household to the next, from one parent to the next, from one child to the next, and from one season of life to the next. It’s certainly not an area that we have perfectly figured out, nor have our children. We have children that respond simply and beautifully, and children that aid us greatly in our own sanctification. Sometimes it’s the same child on different days.

A few key points:

consistency: It’s easy to “get things whipped into shape,” then coast for a while. We tend to relax the standards because everything is going pretty well, and before we know it we have to re-train the entire household.

first-time obedience: The sweet, gentle mother wants to issue a reminder or two for each infraction before proceeding to “harsher” measures, but children will quickly learn to expect just that. They will learn that it’s not necessary to obey the first time because there is always another chance or two before the consequences begin. If we give until a count of 3 then we train our children to wait for the count before they take us seriously. Doug Wilson once commented that parents often spend more time teaching fractions than teaching prompt obedience: 1…2…2-1/2…2-3/4…

attitude: Obedience with an angry or begrudging attitude is not true obedience. This is hard for parents because we must walk a fine line between judging our child’s heart and creating little Pharisees who obey on the outside but are full of rebellion within. God demands heart-service, and to teach our children to obey only on the outside is quite simply a waste of time.Shepherding a Child\’s Heart by Ted Tripp

A few good resources:

* Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Ted Tripp (For many years, I have given this as a baby shower gift to every new parent I know!)
* Parenting From the Heart: Practical Parenting from a Mom of 14 Children by Marilyn Boyer
* Proverbs for Parenting by Barbara Decker

ShareThis

My wife didn’t notice much of a difference in our grocery costs until just recently. But from all the news sources, we can expect higher prices in the coming months. Regardless of whether prices are going up or not, it’s always a good idea to save money where you can. Recently, Money magazine came out with three easy ways to cut your grocery bill in half.

(1)Forget coupons – use the CouponMom

“Stephanie Nelson, a mother of two, says cutting your grocery bill in half is easy. She launched www.couponmom.com seven years ago to show other shoppers what weekly sales and savings are available – saving them time, and of course, money.

“The Web site’s database tracks what’s on sale at your local grocery store and matches it with what coupons are available.

“For example, New Jersey shoppers can use a $1 coupon in the RedPlum circular when All brand laundry detergent goes on sale at Pathmark, and save 50% off the retail price.

“Nelson says that shoppers who match up weekly specials with coupons from newspaper circulars can easily take 50% off their entire bill, if not more. That’s what she calls ‘strategic shopping.’ And it’s catching on, Nelson has seen a huge uptick in interest in her site, which lists grocery bargains at 41 retailers in 50 states. Since January, traffic has tripled, she said.

“‘You can’t do much about your mortgage payment or car payment,’ Nelson said. ‘Grocery shopping is where you have the most opportunity to save money.’”

(2) Take a few shortcuts.com

“If sifting through the newspaper for savings is not your bag, more stores are offering electronic coupons, which can be printed at home, or loaded right on to your store loyalty card.

“Kroger customers can go to Shortcuts.com, enter their loyalty card information, click on coupons they want, and have the savings automatically applied to their bill at checkout.

“And Shortcuts.com is currently in discussions with other national chains to roll out similar programs soon.

“Other sites, such as coupons.com and eversave.com, offer a slew of printable coupons as well as coupon codes that can be used for online shopping.”

(3) Shop online and buy in bulk

“Shopping online is another way to score great deals on groceries. Although the prices aren’t always better, comparison shopping is definitely easier. And the savings of time – and gas – can be substantial…

“Amazon.com’s grocery service, which launched two years ago, sells nonperishable items in bulk (no milk, fresh meat, or produce) at relatively low cost…

“On top of that, Amazon orders over $25 qualify for free shipping, and additional savings are available when shoppers sign up to have deliveries made regularly.”

Also consider when you buy certain items. Consumer advocate Clark Howard recommends buying perishables weekly, but stocking up on non-perishables every six weeks. And buy those at the warehouse stores (Costco, Sam’s Club, BJ’s, etc.).

Taking some time to shop smart can save a lot money. The only downside is you’ll need a little storage space to store all the bulk items you buy.

– Steve Kroening
Reprinted by permission from www.wisdomsedge.com.

(Source: Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com, June 13, 2008; clarkhoward.com)

It is often said that what we are is a "religious" school while the public schools are not. The education and training of children is always and inescapably religious. Education is always and in every form (Christian or not)grounded upon and driven by presuppositions that arise out of one's worldview: one's religion.

Please read below the testimony of two women who can attest to the worldview and culture of the public schools. I give the url for those who desire to read the larger discussion.

http://www.challies.com/archives/002542.php#comments

"I've been a public-school educator for over 30 years now. As a Christian, I love my job and am thankful to God for it because I have daily opportunities to impact the next generation for Christ, in both large and small ways. But I am an adult! Public schools are NOT a place where young, formative hearts can withstand the extreme and pervasive peer and adult pressure. The public-school system at large is based on principles which unashamedly disdain biblical Christianity. There IS an agenda in the public schools! The debauched youth culture of western materialism and secularism is given free reign while biblical attitudes and values are mocked and even punished. I cannot state to all parents too strongly: if it is at all possible for you, DO NOT place your children in public schools!! Their spiritual formation is YOUR direct responsibility above all other considerations."

"My daughter went back to public school last year. The pain that we have gone through as we have watched our daughter be inundated with postmodern education every day in the last year and a half can't be described. It has changed her, and it has caused trouble in our home. Perhaps you're thinking that the trouble is a symptom of bad parenting or a lack of training. It isn't. We are confident that we have been diligent parents, and that we have provided her with solid spiritual training. Yes, I know she will have to face the world eventually, but I certainly don't need to cause that to happen before it's necessary. As for my 9th grade son in public school, well, he's beginning his journey. There was a noticeable change within a very short time."

Economics affects everybody! Check the price of gasoline.

It is also little understood by both “economists” and presidential candidates.

Christians in the 21st century, sadly as a group, have as little understanding about “economics” as do the two party candidates, and more importantly, think little about the implications of the Gospel for economics and the fruit of the ideas they embrace.

R. J. Rushdoony (and many others before him) did not think like the current “Demo-Publican” candidates, nor most evangelicals. This is worth the time to read…especially if you take Genesis 1:1 seriously.

__________________________________________________________________

(From Roots of Reconstruction [Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991], 641-644.) Cha

After World War II, an American in Shanghai, the Rev. D. R. Lindberg (one of our Newsletter family) walked downtown one morning and witnessed an amazing sight. Wealthy Chinese sat on the sidewalks and even in the streets, weeping and sobbing uncontrollably. Scattered around them were large piles of paper money, in denominations up to $5,000. A government order, in view of rapidly growing inflation, had declared the bills of $5,000 and under to be invalid, and their wealth and life savings had just been abolished. They had gone from store to store, bank to bank, hoping to realize something, and they had failed. However, the money, if accepted, would have done them little good. A little later, this American paid $25 million for a new suit; exactly a week to the day later, a small dime store mouth organ for his son cost $50 million, and such was the distrust of all paper money that it took two American paper dollars to buy one Chinese silver dollar. This is inflation, the breakdown of paper money. Millionaires find themselves unable to buy a slice of bread with their millions, and, in some instances, have starved to death.

Inflation is one of the results of managed money, and managed money is the cornerstone of socialism. In fact, socialism is impossible without managed money. Managed money is the deliberate, state-controlled debasing or counterfeiting of money as the basic form of social planning. Paper money, and coins of baser metals passing in the place of silver or gold, is managed money, whereas gold and silver coinage, which constitutes real wealth, is valid money. For money is not merely a medium of exchange: it is a form of wealth, and if the medium of exchange is a controlled and counterfeit one, wealth is progressively confiscated and destroyed. As a result, the first and basic step in any socialism, in any statist confiscation of private wealth, is to require people to accept a counterfeit or debased money, a mere representation of wealth, in exchange for their very real wealth, their labor, goods, and properties. Managed money is the basic form of socialist planning. The state produces the managed money and begins to spend it for social planning. With this managed money, the state can further its welfare programs, its progressive controls and expropriations, and its total programs of planning and socialization, because, as the producer of managed money, it is the biggest buyer on the market. The state buys real wealth in the form of labor, goods, and properties and gives managed money, counterfeit wealth, in exchange. The paper value of the people’s wealth increases for a time, and prosperity seems to prevail, until the process reaches the point of increasing confiscation as the money rapidly inflates and becomes worthless.

But a runaway inflation not only destroys the creditors, the middle classes, and all with savings, it also destroys the state which permits it. It leads to a collapse of the civil government which promoted it. Previously, runaway inflation has repeatedly occurred. Will it again be the route to disaster?

Managed money, or socialism, is a parasitic economy. The state feeds on the people’s wealth, and the people eat up their own future, and their country’s future, with a debt economy and growing areas of socialization. Socialization produces temporary benefits to some, but socialization, as a parasite economy, must rob and confiscate in order to give. Instead of creating new wealth, it destroys existing wealth.

As a result of this progressive confiscation and destruction of wealth, the country begins to falter and to move towards economic collapse and catastrophe. A savage struggle for survival then begins. The socialist, interventionist, or welfare economy then faces a grim choice: who shall survive, the people or the state? Increasingly, in the modern world, the socialist answer is that the people must be sacrificed to preserve the state. To stop deficit spending and return to hard money would create a depression, which would hurt but would save both the state and the people, although at a cost, but this would involve abandoning socialism. This the state will not do, because to sacrifice socialism now means to sacrifice the state, which now sees itself as identical with socialism.

As a result, the state turns to what Wilhelm Roepke and Hans Sennholz have described as repressed inflation. Repressed inflation, according to Roepke in Economics of the Free Society, “consists fundamentally, in the fact that a government first promotes inflation but then seeks to interdict its influence on prices and rates of exchange by imposing the now familiar war-time devices of rationing and fixed prices, together with the requisite enforcement measures.” In other words, the cure for the disaster bred by the growing controls of money, men, and property is total controls! This is like saying that the cure for tuberculosis in one lung is its presence everywhere in both lungs.

Roepke noted that repressed inflation is more deadly than open inflation and “ends inevitably in chaos and paralysis.” And it is repressed inflation which we are steadily getting, as the federal government moves to control steel, copper, and aluminum prices, and to limit private spending by taxation, while continuing and increasing its own deficit spending. On May 9, 1959, Arthur Upgren, in the Minneapolis Star, stated that the U.S. would “go bust” by 1970 because of the breakdown of money. In a paper on the subject, “Why the United States Is Most Likely to Have a Financial Collapse in 1970,” Upgren offered as his answer to the pending crisis more money management. But more money management means simply more socialism. Briefly, such answers in effect declare that the only way to escape economic law is by means of the totalitarian law of the state.

This then is the course being progressively taken, more money management, which means more socialism, and thus progressive confiscation. This means chaos and disaster. It means the breakdown of money also. But, most of all, it means the end of socialism. The socialist states of the world are all parasites. As parasites, they have lived off their people first, and then off the United States. Now, as repressed inflation begins to work to gut the American social order, the socialisms of the world will collapse with this breakdown of American free enterprise. When the host body dies, the parasite also dies. The desperate attempt of socialism to survive by sacrificing its people fails to work; without outside help, socialism dies. A socialist world cannot exist.

Thoughtful men will naturally seek to protect themselves by investing in land, gold, silver, and other historic hedges against inflation, but the counter-hedges of socialism against self-protection are greater than ever before. And, while survival is important, it is not enough. Socialism is finished: it is destroying itself, and although the worst lies ahead, the certainty of socialism’s collapse is nonetheless inescapable, and it must be a basic premise of all thinking concerning the future. The central concern even now must be reconstruction, the creation of new institutions dedicated to liberty, education to that end, and the assurance that the fresh air of liberty is ahead, past the days of chaos. The wise, therefore, will recognize that the breakdown of money, socialist money, is overtaking us, and that there is no security in counterfeit currency. Before they sit weeping, like the Chinese of Shanghai, surrounded with their worthless money, they had better dedicate themselves and their wealth to the cause of liberty before it is too late. As Sennholz has pointed out, our managed money today is the poorest form of investment for the future. In the long run, an investment in liberty offers better returns.

The above was written two and a half years ago and filed away. Today, there is no reason to change a word of it.

The news accentuates our crisis. For some years now, people have profited by inflation. They are now geared to what Gary North calls “the economics of addiction.”

A news report of Saturday, August 24, 1968, is headed “Brink of Credit Disaster” (Oakland, CA, Tribune, p. 1) and states that “Over one-third of all American families are on the brink of serious financial trouble” because of heavy indebtedness. And most other Americans are also very much in debt and cannot take a real crisis. The reason is that “a consumption ethic has replaced the work ethic.”

The demand by all these people in debt will be for more easy money, more paper, in order to pay off good debts with bad money. The people have a vested interest in more inflation; their prosperity depends on it. The federal government also has a vested interest in more inflation; its power depends on it.

When over one-third of all American families face financial disaster or very serious trouble, according to the American Association of Credit Counselors, can anyone imagine an administration doing anything but inflating? Virtually all the politicians of these days seem primarily interested in power, not the future, and the road to political power is now inflation. After them, the flood.

The foundations are being destroyed. It is high time to rebuild, to rebuild on a solidly Christian foundation.