Thursday, May 31, 2007

America's Psikhushka for 9/11 Truthers

Part of the systematic crushing of dissent that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about in The Gulag Archipelago was the Psikhushka: "psychiatric hospitals" where Russian dissendents like Zhores Medvedev , Vladimir Bukovsky, and Andrei Sakharov (who was was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975, although he was not allowed to leave the Soviet Union to collect it) were sent.

Anne Applebaum has reminded us that the gulag was everywhere in the Soviet Union, not just off in a distant Siberia. ("The Gulag: What We Now Know and Why It Matters", by by Anne Applebaum, Cato´s Letter, vol. 2 no. 1, Winter 2004.)

It was in your neighborhood.

It was right next to Wal-Mart.

No, it was Wal-Mart. It was an essential part of the Soviet economy, and everyone knew someone who was a slave in the Gulag.

The Psikhushka mentality is alive in America, as Sgt. Donald Buswell can tell you. The Purple Heart recipient sent an email in which he questioned the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory.

“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”

For voicing those opinions in an e-mail to 38 people on the San Antonio Army base, Buswell was stripped of his security clearance, fired from his job, demoted, and ordered to undergo a mental health exam.

This is not the first time that "psychiatric authorities" have prescribed examination or treatment for politically incorrect thought.

And it will not be the last -- as long as we worship the idol of "the State."

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Ann Coulter on Immigration

I love Ann Coulter -- except when she's wrong. Her latest column, "A Green Card in Every Pot" has some wonderful insights, even though she's anti-immigration.

First, she points out the superiority of Christian culture, or "Western Civilization" as it's also known.

Second, she quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, who said that
Americanization required that the immigrant adopt "the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here" and that he adopt "the English language as the common medium of speech."
But, Brandeis said, this is only part of it:
"(W)e properly demand of the immigrant even more than this -- he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American."
In other words, "diversity" is a myth. Ideas about "individual self-determination, human rights, the rule of law and a robust democratic economy" must be imposed. They can either be imposed by "the government" (call it "democracy," "aristocracy," "bureaucracy," "gerontocracy," "mediocracy," "mobocracy," "technocracy," "theocracy" -- it means "archists"; jackbooted thugs, lock-step public schools, controlled media, and prisons), or the ideas of civilization can be imposed by everyone, in what I call a decentralized "nag-ocracy." Parents nag children. Teachers nag students. Employers nag employees. Landlords nag tenants. Businessmen nag customers. Pastors nag parishioners. Radio DJ's nag listeners. Movies nag theatre audiences. Athletes nag fans. Call it "intergenerational peer-pressure." It's all done to encourage, not to abuse; to empower, not to demean. It's lifelong learning. It's the inculcation of what Gary Bauer described as "the most important things."

Immigration is a problem for America because Americans are too "tolerant." We don't want to nag. We tolerate sloppiness, bullying, cheating, and selfish disrespect. And we know it. That's why we fear strangers. We know we don't have the moral backbone to impose our way of life on them, and we fear they might impose their way on us.

Coulter is right: "it is simply a fact that no one is trying to turn immigrants into Americans." But instead of developing the great American habit of decentralized nagging, creating institutions and voluntary associations which proudly and gratefully uphold and pass-on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to new Americans, we want centralized immigration authorities to use violent force to keep those fleeing corrupt governments from coming to America. We have forgotten the art of nagging, and we have forgotten the message inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

Libertarians should welcome immigrants as a fresh source of potential libertarians. Often, immigrants know the values of sacrifice, hard work, and freedom from corrupt dictatorships better than "white trash" Americans, who are lazy and believe they are entitled to government handouts. Immigrants, by contrast, are easy pickings for libertarian evangelists. The two major parties do not want to turn immigrants into libertarian Americans. "To the contrary," Coulter writes, "Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state -- and with some success! -- so they will be permanent Democratic voters. Rich Republicans and their handmaidens in Washington are trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class."

By closing the borders, we screen out law-abiding immigrants and only allow law-breaking immigrants - a counter-productive policy if ever there were one.

Shut down the welfare system so the law-breaking immigrants are not attracted, and open the borders so hard-working would-be American libertarians can stream in. Liberty is more important to America than skin color. Let "tolerant" whites lose "the struggle for survival" and let the next generation of Americans be bronze-skinned libertarians.

Read Ann Coulter. (Even though she wants to close the borders.)

On Overthrowing Governments

Libertarians want smaller government. I personally would like to eliminate "the government" altogether, not just make it "smaller." Many Christians are appalled at my "anarchism" because they believe the Bible (Romans 13) says "the government" is approved by God and we should submit to it, not overthrow it.

Yet they voted for George Bush, who violently overthrew the government of Iraq, and they support the violent overthrow of the British government by the American colonies (July 4th, 1776). Indeed, Americans who support the violent overthrow of the government (which is defended by the Declaration of Independence and the Second of the Bill of Rights), tend to support (or ignore) the federal government's long historical record of overthrowing other governments around the world.

Take a couple of hours to attend a law school class on the U.S. record of overthrowing governments:

Buy Kinzer's book, Overthrow:

I agree that we should "submit" to "the government," and not use violence to overthrow it. Find out why Romans 13 is the most abused passage of Scripture in history, and does not legitimize the idea of "the government."

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?

I hope you are not mourning the loss of a beloved soldier on this Memorial Day weekend. If you are, I mourn with you.

I hope you are not honoring anyone who chose to fight in America's military. I cannot join you in bestowing such honor.

I reserve honor for those who have chosen not to fight.

If you are grieving, you may want to bookmark that webpage for another day. (Then again, you may want to use that webpage to transform your grief into indignation and action.)

If you are relaxing, partying, or enjoying a day off during this traditional beginning-of-Summer weekend, unplug the TV and take an hour to read that webpage.

Then ask that simple question: WWJD?

Thursday, May 17, 2007

9-11 and School Shootings

Giuliani rebuked Ron Paul for blaming 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy "blowback."

The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that "he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy."

Did Ron Paul commit a strategic campaign blunder by saying we should "listen" to Al Queda?

FOXNews moderator Wendell Goler asked Paul, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks?" and Giuliani called Paul's answer "absurd."

When Ron Paul suggested Moslems view our intervention in the middle east the same way we would view intervention by China in our hemisphere, there was hesitant applause from people who were warned at the beginning of the evening not to applaud. Perhaps they thought they might get in trouble if they signaled their approval of Paul's analysis. When Giuliani gave his vacuous emotional rebuke of Dr. Paul, the patriots in the audience knew they wouldn't get in trouble for goosestepping with their hands.

Here's the analogy I'm thinking of using in a congressional campaign.

The perpetrators of 9/11 committed an evil, wicked, and sinful act. (I can use those words because I'm an out-of-the-closet theocrat.) If they thought they were going to be rewarded with 72 virgins, they now know they were wrong. Their action cannot be justified, excused, exculpated, or legitimized. They had no right to do what they did.

But wise leadership will analyze our foreign policy to see if this is a case of "blowback" -- the unanticipated domestic consequences of U.S. foreign intervention.

Let's draw an analogy to school shootings. A student walks into class and starts gunning down fellow students. He does not commit suicide when he's done, but surrenders to authorities. When asked why he did it, he says the other students were "always picking on me." Should this get him a not-guilty verdict at his trial? In no way.

But as a Christian, I would examine myself, following Biblical commands: was I one of those who taunted, mocked, insulted, ignored, shunned, and "picked on" this unloveable student, or did I befriend him, defend him, include him, and encourage him, even if he repeatedly ignored my overtures?

My failure to be Christlike, of course, would not justify his mass-murders. But now that the crime has been committed, what can I learn about myself?

What can the U.S. federal government learn from 9-11? That is not an "absurd" question, and Giuliani shows himself to be a propagandist, not a wise statesman. Washington D.C. needlessly nurtured and provoked radical Islamo-fascism, and New York City paid the price. Giuliani shows that if elected he will repeat the same mistakes Washington has been making since at least the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953.

"Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" applies to nations as well as to individuals.

Our nation can learn a lot by listening to Osama.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007

Back in the late 1970's I criticized Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority for not being Theocratic enough.

I criticized several textbooks written for so-called Christian schools (schools which have a morning chapel service and then teach Keynesian economics and Marxist sociology in an attempt to remain "accredited" by anti-Christian education bureaucrats) which wanted to give creationism "equal time," allowing creationism a "place at the table" with Darwinism. I said Christian schools should not try to be "neutral." Christian schools should blast Darwinism as a genocidal lie. (The Biblical Educator, Nov. 1979 [published by Gary North]).

In a book titled The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, I blasted Falwell for not being critical enough of the ACLU. (My article was published by Gary North in 1982, after being rejected by the less theocratic, more moderate R.J. Rushdoony.)

If Falwell were transported back to Lexington and Concord, 1775, and his vision and hopes for America and her schools were set before the Minutemen, they would denounce Falwell as an atheist in sheep's clothing, attempting to secularize America and create a regime more tyrannical than King George III. At best, America's Founders would think of Falwell as a compromiser.

But if America's Founders were to be transported into the 21st century, and see what Falwell was up against, they would gravitate to Falwell like ants to strawberry preserves, or Bedouins to a desert oasis. There are few Christians who were as willing as Falwell to take the heat for criticizing America's New Secular Taliban.

"Liberty Under God" was the vision that motivated America's Founders, and Falwell adovated more liberty and more Godliness than the mainstream media, academia, and "statesmen" of our day.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the most deistic of the Founders, would have no complaints about the deistic curriculum that Falwell advocated. Jefferson would have agreed with Falwell's complaints about the size of the federal government. Jefferson would denounce Falwell's secular "liberal" opponents.

Falwell hated the word "theocracy." Only his enemies used the term about him.

I support Christian Theocracy. I believe theocracy is inescapable. Every nation is a theocracy of some sort, and "secular-progressives" have created a more taliban-like regime than Falwell ever would.

Falwell deserves credit -- or at least less criticism than millions of nominal Christians or politicians who pose as Christians -- for speaking out as much as he did against America's Secular Humanist theocracy. His influence has been overstated by secularists (who out-gunned him), but his courage exceeded most Christians who run for cover whenever secularists accuse us of trying to "impose a theocracy."

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Immigration and the LP Platform

I just finished another "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall," responding to the President's Saturday Morning Radio Address focusing on Immigration.

In the few minutes I had to prepare, I compared the 2004 LP Platform with the 2006 Platform, and was stunned at how un-libertarian the newer Platform had become. After 9-11, many Libertarians were afraid of appearing unreasonably pro-liberty and insensitive to public insecurity about terrorism. These Libertarians came out in favor of federal military intervention in Iraq, and suppression of liberties at home in the name of "security."

In earlier platforms, "immigration" was just another individual right, and the platform was libertarian. Now immigration is a matter of "foreign policy," that is, the "war on terror," to which individual rights must take second place.

I have compared the two platforms side-by-side here:

Notice that this is part 12 of a series of webpages on immigration. It has taken that many pages to refute fascist thinking on this issue, with which too many of us have been infected.

Part 13 will be on citizenship vs. travel. This page should have been the first. The Constitution (Art I, sec. 8, cl. 4) gives power to Congress to determine citizenship requirements, not to restrict travel. For generations after the Constitution was ratified, there wasn't even any such thing as passports; people were allowed to travel freely. Most Americans today think like East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall. They think nothing about the government demanding "Your papers, please." We are no longer Americans, we are Nazis and Communists.

We need a libertarian platform on immigration that is so old it appears radically new.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Welfare and Immigration

Tom Martz has passed along an analogy which illustrates the real problem behind immigration: "welfare rights." Denying a human being the right to leave a corrupt drug-cartelized dictatorship and work in America is unAmerican. Denying an American employer the right to hire whomever he wishes is unAmerican. Denying American consumers the right to pay the lowest possible prices for goods and services is unAmerican.

But creating welfare dependency is unChristian.

Immigration is not a problem. "Welfare rights" is the problem. To say there exists a "right" to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education is to create two classes of slaves. The first group of slaves are those who cannot provide for themselves and are dependent upon their "benevolent providers." The other group of slaves are those who are forced by the State to provide these things for those who have the "right" to them.

"Welfare rights" is dehumanizing for those who allegedly possess the "rights," and dehumanizing for those who are compelled to provide them.

We should never ask the government to use force to prevent immigration. Our priority should be creating "the separation of welfare and state."

The analogy:

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ... everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And other birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now lets see ... our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be a automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of millions. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English: Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
It's not the case that we should never feed the birds. It's not the case that we should never help the needy. But our help should be informed by a long-term perspective. Michael Cloud has offered a similar analogy:

A number of years ago I visited my mom and dad. I got up one morning, wandered into the kitchen for coffee, and looked out the window at their plastic bird feeder. It was empty, and there was a little bird sittin’ there with a “So, where’s the food?” look on his face.

So I asked my mom, “Where’s the food?” and she said: “Oh, the package is under the sink, but read the instructions before you refill it.” That seemed silly - I mean, how complicated could it be?! (audience laughs) But, you know, sometimes your Mom knows best - and this was one of those times.... So, I read the instructions and this is what it said: “When your bird-feeder runs out of food, do not refill it immediately; otherwise, it will cause the birds to depend upon you and they will not learn to fend for themselves.” And, I thought: What a sad testament to America that the makers of a bird-feeder would care and understand more about self-reliance than the people who run the public schools, the people who run Social Security, and the people who voted in our welfare system!

You know, we’ve got the Statue of Liberty on one coast, but I wish we had another statue at this end of the country, here in California - a Statue of Responsibility; that would remind people that, without responsibility on one end and liberty on the other, what’s in-between isn’t worth much.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Immigration and Gun Control

It's ironic that someone who opposes gun control laws would support immigrant control laws. It's doubly ironic that the Minutemen would oppose gun control laws while defending "national sovereignty." It is triply ironic that those who oppose free immigration support the standing armies of the on-going never-ending "war on terror."

We must keep in mind that the Second Amendment was not written to protect "hunters" and "gun collectors." It was written to protect the enemies of "national sovereignty." It was written to protect those who would overthrow the government by armed revolution. Jefferson wrote:
what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.
The Founding Fathers were concerned to protect American sovereignty from other sovereigns, not from "the People." The People retained the right to "alter or abolish" the government they created.

The addition of more people to America was seen as a bulwark of liberty against the encroachment of sovereigns; one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was restrictions on increased immigration:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Have the Minutemen bought into the anti-population propaganda of New Age Socialism/Environmentalism?

Note that I am a pacifist, and I believe armed revolution against the government is always wrong, even in 1776.

Libertarian Candidate Filters

At Saturday night's meeting of Greene County Libertarians we also discussed the idea of preventing someone from being a Libertarian candidate who did not present a good public image for the party. It is libertarian to keep someone from running as a libertarian? Or does the LP have the right to decide who will represent the Party?

Given our disagreements on the subject of immigration, what issue-filters would be appropriate? What kind of dress code should be required? Should candidates with certain tatoos be prevented from running as Libertarians?

Should LP candidates be required to sign some sort of pledge?

Even among the small number of Greene County Libertarians present at Saturday night's meeting, there was probably not a single issue, party platform plank, or policy vote that we would all agree on, even though we constituted the crème de la crème of Libertarian Party candidates. Why, Councilman Doug has already even voted for -- yes, for -- a tax! Many Libertarians who consider themselves strong opponents of gun control would flinch at legalized bazookas. Most of the best LP candidates are not consistent opponents of government. This makes construction of a universal libertarian candidate filter very subjective and difficult.

But not for this reason something we should not work for.

Greene County Libertarians: Immigration

At the monthly meeting of the Greene County Libertarians we had a stimulating discussion on strategies for newly-elected Springfield Councilman Doug Burlison's appearance at an upcoming meeting of the "racists aren't welcome" Minutemen. (I linked to Doug's campaign website. Now we need

Doug made a great point about what rights are possessed by anyone who has human DNA. Those rights include the right to travel, visit, or immigrate. On the other side of the border, those rights include the right to hire the worker with the lowest bid for labor costs. But Doug's a politician now, so he has to be careful not to alienate voters with a pure libertarian position on why all immigration laws should be abolished. He should follow the strategy on my website:

On that page I suggested three topics to explain the immigration issue to people like the Minutemen. Good immigration policy, I said, will:

Preserve the American Identity
Protect American Sovereignty
Promote the American Economy

I'm convinced these issues can only be sorted out through vigorous debate. Dialogue works better than monologue. It also requires a good deal of patient study.

Those who claim that an "open borders" policy (abolition of immigration laws) would destroy American sovereignty need to become aware of the fact that American sovereign is already dead meat, and giving the butcher power to enforce existing immigration laws will only hasten the rotting of the corpse. What we need is not a strong government to protect us from immigrants we don't like, but the freedom to do so ourselves. Giving Washington D.C. more power only makes us more powerless. Bush claims on one day to want to strengthen the borders, and the next day he's proposing amnesty. (He's actually consistent once you realize that his agenda is not your agenda.) The best way to protect the values of liberty and the Constitution is to work for the abolition of U.S. federal sovereignty:

This is the most effective way to prevent the Bush-Clinton regime from abolishing what's left of the Constitution and replacing it with a regional North American Union:

Will open borders lead to a flood of immigrants and the destruction of our economy? Not if the government welfare system is abolished first. If that would happen, a flood of immigrants and the proliferation of free trade (or "globalization") would drive our standard of living to unimaginable heights. The proof is in the work of Pepperdine Economics Professor George Reisman as well as other free market economists. I have cited Reisman's work profusely on my campaign website -- which has a 10-part series on immigration -- as well as on a new website I'm working on:

Unfortunately, Doug is only going to have a few minutes to completely re-educate the Minutemen -- a daunting task. Many of them believe that they will lose their jobs if uneducated immigrants are allowed to compete with them. Friend, if your job can be done by an uneducated peasant from Mexico, then you need to sharpen your job skills. Failure to do so, and success in preventing your boss from hiring an immigrant, means forcing me and the rest of America to pay too much for your services. You're increasing our costs and that hurts our economy.

Immigration is a huge issue. It requires at least an hour to study the basic economic issues involved, and several minutes to sort out the reason why the immigration rhetoric of the Bush Administration is so deceptive.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Ozarks Virtual Town Hall

Twelve hours after I got off the plane from California (having been there since March), I was getting ready for a test drive of a new campaign vehicle, "The Ozarks Virtual Town Hall."

A replay of today's event is still available, but will soon be removed because it was just a rehearsal. Next week we'll give it another run, and soon we'll do some PR to bring in the crowds, after we get this new technology down pat.

Now accepting applications for MC, co-host, guests, and other fascinating personalities to interview on-the-air.