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

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

League of Women Voters Forum

The League of Women Voters has invited me to participate in their Candidate Forum on Tuesday night at the Plaster Student Union. I'm grateful to the League, as sometimes Libertarian candidates are excluded from these kinds of events.

On Wednesday I'll post their questions and my answers, with some links (of course).


Here are the questions that were asked of the candidates, with some links to details on my website. I prepared these answers in advance of the Forum, but answered more spontaneously live, so these are not exact transcripts of anything I said.

Introductions:
  • Please provide a summary in four minutes or less of why you are running to represent the 7th Congressional district, what your legislative priorities would be if elected and how you compare and contrast to the incumbent.
I am running to give voters who want government bound down with the chains of the Constitution someone to vote for. I am the only candidate in the race who can be depended on to stick faithfully to the oath of office and not exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution. My "legislative priorities" are to shrink government spending, beginning with the broken promises of the Republicans.
I am a Radical Libertarian
I am a Radical Christian
LP = Party of Liberty
Not all Libertarians are radical
Not all Libertarians are Christian
I'm with the LP because of, not in spite of, my being Christian
The biggest issue in 2016 will be whether Social Conservatives and Libertarians
     can join together and agree on a Presidential candidate who can
     defeat the Establishment Republican in the Primaries
     and defeat the Big Government Democrat in the General Election.
I am proof that the synthesis is possible.
LP Pledge: no initiation of force
Pacifist like Jesus commanded His followers

I am the Founder of a non-profit Christian ministry called Vine & Fig Tree          The V&FT vision | V&FT Home Page
V&FT: Every American in 1776 knew the Biblical allusion
             Americans today are utterly ignorant of the original American Dream.
"swords into plowshares" - anti-war, anti-compulsion, anti-coercion
My Campaign Theme is "Liberty Under God"
Liberty Under God is the Philosophy/Worldview that made America
            the most Prosperous and Admired nation in history.
Today: America is bankrupt and despised
"Liberty" = Freedom from the Initiation of Force
"Under God": The "Separation of Church and State" is a myth
       Separation of Government from "ecclesiastical bodies"
            Who can preach, baptize
            Taxing baptists to fund Presbyterians
       But not Separation of Government and God and His Laws.


Education:
Education is generally thought of as the solution to a number of pressing social and economic problems. Based on Representative Long’s voting record and public statements, he supports vouchers for school choice, and believes that the federal government should not be in the business of running schools. Instead he believes that state-funded vouchers should pay for privately-run education at private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, home-schooling, or whatever parents choose.
  • What are your views on public education? Do you believe the public school system should be privatized? Why or why not?
Education Is Very Important:
       Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
       in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Unconstitutional: Education is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Food is more important than education.
We trust parents to feed their children,
       without requiring them to send their children to
       Government Nutrition Centers to get meals.
We can trust parents to choose education programs for their children.
America's Founders would say Americans are
       Victims of educational malpractice       starving, suffering educational malnutrition

"Liberty Under God"/"Vine & Fig Tree" not taught in schools: Declaration of Independence
Religion/Morality relates to most other questions

Give parents choice: will choose
       abstinence
       Christian worldview
       virtue
       work ethic
       respect adults

National Security:
Issues related to national security have been in the news quite a bit lately.
  • In terms of foreign policy, what do you think are the major threats to our national security?
  • What do you think is the strongest domestic threat to national security?
  • How would you address these issues if elected?
Not the greatest threat to the government
But the greatest threat to living securely under your own Vine & Fig Tree in Southwest MO?
The Greatest threat to this security is Washington D.C

Terrorists don't hate people of Springfield because we're free
     Terrorists hate the U.S. Federal Government because the
     U.S. Federal Gov't dropped a bomb on his cousin's wedding.
Osama told us why he attacked
U.S. Federal Government does not care about your security
     only the security of oil corporations
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." [Washington’s emphasis] 
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801) 
The U.S. Did not protect us from box-cutters.

TSA: no rational airline would treat passengers this way

U.S. =  Most dangerous and evil government on the planet.
   A couple of others might be more evil, but they are not more dangerous.

Economy:
Currently, in the 7th Congressional district, nearly 18 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty level. Nearly 48% of single-mother families with children under 18 are living below the poverty line. Low wages are an issue in the district, even when considering the lower cost of living relative to the rest of the country.
  • If elected, what would you do to reduce poverty and improve opportunities for better-paying jobs in the 7th District?
Unconstitutional for Federal Government to engage in poverty relief/create jobs.

Poverty has been abolished: poor are rich vs. 300 years ago.
Poverty conquered by Free Market

Best thing gov't can do to reduce poverty:
            get out of the way of the creative energy of the Free Market
Single mothers: why hook up with an abusive, alcoholic man?
            this is a moral issue

Low Wages: Two things create high wages
**education** -- character, work-ethic, speak proper English, pants above crack
**capital** -- tractors, factories, computers, power tools,

Let parents choose schools which teach religion and morality.
Their children will enjoy high wages (if they want them).

Healthcare:
Representative Long has been very outspoken in his opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Between Jan, 2011 and Dec. 2013, he voted to repeal the ACA, in whole or part, at least nine times.
  • Do you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act? Why?
Obamacare should be abolished
Libertarians believe in the separation of medicine and state.
Republicans may possibly repeal Obamacare, but they will then replace it with Romneycare, or some other Republican version of socialized medicine.
Federal involvement in health is Unconstitutional (outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution)
Abolish government Licensing: We don't always need a doctor; a practitioner or nutritionist may suffice
Obamacare = gift to Big Insurance/Big Pharma
      NOT about your health

If Government requires Milk or gas to be sold for 50¢ / gal., what would happen?
Long lines
Death in Britain/Canada as people wait for "free" government health care to be rationed out.

Social Issues:
As you know, the issue of sexual assault in the military and on college campuses has received a lot of media attention recently. In February, 2013, Representative Long voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act that was passed in 1994 and meant to provide resources to improve the criminal justice response to violence against women and ensuring victims of sexual assault and their families have access to services and safety needed to rebuild their lives.
  • Would you vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act if elected? Why or why not?
Domestic Violence is not a Federal Issue

Resolve disputes at lowest level.

Women oppose this law.
The problem is overstated.

Women who have regrets the morning after
     use this law as a sword rather than a shield
     "Gov't Violence Against Men Act."

Imposes Feminist Ideology

Ignores root issue
religion, morality, virtue, character
Why are so many men abusive?
Why do so many women allow themselves to be used
     without requiring a commitment to marriage?
Our Constitution (our system of limited government) is designed only for a moral and religious people. We can't stop all evidences of social breakdown by increasing the size of government coercion. The answer to big government is religion and morality. The path to radical libertarianism is "Theocracy."

Women’s health and family planning issues generate lots of emotion and are commonly used as divisive issues during election cycles. Long has co-sponsored legislation including the Pro-Life Act prohibiting abortion information at school health centers, the Sanctity of Human Life Act that states that life and human rights begin at fertilization or cloning and Title X abortion provider Prohibition Act that prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity if they perform abortions.
  • What actions need to be taken in order to increase access to family planning and women’s healthcare services?
Abortion is murder
It is not "a woman's body" -- it is another woman's body. (or a man's)
A baby conceived today will likely live into the 22nd century.A mother could terminate that future for the sake of a few months of personal inconvenience.
The "Sanctity of Human Life Act" is valid, but doesn't save a single baby's life.
Ron Paul regularly sponsored a bill that would have reversed Roe v. Wade, ending federal overruling of state abortion laws,
          but Republicans regularly opposed it.
Billy Long voted to appropriate funds to Planned Parenthood.

Inequality:
As you may be aware, levels of economic inequality have been rapidly increasing and are now at the highest level since 1928, the year before the Great Depression. The top one percent of families now control nearly 40% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 90% control 25.6% of the nation’s wealth.
  • Do you see increasing income and wealth gaps in the U.S. as a problem? If you do see them as a problem what would you do to address the issue if elected?
Inequality is not a problem.Envy is the problem
We were all equal 500 years ago. Equally poor. Except for the king.
Today: Inequal but advanced, civilized,
    wealthy beyond imagination
    we are all richer than those kings, even though some are richer than others.
I would rather be the poorest member of a rich society
       than "equal" to other members of a poor undeveloped society.
The question is not whether Jones is richer than we are, but
       How he got to be richer than the rest.
Serving consumers and being rewarded by them is not a problem
      it's a benefit for consumers.
Using Force or Fraud is a problem

Bush Bailout - $3,000 taken from every man, woman, and small child in America
      and transferred to Wall St. Barons.
Inflation = fraudulent transfer from savers to borrowers.

envy = bad health,
laws based on envy = poverty

Environment:
Representative Long sponsored the Superfund Common Sense Act that amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 to exclude manure from the definition of “hazardous substance” and “pollutant or contaminant” for purposes of such Act.
  • Would you have voted on this amendment? Why or why not?
Federal laws on manure are unconstitutional
Manure is natural
It is only a problem when there is a concentration of big agri-business
Gov't Agriculture subsidies go to rich
Centralized government favors Concentration over decentralizationEPA targets families
Big corporations use lawyers, lobbyists to evade regulations

Resolve disputes locally, competing DRO's

Approximately 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that humans have contributed, at least in part, to climate change. Do you believe that the scientific evidence supporting global warming is accurate, or do you believe it is a hoax?
  • If you do believe the scientific evidence, what, if anything, can be done to address the issue?
Apparently nothing can be done:  Name one proposal that would significantly reduce warming.
There has been no warming for 17 years.
The 97% figure is misleading.
Many scientists reject "the consensus." Oregon Petition. | Heartland Institute.
Cost-Benefit
The cost of cutting CO2 emissions by reducing energy use can cost millions of jobs, potentially millions of lives.
The benefit of doing so is what: avoiding bad weather?
The "Greenhouse Effect" might actually be good for everyone.
      Plants thrive on CO2 - increased productivity could end human hunger.
But this may be the heart of the problem: many environmentalists hate human beings.
They regard human beings as a "cancer," a "virus," and believe the planet would be better without any human beings
The Toxicity of Environmentalism

According to a statement on Representative Long’s website, he supports researching “clean coal,” offshore drilling, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to produce more energy domestically and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. According to his statements, he opposes a tax on carbon, and has signed a pledge to not support such a tax. He also voted to repeal weatherization assistance for low-income persons, and opposes EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.
  • Should the U.S. be limiting federal regulations of air pollutants and investing more resources in fossil fuel extraction, or should we be focusing more on regulation of pollutants, and investing in sustainable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectricity?
There is enough oil and natural gas in Alaska to provide all U.S. energy needs for over a century
But there are better forms of energy on the horizon.
Government "investments" are bad for everyone (except the corporation that receives the taxpayer subsidy, like Solyndra)
They are almost a mark of mental illness.



Kevin Craig is on a train that leads to "Liberty Under God."
You may favor smaller government, but not want to go all the way to "anarcho-capitalism."
Vote for "Liberty Under God," then write a letter to Billy Long and your favorite media (newspaper, blogs, social media, radio) explaining that you like the direction of Kevin Craig's train (smaller government) but you don't want to go as far as he does. But at least he's going in the right direction: Billy Long and the Republicans (and Democrats) are going in the wrong direction.




Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Constitution Day: Celebrating Dead Meat

Today is Constitution Day. On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. So West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd slipped an amendment into the Omnibus spending bill of 2004 designating September 17 as "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day."

If that weren't questionable enough, in 2005, Byrd inserted Section 111 in Public Law 108-447, An Act Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, otherwise known as "the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.” This Act requires all publicly funded educational institutions to provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day, thus making "Constitution Day" entirely unconstitutional, as Nelson Lund and the Heritage Foundation noted back in 2006.

It has been reported that Byrd carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket every day of his public life,

Every single person who signed the Constitution would agree that the Constitution is dead meat. No knowledgeable or rational person believes that the United States is governed by the Constitution in any meaningful way. Consider these three examples:

1. Separation of Powers. James Madison, known as "the Father of the Constitution," said that any government or branch of government which makes laws, enforces those laws, and adjudicates disputes about those laws, is “the very essence of tyranny.” Congress passes only a couple of hundred bills each session; most are meaningless (awards, namings, designations, etc.) and the rest unread. (Nobody read the Patriot Act. Nobody reads Omnibus Spending bills.) The real work of lawmaking is performed by "Administrative Agencies," who add tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register. Theses agencies then enforce their own legislation, and if you don't like it, you can tell it to the judge -- in an administrative court. Political scientists like Peter B. McCutchen quietly admit that we are not a "Constitutional Republic" any longer, but a "second best" system: an "Administrative State" (Mistakes, Precedent, and the Rise of the Administrative State: Toward a Constitutional Theory of the Second Best, 80 Cornell Law Review 1 (1994). The Constitution, with its vaunted "separation of powers," is dead meat.

2. Enumerated PowersChief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), exhorted us to
Start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)."
If "We the People" in the words of the Constitution did not give the Federal Government power over education (for example), then the Federal Government has no power over education. (Which is why a federally-mandated "Constitution Day" curriculum is "unconstitutional.") Back in 1996, the Republican Party carried a copy of the Constitution in its pocket, and in its National Platform promised the following:
As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of CommerceHousing and Urban DevelopmentEducation, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.
These promises were consistent with the idea that the Constitution created a government of "enumerated powers." But the Republicans not only reneged on their promises to abolish these unconstitutional bureaucracies, Republicans doubled Clinton's budget for the unconstitutional Department of Education, and increased funding for all those other unconstitutional cancers in the Body Politic. Even though during six years of the Bush Administration, Republicans controlled all three branches of government. They could have done anything they wanted. Now we know what they really want.

3. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended. And the Amendments that matter have been kicked to the curb. I've described the assault here. Constitutional scholar John W. Whitehead has updated this here.



I repeat: no knowledgeable or rational person believes that the United States is governed by the Constitution in any meaningful way. No knowledgeable or rational person should believe the promises of politicians who swear an oath to heaven to "support the Constitution," "so help me, God."

During my lifetime, the federal government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world. The federal government is dangerous, and not to be trusted.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Ferguson, MO and the Myth of "The Separation of Church and State"

When I was a kid, I never walked in the middle of the street. Doing so was daring and disrespectful. You walk on the sidewalks. Follow the rules. (Yup, I've always been pretty conservative.)

No surprise, then, when the police approach Michael Brown, who's walking down the middle of a street in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe an earlier car tried to get by, and couldn't get around Brown and his friend, so the driver called the police. At this point, I don't know.

Brown's friend says the officer yelled "Get the f**k on the sidewalk!!"

I wish I couldn't believe that report, but I've seen too many videos of police with foul mouths.

"You have to get tough on crime," some will say.

Did it work? Did Brown get out of the street? Does a vulgar show of force create respect for the force?

I don't think so.

Call me "soft on crime."

Since at least the end of World War II, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," has been quoted as saying:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
In other words, the American way is not to militarize the police to "get tough on crime."

While contemplating the violent upheavals of the French Revolution, John Adams expressed the same thought:
While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
George Washington, in one of the most famous addresses in American history, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Both Michael Brown and the police are the products of America's secular government schools. And "public felicity" is on the decline.

America was built on the belief that "Religion [and] morality [are] necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." The modern myth of the "separation of church and state" has little to do with the separation of "ecclesiastical bodies" (as Madison called them) and government, and everything to do with the separation of God and Government.
The separation of religion and police.
The separation of morality and Michael Brown.


Would the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum have prevented the violence in Ferguson? Surprising answer here.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Bojidar Marinov on the Immigration "Crisis"

Immigration and The Sabbath (Session 1) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the first lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

History of the Immigration Laws in the U.S. and the West (Session 2) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the second lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

Logical and Theological Analysis of the Anti-Immigration Ideology of Modern Conservatives (Session 3) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the third lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

Immigration Conference Q&A by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the Q&A session following a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.


Sermons - Radio Spots - Church of the King - Faith of our Fathers