Environmentalism vs. Economic Hit Men

     I have been reading a few books about economics and environmentalism and how the two interact with each other, and I thought it fitting to speak a little about the subject.  HOODWINKED: An Economic Hit Man Reveals Why the World Financial Markets IMPLODED-and What We Need to DO to Remake Them by John Perkins was one of the most intriguing reads as I started off in my research, but I was soon disappointed as I delved further into his work.  The book starts off almost as a James Bond movie full of secrecy, deceit, and even some questionable sexual encounters, but as the book moves forward the axe the author has to grind becomes all to apparent.  The question remains, when finishing reading a book such as this, why does it seem like every author has to fall to one extreme or the other when it comes to capitalism?
     John Perkins portrays himself as a misguided and completely gullible pawn in the greater game of competing economics theories, and after years of deceiving government, he finally comes to the light that what he is doing is wrong.  He started his career working for a highly secretive firm named MAIN that was  in the business of selling high dollar IMF loans to third world countries in exchange for allowing major corporations to come in and develop infrastructure that he claimed would help the people of these poor nations.  In retrospect he claims that he knew the loans were bad, and that eventually they would bankrupt the country and force the sale of economic assets to foreign corporations.  It is very well worded, and at times even compelling, but when you dig through the rhetoric, it is apparent that he is mistaken in his assessment of the outcome. 
     First, he contends that the companies came in and built the infrastructure and schools only to eventually exploit the natives of these countries, but even if true,  would it not be better for these countries to have these necessities than to have none?  And further more, even the countries that did default on the IMF loans, many are now refusing to payback the loans at all.  Also, would it have been better for these countries to not have had the jobs that were provided by the building of these vital structures? 
     His most laughable argument is in the low wages paid to third world countries by large international corporations.  Perkins argues that these workers are treated so terribly and that they make just pennies a day, but then later on in the book he recommends that people only buy responsibly made products from places such as Canada and Denver, CO.  So the question I have for the former Economic Hit Man is, are the poor third world citizens better off with no job and us buying our products from first world countries, or with the amount of money they're making currently?  I don't disagree with the fact that they should be paid more, but we do not live in some utopian fantasy, and never will!  Take whatever good we can from situations and don't take everything from the poor who would rather work for pennies instead of nothing.
     Another humorous hypocrisy is the love that Mr. Perkins shows for China and its' government, and the absolute hatred he has for the 'mutant capitalism' that America practices.  He goes into great detail about how wonderful China is, and how they're attempting to go green because they planted a few trees by the side of the road.  He also claims that the government in China has promised to go to electric cars, and that when the Chinese government promises something, it keeps its' word.  Great detail is paid to the glorious architecture and extreme economic growth that has sustained China and has made it the world's second leading economy.  He believes their Socialist government should be praised for how it controls its' finances, but in the same breath he slams the United States for its' over consumption and 'trinket' economy.  To be such a 'well known' economist you would think he would understand that without America purchasing all those trinkets from China, their economy would collapse!  And why does he praise a country that is hell bent on imitating American consumption by buying millions and millions of iPads and cellphones?  He fails to acknowledge the northeast corner of China which is referred to as the 'Rust Belt' due to all of the run down factories, and also fails to acknowledge the millions of starving farmers that are being taxed to extremes to where they can't even feed their familes.
     In conclusion, I found the book a very easy read, but highly prejudicial and lacking any economic depth.  If someone enjoys arguments, such as, that since a flowers leaves are wilting, then we should move a highway (which is suggested in this book), than this is a must read.  But for someone who is looking for a common sense answer, and not a communist utopian fantasy, then I suggest a different read.  God Bless!

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

The Morality of War: World War II In Perspective

     The rationale and morality of war has always been something that is hotly debated, and with the 'War on Terrorism' still alive, it is no less so today,  As humans we all here the politicians clamor that we must fight so that justice can be brought to the world, but on the other hand you have a mother at home who sees her son come home in a coffin.  Then there is the wealthy 'landed gentry' who look at war as a means of gaining wealth and power, but are never seen on the front lines.  But if that were the only reason for war it would be quite simple to condemn the action.  Unfortunately, there are many side stories to these same conflicts that generally expose the exploitation and murder of some sector of the population.  The purpose of this paper is to show some of the different reasons for war, and in the end, try to come to some moral conclusion as to the right or wrong of such grim choices.

     World War II will be the war used as the focal point for this article, not only because it was the largest in history, but because there were so many facets to this war that it would be simpleminded to relegate the war as a quest to oust Hitler.  Once a wide view is taken of the war, the reader will be able to better understand why this great conflict was fought by so many countries.

     Germany had been humiliated in World War I and its military leaders were salivating for revenge against the harsh penalties that were imposed on them.  No one more so than the up-and-coming Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler.  Hitler had served on the Ypres Salient in World War I, and was subjected to the brutal trench warfare that drove many men mad.  Combine the alleged contraction of the mentally degenerative disease syphilis, and an unmatched love of the motherland, you have a dictator ready and willing to move the masses.  

     Prior to World War II Germany boasted the largest number of Christians on the European continent.  So how could a country that claimed famed reformers such as Martin Luther be led on such an evil and disastrous course?  Whether it was the hypnotic tone to Hitler's voice, the belief that the German people were genetically superior, or just out of plain fear, we may never know for sure.  One thing we do know is that the military leaders felt the lands of Alsace and Lorraine belonged to the German people and were willing to go to war to prove it.

     Now we have an economy that is the strongest in Europe, a leadership hellbent on regaining German soil and pride, and a public that was enthusiastically in support of a war, that is with the exception of the Jews.  The Jewish people of Germany were among the economic elite and had been well accepted by the native people for many years, but there was a slow burning ember of antisemitism that was gaining fuel that would eventually lead to the death of 6 to 7 million Jews.  As for the military, once they had successfully annexed Alsace and Lorraine and had grabbed Poland and Hungary, it was no small wonder that they would attack their old enemy France.  Hitler unsatisfied with the mounting success of his campaigns chose to take on Britain and Russia as well.  This ambition could only be stopped by a force mightier than that which came against it.

    In step the Allies.  France had been conquered, Russia was on the verge of collapse, and England was not strong enough to face the Third Reich on their own.  The English desperately needed the help of the United States if it was going to be successful in its battle against the Axis powers.  The problem was the American people felt disconnected from the European continent and wanted to stay out of the conflict.  American leadership on the other hand knew the dangers of leaving the entire area under the influence of Adolf Hitler.  While people in the upper levels knew some of what was going on in the concentration camps and Hitler's final solution, the extent of the horror was unknown.  So the President of the United States was faced with the challenge of galvanizing the American public in support of the war effort.  Pearl Harbor was the perfect opportunity to sway the common man's opinion about the war effort.
     Whether the government actually knew about the Japanese attack before it actually happened will not be addressed in this short discussion, but rather what the response was to this action.  American's need to be persuaded of the morality of a war before they will support it (as we failed to establish in the Vietnam War).  Thousands of sailors dying in horrific slaughter was the sad chance to convince them of the importance of intervening.  Now America was committed to the conflict and the balance of the war quickly shifted in favor of the Allies as the enormous American economy got into full swing.  Within less than 5 years the terrible conflict would come to an end.  So the burning question is, was it worth the cost of human life that was expended on the battlefield?
     It is estimated that between 50-70 million people died during the war, with the majority being civilians dying from starvation and 'war related diseases'.  At first glance these are jaw-dropping figures, but what could have happened if the Allies didn't fight back against Hitler and Japan?  The answer to this question is far more frightening than what really happened.
     If we take a look at some of the estimates form the war we see that nearly 6,000,000 Polish and 10,000,000-20,000,000 Chinese died from the aggressors.  Remember, these were countries that were invaded, and if we didn't come to their rescue the losses would've been far greater.  With Hitler and the war leadership in Japan's lust for natural resources, there is no telling when the killing would've stopped.  The two cultures were so brutal that there is little doubt that their occupation of the invaded lands would've led to genocide.  It was reported that when the Japanese soldiers invaded mainland China they made it a sport of throwing Chinese babies into the air and seeing how many they could catch on their bayonet.  Combine this with the already widely known German brutality, and we she the slaughter that was likely to occur.
      War is an ugly, but sadly, necessary action that must be taken up by the morally good.  If when faced with tyranny, people back down and let the aggressors step over the helpless, our world will quickly become one run by dictators and merciless governments.  This is not a utilitarian issue where we add up the total number of lost lives if the war had or had not been fought, although this is very helpful to explain the need for it, but rather a nation rising up to the aid of the weak.  The saddest part to war are those German's, Italian's, and Japanese who never wanted to fight the war in the first place.  If they died, they died as villains, but if they lived they were forced to deal with the atrocities that the were part of.  In closing, I hope that we people of the world will never fail to stand up and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Pope, God's Truth, and the Media's Attempted Hijacking of Christianity

     The election of the new Pope raises some interesting questions and also has brought to light the absurdity of the intelligentsia of the left media.  Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals have been mired in scandal, whether it be banking or child molestation.  While these acts are horrific and terrible, they still represent a small minority of those who lead the Catholic faithful.  Yet with these mistakes comes the barrage from the political, educational, and media elite asking that the church change its' stances.

    With that said, what are the main ways in which the church is being asked to change?  One of the main issues that the Catholic church is facing is its' beliefs about homosexuality.  The left would argue that mankind has 'progressed' enough to where we can accept that homosexuality is no longer a sin, but just a different lifestyle one chooses to live.  Since morals are chosen by the individual, according to their argument, then people should be able to live how they would like, and not only that, but the church should change its' stance on sin.       This is where there's a huge deficiency in their understanding of the Christian faith.  It's not something that changes over time, as people morals deteriorate, or something that can be hijacked by someone who doesn't even share the same faith, but a true believer in the Christian faith believes that the Bible is God's word and that it cannot be changed, and more so, that God does not change.  Therefor, what was sin 2,000 years ago, is still sin today, and the Bible is very clear that for a man to lay with another man as he lays with a woman is an abomination to God.

     The other issues that they seek to change is that of abortion and contraception.  Once again the Catholic church takes the clear Biblical stance that both of these are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible.  So as we watch the news following the conclave, please pray that those making the decision on the next Pope will put God first and not public opinion.  If not, we may face a great period of judgement from God in light of our rebellion and the corruption of His church.  With that said...Have a great day! 

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee 

Israel and Palestine: Who's Land Is It?

     One of the greatest myths that has been propagated by the politically correct, most often anti-Semite, news media, political left and Muslim nations, is that Palestine was the true name of historical Israel.  They use this argument to help solidify Palestinian claims to the land they claim was traditionally their home.  Never mind the fact that they sold their land willingly to the Jewish people.  So let's take a brief look at who really has a right to the land.

     It is well known by Christians that the land of Israel was promised by God to Abraham and his descendants for all time.  What is not as well known is the conflict that Abraham and Sarah caused by not having faith in God's timing and conceiving Ishmael by Hagar.  The Bible refers to him as being 'a wild donkey' who is constantly at war with his neighbors.  Now when you dig through the genealogy of Ishmael's descendants, you see that they became the Arab people, which now surround the state of Israel.  And it's a testimony to the accuracy of God's word that the Arab people have a natural tendency toward violence and war.

     So the Palestinians were direct relatives of Ishmael, and thus retain his proclivity to act in 'defiance' of God's will.  There is an ingrained jealousy of the covenant that was made with Abraham regarding the birth of Isaac, God's promised blessing.  Muhammad is a stark example of this jealousy.  He claimed to have been visited by God when he was forty years old and told to cleanse the scriptures.  Methodically he wrote over a more than twenty year period and changed the promised child from Isaac to Ishmael, and by doing this changed the promise of the land of Israel over to the Arab Muslims.

    An interesting side note on the name Palestine is mention in Bryant Wright's Seeds of Turmoil when he writes, "To add insult to injury, the Romans chose the name Palestine, a Roman derivative of the word Philistine, the longtime enemies of ancient Israel whose stronghold was in Gaza (now referred to as the Gaza Strip) and used it to rename the land of Israel."  So interestingly enough the name Israel predates any use of the name Palestine.  In fact, the Bible never once mentions the name Palestine, and therefor, the oldest God-given claim to the land would fall with Israel, and not the Arab Palestinians.  It would be nice if historians would leave politics and the tide of opinion to be left out of their work and stick to the truth!

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee