Monthly Archives: April 2010

The Great Chinese Meltdown

God’s Word is both TRUTH, and declares what is true. The Scriptures do not lie. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap…” This is a principle fact. But it is a universal and comprehensive fact in that it pertains to all areas of life – even the market place.

Several months ago I offered 6 Economic Reports ( approx. 60 pages) dealing with the inevitable meltdown of the U.S. economy and how to survive its ravages. The reports contained historical information, links and resources that many are unaware of and much practical directives. The six reports sold for $14.95. I received 12 subscriptions.

For whatever reason, many who believed it unnecessary to read these reports probably also thought that they were either immune from the coming crisis, or well informed as to the coming crisis, and thus were already prepared for it.

Vitaliy Katsenelson, in his article “You are not as smart as you think you are”,  rightly declares, “Feeling smart makes you do the opposite of what you should be doing.” The fact remains, most of middle class America is in financial trouble. What is outrageous is that a majority of Chirstian Americans, despite the warnings in God’s Word, are also in desperate trouble.

We have recently witnessed the European meltdown in Greece. Sadly much of the American population refuses to beleive that the European meltdown is coming to America. Rest assured it is coming. The human race is not facing a Europena meltdon, but rather a Global meltdown as a result of un-Biblical and rebellious economic, monetary stewardship.

Even with the high rate of unemployment and American debt it seems as if it is business as usual and the money will always be there. It will not. The recession is not over. The recession has only begun to reve its engines of destruction.

Consider the most recent development. China. Seen by many to be economically solid, and the most productive nation on the global economic scene. It is now showing its true situation, and that situation is foreboding. Fractional reserve banking, massive debt through uncontrolled and un-Biblical borrowing, fiat money creation are all wreaking havoc upon the nations of the world.

The Chinese economic is now faced with their own gigantic buble. The reprint of Gary North’s comments on Vitaliy Katsenelson’s piece are enlightening to say the least. I thought it proper to give our readers a heads up.

April 24, 2010

Here is the site: A great title. Easy to remember.

The creator/editor is Vitaliy N. Katsenelson. I had never heard of him before this week. That is my fault, not his.

He thinks straight. He is a no-nonsense “capitalist pig,” as he calls himself.

I have argued that China will crash. I have come to this conclusion through Austrian economic analysis. He has concluded the same thing through more traditional capital theory. The government is propping up the economy, but it is wasting money/capital on an historic scale, given the small size of the economy (a small fraction of ours).

He wrote an article last month for the Christian Science Monitor. It’s posted here.

He calls China’s economy a superbubble. I agree with him. Neither of us knows when it will pop. It will be a disaster when it does.

But what about the high economic growth? He and I agree: the government is lying. In the mid-1960s, I studied the Soviet economy. I wrote a chapter on it for my book, Marx’s Religion of Revolution (1968). That was when I concluded that the statistics were fake. There was enough evidence to indicate this. The statistics remained fake until 1989, when the economy collapsed. Only one economist called it, late in the process (1987): Judy Shelton.

I think the Chinese government is imitating the Soviet Union, on a much grander scale.

There is going to be a great stock market buying opportunity in China, assuming the society does not self-destruct in riots and secession, which is possible. Today, it’s the highest-risk economy on earth.

He has produced a PowerPoint presentation. These 20 pages are worth reading. Here, you will learn of the second largest mall on earth. It has been open since 2005. It is 99% empty. The largest mall is in Dubai. Now, that’s a one-two punch!

China – The Mother of All Black Swans – By Vitaliy Katsenelson

If you are interested in my 6 part economic reports they are still available. It is time to take some action. There is still some time left. That time is fading quickly. Contact

Coram Deo


Health Care and the Constitution

Historian David Barton of Wallbuilders offers a regular email op-ed piece each month. While we at New Geneva would much rather see a Theonomic argument added against the so called “Health Care Bill”, the following Constitutional argument may be of some interest to our readers.

Mr. Barton writes:

“Following the passage of the health care bill, congressional leaders were peppered with questions demanding to know the constitutional basis for the health care takeover. Their answers were revealing; and significantly, both the Constitution and the Founding Fathers disagree with them. I know that this email is longer than normal, but I thought you might enjoy an historical and constitutional look at the recent congressional malpractice. Enjoy!”

David Barton

Health Care and the Constitution

After a year of contentious debate, it became clear that the House intended to pass the health care bill by whatever means necessary, even if it required the use of a “deem and pass” procedure whereby Members would not vote directly on the bill. After a massive public outcry arose against that unconstitutional proposal (Article I, § 7, ¶ 2, and § 5, ¶ 3 direct that “the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays” on a measure rather than just “deeming” it passed), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD), head of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, urged Democrat House Members to remain quiet and avoid talking about the unconstitutional process in an attempt to lessen the political backlash. 1

That procedure ultimately was not used, but once the health care bill passed, voters demanded of congressional leaders the constitutional provision that authorized the federal takeover of health care. In answering that question, Rep. John Conyers (MI) replied: “Under several clauses – the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others. All the scholars – the constitutional scholars that I know (I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know) – they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill.” 2

Of course, there is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution, but assuming that Conyers simply made an honest mistake, he likely was referring to the General Welfare Clause, which appears in two locations:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States. ART. 1, SEC. 8, PAR. 1

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD) agreed that “Congress has ‘broad authority’ to force Americans to purchase” health care “so long as it was trying to promote ‘the general welfare’.” 3

(Rep. James Clyburn – the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House – did not invoke the General Welfare Clause but instead candidly admitted, “Most of what we do down here is not authorized by the Constitution.” 4 )

The attempt by congressional leaders to invoke the General Welfare Clause as a cover for an unconstitutional act is nothing new. In 1792 when New England was suffering a crisis in one of its most important economic industries (fishing), some Congressmen proposed that federal funds be used to subsidize that troubled industry. James Madison quickly asserted that such a proposal was unconstitutional, explaining:

Those who proposed the Constitution knew, and those who ratified the Constitution also knew that this is . . . a limited government tied down to specified powers. . . . It was never supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to encourage agriculture or for any other purpose they pleased. 5

Madison then warned about the consequences of allowing Congress to expand the narrow meaning of the “General Welfare Clause”:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the “general welfare.” 6
According to Madison, if the original intent of the General Welfare Clause were ever expanded, then Congress would begin an unbridled intrusion into areas that were deliberately designed by the Constitution to be under the control of the state and local governments. Two specific aspects of the Constitution were intended to prohibit such federal encroachments: (1) the Enumerated Powers Doctrine, and (2) the Bill of Rights – specifically the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Concerning the first, the Constitution authorizes Congress to address only eighteen specifically enumerated (that is, individually listed) areas and responsibilities; this is called the Enumerated Powers Doctrine. As affirmed by Thomas Jefferson:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and . . . it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers. 7

Many other Founders were equally outspoken about Congress’ limitations under the Enumerated Powers Doctrine. In fact, this doctrine was so well understood that in America’s first several decades, presidents had only four cabinet level departments: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General (occasionally there was also a separate Secretary of the Navy, but many presidents often placed him under the Secretary of War). Today, however, there are almost four times as many cabinet level positions, including a Secretary of Agriculture, Labor, Commerce, Housing, Education, Transportation, Energy, and many others. 8 Each of those areas was also very important two centuries ago, but because the Constitution had placed these areas under the jurisdiction of state governments, there was no federal presence involved in them.

Concerning the second point (the Bill of Rights), the Founding Fathers – dedicated students of history, government, and human nature that they were – knew that the federal government would invariably try to step beyond its enumerated powers; they therefore added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, directly stipulating that all areas not specifically listed in the Constitution were to remain under the jurisdiction of the states and local governments, which thus included areas such as education, criminal justice, energy, agriculture, and many others.

As Thomas Jefferson affirmed:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people” [the Tenth Amendment]. . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. 9

James Madison agreed:

I declare it as my opinion that [if] the power of Congress be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations . . . of the limited government established by the people of America. 10

Jefferson further explained:

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government! 11

As Jefferson summarized it:

The states can best govern our home concerns, and the [federal] government our foreign ones. 12
Significantly, health care issues often arose in early America – as when various dangerous fevers would periodically appear, ravaging American cities and killing scores of citizens. Concerning health care issues, the Founders specifically placed domestic health care into the hands of the state governments, leaving issues of international health care in the hands of the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson affirmed, the federal government was “to certify with exact truth, for every vessel sailing from a foreign port, the state of health respecting this fever which prevails at the place from which she sails,” but that “the state authorities [are] charged with the care of the public health.” 13 Under the Constitution, states were to handle domestic health care issues, and the federal government foreign ones.

Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Congressmen voted for the recent passage of the unconstitutional health care bill, there are many in Congress who do understand the constitutionally limited powers of Congress. Dozens of these Congressmen formed the Constitution Caucus, chaired by Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ), and many of its Members have made outstanding efforts to return Congress to its constitutional role; two such measures are highlighted below.

Rep. John Shadegg (AZ)

Every session since John has been in Congress, he has introduced “The Enumerated Powers Act” which would require “that all bills introduced in the U. S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.” 14 As Shadegg explains, “The Enumerated Powers Act will help slow the flood of unconstitutional legislation and force Congress to reexamine the proper role of the federal government.” 15

Not surprisingly, leaders of Congress have not allowed this bill to move forward, nevertheless, what a refreshing idea that Congress should provide constitutional authority for the actions it takes and the bills it passes!

Rep. Mike Conaway (TX)

Federal law establishes September 17 (the day the Constitution was signed in 1787) as Constitution Day, requiring that on that day every school receiving federal funding spend time studying the Constitution. Despite the law, a recent survey found that the majority of high school students had never heard of Constitution Day, and only ten percent could recall any such school celebration the prior year. 16

However, Congressman Conaway believed that not just school students but also Members of Congress and their staff should also study the Constitution on that day, so he introduced a congressional resolution to that effect. When the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee heard the resolution, he told Mike, “That’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard!” – an attitude far too common among many in Congress.

Nonetheless, Mike (and many other Congressmen like him) continues to study the Constitution regularly. In fact, Mike always carries a pocket Constitution with him and each time he reads through it, he writes the date on the flyleaf of the booklet – a practice he began even before he became a Member of Congress.

Founding Father John Jay wisely advised:

Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country. . . By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them. 17

The only way that more Congressmen will begin to study the Constitution is if “We The People” study it first and then, through the power of our voice, calls, letters, and votes, insist that our elected officials also know and observe it.

To help Americans better understand the Constitution and the limited government set forth by the Founding Fathers, we have just released a new audio CD called “The Principles of Limited Government,” which can be purchased or downloaded. We also have a pocket Constitution, called “Documents of Freedom.” Both are available in a special Limited Government Package for 20% off and are also available in our online store at

Deo Vindice! New Geneva

1. “Van Hollen memo lays out time line and messaging,”, March 12, 2010 (at:

2. Kerry Picket, “Conyers fabricates constitutional law citing ‘good and welfare’ clause,” Washington Times, March 23, 2010 (at:

3. Matt Cover, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance,”, October 21, 2009 (at:

4. David A. Patten, “Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare,” Friday, 26 Mar 2010, (at:

5. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, pp. 428, James Madison on “The Cod Fishery Bill,” February 7, 1792.

6. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, pp. 429, James Madison on “The Cod Fishery Bill,” February 7, 1792.

7. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 133, Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817.

8. “The Cabinet,” (at: (accessed March 30, 2010); “Cabinet Level Departments,” National Defense Industrial Association (at: (accessed March 30, 2010).

9. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. III, p. 146, Jefferson’s opinion against the constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791.

10. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, p. 429, James Madison on “The Cod Fishery Bill,” February 7, 1792.

11. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. X, pp. 167-168, Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800.

12. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, pp. 450, Thomas Jefferson to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823.

13. Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873, Message by President Thomas Jefferson “To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America,” on Tuesday, December 3, 1805 (at:; see also, Thomas Jefferson, “Fifth Annual Message,” The American Presidency Project, December 3, 1805 (at:

14. “Text of H.R. 450: Enumerated Powers Act,”, January 9, 2009 (at:

15. John Shadegg, “Enumerated Powers Act,” (at: (accessed March 24, 2010).

16. David Yalof and Ken Dautrich, survey conductors, “New Constitution Day Survey,” John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, September 20, 2007 (at:, (for the full survey, go to ).

17. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. I, pp. 163-164, from his Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County, September 9, 1777.

Judgment Is Turned Away Backward

The prophet Isaiah wrote in Isa 59:14-18:

“And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. (15) Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. (16) And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. (17) For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke. (18) According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.”

There is a great need of justice in America. Often, and especially of late, we too are asking and wondering, “Where are the men that will administer justice”? The definition of justice is the administration and maintenance of that which is righteous. Justice is a religious term that is directly related to law since law is the rule to determine what is good and right; this means that justice deals with ethics. The faithfulness that a nation has in administering God’s law will determine whether that nation is an ethically just nation or whether it is an oppressive nation. As we can see from Isaiah, the lack of justice resulted in the oppression of the people and the judgment of God on the nation. The lack of justice in America has a profound effect upon you individually, your family and your posterity. The administration of justice, or the lack thereof, will determine whether you live as a free citizen or whether you will live as a slave; It will determine whether our nation is a nation whose God is the Lord with the blessings that result from that relationship, or whether we will have wicked men rule over us and the curses that will be the consequence of that relationship. But in either situation, one thing stands out clear: we are responsible.

St. Augustine made excellent observations in his classic work, The City of God , concerning governments without justice. He wrote,

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves but little kingdoms?”

The only difference, then, between a criminal syndicate and a government without justice is that the government is more likely to assert that the will of the people backs what they purpose to do, whereas a criminal syndicate doesn’t make any such claims. But in reality, there is no difference; a government without justice is no different then a criminal syndicate. We can see this with our current President, Barak Obama. Not only will his health care legislation rob men by means of unjust taxation and the addition of fines to anyone who will not accept the health care, but in every step of the way he is asserting that the things he is doing has the will of the people behind it.

Dr. R.J Rushdoony aptly described the state of a government without justice,

“Stripped of justice, the law becomes an instrument of extortion and oppression in the hands of whatever group of men control it. If men of wealth control the state, the law becomes their tool to subjugate the poor to make them poorer. If poor men control the state, the law then is used to rob the rich and all hard working men to support those who want to live on the proceeds of robbery.”

We have recently seen the U.S. President and several men of his persuasion take measures in running through a bill that violates God’s law order, that is, that essentially lacks any element of justice. The recent passing of the health care bill into law was another blow to our liberty, but it was not the first blow. But there is an aspect to liberty that I think we have overlooked and it is this: With freedom comes responsibility; godly and Biblical responsibility. Every President we elect is saying to God, “We will have this man to rule over us”. Not only does this apply with the election of Obama, but this applies to every candidate for an ecclesiastical or a political office. The questions we must ask ourselves is, “Does this man match up to the Biblical criteria to be fit to rule this country”, “Does this man act on what he says he believes, or is he simply an orator with a heart of hypocrisy?”

What is stunning is that while the Christian church has the means to fight every opposition to God’s law-order by simply asserting God’s Law through the teaching and advancing of the Scriptures, she has remained virtually silent.

It is God’s word that must be liberally used to silence the rebellious. Consider these passages.

Jer 23:29: “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?”

Heb 4:12: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword…”

Not only do we have the means to oppose those who oppose God by use of His Law Word, but we have a mandate to cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2Cor. 10:5). This bears directly upon every professing Christian, whether they are a manager, a landscaper, a contractor, a business man, or whatever occupation they fill. God’s people have a responsibility to call out their political representatives for their lack of fulfilling their duty, firstly, to God, and secondly, to the people he claims to serve. Each Christian has the Divine responsibility to vote for explicitly godly men. We are not talking about moderates here. We are not talking about men who are immature in the Christian faith. We are talking about men of godly character who are knowledgeable in Christian ethics. Further, we must make it our chief concern to pray for our civil magistrates. This would pretty much cover everything except one thing: We need to repent of our slothfulness.

The occurrence of yet another blow to our liberty did not take place over night, though indeed the legislation was voted on in a day and passed in two. It took place because the Christian church has not been fulfilling its primary duty, and that is to educate. Mt 28:20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

We must start providing concrete, applicable solutions in this world or we will surely become obsolete. Instead of hiding out in our churches with our potluck dinners and church events, how about reading the Law-word of God and seek to apply it to our culture?

This Blog post reflects the work of a second year New Geneva Academy Student. For more information on the Leadership Academy, and for a list of all our courses please go to

Revisiting Calvinism

In case you missed the CBS piece on Calvinism from September 2009, in celebration of Calvin’s 500th Birthday, we are posting it in part, and linking to the original article. Calvinism seems to be making a comeback. If this is true, thank God for it.

At its root and branch The New Geneva Christian Leadership Academy is thoroughly Calvinistic, as is The Reformed Bible Church in central Virginia at Appomattox and its research institute The ITR. With its emphasis upon the Reformation’s idea of applied Theology to every realm of life, the Academy is adding new, ground breaking, classes each semester to provide the necessary tool for cultural application.

Revisiting Calvinism

“If you want to see clear evidence of the connection between God and the United States, look at the life and beliefs of the Protestant reformer, John Calvin. July marks the 500th anniversary of his birth.

Calvin never stepped foot on American soil, but his influence in the founding of this country is difficult to deny.

‘Father of America’

CBN News took to the streets to discover that most people today associate the name, Calvin, with the comic strip character Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes, or Calvin Klein.

That is a shame according to Dr. Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University.

Dunn agreed with the late Harvard historian George Bancroft who wrote,

“He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”

Bancroft even called Calvin “the father of America.”

“We might dispute the degree to which he was the father of America,” Dunn said. “But no one had as great an influence over such a breadth of ideas as John Calvin.”

Calvin developed many of those ideas while he was pastor of St. Pierre Cathedral in Geneva beginning in 1536 with ideas that transformed the city. Those ideas included education for the masses, not just the elite; the sacredness of all professions, not just the ministry; free market economic reforms; and checks and balances in civil government.

“He understood the nature of government that you cannot grant power to just one authority because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Dunn said. “So there must be checking of power with power.”

These are ideas the early settlers brought to America a century later and appeared in documents like the Mayflower Compact and the U.S. Constitution.

Significant Works

But perhaps Calvin’s most significant work was his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Dunn called it “The most brilliant theological document since the New Testament.”

Five centuries later, it is still in print in two volumes. In it, Calvin set out to explain what the Bible had to say about God, man, creation, sin, justification by faith, the church and the sacraments, among other things. But the theme throughout is the sovereignty of God in all of life, including salvation.

Today, Calvinism, or reformed theology as it is also called, is a small minority of the evangelical movement. But it is making a comeback in places many evangelicals have avoided.”

Read the entire piece here: