Survival Mode

It has occurred to me that too many people are in survival mode to look beyond their present circumstances. It is true that in Matthew 6:34 Jesus says, "Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will worry about itself." BUT, it also says in Proverbs that a wise man sees trouble and plans for it (takes refuge) whereas the simple keep going and suffer for it. Obviously, balance must come into play here and that will look different for everyone, but Biblical principles hold true no matter what our circumstances.

My point in this is so many Christians (esp. large families) are so concerned with basic survival (which in reality, their idea of *basic survival* is still incredibly luxurious when compared to the billions of people who have lived before them as well as over hmmmmmmmmmmmm 85% of the rest of the world's population), that they neglect to look at the long term logical extensions of the *principles* they live on. And the reality is the principles they live on are not even based on anything other than *what is most convenient and expedient for me and my family* which is enough to make me barf.

For example, on my favorite board we've been discussing a lot of forced wealth transfer issues lately. One lady was upset when I referenced the fact that indeed barring a miracle from the Lord God Almighty himself and Ron Paul were to be elected, a socialist (doesn't really matter what party) would be elected and all their *pet* social programs would continue uninterrupted. She was upset because I used the word *pet*. Well, I'd write the following to her, but, once again, her husband is not interested in providing a decent enough living for them so that they are not on forced wealth transfer programs to provide for their food, so my breath would be wasted. The fact is, on principle, I do not believe in any wealth transfer programs (including subsidies for farmers, corporations and foreign aid of ANY kind, EBT, WIC, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, Pell Grants, student loans, National Arts Association, Memorial Parks, Congressional Medals of Honor, and whatever other bags of goodies of programs I don't even know about). Basically, I do not support any program that is not mentioned in the constitution as a legitimate function of government.

Now any reasonable person would agree that we have WAY too many excesses in government. I KNOW that the lady who replied to me would agree. BUT, in her mind there are very legitimate forms of wealth transfer programs that she applauds and directly uses. I'm not sure on what basis she approves them other than *she is doing right in her own eyes*, which I do not agree is a legitimate litmus test as to whether something is right or wrong. So, by definition, she *knows* she does not approve of each and every program, and therefore, she does indeed have *pet social welfare* programs. But, apparently she doesn't want to own up to that. Sigh.

That is the problem...most everyone wants their piece of the pie, but they don't want to have it accurately described as that. They want to pretend that it is the *Lord's provision*, which of course is supernatural and doesn't involve taxation from one individual or corporation to give to another. That definition just might make one so uncomfortable they'd have to give it up. LOL

One of the moderators, a very logical girl for them most part, but her husband believes in wealth transfers and makes ~$30,000 per year for a family of 7, objects to my definition of forced wealth transfer as being not so nice. I asked her for a more kindly way to define it (other than that property taxes are taxes that are extorted from property owners at the threat of gunpoint should you choose not to pay your taxes and stay on the property that you rightfully own (assuming you don't have a loan from a Federal Reserve Bank, in which case they hold the title and you do not)). She could not. She did not object to the accuracy of my definition; rather her complaint is that when I state things that way, it causes women to either be dissatisfied in their marriage or for them to abandon their sense of what is right to defend their husband's wrong choices. So...anyone care to tell me why the marriage relationship supersedes the obligation to hmmm.....not steal or to not covet? Apparently among Christian women the obligation to submit to your husbands even when they are total screw-ups is the idol they worship at, never mind they make their families ultimately weaker and provide for a weaker society and as my husband is fond of pointing out, all debts must be repaid; so apparently it is okay to stick the debt to their children in the name of submitting to your husband. Of course, one could make the assumption (and I guess I will since I'm not telling you to divorce your husbands), that as long as you're sticking with your husband you're using fewer wealth transfer programs than you otherwise would. True. Still doesn't make any of it right...but if we must integrate incremental steps, I guess this will do.

Now, that said, I know it is not easy when your husband does not believe in adequately providing for his family. I'm not suggesting you leave him. BUT, I am suggesting you recognize that your husband's choices not only are poor, and they will affect not only your family in a negative way but again make a weaker society overall, making it more difficult for your children when they grow older and so don't jump all over someone when they point this out. Rather, inside, acknowledge that hmmm....they're right, but this is the way it is for your family so why not keep your mouth shut instead of jumping up to defend him as if in some way you are restoring his honor (which you're not).

Another poor logical statement is that it is a husband's and wife's business how they educate their children (which it is as long as the decision made is for homeschool or private school) and that if they choose public education it is none of our business. Excuse me? How ridiculous is that. Of course it's *our* business. When you make an application for public $ to be spent on behalf to support a decision that is an option for you instead of a requirement, you have opened your decision to be scrutinized (and dare I say *judged*) by others (as opposed to hmm.....having to use legal tender instead of gold and silver because that is what the law clearly states and Biblically speaking we are to obey our leaders unless they are requiring something contrary to the word of God). To say that somehow that when someone applies for a government program noone should judge them is so out in left field it is difficult for me to craft a response that maintains the dignity of that person. How ridiculous. Do I really have to state the obvious? Apparently so. Let me do this again so that I am completely unambiguous.

When one chooses a course of action that requires public $ to be spent on your behalf, specifically, (be it Medicaid, EBT, WIC, Section 8 housing, public school) you have opened up that area of your life relating to that decision to be scrutinized by others.

You have no reasonable expectation that that decision is between you and your husband anymore. To think that you do is insane imnsho. Good grief.

On another related tangent:
Romans 9:14-22

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

It has occurred to me on my board, that perhaps my problem is this; I view all the ladies there as created for noble purposes, even if they haven't seen it yet. Perhaps they are not and I need to not address them as if they are. It does not mean they are loved any less by the Lord, but it does mean that his purpose for their life is different than mine. I know that comes across as incredibly arrogant, but I have been told by many people that I have a gift for this; cutting to the point of issues without the baggage of emotion and subjectivity. Really, I am an imperfect human (just ask my husband and children) , but I do believe I have some special talents and was created for some bigger things than others.......I hope that I will have used the many talents (I believe I was given more than 1 as per the story there in Matthew) to the best of my abilities so that the Lord will say "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Another topic

Yes, 2 topics in the same day, but since they were so different I decided to make them 2 separate topics.

It's our annual "Let's debate forced wealth transfer" discussion on our board. I gotta tell you, it's gone much better than it has in previous years. What is most encouraging to me, is how many ladies are getting it and realizing the importance of the principles and how ultimately forced wealth transfer is so degrading not only to the taxpayer but the recipient. It is gratifying to see the greater understanding, on average, of the board! I'm telling you, stronger families make stronger societies. That principle doesn't seem to be too difficult to me to understand, but it is funny/sad how some will defend their *right* to the public trough to the end, even in the face of the ever growing mountain of evidence in their OWN family of how it really in the end is unhelpful.

Then, finally, around post 120 or so, this dear, sweet woman who married a louse of a man, defends her case because of her sad story...so of course, the other people whose situations are rather desperate join in supporting her. Sigh. Let me reiterate it once again: NOONE HAS A RIGHT TO ANYONE ELSE'S MONEY NO MATTER WHO THEY MARRIED OR WHAT THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION IS! There are always other answers. That's the dirty little secret. There's always another way...it just so happens that the other way is generally not as *convenient* as having the taxpayers via the government pick up the tab. It might involve living 2 families to a house. It might involve owning fewer personal items than you already own. It might involve a diet that is not your first choice (I know for a fact this girl really likes her chocolate and Mountain Dew....and right there, when in the midst of her false humility (which is what it really is) about how humbling it is to *avail herself* of these funds, she is the one talking about her special Christmas breakfast bought with EBT).....

Again, I think of the Quiner, Ingalls and Wilder family books I've read. There is NO way these families would ever have taken public assistance (I know for a fact that the Ingalls family was offered it a couple of winters and refused on principle). They were even reluctant to take private charity, which in all honesty, I accept any and all offers of assistance. LOL. The chutzpah of these people, while loudly proclaiming how *humbling* it is to be judged (and let's be honest....of course you are...there is a cost to everything and even if the cost is to feel a bit *judged* because you're requesting funds is the very least it should cost you. The fact is, if you're availing yourself of these services, somewhere along life's way you have made a poor choice and yeh....there's a cost to that...why oh, why, do some ladies get so offended with pointing out things that quite honestly are self-evident??) So....things will die down after a while....and then the families who are on these programs will post how things really aren't going to well...really? What a surprise......and the liberal ladies will offer hugs and I will shake my head and feel bad, because in the end, I don't want anyone to suffer, but then again, I can't undo the natural consequences of poor choices..........................

What did my heart good was one lady who I've had quite the relationship with...we used to get along REALLY well, she took a break, came back, we butted heads (I'm still not sure why....), we worked through that and now we're really getting along again. We agreed mostly on what I said, but there were definitely some differences. Last night she PMed me to say, "Guess what...in the end I agree with you more than I thought." It blessed me immensely to read this. And not because she agrees with *me*, but rather because she's agreeing with what I believe to be Biblical principles, of which I am only the messenger. And, because she's believing those things I believe her family will be stronger which incrementally makes society stronger. KWIM?

And here's a thought that I didn't even get around to discussing on there, except peripherally on a secondary thread and that is about our obligation to our children and grandchildren. We have an obligation to them. It is a simple fact that all debts are repaid, whether it is paid by the debtor or the lender absorbs the loss or the debt is passed onto a 3rd party who then assumes responsibility for the debt. In this case, the US Government has an 8 trillion $ debt. Each time someone avails themselves of a government handout they are increasing the debt and passing the debt onto their children...which I'm guessing they won't be too grateful for.

Public Libraries....

Here's a topic you will never read much about. How public libraries should be banned. Not just certain books in public libraries, but public libraries themselves. My objection is not to libraries, but rather to the *public* aspect of it. Would anyone care to argue that citizens have a *right* to reading material of their choice at other people's expense? I'm sure a lot of you would....and I would point out once again (y'all getting weary of the same song?) that noone has a right to reading material at the expense of others.

So....why aren't there more private libraries? Well, if you're like me, I will purchase the books I want...I don't believe I have a *right* to go to a library and *demand* a book be made available to me, because after all I am a taxpayer (and remember, if I don't pay those taxes my husband's and my home will be taken away from us at gunpoint, if we refuse to leave, thereby rendering the last part of the 5th amendment worthless (nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.). It seems to me that when you tax people's private property for public use you are not giving them just compensation.

Have you ever noticed how when people disagree with you, they don't argue principle...they argue their own personal situation. "But, how am I going to read this one book that I really want to read but can't afford?" Well...now here's a couple thoughts...first of all, you don't have a right to read any book at someone else's expense...but if the government weren't taxing you at a total rate of somewhere between 40-50% perhaps with that extra money in your pocket you just might be able to afford that book. Or, it might happen, you just happen to be a loser who isn't interested in doing the right thing, in which case, you're probably not interested in reading anyway. LOL

On a different note, though, there are 2 other reasons I object to public libraries. One I came up with and the second my sister pointed out to me (not all my thoughts are original). I will address hers first. First, is when you have public libraries and an author has a successful book, thanks to public libraries, fewer copies are sold than otherwise would be, since 100 people line up to read the *free* library copy. Is that really fair to the author?

On the opposite side (my thought), is that public libraries provide a market for crappy books that would never be published if you depended on individuals to purchase them, or they are ideologically bad books that find their ways into individual's hands, that had they had to purchase them, they never would have. Despite my convictions I went to a local library about 8.5 years ago. One of my children (ages 4 or 5 at the time), picked up a book called, Mommy, Don't Hit Me. Lovely. Just the sort of book my children need to see. Not.

When I was in highschool, I used to spend some of my study halls in the school library where I would read the magazine Glamour. As I look back, I'm thinking, why on God's green earth would it ever be a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars to purchase a sex magazine (because in the end that is what it is...and that was 25 years ago!!!! I can't even imagine how it is now....sigh....)? The answer is, it isn't, unless whoever purchased it was interested in destroying the innocence and encouraging promiscuity among teen-age girls. I read stuff in there I had absolutely NO business reading whether I was 16 or 41. I read lots of Judy Blume books (for whatever reason those are considered *classics*. Gag me with a spoon (how's that for 80's speak?). I read them all, and I can assure you none of my daughters ever will and their lives will be much richer. My point, is that public libraries provide access to materials that children and adults should not be reading...and human nature being which it is (which is inherently sinful), will pick out books that they shouldn't read because if it's *free* and if they had to actually pay for it, that *cost of doing business* would prevent them from doing so.

We are all human, therefore we are all subject to sin. Because of that, it is important to set external disciplines in place to help keep our sinful nature in check. Why is that such an *over the top* thing to point out?