Sunday, April 30, 2006

The Company I Keep

I had a unique experience yesterday. I was frisked by the police. First time that's ever happened to me. (Guess I've led a sheltered life.)

I was invited to dinner by a fellow I met at Isaiah House. He's probably the one I would say has made the most dramatic improvement of the thousands I met there. But he still has a way to go.

He was a ferocious crack addict. He was incredibly hostile, angry, and insecure. He was a product of the federal government.
  • He was an orphan, thanks in part to the federal government's attack on the institution of marriage.
  • He lacks all abilities of self-government because his schools were prohibited by the federal government from teaching religion and morality, which America's Founding Fathers said are "necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind."
  • He could never stand up and say "I'm a crack addict and I need help!" because the "help" he would receive from the federal government is a prison sentence and sexual abuse at the hands of psychopathic felons (which in fact he has received), which is part of D.C.'s "War on Drugs."
  • On the other hand, I remember well a Thanksgiving weekend in which I spent several hours trying to help him stay clean and resist the temptation to use. Hour after hour of intense conversation against a background of prayer. The next day he received a disability check from the federal government, which had brilliantly declared drug addiction to be a "disability." That check (for more than a thousand dollars, as I recall) went straight to the drug dealers, and was gone in one weekend. (That's a good thing, of course, because that was your money and you probably would have mis-spent it. The government is here to help you.)
  • During my years of social service, I've seen that the federal government is the greatest opponent of my efforts to help lift others out of poverty and slavery to sin. I have always been out-gunned by the feds when it comes to helping people like this.
He is, of course, still responsible for his decisions, still responsible for his own reactions to the chaos created by Washington D.C.

He is today generally clean and sober, and generally well-behaved. But his habits and background occasionally surface.

On the way to chinese food, a 50-year old woman passed us on the left. Our formerly-homeless friend was driving a car whose engine he had rebuilt over the last few months. His moto-machismo was blasphemed by this insolent woman, and he gunned his new engine and recklessly swerved in front of her, and was then forced to go from 70 to 0 in a hundred feet to stop at an already red light. "Great use of gas," I said sarcastically to someone who had been complaining about high fuel prices. "We were supposed to make a right turn up ahead," I pointed out, now that we were in the far left-hand lane, thus "forcing" him to recklessly traverse 3 lanes of traffic in the next 200 feet. As he made the right turn, so did a unit from the Orange County Sheriff. His criminal record and my out-of-state Missouri license led us both to the curb.

I don't fault the police. Mr. Engine Rebuilder's driving was insane and dangerous. After his momentary burst of insanity, he was respectful and cooperative, and he was not even given a ticket (the officer knew it would have seriously messed up his budding career).

He has described to me how his world turns red with anger when his security is threatened. I can only dimly imagine how a woman driver can be such a threat to him. I hope our long and thoughtful conversation after the frisking will lead to some lasting change in his life, but his problems -- like the problems of everyone in trouble with the law -- are deeply spiritual, and require the work of the kind of voluntary associations that made America great. Not federal redistribution of wealth. Not federally distributed violence in prison.

"Liberty Under God" is the answer to America's problems, and the path to her restored greatness. It is also the path for each of us as individuals.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Immigration and Health Care

On Tuesday of this week I had lunch with George Reisman, author of Capitalism. The book is a powerful and devastating critique of environmentalism, socialism, interventionism -- in short, the Bush Administration -- and yet the author is humble and soft-spoken. Must-reading for everyone who seeks to have a public impact on behalf of laissez-faire capitalism.

Reisman pointed out a deficiency in my immigration webpage: the lack of the connection between immigration and health care.

One frequent complaint against immigrants is the fact that many of them resort to hospital emergency rooms for the same health problems the rest of us go to doctor's offices. This is not as much a problem with immigrants as it is a problem with government regulation of health care. Immigrants -- and the rest of us -- should be able to get simple medical advice from pharmacists, nurses, clinicians, and others who are not surgeons or licensed specialists. Government regulations will not allow pharmacists to dispense medicine which any pharmacist knows will help an immigrant's health problem, so the immigrant goes to the ER. Churches could establish clinics staffed by RN's and others trained to deal with day-to-day medical problems, except that such clinics are illegal, since they violate government-protected medical monopolies. Medical problems which could be solved by someone with a couple of years of nutritional or medical training must only be solved by someone with 12 years of training and a government license, who understandably charges more than the RN in a clinic.

Highly-trained specialists have their place, of course. Tomorrow I'm seeing a specialist who will, I hope, discover that I'm still cancer-free. It's been a busy week, with trips to doctors a hundred miles apart, and I'm looking forward to returning to Missouri and blogging more regularly.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Catherine Morris, Public Servant

Yesterday's Los Angeles Catholic Worker Seder at the Dolores Mission in East L.A. was attended by over 100 people. Catherine Morris, for nearly 40 years an anchor in the turbulent seas of the LACW, reminded us of something Mother Teresa said: "We are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful." Nevertheless, it was by all accounts a "successful" Seder. Great music, delicious tamales, elegant dancing, and a politically-oriented Haggadah that draws potent analogies between slavery in ancient Egypt and in the United States today, challenging all those who look to Pharaoh for salvation.

Organizing a feast like this is no small task. Organizing a feast for 600 people at a Skid Row soup kitchen is no small task, and to do it several times a week for nearly 40 years requires dedication to the ideal of service of others.

Politicians call themselves "public servants." How does a politician "serve" the public? Chiefly by forcibly or fraudulently redistributing wealth. The federal budget is nearly $3 trillion. During the first decade of the 21st century, about half a trillion dollars will be spent on the war in Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars will flow into the coffers of corporations large and small: "their risks are subsidized, their losses are socialized, and their profits are privatized," as Will Grigg puts it. How does this "serve the public?" Doesn't the true servant of the public call attention to the dangers of government-subsidized mass destruction? Doesn't the true servant of the public stand up and cry out that the emperor has no clothes?

Politicians will point out the many projects funded by their budgets, and certainly there are genuinely needy people who are helped by some of these projects. But a true leader does not use the coercive power of the government to extort money from the unwilling "rich" to give to the undeserving "poor." A true leader motivates, persuades, enlightens, encourages, and empowers those who can to help those who can't. Giving then comes from the heart, with no threats of violence against the unpersuaded.

"But if we don't pass a law, the poor will not be helped, because people are greedy and self-centered." Then how will "we" pass a law? How can we persuade greedy people to vote for "politicians who care" if voters are greedy and self-centered? Democracy is subtly replaced by oligarchy: government by elites. But even if we could, why should we attempt to persuade people to vote for politicians who will take money from the unwilling under threats of violence, keep a cut for themselves, then return the remaining money back to their districts with strings attached ("Do not preach sermons using this money") rather than persuade people to act directly and personally to solve social problems? We must persuade and empower all Americans to become servants of the public rather than merely vote for "public servants."

Many people resist becoming servants of the public. "I don't have time to volunteer, because I have to work overtime to pay my taxes which are supposed to solve the problem you want me to help solve voluntarily." It's a vicious circle. In the years I worked at Isaiah House we did not accept any money confiscated by the government. I'm not sure I can condemn social service agencies who accept money seized by the government. I only hope they are dedicated to faithfulness rather than "success."

What are the costs endured by a true public servant for calling attention to the harm done by those who call themselves "public servants?" Often it is jail. "Everyone knows" that if you criticize the government too much, you will be subjected to an IRS audit or some retaliation, if not by the government directly, then by someone -- an employer, a neighbor -- who acts out of misguided
loyalty to the State. The lawsuit replaces Jesus' command to "go to your brother" personally. This is how things are done in Communist China and in the "former" Soviet Union, where the "snitch mentality" is inculcated. Increasingly, this is how things are done in the United States.

Catherine Morris has protested lavish expenditures on cathedrals, turned an industrial building into an oasis on Skid Row, given guidance to students from the USC School of Nursing, listened for hours to the stories of the poor, and conveyed these stories to comfortable suburbanites. Jack Abramoff has never offered Catherine Morris any money for her work. I guess that means she just isn't a "success."

Sunday, April 23, 2006

A Catholic Worker Seder

Last night's California Desert Chorale concert was well-received by a nearly-packed house. We sang Broadway hits (from Lion King, Sunset Boulevard, etc.), Spirituals ("Open the Window Noah"), some old favorites ("Shenandoah") and some goofy songs from Monte Python's Spamalot.

Today I drive to L.A. for the second Seder of my trip out west, this one hosted by the Los Angeles Catholic Worker. The LACW runs a soup kitchen on Skid Row, serving one or two thousand lunches three days a week, and over the nearly 40 years of its existence has also served breakfast and/or dinner on other days of the week. The LACW also publishes a newspaper, The Catholic Agitator. That was the name co-founder Peter Maurin preferred during the Great Depression, when he and Dorothy Day founded the Catholic Worker in New York in 1933. Day, a former socialist, chose to name the newspaper as a response to the Communist Party's newspaper, The Daily Worker, founded in 1924. Maurin said that the Catholic Worker movement was "not a revolution to the left, it is a revolution to the right." It was and is, however, a revolution that transcends the misleading "left-right" dichotomy.

I first connected with the LACW sometime around 1985. I visited an LACW sister house, Isaiah House, in Santa Ana in 1987. The house was founded by Jonathan Parfrey and his family, and I became a member of the community in 1988, working there about 7 years, when Dwight and Leia Smith took over the House.

The Catholic Worker is a pacifist movement, opposing violence, and is therefore an anarchist movement, since the State is the institutionalization of violence.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Unions vs. the Free Market

Prof George Reisman has an excellent article on his blog, entitled "Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?"

It's one thing for a voluntary union of workers to increase information available to workers concerning job conditions, it's another thing for the union to destroy the company that hires the workers.

A libertarian can only support a union that abides by the Libertarian Pledge. Today's unions typically rely on State coercion to stay in power.

Reisman points out what others have noted, that General Motors has brought many of its problems on itself, apart from the UAW. Reisman accurately indicts the "spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen" who "no longer have any principles. Indeed, they would project contempt at the very thought of acting on any kind of moral or political principle."

Reisman's remarks may well apply to the campaigns of many libertarian candidates:
Any business firm today that tried to make a principled stand on such a matter as throwing out a legally recognized labor union would have to do so in the knowledge that its action was a futile gesture that would serve only to cost it dearly. And a corporation that did this would undoubtedly also be embroiled in endless lawsuits by many of its own stockholders blaming it for the losses the government imposed on it.

Tomorrow I will be singing with The California Desert Chorale at the Annenberg Center in Rancho Mirage, California. See you there!

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Oklahoma City - April 19, 1995

On this day, April 19, 1995, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was damaged by an explosion. There was an explosion outside the building in a rented truck, but evidence strongly suggests the presence of explosives inside the building as well, as Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired), one of the military's foremost experts on explosives, has disclosed.

The extensive cover-up of evidence that would identify the parties that were responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 people in OKC -- including the identity of the Arab-looking "John Doe No. 2" -- demonstrates that the security of the American people cannot be entrusted to the federal government.

Employees of Gateway computers know (at least subconsciously) that they are competing with Dell Computers for the computer-buying dollars of American consumers. Employees of the federal government know (at least subconsciously) that they are a monopoly, and are not held accountable by any competition for the security-buying dollars of American voters. Those dollars can be taken by force or fraud without providing a valuable product or service. It was on this day, April 19, 1775, in Lexington and Concord, that the American colonists concluded that their security could not be entrusted to the British government.

The federal government's purpose is not to protect the rights of Americans. The dominant purpose of the federal government is to protect its own power. This is not to say there are no hard-working, patriotic Americans in the federal government who are concerned about the Constitution. But as an institution, structurally speaking, government is not held accountable by competition to actually succeed in protecting our rights. If the government fails to achieve its corporate purposes (as stated in its founding charters), it will not go bankrupt -- at least as you and I understand that term in the real-world limitations of our household and business budgets.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution was written to guarantee that Americans could always retain control over their own security, and overthrow any government that became a threat to their security. The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters and gun collectors. It was written to protect the right of Americans to "alter or abolish" "any Form of Government [which] becomes destructive" of the rights with which Americans "are endowed by their Creator" (to use the words of the Declaration of Independence).

As I mentioned yesterday, any attempt to take up arms to overthrow the government -- even the attempt by America's Founding Fathers -- is unChristian and now (in the presence of a nuclear-armed leviathan) suicidal. But there is no real danger of any overthrow of the Bush-Clinton regime, because a lopsided supermajority of Americans believe in the federal government's power, right, ability and dedication of purpose to protect our security.

Genuine and lasting revolution can only take place when the American people's faith in the federal government is replaced by faith in a Higher Power. The "Cult of the Omnipotent State" must be replaced by the "true religion" spoken of by America's Founding Fathers. When this faith is developed, we will be ready to receive the blessing of God: "Liberty Under God." But not before.

The OKC bombing was timed to commemorate the lawless and brazen raid on the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, two years earlier. Click here for more on the government's involvement in and cover-up of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

On this day, April 18, 1775, two lanterns were hung from the steeple of the Old North Church in Boston, Massachusetts. Paul Revere, on a "midnight ride" along with William Dawes and Samuel Prescott, rode to warn of the impending arrests of Samuel Adams and John Hancock and the seizure of weapons by the British. Only Prescott finished the ride.

In 1860, over forty years after his death, the ride became the subject of "Paul Revere's Ride," a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. The poem was one of the most well-known in American history and was memorized by generations of schoolchildren. Most students today would not recognize the name.

The next day, April 19, 1775, was the Battle of Lexington and Concord. British General Thomas Gage attempted to confiscate American colonists' firearms. Captain John Parker ordered his band of minutemen to not fire unless fired upon. Random shots rang out among the British soldiers. The minutemen promptly fired back. This was the "shot heard round the world." The British are driven back to Boston, Massachusetts, thus beginning the American Revolutionary War.

If Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and John Hancock were to be teleported through time into the 21st century, I don't think there can be any serious doubt that they would immediately begin another American Revolution. Americans pay 5-10 times more in direct taxes than the British attempted to levy on the colonists. Of the money you have left after withholding, half the price of a new car represents taxes passed on to consumers. More people are employed as professional tax preparers than doctors.

But consider also the purposes to which those taxes are employed. Planned Parenthood receives tax dollars and kills the unborn. The federal judiciary removes religion and morality from local schools. The National Endowment for the Arts funds pornographic "art" and "theater." Dictators receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. The values fought for by America's Founding Fathers are under assault by the federal government they created.

They would work to abolish it if they were alive today.

Completely abolish it.

Virtually every state in the union is larger than the entire population of the 13 colonies combined. And all of the enemies from which the federal government protects us (so we have been taught by the government's schools) have been created or funded by the federal government.

A world of "Liberty Under God" depends upon the willingness and fortitude of the American people to abolish the federal government.

Should we take up arms against the government?

A suicidal and hopeless task. The government has nukes. We could not win.

But even if armed revolution could succeed, it would be immoral, as I argued on this web page 7 years ago.

The American Revolution succeeded because there was a substantial number of people who understood the concept of "Liberty Under God." Too many Americans today want security rather than liberty, and want to be their own god, or let the federal government play god for them. Not only have Americans devolved back to the days before 1776, they have essentially fallen back to the days of feudal serfs. A great deal of de-programming and education must take place before we can expect libertarian victory over "the cult of the omnipotent state."

Sunday, April 16, 2006

An Al-Queda Easter

I'm in California for a few days, catching up on still-unfinished business I left when I moved to Missouri. I participated in a very ecumenical Passover Seder hosted by a very dear Jewish friend. Not only is she Jewish, but she hasn't entirely escaped her Socialist background. Even though I'm a biogoted Jew-bashing fundamentalist and a hard-line capitalist, we're best of friends, and always enjoy the best of conversation.

I sat next to two other cherished friends at the Seder, a couple from Afghanistan. He was imprisoned by the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. His cell-mate was Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afghanistan. My friend eventually gained his freedom in what would make a great movie: political intrigue and a love story that involved smuggled notes from his wife.

She had much to tell me at the Seder that brought my webpages on Afghanistan and Iraq to life for me. On previous occasions I've heard their stories about the Soviet Invasion, and about the current rebuilding efforts today, which they are involved in, but at the Seder she told me about life in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. There was no Taliban then. Afghanistan was moving toward Westernization. In the 1960's and '70's women were not covered head-to-toe with burkhas, but were emulating western fashions. "They were wearing mini-skirts!" she said.

At this same time, while Afghanistan was pursuing westernization, the United States was pursuing Sovietization -- or so it seems. It was good for the economy, we were told, for Ford Motor Co. employees to be sent to help the Soviets build the largest truck factory in the world on the Kama River. We were always told that aid to the USSR was "non-military," but the U.S.-supplied Kama River truck factory was also manufacturing not only 10-ton multiple-axle heavy duty trucks, but also armored personnel carriers, heavy assault artillery, rocket launchers, and dual-use transport vehicles which --surprise -- were used to invade Afghanistan, using a 647-mile long highway which was also built with your generous "contribution" of tax dollars, a highway designed for more than the yak-drawn carts of Afghani peasants.

Antony Sutton wrote about Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, documenting how the U.S. promoted "Westernization" in the Soviet Union, keeping communism alive and militarily potent. To "westernize" Afghanistan, the U.S. sent go-go boots.

While the left hand of the U.S. was subsidizing Soviet Socialism, the right had was subsidizing the Afghani resistance. But not just my friends, the moderate pro-western Muslims; also the fanatic anti-western Islamic fundamentalists, who the CIA believed would make fiercer opponents against the Soviets. After they received military aid from the U.S. federal government, the mujahedin transformed Afghanistan.

In country after country, U.S. foreign aid has destroyed good and promoted evil.

I have to confess a strange sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalists in the Bikini vs. Burkha debate. But as a pacifist I oppose their violence. As a Libertarian I oppose all government-to-government foreign aid. Are you happy that your government funded both the communists and Al-Queda?

Friday, April 14, 2006

Good Friday

On this day we observe the execution of Jesus Christ.

This is a good day to consider the ethics of capital punishment.

Why was such a great man put to death?

From the perspective of the Jews, Jesus "blasphemed" by claiming to be God.

From the perspective of the Romans, the government simply "washed its hands" of the religious conflict. But the Roman Empire was continually involved in this religious dispute because Jesus and His followers disrupted Imperial unity and peace.
Acts 17:6-8 (New Living Translation)
Not finding them there, they dragged out Jason and some of the other believers instead and took them before the city council. "Paul and Silas have turned the rest of the world upside down, and now they are here disturbing our city," they shouted. "And Jason has let them into his home. They are all guilty of treason against Caesar, for they profess allegiance to another king, Jesus."
Allegiance was the issue. "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, who wrote America's greatest treatise on the law of evidence in the 19th century, examined the Gospels according to the rules of evidence, and concluded that the resurrection of Christ could be factually established in any court of law. So much for Bill O'Reilly's claim last night that the Gospels "are not history."

A Physician's View of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ -- Spiritual Life

History speaks of the conflict between the Messiah and the messianic state. To whom have you given your allegiance?

Thursday, April 13, 2006

April 13, 1743 - Thomas Jefferson born

April 13th is Thomas Jefferson's birthday.

In his six-volume biography of Jefferson, Dumas Malone writes,
In religion as in economics Jefferson was an advocate of laissez-faire.
Jefferson would have opposed today's court-imposed secularism, as much as he would have opposed the court's destruction of laissez-faire capitalism.

Jefferson was the principal but not the sole author of the Declaration of Independence. His draft was re-worked by a committee composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, all of whom believed that God had actively and supernaturally intervened during the American Revolution in response to the prayers of the colonists -- a belief not usually associated with "deism."

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written:
And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
But the committee amended it to read:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Jefferson's draft read:
We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, do in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these [states reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through or under them; we utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore have subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states,] and that as free and independent states,
The committee added, and Congress accepted:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free [etc.]
Jefferson called himself a Christian. His so-called "Jefferson Bible" was a compendium of Christian morality to be used to "civilize" the Indians. As an example, then-Justice Rehnquist noted,
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e. g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
John Adams, a member of the committee that revised Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence, was castigated by the modern Supreme Court (Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)) for violating the Court's standards of political correctness:
The history of this Nation, it is perhaps sad to say, contains numerous examples of official acts that endorsed Christianity specifically. [The footnote, 53, cites Leo Pfeffer, "quoting the explicitly Christian proclamation of President John Adams, who urged all Americans to seek God's grace "through the Redeemer of the world" and "by His Holy Spirit").] [492 U.S. 573, 604]
Another biographer of Jefferson, Dickinson Adams, concludes that

unlike many other adherents of the Enlightenment, especially those in France, Jefferson's rationalism led him ultimately to an affirmation of faith rather than a rejection of religious belief.
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983) p. 3.
Had Jefferson lived to see the rise of the "Cult of the Omnipotent State," he would have repudiated the Hoax of Higher Criticism.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

April 12: A Triumph of "Voluntary Effort"

Most Libertarians favor the abolition of The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Libertarians believe in "the separation of medicine and state."

Unfortunately, far too many Americans believe there is some reason why government must be involved in medicine. "How could the Free Market mobilize the forces necessary to develop a vital life-saving drug if there were no profit involved in its development and sale?"

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter explained how:
April 12 is the 25th anniversary of the field trials of the Salk vaccine, which led to the elimination of massive polio epidemics in this country. In 1955 there were almost 30,000 cases of polio in the United States, while last year there were only 26--16 of them in unvaccinated communities. Through the entire decade of the 1970's, the number of reported cases of polio was less than on any single day in the frightening summer of 1955.

This remarkable accomplishment was possible because the March of Dimes, in one of the most dramatic examples in history of concerted voluntary effort, marshaled the concern and resources of our Nation to help finance the development of the first polio vaccine by Dr. Jonas Salk and conducted the mass field trials necessary to prove its safety and effectiveness.

One of the things that has always set America apart is the willingness of our people to join together to solve their problems, to volunteer their time and effort and resources to help each other and strangers far away.

On this 25th anniversary we acknowledge our debt to all who had a part in one of medical science's greatest achievements-the scientists who first cultured the polio virus, Dr. Salk and the doctors who conducted the field trials, those who continued the work into massive immunization programs, and all the thousands of volunteers who made their work possible.
Public Papers of the Presidents, Jimmy Carter, 1980, p.645

This is Libertarianism at work. It succeeds in every field of human action.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Acheson and MacArthur

Two things happened on this day (April 11) in history. In 1893, on April 11, Dean Acheson was born. He eventually became Secretary of State. On this day in 1951 Acheson's subordinate, President Harry Truman, relieved General Douglas MacArthur of overall command in Korea.

So who was Dean Acheson? And why did I refer to President Truman as Acheson's "subordinate?"

Here is a good place to start updating your government-school education:

The Power Elite & George W.

Millions of Americans who are members of the "George Bush Cult of the Omnipotent State" believe that Bush is a "leader," boldly calling the shots and exercising "decisive leadership." He is in fact a subordinate. The real direction of the Bush Administration was blueprinted before Bush was even elected.

Click here, and if you're unclear about what "The Project for a New American Century" is, why they recommend a speech given before "the Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR), who the CFR is, and why they don't like Karen Kwiatkowski (see footnote 1), please post a comment, and I will respond. If nobody makes such a comment, I'll assume readers of this blog are up-to-date.

Dean Acheson wanted MacArthur out of Korea because MacArthur wanted the Communists out and Acheson wanted them in. We don't use the word "communist" anymore, so let's say Acheson wanted the National Socialists out and the International Socialists in.

The story of the dismissal of MacArthur and the entrenchment of the Chinese Communists is told in in a book by Robert Welch.

The Council on Foreign Relations is an "ecumenical" bunch who are working for a global unity among the various "omnipotent-state" cults. The Project for a New American Century is on the same page, believing that "America" must create this New Century of international ecumenism among the "omnipotent-state" cults. Our current Congressman has worked hard to support the New American Century and its subordinate, George Bush. Missouri voters are not likely to vote for someone else unless they come to realize that the old America is better than the "new America."

And the "old America" -- the good America -- is not the America of Douglas MacArthur. It is not even the America of Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and George Washington. None of these men were totally consistent with the ideal of America, though we may learn much from them. That ideal is "Liberty Under God," the ideal of everyone living safely under his own "Vine & Fig Tree," a world where we are the subordinates not of the "the rule of law" of the Council on Foreign Relations, but of "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." We must always be reforming and changing in pursuit of this ideal.

Monday, April 10, 2006

The Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Bush

"The Gospel of Judas" is in the news, from The New York Times to Pravda. I did not watch last night's National Geographic Channel program on The Gospel of Judas. I was reading LewRockwell's Blog instead. I have read two or three other writers on "The Gospel of Judas," including Jon Christian Ryter and Richard N. Ostling. A good post is found at

The first thing that strikes me about mainstream media (MSM) coverage is the seriousness with which "The Gospel of Judas" (GJ) is reported. The NYT says that "The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today." GJ is given more historical credibility than the four Biblical gospels, as though the reports of GJ are probably true, whereas the reports of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are probably not.

The influential Christian bishop Irenaeus, in his treatise Against Heresies, written in A.D. 180, denounced the Gospel of Judas as the product of a gnostic sect called the Cainites (Book 1, ch. 31, para. 1.). The Cainites believed they were descendants of Cain, who murdered Abel, and in the great conflicts of Biblical history, the Cainites side with Cain (obviously), Esau (who sold his birthright for "a mess of pottage") rather than Jacob, the Sodomites rather than Lot, and Judas rather than Jesus. Obviously these Cainites were full of "new insights."

The parallels between the Cainites and the Neo-conservatives are legion. The Gnostic Cainites believed Jesus was undermining "the rule of law" so to speak. Gnostics believed God did a lousy job of creating the world, but with their superior intellect and knowledge of hidden secrets, the Gnostics could re-order the cosmos. The Bush Administration knows "true" Democracies when they see them, and their superior wisdom gives them the right to overthrow "democratically-elected" governments if they fail to meet the standards of neo-con gnosis ("hidden knowledge"). James Bovard writes about the great irony of Bush efforts to "promote democracy":
The U.S. government is currently spending more than a billion dollars a year on democracy promotion [Bovard here speaks of propaganda, bribing media, etc., not the half-trillion that will be spent "establishing democracy" through the War on Iraq]. Yet Bush’s policies have subverted elected governments, corrupted foreign elections, and tainted democracy itself.

Bush often talks as if elections are sacred events which automatically confer vast blessings upon a nation. Yet, last June, Bush effectively urged Iranians not to vote, deriding their pending presidential election for ignoring “the basic requirements of democracy.” Bush declared that the elections will be “sadly consistent with this oppressive record” of the Iranian government. U.S.-financed television and radio stations, broadcasting in Farsi, also effectively urged a boycott of the election.

The U.S. government’s actions contributed to the defeat of Mohammad Khatami, a comparatively moderate reformer, and the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , a fire-breathing hardliner. Ahmadinejad’s subsequent comments on Israel, the Holocaust, and other subjects sound almost Hollywood-scripted to help Washington persuade other nations that the Iranian government and its nuclear program must be suppressed at any cost.

It is unclear whether the Bush administration honestly wants to advance democracy in Iran - or whether it is merely creating another pretext to start bombing. But perhaps the rhetoric has all been a ruse. Perhaps invoking “democracy” is simply a smokescreen in pursuit of the NeoConservative goal of “benevolent global hegemony.”
Too many Americans support the new gnostic hegemony because they are not Libertarians, and do not reject the institutionalization of the initiation of force. The messianic leaders of "The Cult of the Omnipotent State" seek to supplant the teachings of Jesus in the minds of the masses, and they have made great progress.

Paul's first letter to Timothy deals with Cainitic ideas: "fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith" (1:4). Paul was like a Nazi who converted and joined the Jewish underground (1:13). (I am reminded of Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, now a forceful critic of government -- only the Apostle Paul was a violent man, a murderer, who became a follower of the Prince of Peace, The One executed by the cult which the Apostle formerly followed.) Paul repudiated violence, and told us to pray for the Bush regime (2:1-6). We cannot overthrow the cult of violence using more violence.

The Bible tells us that the institution of violence, the cult which we call "the State," was the creation of the Cainites, whose "Gospel of Judas" is now being touted by the "MSCM" -- Mainstream Cainite Media. I have explored the Cainitic roots of the State in Appendix B of my website, The Death Penalty Debate.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Is the Republican Party a Cult?

When a Christian answers the question, "What is a Cult?" the answer usually turns on a deviation from Christian orthodoxy. When an atheist is asked "What is a 'Cult'?" the answer centers around authority: "an all-powerful leader who is usually thought to be the Messiah."

If one combines these two definitions, one must conclude that the Republican Party is the largest and most dangerous cult in America.

One must keep in mind that reputation is not everything. Richard Nixon had a reputation as being a "conservative," but the more honest and less partisan liberals admitted that Nixon was no conservative. Bruce Bartlett's book Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy shows that Dubya is not an orthodox conservative. He is clearly one of the most liberal Presidents in American history, and his explosive growth of big government will top FDR's.

Submissive Followers + Unorthodoxy = "Cult"
Now Will Grigg, whose blog James Bovard called "one of the zestiest, hard-hitting political blogs anywhere," has asked, "When Did Conservatism Become a Cult?" This is essential reading. It shows the messianic devotion of the fanatic Bushites. Devotion to Bush is as fanatic as Bush's deviation from conservative orthodoxy, a combination which has to be a classic mark of a cult.

From a Christian perspective, the genuflection recorded by Grigg is horrifying, especially if one is convinced that big government and the killing of over a million non-combatant Iraqis over the last 15 years are contrary to the teachings of Christ. The Bible is an anti-socialist and anti-militarist document; the neo-conservatives are pro-BigGovernment and pro-MassMurder. From this Biblical perspective, Bush's policies are unorthodox , and blind obsequious fawning servile compliance offered toward this idol is cult-like in the extreme. If David Koresh and the Mormons are cults, they are not as dangerous a cult as the Republican Party, which possesses and uses weapons of mass destruction.

It is for this reason that the Libertarian Party offers the only avilable alternative -- and indeed the most Christian alternative -- for Christians. In an age of world-wide democide -- mass-murder of millions by political mega-power cults -- the opening words of the Libertarian Party's "Statement of Principles" stands as an electrifying summons to the entire human race:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state...."

As a Christian I cannot join any political party that does not challenge the most dangerous cult of all. There are hundreds of Christian ministries warning about the danger of "cults," but none of them addresses this epoch threat.

There are at least 200 million people in America who claim to be Christian, but they are trapped in a mind-numbing cult. This is a voting block that could advance the progress of mankind by orders of magnitude, if they could only be deprogrammed to end their non-rational devotion to the Republican Party.

Imagine a cult leader who claims to be Jesus Christ, the Creator of the world, and demands that his followers worship him by having sex with him. Can there be "reform" of this cult? Can a Christian "work within" this cult? Are there "moderate" members of this cult who excuse their membership by saying "I don't go 'all the way'"?

Everything that Republicans criticized Bill Clinton for doing has been done on a more massive scale by this Republican Administration -- with the possible exception of that Blue Dress thing. The Bush Administration seeks nothing less than the abolition of the United States of America. This homicidal cult must be unmasked.

The Craig for Congress campaign is a small effort towards national deprogramming.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Federal Education Promises Never End

On this day, April 6th, 1972, President Richard Nixon addressed the Annual Convention of the National Catholic Education Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He said,
Inner city schools seem less and less capable of providing education for the poor and for the racial minorities who more and more make up their enrollment.
Nixon questioned the effectiveness of then-trendy busing programs to end racial segregation, in which 2- and 3-hours of bus rides were added to the school day of select students who were taken to black schools if they were white, and white schools if they were black, to increase their "educational opportunities." He then touted the benefits of "The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1972":

Our new legislation would increase [spending] by over 50 percent-- on the basis of encouraging experimental evidence that assistance in excess of $300 per pupil constitutes the "critical mass"-- the very minimum--which begins to produce the results that smaller amounts have failed to achieve.

Now the question comes: Can I guarantee this new approach will work? If $200 didn't work, will $300 or $350 work in breaking that barrier in producing better education? We can't be sure. But the evidence in our judgment is strong enough to indicate that we ought to try it. What we are sure of is that the old ways have failed and, therefore, we must move to a new way.

The "old way" was a little government spending; the "new way" is MORE government spending.

That was nearly a generation ago. Inner city schools -- and all other government-run schools, are worse than they were in 1972: more violent, more illiterate.

When our incumbent Congressman was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican Party Platform repeated the promises made when Ronald Reagan campaigned for President:

As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, 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.

Instead, our Congressman has worked to increase federal control and federal spending in all of these areas. Concerning Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, James Bovard observes:
Bush promised that his No Child Left Behind Act would permit children to transfer out of dangerous public schools. But the states’ definition of “persistently dangerous” schools ensures that hardly any child can escape violence. For example, a Colorado school with a thousand students could have more than 150 homicides in a single year and still not be classified as “dangerous.”
The 20th century has proven that more federal control and more federal spending brings more of the problems the federal government claims to be solving.

As Majority Whip, our incumbent Congressman boasts of his leadership abilities, in that he leads reluctant republicans to rally behind President Bush's proposals for increased federal control and spending. But a true leader is one who will lead America away from failed socialist policies toward the truly new way of parental choice in education. (And as is so often the case, that which is called new is actually very old.) Government control of education has proven to be a massive failure. When will Southwest Missourians stop voting for failure?

I am revising my campaign webpage on education, and your comments are appreciated.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Happy Birthday Booker T.!

Booker T. Washington was born on this day, April 5, in 1856.

He was born into slavery, but learned to read and write while working at manual labor jobs. At age 16 he went to Hampton University in Virginia, and at age 25 he was named as the first leader of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, famous for having the well-known scientist George Washington Carver on its faculty.

Now called Tuskegee University, Washington's vision for the school championed vocational training as a means for black self-reliance. The school gave black youth valuable skills; Washington's theory was, that by providing these skills, African Americans would play their part in society and this would lead to acceptance by white Americans. He believed that African Americans would eventually gain full Civil Rights by showing themselves to be responsible, reliable American citizens. According to its website, Tuskegee University believes in "personal qualities of honesty, self-reliance, hard work, and risk-taking."

In 1895 Washington Delivered a Speech at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, where he noted that "It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities." This is true for
every human being.

Washington was granted an honorary Masters of Arts degree from Harvard University in 1896 and an honorary Doctorate degree from Dartmouth College in 1901. When his autobiography, Up From Slavery, was published in 1901, it became a bestseller. He was also the first African-American ever invited to the White House as the guest of a President – which led to a scandal for the inviting President, Theodore Roosevelt.

"Think about it: We went into slavery pagans; we came out Christians. We went into slavery pieces of property; we came out American citizens. We went into slavery with chains clanking about our wrists; we came out with the American ballot in our hands....

"Notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, we are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe."
– from Up From Slavery

Compared to the days in which Booker T. Washington lived, there is no longer any racism in America. Most Americans would not "discriminate" against a black with the character traits of Booker T. Washington, but business owners would understandably hesitate to hire blacks who identify themselves as violent "gangstas" -- as well as whites who have adopted the same characteristics.

According to the mantra of today's liberal left, it is the racism of white people - and not the personal choices of blacks - that is responsible for the high rate of illegitimacy, drug abuse, HIV infections and criminal acts that distinguish blacks from other racial and ethnic groups. (Carol M. Swain)

"I have never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed. I have always had high regard for the man who could tell me how to succeed."
“Political activity alone cannot make a man free. Back of the ballot, he must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence, and character.”

For Further Reading:

Kevin Craig's views on

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul proves that someone with libertarian beliefs can get elected to Congress. I'm encouraged by that. We just don't have the proof that a libertarian can be elected as a Libertarian (Paul was elected as a Republican). I've heard that Republican Party leadership over the years has gone to great efforts to unseat Ron Paul, even throwing support behind Democrats.

Republicans Making the World Safe for Democracy -- and Unsafe for Christian Converts

March 28, 2006

Windows Media Required

Monday, April 03, 2006

Take Two

On my second post to this blog, "32 Tuesdays," I said, "I'm completely new to the blogosphere."

Not exactly true.

I started a blog last year, but didn't use a free blogging system like this one. It was too complicated for me to update every day, and it died. I hereby "incorporate it by reference" into this blog:

I think I said somewhere on this "Craig for Congress" blog (can't find it now) that I'm not out to capture an office as much as I am to re-capture an ideal, "the big picture." The "Craig for Congress" campaign is a part of that "Liberty Under God" campaign, and will continue beyond the November, 2006 election.