Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Second, the folks at "Muckraker Report" called the FBI and asked why Osama bin Laden's poster on the FBI's Most Wanted List does not mention 9-11. Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
According to the FBI poster, Osama is still wanted by the FBI "in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya." Three years after those bombings, Osama was still at large.
In the months leading up to the September 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban "outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles." The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban's offer. This according to a pro-Islam (but not necessarily pro-Osama) website, which also notes the following:
After 9-11, according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."
Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said: "I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States."
Bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks, said President Bush on September 17, 2001, and he pledged to capture him "dead or alive."
I can't think of a single government official who was responsible for protecting America from attack before 9-11 who was fired after 9-11 for failing to do so. On the other hand, numerous whistleblowers have been fired or harassed for criticizing the government and exposing weaknesses in national security. Nobody still in government would dare suggest that the government itself is to blame for 9-11.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto of libertarian thinking.
It is sad but undeniable that most Americans no longer share the libertarian perspective of America's Founding Fathers. Most Americans wouldn't care if our government did the things that Britain did - acts that caused the Founders to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to fight for Liberty and fight against offenses that are the very definition of a "tyranny." Americans wouldn't care because they already tolerate a government that is much worse than the one denounced in the Declaration of Independence.
People who are not libertarians don't write things like the Declaration of Independence.
If called to write a new Declaration, Republicans and Democrats would appeal to America's new anti-libertarian spirit and speak of entitlements, not liberties. It would not be a call for Independence from a non-libertarian government, but a call for greater dependence on the omnipotent source of our few remaining rights, the distributor of our wealth, and the guarantor of our security. In an excellent article, David Barton, in the Summer 2006 issue of the Wallbuilders newsletter, quotes John Adams:
It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation’s humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence.Today's federal government is the greatest threat to our security, the greatest threat to our liberties, and the greatest threat to our prosperity. Read the Declaration of Independence once again, and notice that Liberty is the dominant theme throughout.
Monday, June 12, 2006
2006 Candidate's Questionnaire Page
This section lists questions for all political candidates to answer. Please respond to these questions and email them to firstname.lastname@example.org. All answers will be made publicly available at www.pinkpistols.com.
Candidates please note: All answers _must_ be directed to the question asked. Answers that fail to answer the question will not be counted.
There are 10 questions with 10 points per question.
Candidate's Name : Kevin Craig
Political Party: Libertarian
Office you are running for: U.S. Congress, Roy Blunt's seat.
1) Do you believe that the Second Amendment confirms the individual right of every American citizen to possess and use (update of keep and bear) militia/military weapons for individual self-defense, as well as for the defense of the State / National defense?
YES re: "individual rights." The Second Amendment was not written for hunters or gun collectors. It was written to allow individuals to defend themselves against the State when it "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" through "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object." The Second Amendment guarantees the right of The People to carry out what the Declaration of Independence describes as the "duty" to "abolish" "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive of" our God-given rights. The Second Amendment is a right of "the People," not the State.
NO re: "defense of the State." The State does not have any right to defend itself against the People armed.
Wording: my update of "bear" would be "carry," not just "use." Without the right to "carry," one can only use a firearm at home (in "private").
2) If elected would you support legislation for the removal of firearm laws and regulations? If your answer is yes, and if you are elected, what specific legislation would you propose/support to ensure that this individual right is protected? Which current laws which infringe upon this individual right would you seek to repeal?
I would support legislation authored by anyone of any party that removed infringements of 2nd Amendment rights. As a freshman Congressman from a third party, I would hesitate to get pushy by authoring sweeping legislation, but I'm open on that. ALL laws regulating, licensing, or infringing the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished. I try to take the Constitution seriously, and have a rather absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment.
3) What do you consider are "legitimate" reasons to own a firearm?
Check as many as apply:
[x] Personal Defense
[x] Home Defense
[x] Defense of your country (Unorganized Militia)
[x] Farm Use
[x] Competitive Shooting
[x] Informal Sport Shooting
[x] Informal Target Practice and/or Plinking
[x] Constitutional Rights
[x] Just because. No reason is necessary.
[x] Other ____to "alter or abolish" the government per #1 above____
[x] All of the above
[ ] None of the above
4) Would you support the banning of some firearms or ammunition? (IE: Saturday night specials, "assault weapons", Hollow points, and "Safety Slugs") Why and to what extent?
NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."
5) Do you believe that firearm owners should be required to have licenses or permits to own or carry firearms? Do you believe training for such licenses should be mandatory? Why?
NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."
6) Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?
NO. "The right . . . shall not be infringed."
7) Do you support equal rights for all citizens of the United States regardless of the person's sexuality / orientation and / or gender identity/expression?
I'm a Bible-believing Christian, so I'll answer your question fully, hoping you'll at least give me points for honesty.
a. Technically, I believe in duties, not "rights."
I don't have a "right" to life, you have a *duty* not to kill me, according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God:
b. These "self-evident truths" indicate that homosexuality (etc.) is immoral:
c. These same moral absolutes also make the initiation of force against homosexuals wrong, and I have taken the pledge of the National Libertarian Party: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." This means I oppose criminal sanctions against homosexuals:
d. I have a background in the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, and I personally know those who believe homosexuals should be executed. I strongly oppose this part of the "Religious Right" agenda.
8) Which of the following would you be willing to support in regards to same-gender and/or polyamorous marriages and/or civil unions?
Check as many as apply:
[ ] Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples
[ ] Domestic partnerships for opposite-sex couples
[ ] Domestic partnerships for polyamorous (more than two consenting adults)
[ ] Same-sex marriages
[ ] Opposite sex marriages (What we have now)
[ ] Polyamarous marriages (between more than two consenting adults)
[ ] All of the above. Everyone should have equal rights under the law.
[ ] None of the above. Government has no role in defining a marriage. Leave it to the church, or private contracts.
[ ] Other _______"The government" has a duty to recognize monogamous heterosexual relations as the only legitimate form of sexual activity. "The Mafia" has the same duty. Both institutions should be abolished. See #10 below.________
9) Do you support the right for people to act as they wish in a private setting, with other consenting adults?
I assume this question is not asking about card-games, but about acts which are prohibited by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
No, I do not "support" them, but I oppose the use of criminal sanctions (the initiation of force) to prevent or punish them. I am also as absolutist on the 4th Amendment as I am on the 2nd.
10) A number of states are currently in the process of enacting DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) type laws. Do you support or oppose limits on the marriage laws that would further restrict who may and may not marry? Why?
"Marriage" was created by God, not the State. For the State to say that homosexuals can live in a state of "marriage" is as ridiculous as saying atheists have a "right" to be baptized. The State does not "define" marriage, and DOMAs are unnecessary, constitutionally speaking, because our "organic law" already recognizes God's definition. I support DOMAs as a means of blocking activist judges who act unconstitutionally.
Do you have an additional statement to make that is not covered by this questionnaire? Use as much space as you wish.
I am a pacifist. I hate guns.
I oppose all "gun control" laws because they can only be enforced through acts of violence, and tend to monopolize guns in the hands of the institution most likely to use them to the greatest and most violent degree: the State.
Based on a very cursory look at your website, and especially this statement:
We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage.I conclude that your goal is to endorse or practice acts which I believe are abominations in God's eyes, and one of your strategies is to use lethal force against those you consider to be "bashers."
Jesus taught, "Love your enemies, bless them that bash you" (that's the New Kevin Craig Translation). So it might appear that you and I are poles apart on the most central issues animating your organization ("gay" and guns).
I believe thoughtful consideration of my campaign as a whole would lead you to conclude that Kevin Craig is not just the "lesser of evils" among a bleary pack of candidates in Missouri's 7th Congressional District, but a paradigm-shifting candidate whose victory in November would completely re-direct the national conversation in a way that will benefit your constituents in the long-term. Your armed, vigilate strategy will only polarize your adversaries, and neither the mainstream Demoblicans nor the Republicrats would stand in the way of serious, organized, passionate gay-bashing, should that become a formidable voting block (which they intend to become).
Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy.
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Three out of four (75%) said they trust government less than they did five years ago. Nearly 60% said they believe the “state of honesty in America” today is in poor shape (18% said it is in the worst possible shape).Despite this, there is no reason to expect any change from previous elections: over 90% of the incumbents will be re-elected. And while most Americans distrust Congressmen in general, they give above-average ratings to their own Congressman.
Overall, just 3% said they think Congress in general is trustworthy, compared to 24% who said President Bush is trustworthy and 29% who said they can put their faith in the national court system, the survey shows.
The Zogby poll also indicates that while Americans criticize Congressmen in general, they rank themselves much higher in honesty and trustworthiness:
However, Americans do feel they can bank on the actions and words of their friends and co–workers – 75% said the people they work with and live near are trustworthy. Almost everyone (97%) said they consider themselves to be trustworthy, and 85% said they think their personal goals in life are less important than acting with honesty and integrity.The Zogby poll did not pursue the details, but one wonders what it is that makes Congress so untrustworthy. Perhaps its a feeling that Congressmen campaign on what H.L. Mencken called "an advance auction of stolen goods":
"Vote for me and I promise to steal from your neighbor and give to you!"And everyone feels he himself is entitled to government booty, but everyone else's entitlements should be cut. And everyone else's Congressman is corrupt because "he's buying votes with my tax dollars," but my Congressman is skilled at getting bills passed that benefit our district.
The good news: liberty doesn't need a majority. Less than a third of Americans supported the American Revolution, a third were loyal to Britain, and a third just wanted to be left alone, according to John Adams.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
For the most part, Americans have no idea what was achieved on July 4th, 1776, and if they did, most would probably oppose it. Only a small minority would sign the Declaration of Independence and publicly profess its philosophy if asked to do so today.
I'd like to begin with a quotation from Edmund Burke, the British statesman who was sympathetic to the colonists' grievances, and urged the rest of the British House of Commons to give serious attention to them.
I'm convinced that if America's Founding Fathers were to travel through time into our day, they would very quickly conclude that "things are gone out of their ordinary course," and they would invoke the right described in the Declaration of Independence as a "duty," and take steps to abolish the government they themselves created. Christopher S. Bentley has drawn the parallels here, and I added a few here.
It is not a hazarded assertion, it is a great truth, that once things are gone out of their ordinary course, it is by acts out of the ordinary course they can alone be re-established.
(Letter to William Elliot, 1795, quoted by Leonard Read, The Elements of Libertarian Leadership, 1962.)
As I make clear on my July4th1776.org website, I do not believe in the use of violence to overthrow a government. But I do believe that "absolute Despotism" must be denounced, and if the mild British government of 1776 was guilty of "the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," then the Bush administration, and all previous administrations going back at least to Lincoln, are guilty of much worse.
The Second Amendment, which was not written for hunters and gun-collectors, but which guarantees our right to take up arms and "to throw off such Government" as "becomes destructive of these ends," is today a myth. We could not fight a guerilla war with Washington D.C. and win. Washington D.C. has nukes, and we have safety-locked handguns.
So what are "the acts out of the ordinary course" that "can alone re-establish" things as they ought to be?
I've been thinking--and wrestling--with several ideas, and I'll toss them out in the pages of this blog for your consideration.
During my days in the Catholic Worker Movement, I had the privilege of meeting Daniel Berrigan, the Vietnam War protester who burned draft board files in Catonsville, MD, in 1969, and was for a time on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Berrigan, along with The Catonsville Nine, had concluded that "things are gone out of their ordinary course" (to use Burke's phrase). (An interview with Daniel Berrigan, celebrating his 85th birthday this weekend, is on Democracy Now, starting 35:00 into the program. I love the archival video footage of the Catonsville Nine in the Selective Service parking lot, burning the files with homemade napalm, all of them conservatively dressed in suits and ties. Those were the days when everyone always dressed up to fly on airplanes or go to a sit-down restaurant.)
Fire, bombs, and destruction of property, even government property, even government property used to commit acts of violence, is still beyond my fortitude. I'm more inclined to wash the flag rather than burn it. But I am moved by and I wrestle with the prophetic call to "beat Swords Into Plowshares."
I think America's Founding Fathers would agree that this is not a time to be concerned with our own reputation and social status. They were willing to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in defense of liberty. I'm not called at this time to give up my life. I'm not investing a lot of money in my campaign. The first hurdle I need to overcome is my "honor," the fear of being considered an "extremist" or losing some social standing in the public eye. I must be willing to incorporate "acts out of the ordinary course" in my campaign. I don't think this is a time to worry about being a "respectable" "mainstream" candidate.
Someone has said that "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." Consider an extra-ordinary campaign event which the press ridicules or which results in my arrest, but which wakes a few people up, gets them thinking, and causes them to apostatize from the religion of the Messianic State: is it worth it? Suppose 4 out of 5 people call me a fool, or "unpatriotic," but the fifth person becomes a libertarian. I would say that's progress, even if not all that great compared with batting averages. But if, at the end of the election campaign, all 5 people have not lost their "respect" for me, but have taken no steps closer to America's Libertarian Founding Fathers, what have I really accomplished?
I'd like to start with a quote from Edmund Burke, the British statesman who was sympathetic to the colonists' demands, and urged Britain to give more serious attention to them:
It is not a hazarded assertion, it is a great truth, that once things are gone out of their ordinary course, it is by acts out of the ordinary course that they can alone be re-established."I'm convinced that if America's Founding Fathers could be transported through time into our day, they would very quickly conclude that "things are gone out of their ordinary course."
(Letter to William Elliot, 1795, quoted by Leonard Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, 1962)
I'm convinced they would invoke their right, stated in the Declaration of Independence as a "duty," to "abolish" the government they themselves created. Christopher S. Bentley draws the parallels here, and I add a few here.
This is not a time when we should be calling for "a ten-percent reduction over the next 5 years."
Nor is this a time, I fear, when Libertarians can work to appear to be "mainstream," and conduct campaigns designed to make them look respectable like all the other candidates.
This is a time for "acts out of the ordinary course."
I'm thinking -- wrestling -- with ideas to make my campaign a series of such acts.
During my stint in the Catholic Worker movement, I had the privilege of meeting Daniel Berrigan, the Jesuit who burned draft card files at Catonsville, MD in 1969, and was for a time on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Berrigan and "the Catonsville Nine" recognized that "things are gone out of their ordinary course." (Interview with Berrigan on Democracy Now! begins 35 minutes into the program. I love the archival video footage of the Catonsville Nine wearing suits and ties as they set fire to the Selective Service files in the parking lot with homemade napalm. Those were the days when everyone dressed up to fly on airplanes or go to sit-down restaurants.)
I have to admit that destruction of government property is outside my character, though I'm sympathetic with the prophetic call to "beat swords into plowshares." I like those who suggest washing the American flag rather than burning it as a political protest.
America's Founding Fathers risked "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in their defense of liberty. I'm not ready to risk my life, nor am I called to do so at this point, but I'm willing to risk my "sacred Honor," or reputation. If, as a result of my campaign, two people call me a fool and one person renounces his faith in the Messianic State, I will have made progress. If all three continue to "respect" me, but none changes his allegiance, what have I accomplished?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
From a historical and constitutional perspective, such an amendment is completely unnecessary.
Marriage is not defined by a State or a constitution. The Declaration of Independence says that our nation and its laws are subservient to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Marriage is an institution created and defined by God. For the first 300 years of American history, and for centuries of English common law before that, marriage laws in this country were based on the origin of the marital union in Genesis. It was only in the last few years that judges who had taken an oath to "support the Constitution" declared the entire legislative process and the process of popular amendment of constitutions to be "unconstitutional." Overwhelming electoral and legislative majorities have passed laws and amendments to affirm the traditional view of marriage. Judges that negate constitutional processes violate their oath to support the constitution, and should be impeached.
No judge, no court, no government has the right to compel anyone to hold that any but a man and a woman can be united in "marriage." This is the position of America's founding charters.
In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared:
Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)
This opinion hearkened back to an earlier decision by the Texas Supreme Court in 1848, which declared that the legal contract of marriage
is the most solemn and important of human transactions. It is regarded by all Christian nations as the basis of civilized society, of sound morals, and of the domestic affections. . . . The mutual comfort and happiness of the parties are the principal, but not the only, objects of the engagement. It is intended also for the benefit of their common offspring and is an important element in the moral order, security and tranquility of civilized society. The parties cannot dissolve the contract, as they can others, by mutual consent, and no light or trivial causes should be suffered to effect its recision. . . . [A]ccording to the experience of the most enlightened nations, the happiness of married life greatly depends on its indissolubility.These courts were articulating the position of America's Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton lamented the anti-Biblical, anti-Family evils of the French Revolution:
Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79, 85-86 (TxSupCt 1848)
Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country, if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion. It is among the singular and fantastic vagaries [freaks] of the French Revolution that . . . a new law of divorce was passed which makes it as easy for a husband to get rid of his wife and a wife of her husband as to discard a worn out habit. . . . [T]hose ties . . . are the chief links of domestic and ultimately of social attachment.James Wilson, who was a US Supreme Court Justice after he signed the Constitution, emphasized the importance of a Biblical concept of the family:
Syrett, Harold C., et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 27 vols. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1974, vol. XXI pp 402-404, "The Stand No. III." New York, Apr. 7, 1798.
Whether we consult the soundest deductions of reason, or resort to the best information conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in Holy Writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.In James Kent's Commentaries on the Constitution, one of the greatest legal works of the 19th century, we are reminded:
By that institution the felicity of Paradise was consummated . . . . Legislators have with great propriety . . . provided as far as municipal law can provide against the violation of rights indispensably essential to the purity and harmony of the matrimonial union. . . . By an act of the legislature . . . all marriages not forbidden by the law of God shall be encouraged . . . . But of causes which are light or trivial, a divorce should by no means be permitted to be the effect. When divorces can be summoned . . . a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war.
Works, McCloskey, ed., Belknap/Harvard Univ Press, 1967 II:598-603
All Christian states favor the perpetuity of marriage, and suspicion and alarm watch every step to dissolve it . . . . Unlike other contracts, marriage cannot be dissolved by mutual consent . . . . The laws of divorce are considered as of the utmost importance as public laws affecting the dearest interests of society . . . . The domestic relation . . . of parent and child . . . [and] the duties that reciprocally result from this connection are prescribed . . . by the positive precepts of religion and of our municipal law.Adulterers and polygamists were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment. Courts didn't buy their arguments:
Kent, Commentaries on American Law, DeCapo Reprint of 1st ed., 1826-30, II:96-98,159
[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.These views were echoed by the US Supreme Court in the anti-polygamy cases.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859)
The Seventh Commandment was the basis for American Family Law.
The State of California recently considered adopting legislation on sex-education for public schools requiring that:
Course material and instruction shall stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse [one man and one woman] within marriage is a traditional American value.The ACLU was outraged:
It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools. . . . We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment.Those who wrote, debated, and ratified the First Amendment did not. Heterosexual marriage is a part of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"; homosexuality is contrary to it.
As a Libertarian, I oppose all government laws regarding marriage. I believe the Mafia should not recognize the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, and I would say the same thing about the federal government. I am also working for the abolition of both institutions. Homosexuals who seek the licensure or approval of the State for their relationship seek that which is unconstitutional and against their own interests.
I believe heterosexual marriage is essential to the flourishing of humanity, and government recognition of homosexuality impoverishes us all. As long as any proposed marriage amendment which recognizes marriage as defined by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God does not advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals, I would vote for it.
There is much that could be said about this issue, and I hope any who oppose my views (or can't exactly figure them out) will post their comments.
Phyllis Schlafly is a leading conservative who is not incapable of criticizing Republicans. In the end, however, I suspect she is like most conservatives: unable to imagine any line which, once crossed, would force her to stop supporting the Republican Party.
I recently ran across an article she wrote for her Phyllis Schlafly Report back before 1997, entitled, "What Does New World Order Mean?" In it she criticizes Bill Clinton's pursuit of G.H.W.Bush's "New World Order." Considering that she called for the impeachment of Clinton for his intervention in Bosnia, how can she not call for the impeachment of George Dubya Bush for his slavish promotion of the New World Order in the Middle East? What Clinton did in Bosnia, Bush is doing in spades in Iraq.
Here is a reprint of Schlafly's critique of Clinton. I have added links to hint at the parallels between Clinton and Dubya.
George Bush started our country on the risky road to what he called (but did not define) the "New World Order." Bill Clinton is only too happy to define it for us.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means using American troops like a mercenary Foreign Legion, to be sent into all sorts of foreign fights even though no U.S. national security interest is at stake. No U.S. national interest was threatened in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, or Haiti.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means risking American troops on such vague and undefined missions as
- "peacekeeping" (in places where there is no peace to keep, such as Somalia, where American soldiers were dragged through the streets in humiliation during our "peacekeeping" efforts),
- "restoring democracy" (to countries that never had democracy, such as Haiti, and putting in power a Marxist dictator [Aristide] who has publicly approved of the hideous practice of "necklacing"),
- and "nation-building" (using our combat troops to build a government, a police force, and infrastructure in foreign countries).
New World Order under Bill Clinton means asking the overpaid bureaucrats in the United Nations for the go-ahead to assign our troops wherever he thinks American media attention should be diverted. Clinton sought the approval of the United Nations to invade Haiti, but did not seek the approval of Congress, which the U.S. Constitution requires.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means assigning U.S. servicemen and women to serve under foreign commanders. He signed Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25, which specifically asserts his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander."
New World Order under Bill Clinton means flagrantly violating two sections of the U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress (not the UN) the power "to declare war," Article II, Section 2 limits the President's treaty-making power by this clause: "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Clinton asked the UN, not Congress, for permission to invade Haiti, and he intends to consider the GATT/WTO treaty passed if it gets a simple majority (not two-thirds) to the Senate.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means joining the World Trade Organization, which would put American jobs, trade and economy under the control of a foreign legislature (where we would have only one vote out of 123), a foreign unelected bureaucracy in Geneva, and a foreign trade tribunal empowered to decide disputes in secret.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means signing the Law of the Sea Treaty, another international straitjacket designed to transfer American wealth and technology to Third World countries.
New World Order under Bill Clinton means signing the United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which would transfer traditional rights of parents over the upbringing, discipline, education, health and welfare of their children, to a new international bureaucracy. (P.S. Report, March 1993)
New World Order under Bill Clinton means ratifying the United Nations Treaty on Discrimination Against Women, which would transfer traditional rights of American women to a committee of foreign "experts" who would make rules about child care, "family education," abortion, comparable worth, and even "interpersonal relationships." (P.S. Report, September 1990)
New World Order under Bill Clinton means a foreign policy directed by his Rhodes scholar pal Strobe Talbott, a lifetime advocate of world government and of ending what he calls the "obsolete" notions of nationhood and national sovereignty. (P.S. Report, June 1994)
On every conceivable issue, Bush has been worse than Clinton. For the last 80 years, Republicans have been advancing Big Government and the New World Order at a faster rate than Democrats. "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. When will conservatives stop the insanity of supporting the Republican Party election day after election day?
Friday, June 02, 2006
Last year's massacre at Haditha, recently coming to light, is exposing an unprincipled regime in Washington, a regime completely lacking in a moral center.
Will Grigg eloquently writes about the hypocrisy of the Pentagon offering “core values training” to the US soldiers deployed in Iraq. He describes a core value that will not be taught to the troops:
When people find themselves on the receiving end of an unwarranted foreign attack, they will get angry and fight back against the invaders in any way they can – and they are entitled to. Were our nation invaded by a foreign power possessing an overwhelming military advantage, Americans would set roadside bombs, seek refuge in civilian dwellings, and kill the enemy without remorse. It wouldn't matter to us one bit if the invaders justified the invasion in humanitarian terms, or invoked their “superior” political and cultural insights. We would fight as hard as we could, for as long as it takes, to expel the foreign invaders from our home soil.The sharpest blade will only do damage if it's not set straight. American troops should not be in Iraq, and "training" will not cure this fundamental mistake. The finest troops will only bring harm if they are in the wrong place, and have been given the wrong assignment by their civilian commanders, who seem increasingly out of touch with reality.
The contrast between world reality and Bush Administration policy is set forth in an impelling way by Robert Higgs in a recent article from the Independent Institute. If you haven't been following the Haditha controversy, this is a good introduction, but it is horrifying and alarming. Higgs quotes a Washington Post report:
The remains of the 24 [murdered Iraqis] lie today in a cemetery called Martyrs' Graveyard. Stray dogs scrounge in the deserted homes. "Democracy assassinated the family that was here," graffiti on one of the houses declared.This is an epitaph not just for the murdered in Iraq, but for the death of the vision of America that inspired Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and America's Founders. Even while it marketed itself to voters with "family values," the last six years of the Bush regime have been destructive of the family, as conservatives acknowledge everywhere except in the voting booth. Dubya's "democracy" is his father's "New World Order" and Clinton's "reinvented government." It represents a religious faith in the Messianic State.
Senior Bush wrote in January of 1991, preparing for the first "Gulf War,"
If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then [Saddam's] lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging New World Order we now see: this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long.... But we have the chance -- and we have the obligation -- to stop ruthless aggression.(And we will use ruthless aggression if necessary.)
What exactly is "this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long?" For America's Founders, it was "Liberty Under God" -- stripping away the monarchical British government power so that self-government could flourish. For the Bush/Clinton/Bush regime, the vision has been "hegemony" -- an empire with uncontested global political and military power.
America's Moral Values are destroyed when limited constitutional government morphs into an empire seeking to impose "Democracy" on the entire world.