Friday, June 26, 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.
Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.


Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."

In centuries of Anglo-American common law history, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared: "Marriage was not originated by human law."

Choosing the Path of Coercion
The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."

I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:

Nor have I read Justice Scalia's dissent:

I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.
Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3

The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when America was a Christian nation. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.

"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2
" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3
Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."
Marriage is not about love.
Marriage is not about sex. Marriage is about God' creating human beings "male and female," as Jesus said (Matthew 19).
Marriage is about commitment to God's order.
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."
Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated and allegedly ratified, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.
Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas and wife Virginia Thomas
POLITICO.com


Thursday, June 18, 2015

Anarcho-Capitalism and Abortion

The biggest issue in the 2016 Presidential race will be whether the forces of smaller government can unite behind a single candidate to run against the candidate of the forces of bigger government.

"The forces of smaller government" are:

  1. Conservative Christians, a.k.a. "the religious right."
    • Believe abortion and homosexuality (etc.) must be eradicated.
  2. Secular libertarians -- I'll call them "anarcho-capitalists"
    • Don't care about, or even endorse, abortion and homosexuality (etc.).

Christian conservatives say they want smaller government, but they want a government big enough to fight abortionists, homosexuals, and Muslims.

Secular libertarians want smaller government, but they don't seem to care if mothers kill their own children, two (or more?) people of the same sex get "married," and don't realize that their secular worldview is no match for Islam.

Can these two groups agree on a candidate to run against the Big Government candidate?

If they don't, then the Republican candidate will either displease conservative Christians, who will stay at home rather than vote for another Mitt Romney who does not oppose abortion and homosexuality, or the Republican candidate will please social conservatives, but neo-conservatives (who despise conservative Christian morality) will vote for a hawk like Hillary, and secular libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will be crowned.

As it stands right now, I don't think Christians and libertarians can agree, and the reason is that conservatives -- even "Christian" conservatives -- do not really support smaller government.

Socially conservative Christians must become libertarians on the social issues: abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, you name the "hot-button" issue. Only by moving toward the "anarchist" side of the political spectrum can these sins be eradicated.

In every case, Christian conservatives look to the government for solutions, forgetting that the government caused the problems in the first place, and will only make the problems worse.

Abortion is an interesting example. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christians seeking government solutions to abortion. There is good reason to believe that the decline in abortion over the last decade does not represent an upsurge of Christian morality, but a decline in the "stigma" attached to out-of-wedlock births (which are now nearly "fashionable"), allowing single mothers to get support for the children they might otherwise have killed for convenience. This in turn suggests that Christians -- instead of giving loving support to unwed mothers -- gave them "stigma," and directed massive resources (which they might have employed in supporting unwed mothers and giving a Christian upbringing to their illegitimate children) to political lobbyists, to get laws passed which would, I suppose, put in prison mothers who kill their kids, or maybe have them executed. After they kill their kid.

Why is it that the mothers of 55 million babies since 1973 found the greedy, bloodthirsty abortion industry more attractive than Christians opening their heart, homes and wallets to support those children?

On this issue and issues like immigration, Christians have failed to follow the dictates of their religion, and have lobbied for bigger government.

Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The size of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of false religions, using government to aid in "The Great Commission" is unChristian. And destroying the true religion using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to Iraq.

America is no longer a "City upon a Hill," as Jesus used that phrase. The United States is an imperialist war-monger state.

"Obamacare" is God's judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Hospitals were built by Christians with Christian money. Modern Christians wanted government Medicare subsidies for their aging parents. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for all the poor of the world. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;

If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog

But American Christians prefer a Frappuccino® and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches. Let the government take care of the poor folks and the old folks.

Again, had Christians taken their responsibilities (and their financial power) seriously, advocates of "Obamacare" could never have gotten a foothold.

Further, the importance of providing education for all the poor of the earth should not be overlooked. Education is the foundation of Christian civilization. Global Christian education has staggering foreign policy implications. See the concept outlined on our Iraq page. Some Muslims understand this better than most Christians. See this extraordinary admission by Muslim leaders:

Do We Need to Go to War to Stop the Advance of Islam?

Sure, it's not easy to assume the financial responsibilities that come with obeying Christ when Caesar is working 24/7 to empty your pockets of everything you worked to earn. But the Bible says God sends Caesar and Pharaoh and Bush-Obama against the people that will not put God and His commandments first.

In every case, the institution we call "the State" or "civil government" eventually destroys Christian civilization.

  • The State has destroyed education (which was originally created to make sure everyone could read the Bible),
  • and healthcare,
  • the Military is at war with the family (causing divorce and suicide)
  • and tears the fabric of life at home and abroad
    • 675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability
    • More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars
    • As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed
    • The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians
    • Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians
    • The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women
    • Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003
    • The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion
    • Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians
    • The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.
  • The State is at war against Christian virtues.
  • Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality around the world.
  • The government is a model of violence as a solution to personal and social problems.
  • Christians err grievously by voting for the "lesser of two evils," which is each and every candidate who does not trumpet the truth that "power corrupts," and legalized violence is the cause of every problem and the solution to none.
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
-- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

In no case is the government a better solution to social problems than Christians families, businesses, charities, and an army of voluntary associations, working outside the State, and sometimes against the State.

Christians need to realize that Radical libertarianism is the best way to advance socially conservative morality.

If you give the State an inch to do the work of the People of God, you give the State a mile to undercut it. Libertarians who do not oppose abortion and homosexuality -- but who actually oppose bigger government in practice -- do more to help Christians be "salt" and "light" and a "City upon a Hill," and therefore do more to end abortion and homosexuality than neo-conservative Republicans who solicit funds from the Christian Right with empty talk about "values." Christians should be libertarian with respect to political power; willing to endure accusations of trying to "impose a Theocracy" because we uphold a strong and clear moral standard. And above all, characterized by self-sacrificing love, which trusts in the Holy Spirit to change hearts.

Without a commitment to personal obedience and responsibility, it is all too likely that Christians in 2016 will once again vote for an Establishment Republican who promises government solutions to problems that can only be cured by Christians.

Please leave a comment if you can think of a social problem which is better solved (and was never caused in the first place) by the State, rather than by "the Church," that is, by Christians of every denomination who function as the Body of Christ.


How To Become a Christian Anarchist


We are not Christian anarchists because we do not want to obey God's Commandments. We are Christian anarchists because "archists" invented "the State" to evade God's Commandments.


The Conscience of an Anarchist [pdf] | Gary Chartier


Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life | Edward Peter Stringham | anarchist blueprint newly published by Oxford University Press.


Monday, June 15, 2015

Your Magna Carta Reader

Today (June 15) is the 800th Anniversary of the signing of the "Magna Carta" in 1215.

If you went to a school approved by the government, you know next to nothing about this document.

Probably the main reason the government doesn't want you to know about it is that the document is an explicitly Christian document.

It is proof that "Western Civilization" is really "Christian Civilization."

Take an hour out to read up on history.

Magna Carta -- The text of the document

Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta -- Breakpoint.org

The Forgotten Clauses of the Magna Carta - The American Vision

Free Association: "Magna Carta"

Happy 800th Birthday - Paul Craig Roberts

Legitimizing the State - The problem with a Charter (making an agreement) with the State

Here's a discussion I had on The Magna Carta and Christian Civilization with a Secular Humanist back in 1998:


The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
Stained glass and lead, from The Liberty Window, Christ Church, Philadelphia, after a painting by Harrison Tompkins Matteson, c. 1848
Courtesy of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia (101)

From The Library of Congress
"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"


Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. and TenCommandments
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 05 Apr 1998 19:24:49 EDT

In article <1998033106354001.BAA13549@ladder03.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>I pointed out that, contrary to Kevin's assertion, the Supreme Court did not
>say that the mere posting of the 10 Commandments on a school wall is
>forbidden, but rather that government officials may not order the posting for
>religious purposes.
>
>Kevin said: 
>>So are you saying that it is constitutional for a school to
>post copies
>of the 10 commandments? Have you read Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39?
>Sure doesn't sound like it.
>
>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39<<
>
>If a school were to post a series of codes that are illustrative of the
>heritage of U.S. law, and those codes were to include the 10 Commandments,
>the Court would probably let it stand.  The Court itself has such an
>historical display in the bas reliefs in its chambers.  If you include the
>Code of Hammurabi, the Koran, the Code Napoleonic, the works of Maimonides,
>the works of Solon -- sure, the Court would allow the Ten Commandments to be
>posted.  I
>have been in many schools that feature the American Legions "documents of
>freedom," including the Ten Commandments.  In context, it makes a lot of
>sense.  

Only if you're a Secular Humanist, who wants to deny the authority of the Christian religion. These codes contradict each other. Students are taught the lesson that they must make up their own religion as they go along. The Founders did not give equal weight to all religions. Some were "false," as Madison declared. The Constitution absolutely and unequivocally does not prohibit the states from teaching students that the Bible is the Word of God and other "writings" are not.

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code. . . Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.
John Quincy Adams, Letters of JQA to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings, (1850), pp. 70-71

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
-- Sam Adams 1790 [To John Adams, who wrote back:
"You and I agree."]

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.
-- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
Founder of Harvard Law School

[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.
(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)

>I haven't looked at Stone v. Graham for a few months -- but I don't
>think you will find anywhere the Court saying that posting such a code is, by
>itself, offensive.  

That is PRECISELY what the Court said. As you correctly surmised above, only by reducing God's Law to the same level as other "false" religions would the Court let the posting stand. The mind of man must be exalted above the Word of God, according to the Court.

>What is repugnant to the Constitution is the order that
>the Ten Commandments alone be posted, to illustrate the way kids should
>behave.  

How much better to have kids gunning each other down, as in Jonesboro, Ark.!! This thinking is repugnant to everything the Founders fought for. They would repudiate this thinking. They would consider your argument a danger to the Republic, just as Franklin urged Thomas Paine not to publish his scurrilous *Age of Reason.*

>I said earlier:  >It DID say that the state legislature may not order any
>>version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom of the
state
>>in order to promote Christianity.  <<
>
>Kevin said:  >>
Was it the purpose of Kentucky to "promote Christianity," or
>to make
>students aware of the foundations of Western Civilization? 
>
>     [T]he legislature required the following notation in small print at the
>     bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments: "The secular 
>     application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption 
>     as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common 
>     Law of the United States." 1978 Ky. Acts, ch. 436, 1 (effective June 17, 
>     1978), Ky. Rev. Stat. 158.178 (1980).<<<
>
>It's always been curious to me why Kentucky refused to acknowledge the
>influence of the Magna Carta on U.S. law, 

The Magna Charta? Do you even know the basic issue behind the Magna Charta?

>claiming that the 10 Commandments
>was essentially the only influence.  

"Only?" No such claim was made. It clearly was the "fundamental" influence in Western Law. Not Buddha, not Solon. Why is this so difficult for you infidels to understand? KY did not "refuse" to acknowledge the Magna Charta. But if you had limited wall space in a classroom, would you post the Ten Commandments, or the Magna Charta? Well, fortunately, Kentucky didn't ask you. But even if they had, the result would have been "unconstitutional":

Harvard Prof. Harold Berman:

In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed all England under interdict and excommunicated King John, threatening to depose him and give his crown to Philip Augustus of France. The reason was John's refusal to accept the pope's nominee as Archbishop of Caterbury. "England groaned under the interdict." Churches remained closed for years. King John counterattacked by putting his own men in clerical offices, but he ultimately submitted; in fact he gave England to the pope and received it back as a feif, swearing an oath of vassalage and agreeing to send a yearly tribute to Rome. In 1215 King John, in the very first provision of Magna Carta, declared quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit -- "that the English Church be free" -- which meant, of course, free under the papacy from control by kings or barons. Law and Revolution, pp. 262-63

The right and duty to disobey the divinely appointed king-autocrat when he violates fundamental law was based on the belief that that fundamental law was itself divinely instituted. Popes and kings made laws, but they did so as deputies of God; not they themselves but "God is the source of all law." Thus the concept of the rule of law was supported by the prevailing religious ideology. 
Law & Revolution, p. 293

Now, as I see it, the basic debate on this board is this: I say that the civil government has a duty to conform to Biblical/Christian principles. You say the state has an obligation to be secular. The Magna Charta is CLEARLY not on your side, but on the side of Kentucky and the Ten Commandments.

Shall we read the document?


THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):

Preamble:
John, by the grace of God,

Ooops, fails the Lemon Test already

king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul,

oh dear . . .

and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church

how embarrassing . . .

and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, [names withheld] of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope . . . .

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

All the rights subsequently guaranteed are stated in order to establish the proper church and ensure that God's Law is followed.

Some of the rights are curious:

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

But properly understood, they are not secular.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

"Chosen by honest men" is a Scriptural concept.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security,

62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

>That's a silly position that not even
>you would defend, Kevin.  And it didn't wash with the Court.  Kentucky did
>not intend to make a secular display, as evidenced by their erroneous
>statement of history, and their completely ignoring other more relevant
>historical
>documents.  

No document is more relevant to "the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."

>What about the Declaration of Independence?  What about the
>Constitution? 
 

Neither of those documents establishes whether and why killing, stealing, and raping are immoral and should be illegal.

>Kentucky's position was silly and indefensible, though I admit
>they wasted a lot of taxpayers' money trying to defend it.  

Words of a fool. The collapse of Western Civilization can be laid at your feet.

>Kevin said:  >>But of course, no matter what the state says its motivations
>are, the omniscient Sup Ct will impute evil motivations and say, "Oh, no,
>you're just doing that to  promote Christianity. BAD BOY!"<<<
>
>As with most of these cases, the conspiracy to put forth a phony set of
>motivations always fails.  If the legislature were concerned with the
>heritage of U.S. common law, why didn't they order a high school course in
>common law?  Their argument that third grade students needed to know the
>heritage of common law is guffaw-worthy.
>
>Do you seriously believe the legislature was worried about Western
>Civilization, Kevin?  
>
>Ed

Western Civilization has pretty much been trashed by Secular Humanism. At this point, the biggest worry of Kentucky teachers is that some student who thinks he is god is going to gun them and a few students down. But the Legislature SAID they were worried about "Western Civilization," that's what the plaque below the Ten Commandments said (not "the Word of God" or anything religious), and it is outrageous that the Humanists on the Supreme Court imposed their religion on the schools of Kentucky.
The Constitution is dead meat, thanks to Secular Humanists.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Drones and Workers

I learned something about insects today.

I used to think "drones" were "workers." This is evident on several of my old webpages. For example, on this page (which I notice was last edited on Monday, July 13, 1998, 12:10:36 AM) I spoke of the "worker-drone" who was held captive by the modern "American dream" of working an unfulfilling job to pay the mortgage and accumulate the trinkets of modern society, but not aspiring to any higher spiritual purpose:

In the material realm, life in the 1990's consists mainly of a dreary 8-5 job shuffling papers or manufacturing weapons for the New World Order, making interest payments on a mortgage, and keeping the volume down on the kids' Nintendo. This "middle-class" lifestyle differs radically from that envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. His land-owning "yeoman farmer" was much closer to the Biblical ideal of the wealthy Patriarch Abraham (Genesis 13:2), and both are a far cry from the secularized American worker-drone. The televised vision of the "American Dream" effectively serves the agenda of the ruling elites in Washington. As millions of serfs labor, the lords increase their wealth.

But "drones" are not "workers."

Among termites, "The sterile castes are the workers and soldiers. Both are wingless and usually lack eyes."

That's what I was thinking of: a wingless worker who lacks eyes. (There's a profound metaphor there.)

The common meaning of the word "drone" has changed a great deal since I wrote that page above. Today the most common identification of a "drone" is an unmanned bomber or surveillance aircraft.

In the world of insects, as I was thinking of them, "drones" were mindless workers. In reality, drones are not workers, they are worthless maters. They do nothing of value until they die impregnating the Queen bee.

Worker bees are females. Drones are males. (More metaphors.) Other than mating with the Queen bee, drones are worthless. They don't work, they just eat honey.

In Episodes of Insect Life, Volume 1, L. M. Budgen observes that drones, because of "their worthless qualities, may fairly be compared to the aristocracy of a state, where birth, not worth, makes the man."

Monday, May 18, 2015

Why I Weep at All Military Parades

Here's an interesting article about the recent parade in Russia commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Russian Army:

Why I Wept at the Russian Parade | Veterans Today

The author has fallen for the propaganda of the military parade.

Many people will agree that National Socialism (also known as Nazism -- "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialismus, the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a great evil.

Many people will agree that International Socialism (also known as Communism, the ideology spread by Moscow) is evil.

A growing number of people around the world are coming to agree that "democracy" (also known as "freedom," "free enterprise," "free market," the ideology spread by those who call themselves a "Constitutional Republic") is also evil. Those who call it evil might also call it "crony capitalism," or "fascism." (It has very little to do with freedom and freed markets.)

There is growing concern about Russia and China working together to spread Communism. (Or whatever you want to call their form of "government.") Many nations have long been concerned with the United States spreading "democracy" in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, and many other nations.

There is good reason to believe that the United States Federal Government is the most evil and most dangerous entity on the planet. "The enemy of mankind."

Thankfully, the United States is dying. It might be that the U.S. will ignite another world war just to protect its crumbling hegemony, but in the long run, the kind of imperialism and mass death promoted by the U.S. during the last 150 or so years cannot be maintained long into the 21st century.

World War II was a war against Christian civilization. Franklin Roosevelt, led by communists in the White House, brought the U.S. into the war to protect the spread of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia. The United States is responsible in large part for the casualties of the war itself (as many as 90 million) and the deaths caused by Communism in China (76 million). The carnage of two atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. was dwarfed by the massive Allied firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, and other major cities.

No rational Christian can support World War II. Russia was not any better off materially, financially, or spiritually under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler. Good arguments can be made that Hitler could not have terrorized the Russian people from Germany as effectively as Stalin did from Moscow. Jesus expressly commanded His followers not to resist invasion and military occupation. More than a hundred million human beings died to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. Private Property, including architecture and art representing centuries of human progress, produced and appreciated from the depths of the human heart and imagination, were destroyed on a massive scale. Again, to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. This is truly a form of insanity, lunacy, madness. What word describes such lethal society-wide sociopathy as massive destruction over two obviously false antitheses? 

In Moscow, hundreds of thousands of Russians, many with portraits "of the estimated 27 to perhaps 30 million Soviet citizens who never returned alive from World War II" watched a parade of soldiers and weapons of mass destruction through the main boulevard in Moscow, and elsewhere throughout the nation. The soldiers of the Russian Army should have reached the same conclusion Muhammad Ali reached, when he decided to stay out of the Vietnam war and face prison rather than kill or be killed in a senseless war.

World War II was an "unnecessary war," to quote the title of Pat Buchanan's book. The parades in Russia celebrated the war rather than mourning it, and mourned the soldiers who fought it rather than forgive them their trespasses, and honor those who stayed home to raise their families. And the author of the article above seems also to have been "impressed" rather than depressed.

Jesus came to bring "Peace on Earth." In many ways, the world is more peaceful to day than it was before Jesus came. A huge percentage of human beings in the ancient world died violent deaths, whereas today over 7 billion people enjoy levels of peace and prosperity which the ancient world could not have imagined. Twelve disciples have changed the lives of billions of people and many nations.

But we have a great distance to go. The pro-military parade in Russia is taking us backward. Those who yearn for a "united" America, in solidarity with "the troops" and "proud" of "our government," are also taking us toward war and totalitarianism and away from freedom and peace.

We must "beat our swords into plowshares" (which some derisively call "pacifism"), to the point where we abolish the myth of legitimate aggression ("government," the absence of which some call "anarchism"), and trust in "Divine Providence" rather than government coercion. America once thought of herself as a nation "under God." Today this is ruled out as "Theocracy." The alternative is mass death under atheistic despotism.

Thursday, May 07, 2015

National Day of Prayer

Today is the National Day of Prayer in the United States.

Prayer used to be about God. Today prayer is about ME. Maybe about US. Not about God. Not about duty. Not about repentance.

Resources for the National Day of Prayer

Why Daily Prayer - read the Bible and Pray Daily

 Q.98 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Prayer is
• an offering up of our desires unto God
• for things agreeable to His will,
• in the name of Christ,
• with confession of our sins,
• and thankful acknowledgement of His mercies.
 
From the Westminster Standards in 180 Days.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Tomorrow: Historic Supreme Court Case

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. It could be one of the most important cases in the history of the United States.

Just 30 years ago, in a Georgia case, the Supreme Court upheld state laws which made it a crime to engage in homosexual acts. A crime. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Writing for the Court, Justice White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road to "illegitimacy."

The Court looked back on thousands of  years of human history and the entire history of the United States, and said:
It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots.  Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. [Footnote 5] In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. [Footnote 6] In fact, until 1961, [Footnote 7] all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia  continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.  Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.
Then, less than 20 years later, the Court reversed itself.  Lawrence and Garner v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) The Court's reasoning in this case should have overruled Roe v. Wade, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent (begins p. 586).

Tomorrow the Court will hear a case which may result in the most "facetious" opinion in American history, sending the Court to the end of the road to complete "illegitimacy," by ruling that homosexuality is a fundamental "right," and that calling it a "sin" (as the Bible does) is hateful "animus" without a "rational" basis, and that America must officially declare that two homosexuals can be genuinely, truly "married" in the eyes of God.

It is staggering that thousands of years of human history can be swept away in less than 30 years. It is more staggering that Americans could be forced -- by being threatened with fines, incarceration, and the destruction of the businesses they have worked a lifetime to build -- to publicly applaud, honor, celebrate, and affirm behavior which was once universally recognized as being contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Such a decision would mean the end of the First Amendment as the framers of the Bill of Rights knew it.

Homosexual conduct should not be punished by the government by fines, being locked in a cage with a violent psychopath, or firing squad. Neither should the refusal of an artist to portray the immoral act in a laudatory way.

You should take a moment right now to pray for the attorneys who will be arguing this case tomorrow, and for the Justices who will be rendering their decision in the weeks to come.


Monday, March 16, 2015

A Christian Nation? Since When?

There's no doubt that some irreligious people use Christianity for purposes which are not consistent with their religious rhetoric.

Princeton history professor Kevin M. Kruse has compiled some interesting examples of how “Christian nation” rhetoric was used in the 1930's (and subsequently) to oppose the New Deal and support “Big Business.” He speaks of these people as "Christian libertarians."

A Christian Nation? Since When? - NYTimes.com

Opposition to government tyranny (such as the New Deal) is not inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, but government-subsidized consumerism (“corporatism,” “crony-capitalism”) is. However, saying that America is “a Christian nation” is not inconsistent with history.

Prof. Kruse says,
But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did. Back in the 1930s . . . .
He's a liar. The Founders did.
Not to say that America's Christian history has not been exploited by government and mammon in the secular 20th century, -- especially as Washington D.C. was deliberately secularizing America, and universities were scrubbing her history of all Christian influence -- but it is false to say that America's Founders did NOT intend to create a Christian nation.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed American history going back to Columbus and declared that America “is a Christian nation.”
That America is (was) a Christian nation is a legal fact. Obviously the Court in 1892 was much more conservative than the Court today. Seeing the rise of Darwinism and secularism, the Holy Trinity Court took the opportunity of a case involving the Holy Trinity Church in New York to remind the nation of her heritage, taking up half of the Court's unanimous opinion with a review of America's Christian history.

A generation later, and continuing to the present day, Kruse says "Christian nation" rhetoric was used to promote “capitalism,” a term which in our day refers to a union between big government and big business. As Kruse puts it,
they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity.
The relationship between Christianity and Capitalism was proven back in 1905 by Max Weber.
Other historians have argued that capitalism exploded as a result of the doctrine of “The Priesthood of All Believers,” in that merchants and businessmen were raised to a level of social respect previously reserved for clergy (and philosopher-kings).
Plus, The Protestant Reformation challenged the political power of the Pope and the “Divine Right of Kings,” which destroyed mercantilism and opened doors for capitalism (liberty) to flourish.
The idea that America was A Nation “Under God” was not invented during the Cold War. It goes back to the beginning, long before the people described in this NYT article.


Possibly Kruse would say that big government welfare programs like the New Deal are more "Christian" than laissez-faire capitalism. I disagree. Government “welfare” programs are impersonal acts of theft, not personal acts of heartfelt giving. They encourage resentment and violence.
I would rather spend my time collecting evidence that America's Founders, and Presidents like Ronald Reagan, endorsed and promoted Christianity, rather than collect the evidence that they were hypocrites. To say that someone is a “hypocrite” is an invitation to consistency. Merely pointing out a contradiction between actions and words accomplishes nothing. Prof. Kruse wants us to become more consistent with our hypocrisy; that is, not to become more consistent with our “Christian nation” rhetoric, but to become more consistent with our selfish, secular. God-denying actions. Where will those anti-"Christian nation" efforts take us?



Saturday, February 14, 2015

Evolution and Prohibition

Steven Wishnia writes:
The movement to prohibit alcohol was part puritanical, part racist. In the big cities, it was anti-immigrant. Bishop James Cannon of the Anti-Saloon League in 1928 denounced Italians, Poles and Russian Jews as "the kind of dirty people that you find today on the sidewalks of New York," while in 1923, Imogen Oakley of the General Federation of Women's Clubs described the Irish, Germans, and others as "insoluble lumps of unassimilated and unassimilable peoples — 'wet' by heredity and habit." In the South, it was anti-black. "The disenfranchisement of Negroes is the heart of the movement in Georgia and throughout the South for the Prohibition of the liquor traffic," Georgia prohibitionist A.J. McKelway wrote in 1907. "Liquor will actually make a brute out of a negro, causing him to commit unnatural crimes," Alabama Rep. Richmond P. Hobson told Congress in 1914, a year after he'd sponsored the first federal Prohibition bill. (He said it had the same effect on white men, but took longer because they were "further evolved.")
Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory | Alternet
This was a decade before the "Scopes Trial."

The Real Scopes Trial

The full title of Charles Darwin's book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Some people say Darwin was not a "racist" because he treated the inferior races with kindness and compassion.

Read that sentence again.

Darwin and Racism

Racism is the first cousin of statism. Evolution is the uncle of both.

Evolution and Genocide

"Compassionate" progressives and liberals will put millions to death, "for their own good."

That's what "the government" is all about.

(By the way, the Puritans were not prohibitionists.)

Thursday, January 01, 2015

Endings and Beginnings

Happy New Year to everyone!

My mother passed away a few hours ago.

I believe what Jesus said about death and resurrection. I like the words of the Apostle Paul:
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1 Corinthians 15:55
No sarcasm intended by wishing "Happy New Year" at a time of my own loss. It's not exactly a grief-filled night. I have been mourning her loss for several years. In 2008 she got hit with a really bad case of pneumonia plus some infection in her blood, which an infection specialist up at St. John's in Springfield worked on. Before her month-long stay in the hospital for all that, we were walking a mile a day around our somewhat rural "neighborhood," but she pretty much ended her walking after the pneumonia. When she came home from the hospital around December of that year, I began helping her with everything, from helping her get out of bed at the beginning of the day, to helping her get back in bed at the end. Previously the Queen of Chit-Chat, she began talking less and less. The high-tech photos showed brain atrophy. She hadn't spoken a word since August of 2013.

So tonight was not a surprise.

But I'm certainly not ready for the New Year, and what essentially will be a new life for me. My job -- especially since our house was destroyed by that tornado 2+ years ago, and mom got a helicopter ride back up to the hospital in Springfield -- has been to turn my mom over in bed every couple of hours. And keep her feeding tube pump going. It has been a 24 hour shift. I'm sure I'm writing on adrenaline right now. Because I'm not 100% sure what my new job is going to be.

I've been contemplating a new career as a "life coach." But I'm not really interested in band-aid solutions to superficial American problems. So I've toyed with a few websites that propose to offer a more profound personal transformation. Here's one, still not yet ready for prime-time:

GeorgeWashingtonCoaching.com

I thought I might target pro-American conservatives with this and a couple other patriotic domains. But -- and I need to be careful about how I feel, having labored with some pretty heavy sleep deprivation during the last couple of years -- I'm not feeling very pro-American these days.

Here's an article which I read last week and found eye-opening and depressing at the same time:


Some adult language. (Actually, it's not "adult" language." It's the language of juvenile delinquents in the un-monitored corners of the playground [at least it was when I was a kid, decades ago]. General Washington threw soldiers out of the already-starved-for-troops Continental Army for bad language. I don't see any justification for "adult" language. But then, I'm told the Apostle Paul used "adult" language. What do I know?)

If anyone deserves to be described with Apostolic or "adult" language, it may well be the United States. During my lifetime, the U.S. government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians. I've said elsewhere (too distracted to track the link down right now) that the United States of America is the most evil and dangerous government on earth. Some governments may be more evil (North Korea comes to mind), but those governments are not as dangerous as the U.S. Government. Dangerous to civilization, not just "the bad guys." Some smarter people than I are saying the U.S. government is taking us to World War III in 2015.

If you think that's a ridiculous, anti-American, commie nut-job thing to say, I don't blame you. I would have said the same thing decades ago.

What makes the Establishment elite in Washington D.C. so dangerous? I don't mean "What is the evidence for the claim that they are dangerous?" -- see the article above, and here and here. I mean "What are the underlying psychological or cultural or religious energies at work in those people that makes them do all the evil things that they do?

As a Christian, I say the problem is the Religion of Secular Humanism.

The author of the "Crumbling Empire" article above -- and I agree the U.S. is every bit the pagan empire that Rome was -- has hateful things to say about Christians too, some of which I think are exaggerated, or just outright falsehoods. He may have said those bad things about Christianity itself, I'd have to re-read the article to see. But in my opinion the actual teachings of Christ (and His foul-mouthed Apostles) have made the world a more civilized place. Less violent. Because they strongly spoke the truth against falsehoods. Not a fist-in-the-air "protest" against "social injustice." But the profound historical fact -- and the even more profound reason why -- God became man on Christmas.
And why man cannot become God every other day of the year.

Here's another article I read last week. Another depressing article about the Religion of Secular Humanism, on the other end of the economic/political class spectrum from the plutocrats in Washington D.C.:


The article is reposted by Allen B. West at his blog, AllenBWest.com. I've never been a fan of his. He's black in case you don't know of him. The original article is written by Michael Smith entitled, “Confessions of a Public Defender” and originally posted at American Renaissance on May 9, 2014.

I've always thought a "racist" was someone who believed in the genetic inferiority of other people. This has nothing to do with genetics. This is about culture. Or as Henry R. Van Til called it, "religion externalized."

If George Washington or other Founding Fathers spoke of someone having a "false religion" (and they did), nobody called the Founders "racists" on that account. This isn't about race. But it is about genocide. The genocide of urban blacks committed against them by the Eastern Liberal Establishment. The same kind of evil "the Establishment" in Washington D.C. has committed against more races than I can count. People in the Philippines just over 100 years ago. People of Laos and Cambodia, during the Vietnam war. Christians in Iraq.

There was a third article I encountered last week that was almost as depressing as the two above. I'll address that article shortly.

And hopefully turn it into something a little more optimisticizing. (The opposite of "depressing.")

As Gary North has said, I may be a short-term pessimist, but I'm a long-term optimist. I don't know if the revelation of God's Word in the Bible will be used by Christians to prevent the worst predictions about World War III in 2015, but I do believe the Bible -- in the Bible's own time -- will cause us to beat our "swords into plowshares" and bring the "Peace on Earth" that Christ came to bring.


Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Myth of "The Extra Mile"

According to Wikipedia, going "the extra mile"
refers to acts of service for others that go beyond what is required or expected. The expression probably comes from the Bible, when Jesus declares in his Sermon on the Mount, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (Matthew 5:41, (NASB))
But then Wikipedia accurately notes that:
The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres) -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg).
"Going the extra mile" is thus not a feel-good Hallmark Card. As Wikipedia used to note:
Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance God's kingdom through self-sacrifice.
We as Americans don't want to hear that last point. We don't want to "relinquish our rights." We don't like to hear anything about "self-sacrifice." Perhaps that's why the most recent edition of Wikipedia removed that last line and substituted this:
The editors of the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible have suggested that going the second mile would perhaps spare another from such compulsion.
In other words, "Don't ask ME to go the extra mile -- make my oppressors go the extra mile for me." Self-centered Americans. Wikipedia (and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible) thereby completely negates what Jesus was saying. Turns it upside down and backwards.

If you want an example of "oppression," imagine Jews in first-century Israel being subjected to military occupation by unclean pagans from Rome. Then imagine Americans having their one-party government of Democrats and Republicans replaced by members of ISIS.



Jesus said if a soldier putting your community under military occupation compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Are you ready for that?

Do you think the government will protect you from ISIS? Mitch McConnell is not going to grab a gun and personally protect your neighborhood from ISIS. He might conscript you to grab a gun and go protect someone else's neighborhood from ISIS. Will you obey the government and go fight ISIS? Will you be like the "zealots" and attempt to overthrow the military occupation of your "homeland?"

Or will you obey Jesus?


Why "National Defense" is Contrary to the Teachings of Christ

How to Become a Christian Anarchist

Sunday, November 09, 2014

Don't Vote -- Run!

Once again I was a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. Once again I did not vote. There are plenty of good reasons for not voting.

There is one good reason for voting: at least it's something. If you don't vote, how do you send a message to the incumbent(s) that it's time to leave the capitol and go home? Clearly, none of them are going to go home voluntarily. They'll keep committing acts of "government" even if they don't get the votes of a majority of their "constituents." If only one person votes for them, they'll still keep on levying taxes on everyone else and killing people all over the world.

If you didn't vote, I hope you at least sent an email and told the winner why you didn't vote. That's pretty easy. Maybe easier than voting. And maybe more effective. I believe America's Founding Fathers would do a whole lot more than just send an email if they could travel through time and see the size and intrusiveness of the government today. They would risk everything. The Declaration of Independence says we should "abolish" any government that becomes a "tyranny." That happened decades ago.

And it's not just a "right" to abolish tyranny, the Declaration says it is a "duty." So if you don't vote, how are you actively discharging that duty? (I don't believe you can passively discharge this duty.)

If you don't vote, please consider running in the next election, so that other non-voters might have someone to vote for. Run for anything. Over twelve thousand people took advantage of a chance to say NO to tyranny by voting for me.

Here are the results of the election. All in all, I did fairly well at the polls -- if you consider me a "real" candidate.

One out of every four people who voted in the previous midterm election (2010) did not go to the polls in 2014. In 2010, 6.2% voted for me, but in 2014, 7.678% voted for me, while both the Republican and Democrat candidates got a lower percentage of the vote than in 2010. I think I was the top vote-getter among Missouri Libertarian Party Congressional candidates (again).

But I've never considered myself to be a "real" candidate. I run for office to gain a soapbox. I run to educate, not to win. The biggest temptation is to try to be a "real" or "legitimate" candidate. After all, so many people won't even vote for the candidate who most closely represents the voter's own views if the candidate "can't win." I rationalize temptation by saying I can't educate without gaining "respectability." But can you speak the truth to government/media and still be "respectable?"

In 2014, I feel like I consistently failed to advance the heart and soul of my campaign* in media interviews. I allowed myself to be boxed in by their questions. Interviews go by so quickly. There's not much room for a thoughtful conversation with the mainstream media.

Don't get me wrong: the Press gave me fair coverage. They always treated the race as a genuine three-man race. I wasn't excluded from debates or anything like that. Nobody ever tried to paint me as an "extremist."

The problem is, I am an extremist! So I guess that means I wasn't a very good defender of "Liberty Under God," at least according to that webpage. I fear I chickened out too often.
* The "heart and soul" of my campaign is that we must abolish the government, for it has become a false god. That was the message of America's Founding Fathers. That's an "extremist" message.

When I first began to run for Congress back in 2002, I thought it would be a good soapbox to advance my agenda. I'm not sure anymore. Many Voters are both apathetic and boxed-in (not interested in "thinking outside the box"). Non-voters, ironically, are often more interested in the issues than those who vote. But the more you know, it seems, the more cynical you get. The people who are most likely to vote are those who have the least knowledge and interest in the real plight of America, and the real solution.

I probably need to attach less weight to the media and more weight to the individuals who were affected by my campaign if I'm going to avoid getting too depressed.

I still believe something is  better than nothing. But next time I run I'll be putting more into educating than being "respectable."

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Message for Democrats

Liberal, progressive, secular democrats don't have a candidate in this year's race for Missouri's 7th Congressional seat. Or so it seems. The Democrat in the race, Jim Evans, is a former Republican who is more conservative than Billy Long in some ways.

Jim Evans has taken time to write a thoughtful statement of his philosophy and policy prescriptions. It is with respect that I take time to read his platform and engage with it, providing links to my own philosophy and policies. I realize only a handful of voters are going to read Jim Evans' platform, and fewer will read my reply. But here it is anyway.

I try to make the point that progressives and conservatives share many of the same goals. In education, for example, we all want kids to grow up to be responsible adults. No progressive Democrat wants his own kid to be a disrespectful unemployable shoplifting drug user. I believe the Libertarian approach in my own platform is the best guarantee of the goals shared by conservatives and progressives, who disagree ferociously on the means to the end.

Democrat voters would be well-served to consider thoughtfully the possibility of breaking out of the two-party monopoly and voting Libertarian.

Contemplating these two competing platforms and following even a handful of the links I've provided is like going back to college and taking an entire political science class. America's Founders were willing to do at least that much, risking "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Welcome to Valley Forge.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Vine & Fig Tree

I just finished an interview with KSMU (National Public Radio), and as soon as it's available, I'll let you know on this blog. On Tuesday I spoke to a journalism class at the College of the Ozarks. In both cases I was able to remind listeners about the Vine & Fig Tree vision that made America the most prosperous and most admired nation in history. But in both cases the questions were oriented around the political campaign, and I find myself falling into the trap of talking like a legitimate political candidate rather than a wacko utopian extremist anarcho-pacifist. I'm not in the race because I have "hope" that I can win an election. I run to promote "wacko" ideas like these:

We've all been trained not to consider these ideas too seriously, if at all. I never get to (or feel constrained not to, or forget to) promote as much as I would like the extremist ideas I love. But maybe pretending to be more like a "mainstream" political candidate forces me to give a better introduction to these ideas, one that is a little less off-putting and extreme-sounding. I go back and forth on this question of strategy.

Here's a letter from the Journalism Professor at College of the Ozarks following my class interview:

Dear Mr. Craig,

Thank you so much for speaking to --and taking questions from-- our News Reporting class today.

It was a thought-provoking session, one that left our students with much to think over: what does it take to run for political office? why do people run for political office? how important -or dangerous- is political power? how much government is enough, or too much? what did the framers of our Constitution intend for our federal government to be - and to do?

And what did Thomas Jefferson envision for our nation when he said, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty"?

Your candid and thoughtful answers to our students' questions gave them a window on the political process - or at least the part of the process in which ideas are exchanged, explained, and debated.

Thank you for the gift of your time and thought. It is very much appreciated.

All the best to you --
My mother has been in the hospital the last two weeks, and this has allowed me to attend the League of Women Voters Forum, an interview with KWTO, and other campaign events. She returns home this weekend. That means I'll have to hire a qualified mommy-sitter to attend campaign events @ $130+ per day. At this time I have not yet raised enough money to pay my rent at the end of the month. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to "Vine & Fig Tree" which will help me pay the rent and hit "the campaign trail." There's a box at the top right corner of this blog, or you can save PayPal fees by mailing your check to

Vine & Fig Tree
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731

(Note: "Vine & Fig Tree" is separate from my political campaign and does not endorse political candidates. I have an obligation to the Libertarian Party to be a decent political candidate, but since I really have no realistic chance of winning, I am freely using the campaign process as a platform to advance the "Vine & Fig Tree" agenda. I can neither campaign as a candidate nor work for "Vine & Fig Tree" if the bills don't get paid. Contributions are "fungible," as we all know.)

Thank you for helping me do what I love to do.


"Under My Own Vine and Fig Tree, 1798" by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, Lora Robins Collection of Virginia Art, Virginia Historical Society
Under My Own Vine and Fig Tree, 1798
Jean Leon Gerome Ferris
Virginia Historical Society
Lora Robins Collection of Virginia Art