Friday, October 31, 2008

Political Wackos

The November issue of Politics Magazine has an article entitled "Wackos On the Ballot."

It looks like I missed the cut this year.

Kevin Barrett, the Libertarian Party Candidate for the 3rd Congressional District in Wisconsin made the cut. Barrett is a former college professor who has gotten a great deal of media coverage for his belief that 9-11 was an "inside job," or more specifically, "a false-flag operation."

The writer of the article says, "I had a lengthy conversation with Barrett, and what’s striking is that he’s clearly intelligent and has devoted a lot of time to pursuing his paranoia." Which means the writer cannot refute Barrett's claims, but doesn't want to agree with Barrett and be written off as a "wacko" like he's writing off Barrett.

"Ignorance is bliss" -- and a paycheck.

One can all too easily imagine a report being sent back to Parliament in 1776: "I had a lengthy conversation with Thomas Jefferson, and what’s striking is that he’s clearly intelligent and has devoted a lot of time to pursuing his paranoia."

How's this for "wacko paranoia":

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Substitute the word "conspiracy" for the word "design."

But if a political candidate says, "George Bush and the neoconservatives have been plotting to create an absolute Despotism," he's written off as "paranoid."

I don't see how any rational, well-informed person can deny that George Bush (and his neoconservative regime) is a greater tyrant than George III was. The present tyranny is cushioned by mind-numbing technology -- labor-saving devices, push-button climate control, and most important, television. We confuse leisure/entertainment with freedom. We are pampered slaves.

Barrett's Position on the Issues is well-documented and generally libertarian, but the Libertarian Party denounces him:

Barrett’s real problem is that his views and statements—which, in fairness, have been misrepresented at times by the blogosphere (he’s not actually a Holocaust denier, for example)—have led him to be completely rejected by the national Libertarian Party. They want nothing to do with him.

In fact, when Libertarian officials learned I was looking into Barrett, they contacted me to emphasize the lengths to which they’d gone to distance themselves from him, describing him as “nuts” and as a “wacko.” Now, Barrett is entitled to his views, but when your own party officials describe you in such unflattering terms, it might be time for a party switch.

Or maybe the Libertarian Party needs to stop worrying about approval by tyrants and the mainstream media and parties, and start changing public understanding.

Barrett seems to engage in a few "wacko" campaign stunts, like "taping [for YouTube] visits to the district office of his opponent, Rep. Ron Kind, wearing a “V for Vendetta” mask and requesting that Kind accept a debate challenge." That's not my style, but it's hard to see why this stunt is any more "wacko" than dressing up like an Indian and dumping tons of tea into the Boston Harbor.

The mainstream media can make Thomas Jefferson look like a "wacko" -- and has, really. All the Founding Fathers were high-energy wackos, "paranoid" about the British, alarmists and extremists who were offensive to the lukewarm Tories. In one or two paragraphs, any mainstream media reporter can make John Hancock and Samuel Adams looks like "wackos." To rehabiliate these men would require a fair amount of reading -- say, the Declaration of Independence -- and having sufficient background and intelligence to understand the document. So the mainstream image prevails in public consciousness.

Most Americans are victims of educational malpractice, having graduated from government schools where it is illegal to teach students that the Declaration of Independence is really true. It takes intellectual effort to understand liberty, and this is why today's political advertising consists of 30-second bursts of hypnosis for illiterate slaves.

The job of the mainstream media is to confirm the delusions in the minds of Americans that they are free, and that their education was accurate and sufficient, and that they need not engage in any (more) critical thinking. (As if they ever did.)

Politics Magazine discharges this duty admirably.

"So the question is ... do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do believe ... what you are told?"

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why Atheists Should Elect a Christian Theocrat

Kevin Craig is the Libertarian Party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in Missouri's 7th District, running against the Minority Whip, Roy Blunt. His campaign motto is "Liberty Under God."

Kevin Craig opposes the modern myth of "separation of church and state." The phrase no longer refers to "churches," or as "the Father of the Constitution" James Madison often called them, "ecclesiastical bodies." The real meaning of the modern phrase is actually "the separation of God and State." Kevin Craig believes that any government which will not acknowledge itself to be under God is a government that believes it is God.

Some atheists in Southwest Missouri
are urging voters NOT to vote for the Libertarian Party nominee, Kevin Craig, solely because Craig believes America should be a Christian nation.

A Virtual "Round Table"

Do you hate God more than you love liberty?

You're invited to discuss this issue in a live "round table discussion" over the internet. Details are here:

This is intended to be a level-headed, rational, educational discussion. No yelling, no rude interruptions. Click here for links to good examples of Craig's previous discussions with atheists on the subjects of law, religion, and creation-evolution which were courteous and well-mannered.

You can listen to this "round table discussion" anonymously on your computer, type a question or comment and submit it, or call in to voice your opinion on the phone.

The next discussions are scheduled for:

  • Thursday October 30 a "virtual lunch" at noon
  • Sunday November 2 your alternative to church.
  • If the Sunday morning call fills our phone board, we'll schedule another "round table" for Sunday Evening.

A group calling itself "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" claims that James Dobson of Focus on the Family "SEEKS A FUNDAMENTALIST THEOCRACY."

Doesn't that sound frightening?

In fact, all that Dr. Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and others like them want is what America's Founding Fathers wanted: children in public schools should be taught that the Declaration of Independence is really true, and what it teaches is really true:

• God exists.
• Our rights are the product of Intelligent Design.
• We ought to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
• Our intentions and motives will be judged by "the Supreme Judge of the world."
• We should have the faith to trust in Divine Providence.

If the teaching of these ideas creates a "fundamentalist theocracy," then America is clearly a "fundamentalist theocracy," because the foundational charters of this nation endorse and promote those ideas.

Kevin Craig believes that America's Founding Fathers opposed "ecclesiocracy" (government by priests and clergy) but not "Theocracy" (government by God). The Signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Framers of the Constitution would have unanimously opposed the modern version of "the Separation of Church and State" as promoted by the ACLU and "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

Kevin Craig studied law and passed the California Bar Exam, but was denied a license to practice by the same court which held that students in public schools should not be permitted to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Details here.

Polls: 40-60% Libertarian?

How would you describe a person who does not believe in politics, who says to politicians and the political process, "Just let me alone" ("laissez-faire")?

Would "libertarian" be a poor choice of words?

This is not a person who makes sure to go to the polls to vote Democratic, in order to initiate force against the rich to confiscate their wealth and have it redistributed to himself.

This is not a person who goes to the polls to vote Republican to impose her views on the rest of the world by imperial force.

This is a person that a former Senior Editor of Gallop Poll, David Moore, describes as "unengaged" in politics. And Moore says the unengaged make up 40-60% of Americans, despite the best efforts of pollsters and media to get us engaged, to convert us to true believers in the "cult of the omnipotent state," to make us all think that all Americans are vitally and profoundly concerned with the upcoming elections, sitting on the edge of our seats, believing that it really makes a big difference who wins.

The problem is two-fold: the two major parties control the election process, and will not allow apolitical (laissez-faire) parties to participate. Second, libertarians don't vote, and that means they don't vote for other libertarians. So the Demoblicans and Republicrats always win re-election. They control the reins of power.

(I guess the reporter is from Russia. She imitates the artificial sing-songy media melody that American news reporters often have. Do these people talk with the same contrived vocal inflection after hours on a date? I hope not.)

Monday, October 27, 2008

No Bailouts Without Representation

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Ralph Lozier was a Missouri Congressman from 1923-1935, during the Great Depression. Lozier seems to have been aware that the Constitution was sold to the American People on the promise that there would be adequate representation of the People in the House of Representatives:

“…it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.”
Federalist Paper No. 56 (February 19, 1788) Emphasis in original.

In Federalist No. 55, the writer (either Hamilton or Madison) said:

“…let us weigh the objections which have been stated against the number of members proposed for the House of Representatives. It is said, in the first place, that so small a number cannot be safely trusted with so much power. The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. … At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred.”

James Wilson was a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, Signed the Constitution, appointed by Washington as one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court:

“...the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of more than six hundred members.”
— James Wilson, November 30, 1787 on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

The last time the number of representatives was increased in proportion to the increase in population was 1910.

By 1913, the "Representatives" had created the Adminstrative State, voted in the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve, dramatically altering the character of the federal government. Could it be that these men grew accustomed to their power, and decided to close the doors to new, competing representatives?

In 1929 a bill was put before Congress that did just that, carving the number 435 in stone, and not allowing any more representatives, regardless of the (doubtless) continued future growth in U.S. population. It was Missouri Rep. Lozier who asked,

"The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 ... I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

Today, instead of each American having 1/40,000th of a Representative, we now have only 1/700,000th of a Representative, and before long it will be one-millionth of a Representative.

Of course, this makes it much safer for incumbents, who now get re-elected 95% of the time.

This is why, even if it is OBVIOUS what the People want (e.g., whether they want the government to confiscate $2,000 from every man, woman and child in America and give it to irresponsible investors on Wall St.), the Congress doesn't have to listen to them.

Consider the possibilities of a truly representative Congress: - Return the House of Representatives to the People (Home Page)

Daily Kos: A Larger House of Representatives (

BTW, how many libertarians have figured out that they can post this message or other messages on Barack Obama's website?

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Historic Democratic Party Achievements, 1916-1932

June 14, 1916, from the Democratic Party Platform of 1916:

Our archaic banking and currency system, prolific of panic and disaster under Republican administrations,—long the refuge of the money trust,—has been supplanted by the Federal Reserve Act, a true democracy of credit under government control, already proved a financial bulwark in a world crisis, mobilizing our resources, placing abundant credit at the disposal of legitimate industry and making a currency panic impossible.

President Woodrow Wilson: Address at Sea Girt, New Jersey Accepting the Democratic Nomination for President, September 2, 1916

By the Federal Reserve Act the supply of currency at the disposal of active business has been rendered elastic, taking its volume, not from a fixed body of investment securities, but from the liquid assets of daily trade; and these assets are assessed and accepted, not by distant groups of bankers in control of unavailable reserves, but by bankers at the many centers of local exchange who are in touch with local conditions everywhere.

Woodrow Wilson: Executive Order 2697 - Regulations Relating to the Exportation of Coin, Bullion, and Currency

By virtue of the authority vested in me, I direct that the regulations, orders, limitations, and exceptions prescribed in relation to the exportation of coin, bullion, and currency shall be administered by and under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury; and upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury I hereby prescribe the following regulations in relation thereto:

1. Any individual, firm or corporation desiring to export from the United States or any of its territorial possessions to any foreign country named in the proclamation dated September 7, 1917, any coin, bullion, or currency, shall first file an application in triplicate with the Federal reserve bank of the district in which such individual firm or corporation is located, such application to state under oath and in detail the nature of the transaction, the amount involved, the parties directly and indirectly interested, and such other information as may be of assistance to the proper authorities in determining whether the exportation for which a license is desired will be compatible with the public interest.

2. Each Federal reserve bank shall keep a record copy of each application filed with it under the provisions of this regulation and shall forward the original application and a duplicate to the Federal Reserve Board at Washington, together with such information or suggestions as it may believe proper in the circumstances, and shall in addition make a formal recommendation as to whether or not in its opinion the exportation should be permitted.

3. The Federal Reserve Board, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby authorized and empowered upon receipt of such application and the recommendation of the Federal Reserve Bank to make such ruling as it may deem proper in the circumstances, and if in its opinion the exportation in question be compatible with the public interest, to permit said exportation to be made; otherwise to refuse it.

September 7, 1917.

Woodrow Wilson: Executive Order 2796 - Prescribing Rules and Regulations Under Section 5 of the Trading with the Enemy Act and Supplementing Rules and Regulations Heretofore Prescribed Under Title 7 of the Espionage Act

Republican Party Platform of 1920:

The fact is that the war to a great extent, was financed by a policy of inflation, through certificate borrowings from the banks, and bonds issued at artificial rates sustained by the low discount rates established by the Federal Reserve Board. The continuance of this policy since the armistice lays the administration open to severe criticism. Almost up to the present time the practices of the Federal Reserve Board as to credit control have been frankly dominated by the convenience of the Treasury.

The results have been a greatly increased war cost, a serious loss to the millions of people who, in good faith, bought liberty bonds and victory notes at par, and extensive post war speculation followed to-day by a restricted credit for legitimate industrial expansion and as a matter of public policy, we urge all banks to give credit preference to essential industry.

The Federal Reserve System should be free from political influence, which is quite as important as its independence of domination by financial combinations.

Democratic Party Platform of 1920:

A review of the record of the Democratic Party during the administration of Woodrow Wilson presents a chapter of substantial achievements unsurpassed in the history of the republic. For fifty years before the advent of this administration periodical convulsions had impeded the industrial progress of the American people and caused unestimatable loss and distress. By the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act the old system, which bred panics, was replaced by a new system, which insured confidence. It was an indispensable factor in winning the war, and to-day it is the hope and inspiration of business. Indeed, one vital danger against which the American people should keep constantly on guard, is the commitment of this system to partisan enemies who struggled against its adoption and vainly attempted to retain in the hands of speculative bankers a monopoly of the currency and credits of the nation. Already there are well defined indications of an assault upon the vital principles of the system in the event of Republican success at the elections in November.

The non-partisan Federal Reserve authorities have been wholly free of political interference or motive; and, in their own time and their own way, have used courageously, though cautiously, the instruments at their disposal to prevent undue expansion of credit in the country. As a result of these sound Treasury and Federal Reserve policies, the inevitable war inflation has been held down to a minimum, and the cost of living has been prevented from increasing in this country in proportion to the increase in other belligerent countries and in neutral countries which are in close contact with the world's commerce and exchanges.

After a year and a half of fighting in Europe, and despite another year and a half of Republican obstruction at home, the credit of the Government of the United States stands unimpaired, the Federal Reserve note is the unit of value throughout all the world; and the United States is the one great country in the world which maintains a free gold market.

We condemn the attempt of the Republican party to deprive the American people of their legitimate pride in the financing of the war—an achievement without parallel in the financial history of this or any other country, in this or any other war. And in particular we condemn the pernicious attempt of the Republican Party to create discontent among the holders of the bonds of the Government of the United States and to drag our public finance and our banking and currency system back into the arena of party politics.

Democratic Party Platform of 1924:

We denounce the recent cruel and unjust contraction of legitimate and necessary credit and currency, which was directly due to the so-called deflation policy of the republican party, as declared in its national platform of June, 1920, and in the speech of acceptance of its candidate for the presidency. Within eighteen months after the election of 1920 this policy resulted in withdrawing bank loans by over $5,000,000,000 and in contracting our currency by over $1,500,000,000.

We demand that the federal reserve system be so administered as to give stability to industry, commerce and finance, as was intended by the democratic party, which gave the federal reserve system to the nation.

Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1928:

(a) The Federal Reserve system, created and inaugurated under Democratic auspices, is the greatest legislative contribution to constructive business ever adopted. The administration of the system for the advantage of stock market speculators should cease. It must be administered for the benefit of farmers, wage earners, merchants, manufacturers and others engaged in constructive business.

When our archaic banking and currency system was revised after its record of disaster and panic under Republican administrations, it was a Democratic Congress in the administration of a Democratic President that accomplished its stabilization through the Federal Reserve Act creating the Federal Reserve Board, with powers adequate to its purpose. Now, in the hour of agriculture's need, the Democratic Party pledges the establishment of a new agricultural policy fitted to present conditions, under the direction of a farm board vested with all the powers necessary to accomplish for agriculture what the Federal Reserve Board has been able to accomplish for finance, in full recognition of the fact that the banks of the country, through voluntary cooperation, were never able to stabilize the financial system of the country until the government powers were invoked to help them.

Al Smith: Address of Acceptance at the State Capitol, Albany, New York, August 22, 1928:

To accomplish financial stability, the Federal Reserve System was called into being by a Democratic administration.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1932:

In contrast with the Republican policies and record, we contrast those of the democratic as evidenced by the action of the House of Representatives under Democratic leadership and control, which includes:

1. The issuance of fiat currency.

2. Instructions to the Federal Reserve Board and the Secretary of the Treasury to attempt to manipulate commodity prices.

3. The guarantee of bank deposits.

4. The squandering of the public resources and the unbalancing of the budget through pork-barrel appropriations which bear little relation to distress and would tend through delayed business revival to decrease rather than increase employment.

Generally on economic matters we pledge the Republican Party:

1. To maintain unimpaired the national credit.

2. To defend and preserve a sound currency and an honest dollar.

3. To stand steadfastly by the principle of a balanced budget.

4. To devote ourselves fearlessly and unremittingly to the task of eliminating abuses and extravagance and of drastically cutting the cost of government so as to reduce the heavy burden of taxation.

5. To use all available means consistent with sound financial and economic principles to promote an expansion of credit to stimulate business and relieve unemployment.

6. To make a thorough study of the conditions which permitted the credit and the credit machinery of the country to be made available, with out adequate check, for wholesale speculation in securities, resulting in ruinous consequences to millions of our citizens and to the national economy, and to correct those conditions so that they shall not recur.

When was the last time you heard Republicans denounce "fiat currency?"

Herbert Hoover: Statement on the Veterans' Bonus, September 14, 1932:

It is unthinkable that the Government of the United States should resort to the printing press and the issuance of fiat currency as provided in the bill which passed the House at the last session of Congress under the leadership of the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate. Such an act of moral bankruptcy would depreciate and might ultimately destroy the value of every dollar in the United States. It would cause the collapse of all confidence in our Government and would bring widespread ruin to the entire country and to every one of our citizens. Daniel Webster 100 years ago stated: 'He who tampers with the currency robs labor of its bread. He panders, indeed, to greedy capital, which is keen-sighted, and may shift for itself; but he beggars labor, which is honest, unsuspecting, and too busy with the present to calculate for the future. The prosperity of the working classes lives, moves, and has its being in established credit, and a steady medium of payment.' And the experience of every government in the world since that day has confirmed Webster's statement.

Herbert Hoover: Address at Madison Square Garden in New York City, October 31, 1932

Another proposal of our opponents which would destroy the American system is that of inflation of the currency. The bill which passed the last session of the Democratic House called upon the Treasury of the United States to issue $2,300 million in paper currency that would be unconvertible into solid values. Call it what you will, greenbacks or fiat money. It was the same nightmare which overhung our own country for years after the Civil War.

In our special situation today the issuance of greenbacks means the immediate departure of this country from the gold standard, as there could be no provision for the redemption of such currency into gold. The new currency must obviously go to immediate and constantly fluctuating discount when associated with currency convertible in gold.

The oldest law of currency is that bad money drives out the good, for a population--that is, every individual--will hoard good currency and endeavor to get rid of the bad. The invariable effect is the withdrawal of a vast sum of good currency from circulation, and at once the Government is forced to print more and more bad paper currency. No candidate and no speaker in this campaign has disavowed this action of the Democratic House of Representatives. In spite of this visible experience within the recollection of this generation, with all its pitiable resuits, fiat money is proposed by the Democratic Party as a potent measure for relief from this depression.

The use of this expedient by nations in difficulty since the war in Europe has been one of the most tragic disasters to equality of opportunity and the independence of man.

I quote from a revealing speech by Mr. Owen D. Young upon the return of the Dawes Commission from Europe. He stated:

"The currency of Germany was depreciating so rapidly that the industries paid their wages daily, and sometimes indeed twice a day. Standing with the lines of employees was another line of wives and mothers waiting for these marks. The wife grabbed the paper from her husband's hand and rushed to the nearest provision store to spend it quickly before the rapid depreciation had cut its purchasing power in two.

"When the chairman of the syndicate of the German Trade Unions, Herr Grasseman, appeared before the Dawes Commission, I put to him this question: 'What can this committee do for German labor ?'

"I expected the answer to be some one of the slogans of labor: An 8-hour day, old age or disability pensions--something of that kind. Much to my surprise the answer came promptly.

"'What your committee must do for German labor is to give us a stable currency. Do you know,' Herr Grasseman said, 'that for many months it has been impossible for a wage earner in Germany to perform even of his moral obligations ?

"'Knowing that a child was coming to the family at a certain time, there was no way by which the husband, through effort or sacrifice or savings, could guarantee his wife a doctor and a nurse when that event arrived. One, knowing that his mother was stricken with a fatal disease could not by any effort or sacrifice or saving be in a position to insure her a decent burial on her death.

"'Your committee must,' HerrGrasseman added, 'just as a basic human thing, assure us a stable currency 'and thereby insure to the worker that his wages will have the same purchasing power when he wants to spend them as they had when he earned them.'"

Now, I ask, is that a policy consonant with the American system ? It has been proposed by the Democratic Party within 4 months and passed a Democratic House of Representatives. Is that the preservation of equality of opportunity and the protection of men by their government?

Ronald Reagan: Question-and-Answer Session With Members of the Sperling Breakfast Group on Domestic and Foreign Policy Issues, February 23, 1983:

Q. Robert Novak, Field Syndicate. Mr. President, after 2 years in office, do you think now, based on your experience in office, that it is, first, desirable and, second, feasible to restore the gold standard while you are President? [Laughter]

The President. I wish I had an answer on that. I must say that is, in economic circles, I know, is one of the great debates that will go on and on. You can point back to history and show that fiat money has never been successful, and in reality, that's what we have is fiat money now. We've had a study that's been going forward on that, and there are many variations of what could be done in partially, let's say, getting metallic money back in circulation.

I can't give you an answer on that, because, as I say, it's something that we're all of us looking at and wondering about. There does seem to be more sentiment against it in this modern day than there is for it.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

25th Anniversary of the 241

Jim Bovard asks, Did the Marines Die in Beirut for Absolute Power?

Mahmoud El-Yousseph suggests they died as payback for an Israeli massacre:

Remembering Sabra & Shatilla Massacre

But Bovard suggests that the government has never come clean on all the reasons why the Marines died, and how their deaths have been exploited for the purposes of U.S. imperialism.

Disease Control

"Your Candidates. Your Health" has sent me a candidate's survey, asking how much money I'm willing to take from you and give to government health care bureaucrats, like the "Center for Disease Control," in charge of protecting our "health and safety."

Who is "in charge" of preventing widespread starvation in America?

Answer: nobody.

But if Americans all starve to death, what good is "disease control?"

Don't we need a government department of groceries and proper eating to make sure American idiots don't starve to death?

Why do we need the federal government to oversee "health and safety" if the greater task of preventing ourselves from starving to death is left to the unregulated Free Market?

Consumers will buy health and safety just as they buy food. Businesses will compete to sell it to them.

"But how?," the government-minded will ask. "How will we have public health and disease control without the government providing it?"

I'm reminded of Murray Rothbard's depiction of the soviet citizen who first hears the proposal of allowing a free market in shoes:

"How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?"

Somehow, we all have shoes.

More shoes, better shoes, prettier shoes, more durable shoes, a wider variety of shoes, than the sad people who live in nations where the government is in charge of shoes. And we have to work fewer hours to be able to afford them.

The lowly housewife, pushing her shopping cart through the grocery store, has no idea how vast structures of industry have been created and work around the clock, bowing down before her, lavishing aisle after aisle of conveniently-sized hygienically-packaged groceries at her feet, along with fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy, and meat, seeking her approval. These same powerful, global, industrial forces will be marshaled at her bidding to provide health and disease control if she is given the freedom to demand it, instead of government telling her which diseases will be controlled, and which will be subsidized.

Government and our Worldview

My real purpose in campaigning is not to raise millions of dollars and plaster campaign ads all over the media and landscape in order to unseat the 2nd most powerful Republican in Congress.

My real purpose is to change people's worldview and vision for "government."

Please become acquainted with the concept of a "worldview" if you are not already. One's worldview determines the fundamental categories of interpreting the facts of our world.

Human Nature: Do human beings need to repent of rebellion against God, or are human beings impersonally and naturally evolving into perfection?
: Should the world be abandoned to "tribulation" and imminent catastrophe while we await a "Rapture," or should we be making plans to create peaceful and orderly human societies which will last for millennia into the future? The position on "government" in this campaign is written from an "optimillennial" rather than "pessimillennial" perspective. We look forward to a global "Christocracy."
Law: Our position on "government" is written from a generally "theonomic" pro-law perspective.
Society: Our position on "government" is written from an individualistic rather than collectivist perspective. A "capitalist" perspective rather than a "socialist" one.
Government: I believe that the greatest progress in human culture will take place when the entire concept of "the State" is as distant a memory and as absent from the planet as "animal sacrifices," though both once dominated human society.

Ultimately this issue will not be resolved by the exegesis of a handful of Bible texts or clauses in the Constitution. This is really an entirely different way of reading the Bible and looking at human society. It is a classic "worldview" issue.

"The State" owes its existence to extortion and threats of violence ("taxation"), and its core purpose is vengeance, both of which are forbidden by God's Law.

There is no legitimate human social function which cannot more efficiently and more humanely be carried out without "the State." Self-government, family government, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, insurance, home security, dispute resolution and other businesses will all thrive without "the State."

They have in the past; they must in the future.

Among anarchists there is a debate as to whether our present huge global multinational corporations would exist without the State, e.g., whether Exxon would have its present form without the full resources of the million-man nuclear-armed military forces of a superpower State (the U.S.) overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953, raising up Saddam Hussein's army to battle Iran for over a decade in the 1980's, overthrowing Soviet-influenced governments in Latin America, creating "al Queda" to counter the Soviet Union's disruption of oil pipeline construction in Afghanistan, and myriad other ways in which a "Free Market" in energy has not existed since industrialists like Rockefeller created today's "Administrative State" to annul the Constitution and carry out their corporate policies. (Pro-special-interest regulation was once "progressive" and "populist," but regulation is now often carried out in the name of "de-regulation," and new regulations proposed to deal with the inevitable bad effects of prior regulation.)

"The government" continues to create popular support for its own existence by manipulating education and the media to create the widespread popular belief that without "the State," "criminals" would "take over." We have all been trained to believe from our youngest days that "The State" protects "Life, Liberty and Property."

If we remove our patriotism-colored glasses, it will immediately become apparent that "the State" destroys more lives, enslaves more individuals, and confiscates or destroys more private property than all the "anarchists" and "criminals" in the world combined.

The entire concept of "the State" is unBiblical and supremely dangerous.

Our worldview needs to exclude the whole idea that a group of people have the right to confiscate wealth ("tax") to fund acts of vengeance against their competitors. We do not allow this idea to become socially accepted in the world of business. The idea must become as socially unacceptable in the field of "government."

The future of the human race depends on this conversion.

Political Science Refresher Course

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Obama's Latest Terrorist Connection

Obama has been criticized for his association with admitted terrorist William Ayers:

See it with your own eyes: Obama's book blurb for Ayers

Vote Obama If You Want a “Totalitarian, Pansexual Society” Full of “Disease, Dysfunction and Abuse” Right Wing Watch

Obama Secured $$ for Ayers' Educational Experiments

Michael Barone Says Journalists Should Pursue Obama-Ayers Connection

More On Obama-Ayers Hugh Hewitt

Test shows Ayers penned Obama's 'Dreams'

The real meat of these criticisms -- virtually ignored even by Fox News -- is the interconnection of "respectable" "meanstream" left-wing anti-Christian communist-abetting Tax-Exempt Foundations like the one Ayers and Obama served on -- in their case funded by Reagan-connected Annenberg money. Some of these Foundations have succeeded in transforming institutions and culture. It's debatable how effective Annenberg's billions have been. Sure, lots of damage has been done in the lives of many people by "community organizers" like ACORN, and churches like Jeremiah Wright's, all of whom benefited from Obama's stewardship of Annenberg wealth. But on the big scale of things, Ayers was a two-bit terrorist, and Obama is a two-bit communist.

But now Obama has received an endorsement from a representative of one of the world's largest, most powerful, most successful terrorist organizations. This organized crime syndicate has had far more devastating effects on the minds of children than "educators" like William Ayers has had. In fact, Ayers is just a pawn of this mega-terrorist cabal. Ayers the terrorist bombed only a couple of buildings. But Obama has now been endorsed by a terrorist who has bombed entire neighborhoods and whole cities.

We're talking, of course, about Colin Powell.

Read his fascinating and terrifying story here.

Even more terrifying is the fact that Ayers the wanna-be terrorist is considered an "extremist" while Colin Powell is widely considered a "moderate."

McCain campaign plays Ayers card » Rational Review

Hit & Run > Irritable Powell Syndrome - Reason Magazine

McCain's own treacherous buddies

A related development: Source of Iraq WMD intelligence tells his story -

Child Murderers as Adults

One of the contacts between Obama and terrorist William Ayers was their joint participation in a university forum on whether children who murder should be treated as adults.

I've already commented on another murder case, suggesting a reconsideration of the 13th Amendment's provision for indentured servitude in criminal cases. I oppose capital punishment.

The question, then, is not whether child murderers should be treated as adults, but whether adult murderers should be treated as children. Galatians 4:1 says a slave is like a child. A murderer is like a slave, or even an animal, and should be treated with at least the same level of personal responsibility. If you have an ox that you know has a tendency to gore people, you are responsible to keep the ox fenced away from human beings. If your son has violent tendencies, you are responsible to keep him away from potential victims. Get help if you need it. If your neighbor has a violent child, you are responsible to help your neighbor with his "ox" (Exodus 23:4). Perhaps you can form a non-profit agency to help low-income parents with their ox-kids. But if your ox gores, or your child murders, capital punishment (a.k.a. "treating him like an adult") is not the answer.

Obviously it's ironic that a bomb-throwing assassin like William Ayers would be opposed to capital punishment for murderers. But the question raised in the article above is whether Obama should have joined Ayers on the same side of a debate on any issue.

Call me conceited enough -- having participated in a few public forums as a candidate -- to believe that I can dominate any program. If I had an opportunity to debate with an admitted terrorist against capital punishment, I would probably accept the invitation, believing that the terrorist is advancing an issue I support, and that I would not be seen as supporting or endorsing his terrorism. In fact, I would like to imagine that Ayers would not want to debate with me -- even though we both oppose the government's criminal system -- because he wouldn't want to be tainted by my defense of Christian Theocracy!

In the Old Testament, Israel was commanded not to touch unclean things, because Israel would become unclean (Leviticus 5:2). But in the New Testament, the power of Christ goes out, and the unclean are made clean by their contact with believers. This is why there was a conflict between Israel's religious leaders and Jesus: the Pharisees objected to Jesus having contacts with unclean terrorists and other sinners (Matthew 9:9-13). But Satan's power has been bound. Our job as Christians is to create connections with the William Ayers and Colin Powells of the world; to bring healing to terrorists -- without being co-opted into their unclean agenda.

I suspect criticism of Obama from Christians is based partly on the belief of most Christians in the myth that "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth." But it also stems from their belief that Obama shares the evil beliefs of terrorists like Ayers -- which I too suspect he does. I hope that if I ever share a platform with a terrorist, that it will be abundantly clear that I do not share his beliefs. But I would not reject the possibility of sharing a platform with a terrorist.

Bring back literacy tests

Can I still be a libertarian if I believe that the government should make everyone watch the October 17 John Stossel TV special before they can vote?

I can't believe it was on TV, and I suspect that the YouTube segments won't remain posted for long:

Part 1 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Part 2 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Part 3 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Part 4 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Part 5 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Part 6 of 6 Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Sunday, October 19, 2008

U.S.A.: The Next Kenya?

What will millions of Obama-drones do if Obama loses the election?

Why did Obama campaign for Raila Odinga?

Watch this terrifying video for possible answers:

Obama also spoke by phone with Odinga in the middle of the New Hampshire primary earlier this year.

ht: Chris Ortiz

Saturday, October 18, 2008

October 18, 1780

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
Page image

Congress took into consideration the resolution reported for setting apart a day of thanksgiving and prayer, and agreed to the following draught:

Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, amidst the vicissitudes and calamities of war, to bestow blessings on the people of these states, which call for their devout and thankful acknowledgments, more especially in the late remarkable interposition of his watchful providence, in rescuing the person of our Commander in Chief and the army from imminent dangers, at the moment when treason was ripened for execution; in prospering the labours of the husbandmen, and causing the earth to yield its increase in plentiful harvests; and, above all, in continuing to us the enjoyment of the gospel of peace;

It is therefore recommended to the several states to set apart Thursday, the seventh day [of December next, to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer; that all the people may assemble on that day to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor; to confess our unworthiness of the least of his favours, and to offer our fervent supplications to the God of all grace; that it may please him to pardon our heinous transgressions and incline our hearts for the future to keep all his laws that it may please him still to afford us the blessing of health; to comfort and relieve our brethren who are any wise afflicted or distressed; to smile upon our husbandry and trade and establish the work of our hands; to direct our publick councils, and lead our forces, by land and sea, to victory; to take our illustrious ally under his special protection, and favor our joint councils and exertions for the establishment of speedy and permanent peace; to cherish all schools and seminaries of education, build up his churches in their most holy faith and to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth.

Done in Congress, the lath day of October, 1780, and in the fifth year of the independence of the United States of America.]1

Adjourned to 10 o'Clock to Morrow.

[Note 1: 1 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 24, folio 455. It is in the writing of James Duane, except the portion in brackets, which is in the writing of Samuel Adams. From this point Charles Thomson resumes the entries.]

Library of Congress

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Close the "School of the Americas"

I received the following letter from School of the Americas Watch:

Dear Kevin Craig,

School of the Americas Watch (SOA Watch) is writing to seek statements from candidates for the House of Representatives regarding their position on the United States Army School of the Americas (SOA), now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).

SOA Watch is a nonviolent, grassroots movement that works to stand in solidarity with the people of Latin America to close the SOA/WHINSEC. There are currently hundreds of SOA Watch groups in all 50 states, including your potential congressional district, and a list of numerous religious, labor, and human rights constituency groups with whom we work closely (list enclosed).

As you may know, hundreds of Representatives in the House have supported the closure and/or investigation of the SOA/ WHINSEC. As recently as May 2008, the House overwhelmingly approved language demanding that the school end its policy of secrecy and release the names of graduates and instructors to Congress and the public. The issue of investigating and closing the notorious SOA/ WHINSEC is one that will continue to gain momentum in the coming months.

Despite efforts to evade criticism by renaming the school and implementing cosmetic changes, the SOA/WHINSEC continues to be linked to human rights and drug trafficking crimes throughout Latin America. In August 2007, several Colombian military officials were arrested for aiding drug cartels, over half of which taught at, or took classes at, the school. This included two instructors of 2004 classes at WHINSEC. Latin America is walking away from the SOA/WHINSEC, citing the negative human rights message of the school; five countries including Argentina and Costa Rica have made public announcements they will no longer send military or civilian personnel. In three recent cases, known human rights abusers have been admitted to the school, despite documented instances of serious crimes.

The existence of the SOA/WHINSEC is part of a larger failure in U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America. The school is a combat training school that provides dangerous skills to countries with serious and current human rights problems. The proliferation of skills like counter-insurgency and psychological warfare in countries like Colombia, where impunity is offered to paramilitaries, only perpetuates the cycles of violence. Keeping the school open under any name sends a powerful anti-human rights message. Establishing reasonable living conditions for the people of Latin America and strengthening civil institutions will do more to stabilize the region than training repressive militaries.

The graduates of this institution have a long history of human rights violations. From the atrocities in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980's to recent violations in Colombia, graduates consistently appear in reports on human rights abuses in Latin America. Closing the SOA/ WHINSEC, whatever its name, would demonstrate that the United States has made a clean break from the tragic history of the school and its graduates.

We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to human rights in Latin America, and all over the world, by voicing your commitment to close and investigate the SOA/WHINSEC if you were to be elected to Congress next month. We invite you to issue a statement so that we may educate our networks in your area on your position in advance of this year's election.

Please see the enclosures for more information. We would be happy to meet with you if you have any questions.


School of the Americas Watch

I have added a new page to my website with my position on SOA:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Remembering "The Government"

When our current Congressman was first elected in 1996, the Republican Party National Platform promised the following:

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.

There is a political theory behind these (unkept) promises. It is also an economic theory. It is capitalism. It is anti-socialism. It is the belief that competing individuals in a Free Market provide a higher level of services at a lower price than a government monopoly.

Kevin Craig is a radical (consistent) capitalist. He believes that there is no human action, no necessary social service or function, that cannot be better provided by the Free Market than by "the government." He would keep the Republican promises and abolish those government agencies. He would then start working to abolish all the rest.

Some fear that this would lead to "anarchy." That word summons up all kinds of pictures of disorder and chaos. As government has increased its control over education, schools have become increasingly disorderly. Competition would allow pro-order forces to have more impact, providing parents with better choices. Schools which were more orderly and produced students with higher test scores would out-compete government schools. But the government does not allow "anarchic" competition.

Kevin Craig wants to abolish all government monopolies and allow competition in every area of life. Go ahead: call him an "anarchist." He doesn't care.

Kevin Craig wants to keep cutting government bureaucracies, without stopping, until you to live another 100 years and experience this conversation with your great-great granddaughter:

Her: Gramps, what's a "government?"
You: A "government" is a group of people who impose their will on others by force.
Her: Do we have a government in America?
You: Well, we used to. I don't know if we do anymore or not.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Capital Punishment and Suicide

Timothy Doan Payne of Granby, an East Newton High School graduate, was convicted of murder last year. His partner in the Texas strip club killing has asked to be executed.

Suicide has a long history of being a crime under the common law. It is a violation of the command "Thou shalt not kill."

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution allows for slavery "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

Why should the State be an accomplice in the crime of assisted suicide? Why not make the murderer an indentured servant and give the fruit of his labor to the estates of his victims?

Euthanize the G.O.P.

During this morning's interview on KSGF I was asked about Obama vs. McCain. I said it would be better for for the idea of "Liberty Under God" for Obama to be elected so that those who oppose socialism will wake up and be vigilant; opponents of socialism tend to sleep when a Republican is in the White House.

Too bad I hadn't read Sheldon Richman before I entered the studio. Richman

watched Jonathan Alter of Newsweek interviewed on MSNBC about his latest column in which he writes a near-obituary for the McCain campaign. He attributes the state of the campaign to McCain's failure to "break not just from Bush, but from the rotting corpse of his party." Instead, Alter says, he's fighting the last war, which won't work because, among other reasons, "the free-market party of Reagan is dead (thanks to the financial crisis).

"Free-market party? A free-market party would have abolished Fannie and Freddie. It would have renounced the "too big to fail" doctrine. It would have ended all business privileges, along with the regulations (which the GOP left untouched). It would have at least begun to cut spending and borrowing. It would have stopped the deep economic distortion wrought by the military-industrial complex and its war-based imperial foreign policy. Has there been even a tiny movement in these directions?

This is why radical free-market advocates must hope that a Republican never is elected president. The party is an albatross for any champion of individual liberty because no matter what it does to increase the size of the state, its occasional mild lip-service to freedom is all that counts for most people. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did some deregulating, but they are never called laissez-faire advocates.

The bigger the loss for McCain-Palin, the better.


On Imperialism

The problem is, a landslide victory for Obama might be interpreted as a "mandate" for something far worse than the GOP's socialist version of "the free market."

Monday, October 13, 2008

Christopher Columbus

Here is last year's Columbus Day post:

Columbus and Civilization

Some new articles (new to me, anyway) to add to that list:

Rediscovering Columbus - Prison Fellowship

Why Did Christopher Columbus Discover America? He Was a Postmillennialist

Finally, Bryan Caplan says of Columbus: The Far Left is Dead Right. The far left is nuts, as last year's post (and its links) attempted to show. But Caplan makes a gnat-like correct point while swallowing the left's incorrect camel: Columbus wasn't perfect.

The interesting thing is, Columbus in his own life is a microcosm of Christianity through history. Early Christians regrettably imported many false ideas from the Greco-Roman culture around them. Over the centuries, Christians have become more mature, wiser, more consistent with the teachings of Christ, and hence less statist. Christians abolished slavery, though it took far too long.

As I mentioned last year, Columbus saw the errors of his ways. At the end of his life, Columbus regretted his use of the sword against defenseless natives. He had bought into the myths prevalent in his day that justified the State and its use of the sword, and especially the view that certain people could be thought of as non-human and the State could choose to take their lives in order to advance its own material prosperity. Columbus repudiated his earlier championing of this "pro-choice" mentality, and became pro-life. Convicted of his sins in his later years, Columbus purposed never again to wear the costly garments of "the Admiral of the Ocean Sea" and assumed the brown habit of a Minorite friar as a symbol of his penitence. This remained his costume when in Spain for the rest of his life.

The modern world of Political Correctness has learned nothing from Columbus. Even the hysterically overstated estimates of "historians" like Russell Means (nearly a hundred million native Americans killed by Europeans) pale in comparison to the democide committed by 20th century Secular Humanists: an average of 10,000 people per day, every day of the week for 100 years; nearly half a billion people murdered in this century.

Columbus was an admirable man, as well as a product of his times. His times were Christian, but crippled by the myth of the Greco-Roman State. Our times are non-Christian, empowered by the myth of the Secular State, and therefore more enslaved and more violent by several orders of magnitude.

Happy Columbus Day!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

KSGF Interview

I'm scheduled to be interviewed on Springfield Radio Station KSGF Monday morning at 8:30 am Central. No live streaming, as I understand, but when the recording becomes available, it will be here or here (MP3 here). The host is Vincent David Jericho.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

News-Leader Voices

I was invited by the Springfield News-Leader to submit a piece for publication in the "Voices" section. The 400-word limit was terribly frustrating for someone who has more than that many individual blog posts and about that many individual webpages on his website. Below is what I submitted. I added links for this blog post. (Naturally.)


If you are guided by the philosophy of “Ignorance is Bliss,” you might not want to read this.

George Washington’s favorite Bible verses spoke of everyone dwelling safely “under his own vine and fig tree” (Micah 4:1-5). Today’s verse should be “The borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

According to the Declaration of Independence, it is our duty (not just our right) to abolish any government that becomes a “tyranny.” For America ’s Founding Fathers, “tyranny” was a government that taxed us at about 2% and wouldn’t have dreamed of censoring the Ten Commandments. Today’s government confiscates more than half of everything we earn.

In other words, a real American, a true American, would call today’s federal government an “atheistic dictatorship,” and one of the most tyrannical governments in history.

Millions who lived under Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini thought they were free. “The trains ran on time,” we are told. Germany was one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth under Hitler.

Americans don’t kill Jews, today we kill babies. A disproportionately high percentage of abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

Teaching children in public schools that the Declaration of Independence is really true is prohibited by law. Not just that Americans used to believe it, but that it really is true, and our rights come from God. It is illegal to teach this in America in 2008.

Every Signer of the Constitution would agree: The U.S. federal government is an atheistic dictatorship, now among the most socialist nations on earth.

If you vote for Kevin Craig, your vote will send this message:

“Dear Roy Blunt,

“I voted for Kevin Craig because I like his campaign motto: ‘Liberty Under God.’ ( )

“I’m not quite the libertarian Kevin Craig is, but I agree we need more personal responsibility.

“And I’m not as much of a religious fanatic as Kevin Craig is, but I can’t believe the Framers of the Constitution really intended to give the federal government power to prohibit our local schools from teaching our students that God says “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Wait until you get married.”

“When you were first elected in 1996, Mr. Blunt, your party promised to cut government. Instead, you expanded it.

“When Kevin Craig leads 433 other Representatives to cut government too much, and lower my taxes too much, I’ll vote you back into public service.”


I said "433" Representatives because I don't imagine I would need to lead Ron Paul. I would replace the first sentence with something about our problems not being a result of 8 years of Bush, but of 80 years of Democrats and Republicans.

Bailout Chronicle

I have put together all the links I've supplied in all the blog posts and related web pages pertaining to the recent "No Banker Left Behind" bailout:

Anyone looking for my take on the bailout -- that's where to go.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

How the Constitution Party Destroys Our Constitutional Rights

When I first decided to run for Congress in 2002, I had to decide whether I would run with the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. As a Christian, I like the fact that the Constitution Party attempts to honor Jesus Christ and the Bible. The Libertarian Party does not make any attempt to do this.

But after closely comparing the two party platforms, I became convinced that the Libertarian Party Platform more effectively advanced Christian principles than the Constitution Party Platform.

I believe Ayn Rand was a more effective opponent of socialism than Sarah Palin is, even though Palin is openly Christian and Rand was openly atheist. I believe an atheistic libertarian can be a more effective advocate of Christian social principles than a "Christian Democrat" or a "Christian Socialist," even if the latter claim to be Christian and the former does not.

When a political party explicitly claims to be Christian, it assumes a higher level of responsibility. It postures publicly in a way that non-Christian parties do not.

I despise "televangelists" who are unethical manipulators and fraudulent charlatans and cheat the poor in the name of Christ much more than I dislike atheists like Ayn Rand for unwarranted attacks on true religion. The damage done by the former is much greater than the damage done by the latter.

If a party claims to be Christian and advocates "liberation theology" or "socialism" of any kind, it advocates violence which is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

To be sure, a vote for the Constitution Party is (in my opinion, and generally speaking) more Christian than a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. But because of some significant flaws in the CP party platform, flaws which I believe are completely unChristian, I chose not to align with the Constitution Party, precisely because it holds itself out as Christian. (Never mind the irony that these flaws also make the Constitution Party unconstitutional on these points as well.)

Here are a few of my issues with the Constitution Party.

Imagine that you and I are next-door neighbors. We don't even have a fence separating our properties. We home school our kids together. Our families attend cultural events like concerts and games together. We have Bar-B-Ques together. We're almost like one big happy family.

Now imagine that I have a small business that I run out of my basement. It's becoming very profitable and I can hardly keep up with it. So I say to you, "Hey, you, how would you like to quit your present job and work with me in my business. I can pay you 2 or 3 times more than you're earning now." You accept my offer to work with me on my private property to feed your family.

There are at least three different facts that I can add to this hypothetical scenario that the Constitution Party says will warrant them sending armed, jackbooted federal thugs into my basement to initiate violence against us, arrest us both, and lock us in a federal prison to be sodomized by a psychopath. In each case the Constitution Party policy is both unChristian and -- ironically -- unconstitutional.

1. Immigration
Although you and I have chosen not to build a fence between our private property, the Constitution Party would impose a fence between us if I happen to live on the Mexican "border" and you happen to live on the U.S. "border." Even though our Creator gave us unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of profit in a small business run out of my basement, the Constitution Party would deny us those God-given rights.

I believe the Bible places a very high value on treating immigrants with the same level of justice and protection of rights as citizens. The Constitution Party does not. The entire concept of an "illegal immigrant" is entirely unconstitutional, as the Constitution gives the government no power to restrict the God-given rights to travel, work, or associate.

Doesn't the Constitution Party believe that rights come from God, and not from government? Yet they deny these rights to human beings created in the Image of God if they are fleeing a despotic government and the current federal government of the U.S. does not want them to enjoy these rights.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to deny me the right to associate with you or hire you, even if you're from Mexico. The federal government has no constitutional authority to deny you the right to access my private property, even if you're from Mexico. There were no passports in America before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The Constitution Party is completely unChristian and unBiblical in its anti-immigrant position. The Bible says we are to affirmatively support immigrants. The Constitution Party is hostile to immigrants unless the the current lawless and atheistic federal government gives them permission to exercise their God-given rights. This issue alone made me choose the Libertarian Party.

The Constitution Party is closer to the Nazi Party than to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on this issue.

2. Drugs
Suppose the business I operate in my basement is selling medical marijuana. The Constitution Party would have federal SWAT teams invade my home, just after they finished invading Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's residence. The Constitution Party would sentence Peter McWilliams to death. The Constitution Party would impose unbearable pain on 17 year-old Owen Beck. None of this strikes me as particularly "Christian." All of it is as completely unconstitutional as the banning of alcohol was before the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (and is after the 21st).

Drug abuse is a spiritual problem, not a military SWAT-team problem. Nor is it a federal problem.

Note: I don't like "recreational drugs." I've never used them, never been in possession of them. Ever. While I promote Christian charity toward "illegal" aliens, I do not promote recreational drug use. But neither one of them should be criminalized by the federal government.

3. Pornography
Suppose the business I have going in my basement is the publication of a Christian marriage manual. It is pro-heterosexual and very frank. It isn't a "Little Miss Dotty Dimple" book, but is a little bit edgy, quoting from the Biblical book of the Song of Solomon. The book is not just pro-heterosexual marriage, but anti-homosexual. You and I have been guests on Dr. Dobson's program, Focus on the Family to talk about the book.

Now suppose that you and I are next-door neighbors in San Francisco. Homosexual activists have vandalized our homes because of our business. In a clever legal strategy, the ACLU has filed a suit against us to ban our book as "pornographic" and in violation of "community standards." The jury of homosexuals votes against us.

The Constitution Party supports giving the government the power to decide what is or is not "pornography" and what is "obscene." This government power carries with it the power to declare the Bible to be "pornographic." Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any such power. This is more evidence that the Constitution Party is more "conservative" than Constitutional. More "conservative" than Christian.

I don't defend pornography. I can't say that I've never laid eyes on pornography, because I consider the lingerie ads in the Los Angeles Times to be pornographic. What I can say is that locking a pornographer in prison with a sociopath is not Christian. And all federal laws against pornography are unconstitutional.

These are just three reasons why I began my "political career" as a Libertarian; three reasons why I chose not to run as a Constitution Party candidate.

The Constitution Party has no future. It is as doomed as an "Articles of Confederation Party" would be. The Constitution is dead meat. The federal government is not -- in any meaningful sense -- observing the Constitution any more. Probably a majority of all political scientists would agree that we are no longer a "Constitutional Republic" under the Constitution of 1787, but we are an "Administrative State." Not a single person who signed the Constitution would say the Constitution has any relevance to what goes on in Washington D.C. Every single one of the Signers of the Constitution would take steps to abolish it and the tyrannical government whose existence the Constitution failed to prevent, despite its vaunted "checks and balances."

The Constitution Party believes that 95% of the federal budget is unconstitutional and should be cut. Great. But
• given the fact that virtually nobody in America knows anything at all about the Constitution or cares anything about it, and
• given the fact that the next item on the agenda of America's ruling class is to abolish the United States completely,
are we really going to get 95% of the federal budget cut by appealing to that old, outdated, archaic Constitution?

I don't think so.

I think the Constitution Party is sentimental and backward-looking.

I think we need a forward-looking movement. I think the next step in the progress that began with the American Revolution is to once again abolish the government over the American colonies, and this time, not replace it.

It was scandalous for America's Founding Fathers to think they could abolish the British rule over the colonies. It was even more scandalous to propose a government with no king at all. In a world full of kings, a nation with no king, based on "the consent of the governed," was as forward-looking as humanly possible at that time.

But more progress is now possible. The logic of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" suggests that there is no need for Washington D.C. in any area of social life and organization. There is no legitimate social function that must be performed by a government monopoly, and cannot be performed at a lower cost with higher quality by competing organizations in a Free Market.

It is this vision of "Liberty Under God" which can compete against the "Administrative State." This vision will attract more voters than the idea of going back to "three branches of government" in Washington D.C. America's future lies in traditional family values, and un-traditional social liberty.

• This vision of "Liberty Under God" is threatened less by individual homosexuals than by "conservative" Republicans who want "No Child Left Behind" in learning atheistic immorality in government schools.
• This vision is threatened less by pornographers and more by church-goers who support a "national security state" and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in the Middle East.
• This vision is threatened less by dope-smoking losers and more by the shock-troops of the "War on Drugs."
• This vision is threatened less by hard-working immigrant families leaving a drug-cartel government in search of employment and more by anti-immigrant federal fence-builders and an armed migra.

My vision of a Christian libertarian theocracy is advanced more by the Libertarian Party than the Constitution Party. Adoption of the entire libertarian program will do far more to make America a Christian nation again than adopting the Constitution Party platform.


If there's any reason why you cannot in good conscience vote for Kevin Craig, the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress, then you should certainly vote for Travis Maddox, the Constitution Party candidate, rather than either candidate for the two major parties.


The Myth of "Constitutional Rights"