Friday, March 09, 2007

MEK

During every campaign, I am asked by various organizations if I support them, and they inform their constituencies of my position. Last year I was contacted by MEK, Mujahideen al-Khalq, an organization that opposes the current regime in Iran. They had been listed as a "terrorist" organization by the State Department, but a number of Congressmen, including Tom Tancredo, disputed this designation and supported MEK. The MEK has provided the United States with "valuable intelligence information on Iran," and has rejected Islamic fundamentalism.

A publication that reports on Congress, The Hill, has commented on support for MEK among some in Congress.

More recently, William Grigg has described MEK as "a bizarre terrorist cult whose official ideology is a fusion of Marxism and Sufism,' noting that "The Warmakers in and around the Bush Regime have embraced the MEK as an ally in the low-intensity war underway between Washington and Tehran."

Sam Adams and George Washington would have been called "terrorists" in 1776 if the word had been fashionable in Britain, so State Department denunciations will not seal my opposition to any group. In fact, the opposite is more likely true, and any organization which can be described as an "ally" in any of Washington D.C.'s many unconstitutional "low-intensity wars" has my suspicion, if not my condemnation.

I won't "oppose" any group that opposes the current Iranian regime, but as a candidate for Congress, I will not "support" any group that does not support the endangered Libertarian party pledge:
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.
It appears that MEK repudiates this commitment.

3 comments:

Bernie said...

"Abolish a government and the most likely scenario is war."
from Dr.Carl Milstead,Jr.
--------------------------
Milstead should be fired
from the Libertarian Party
for that statement.

The fact is the State is a Satanic organisation, so to govern they will first "disgovern", by
stealing the money that belongs
to the father
of a family. Now that
family's ability to govern
itself has been substantially
reduced. Improvements to the
quality of the family life
will not take place and problems
to be fixed, won't be.
So right away the Satanic State
has disgoverned - reduced the amount of good government
which could have occurred
without the State's theft.

Now the State's employees
keep half the money for
themselves before they spend
the rest.
The amount of governing that
the State can do has been
cut in half ( not such a bad
thing actually ).

Finally, because a Law was violated, the 8th Commandment,
God will bring a curse to bear
on the uses of that money.
Satan has permission to attack
because stolen money is being used, so Satan plants the thought in the spender's mind to use
the money for evil. So the
wod of money
will be used to build
Weapons Of Destruction,
like bombs to be dropped out of the sky and blow off both arms
of a little boy in Iraq,
collapse their house and kill
the rest of hif family.
Again the State has disgoverned,
governed immorally.

If the money had been left
to the original father, he
would have governed properly.
He would have "reverse disgoverned", built an addition to his house instead of destroying a house
like the State did.

So the final result is that
the Satanic State by stealing
has prevented 100 acts of good
government from taking place
and has caused 50 destructive
acts of government to take place.

It is incorrect to use the word
government to describe the government.
As an analogy consider if a swimmer used the word strokement
to describe himself as the one doing the stroking.
We would say that the strokement is stroking the water to move forward.Why should the action of
stroking be used to describe
the one doing the stroking?

A man can stroke, a man can do
government of his and his families life, a State can do (dis)government. A strokement cannot
do stroking and a government cannot
do governing.

Bernie said...

A point I was trying to make
is that if we use the word
Government, instead of the
word State, to descibe the
one who governs then it
gradually brainwashes people
into thinking that the only
people who can govern is
"The Government".
Then they will gradually
take over everything that needs
governing, which is
every area of a person's life.

Kevin Craig said...

I agree with your comments, Bernie. "Self-government" is the ideal, and "THE government" inherently and inescapably moves us away from this ideal.

"THE government" is institutionalized violence and the initiation of force, combined with the attempt to get people who should be self-governing to become dependent or continue in dependence upon "THE government."

See my page on "Government".