Progressive Movement: Trading One Master for Another!

     Most movements of the masses start out with the best of intentions, only to end in a power struggle between a new elite class.  The Progressive movement is one such movement.  Beginning in the late 19th century, farmers were beginning to feel the pinch of new technology, as new methods of farming were requiring far fewer hands.  This led many young farmers to migrate to the larger cities in search of work and a new way of life.

     The more efficient and larger farms were also having another dramatic effect on their way of life.  As their products flooded the markets, the prices began to drop, making profitability even more difficult.  A southern journalist of the time wrote, "The landowner was so poor and distressed that he forgot that he was a capitalist...so weary of hand and sick of spirit that he imagined himself in precisely the same plight as the hired man..."  While a pure free market believer like Adam Smith would say that this was market forces working to precision, the agrarian population fought back with Populism (the beginning of the Progressive Movement).  The majority of the population felt thgt since America was blessed with such great resources, then everyone should be able to enjoy them and be prosperous.  While this sounds like a great idea to many, when you look at its consequences you can see the folly of such thoughts. 

     During this same period of time you had the rise of the great industrialist such as Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan.  With little government influence, they were able to build massive empires that employed hundreds of thousands of workers.  The technological improvements they established helped the United States to become a world power on par with the greatest nations of the time.  There were many that did not see this growth and concentration of power as a good thing for the country.

     William Jennings Bryant was the vocal head of the Progressive Movement during the late 19th and early 20th century.  His main mission was to take down the 'Titans of Industry' and bring equality to the common working man.  The question is...what if the industrialist would have never been able to build their empires?  The grim reality is that the hundreds of thousands of farmers and poor city folk would've been without work and the country would not be established as a world power.  The unrestrained free market created the greatest economic boom our country has ever seen and led to greater prosperity for all.

     But that was not enough for the Progressives.  Early in the 20th century (Teddy) Roosevelt assaulted the industry's, and was successful in breaking up what they had built.  The result of this was not what most people had hoped for.  Government began to grow in power and the economy began to slow as the nation headed toward 'The Great Depression'.  This national calamity gave the Progressives an opportunity to expand governmental power to even greater extents.  With national building projects and the enactment of Social Security, the government was firmly entrenched in the average Americans life.

     As our nation moved forward in its fight against Communism, secretly and slowly, the Progressive Movement was leading our nation toward that very end.  With the gradual destruction of the dollar, due to an overspending government, and the greater dependency on the government by the average American, the enslavement of our nation was almost at its completion.  Each year that goes by our government spends more and the average worker takes home less on each paycheck.

     This is the main problem with the Progressives and their Socialist agenda, when they are given an inch, they will seek the proverbial mile.  As of the writing of this article, the government already controls the following; your retirement (through Social Security), up to 39% of your income, your moral choice in where your tax dollars are spent, your free speech (if you're a Christian), and many other areas that we hold dear, but still not enough!  Now the Progressives seek to control our health care, right to be armed, how much greenhouse gasses we emit, where we go (with the GPS monitoring black boxes being mandatory in every vehicle by 2014), and what we say on the radio or TV.  What started as an honest, but foolish, attempt at leveling the playing field, has turned into a power grab by government.  So in the end we have traded the free market and industrialist system for a government that has enslaved us in a much more effective and controlling way.  Wake up America!  We are a FREE nation!  

Jeffrey Brandon Lee

A Few More Thoughts on Grace!

     As we grow in our Christian faith many questions can dominant our thoughts and hearts.  Although we are born again as new creatures in Christ, we are still living in the flesh and continue to battle against desires that fly in the face of our true spiritual nature.  Why do we still get angry, lust after others, or embrace greed?  Contemplating these shortcomings, frustration can set in as we feel as if we are failing God in some way, and are no longer deserving of His love or Salvation.  But this is not what or Lord and Savior Jesus Christ intended for us.

     Since the very beginning the Apostle Paul sought to assuage these fears with his preaching of Grace and Forgiveness.  He gave us comfort by confirming it is not by our works that we are saved, but by our faith in the sacrifice of God's only Son, Jesus.  When reading his letter to the church in Galatia, Paul rebukes the people for their falling prey to the false apostles that preached that you must not only have faith in Jesus, but also must keep the law in order to be justified.  Paraphrasing Paul, he went so far as to say, "If you seek to be justified by the law, then Christ died for nothing."  These chilling words must have struck deep into the heart of the Galatians as they contemplated their own faith.

     So does that mean when we accept Christ as our savior that we are free to sin as much as we want?  Paul exclaims, "Certainly not!".  So now we must attempt to understand what the difference is between doing what is right because of Grace, and doing what is right as an attempt at justification through the law.

     Martin Luther wrote the following on the subject, "When the apostle (Paul) says, Abraham, the man of faith, it is as if he is making a distinction between two Abraham's and saying there is a working Abraham and a believing Abraham.  We have nothing to do with the working Abraham, for if he is justified by what he does, he has something to rejoice about, but not with God.  The Jews may glory as much as they like about that ancestor who is circumcised and kept the law; we glory in the Abraham of whom the Scripture says that he received the blessing of righteousness through his faith, not only for himself but also for all those who believe as he did.  And so the world was promised to Abraham because he believed.  Therefor, all the world is blessed-that is, is credited with righteousness-if it believes as Abraham did."  When reading this carefully we see it is not what we do, but what we believe that accredits to us righteousness. 

     So now that we know that we were saved by faith in the Grace of God through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, we seek to do what is right out of gratitude and reverence, not out of fear of the law.  Remember that Grace is undeserved favor.  You can do nothing to earn it!  All you must do is believe in Jesus and you will be saved.  So when you fall into temptation and sin, and feel that God is mad at you, remember He looks at you through the saving blood of His son Jesus.  You don't have to earn your way back into His favor and blessings, only believe.  God's arms are always open and eager to embrace the prodigal son that returns to his Father.  So when the devil tries to convince you that you have done too many evil things to be forgiven, remind him that you were saved by Grace and not by works, and that where Jesus is there you will be also!  God Bless, and live in the victory and love of Jesus.

Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Arguments Against Global Environmental Organizations

             With the recent growing influence of the environmental movement, it seems plausible at first thought, to include organizations such as NGO’s (Non Governmental Organization) in WTO negotiations and dispute settlement processes.  The problem is that the WTO does not seem to be the proper international body to discuss topics of this nature.  Nor does it seem wise to allow an NGO to initiate formal complaints before the Dispute Settlement Body.

            The WTO has many critics these days and most complain of a lack of transparency or inefficient processes.  So what would be the point of widening the scope of an already embattled international organization?  The better course of action would be to leave these issues to the United Nations and the relevant body that oversees them.  Also, there could be some interaction between the WTO and the United Nations, if the United Nations finds the claims of a plaintiff NGO to be substantiated, and in the best interest of global welfare.  For now though the WTO should adhere to its basic principals and that is trade liberalization. 

            That brings us to the idea set forth by Mr. Charnovitz that claims NGO’s should be allowed the power to initiate complaints and bring them before the dispute settlement body.  This is a very dangerous idea, and contrary to Mr. Charnovitz, I believe undemocratic.  The idea that NGO’s represent the people is highly questionable as far as I’m concerned.  Organizations such as Greenpeace and other radical NGO’s represent the fringe rather than the majority.  If these organizations were given the power to bring cases before the DSB it could be economically disastrous for the global economy.  Furthermore, the implication that these organizations are far more informed about environmental issues is irrelevant.  The WTO was not created to help mother earth maintain her ‘greenness’.

            The problem with NGO’s is that most often they wish to enter into forums that were not created to deal with the issues they present, and are often ideas that the majority of people disagree with.  These organizations should be allowed to voice their opinion and on occasion be consulted if the need arises, but in no way, shape, or form should they be given any power on the international economic scene.  Leave it to national governments to negotiate among themselves on issues such as the environment, labor, and other NGO interest.

Jeffrey Brandon Lee