Thursday, January 31, 2008
Now imagine more contemporaneously that the Communist Party of China wants to "take America back," and invades the U.S., setting up military bases throughout the land, and organizing a "Coalition Government" with communist sympathizers and Communist front organizations.
I assume you would join me in saying that the Chinese Communist Party has no legitimate right to be here and is not our legitimate government. If we did that, the Chinese Communists would immediately declare us to be "insurgents," and if we picked up our muskets like Patrick Henry did, to fight against the Chinese Communist Redcoats, we would be called "terrorists."
The United States federal government has invaded Iraq with no more legitimacy than a Chinese invasion of the U.S., and no more legitimacy than the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan.
Further, the U.S. federal government might well be described by the phrase "atheistic communism." Like these communist nations, the United States federal government is now officially atheistic, and makes it illegal for teachers in our local schools to teach schoolchildren that the Declaration of Independence (1776) is true, that there is a God, our rights come from Him, and our nation will be blessed by the Providence of God if we observe "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This is all illegal in this now-atheistic America. A teacher who believes that the Declaration of Independence is true cannot endorse and promote those ideas in a public school classroom. Ironically, this atheistic government did not overthrow a Christian government in Iraq, but a secular one, and replaced it with an Islamic Theocracy.
Truth is surely stranger than fiction.
A government report published during the Reagan Administration concluded, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
The federal government has invaded Iraq, and the federal government has declared war on America.
True Americans will not support these wars.
A fundraising website for the book is here: http://www.RonPaulBookBomb.com
Here is the preface:
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that's the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.
Today we are living in a fantasy world. Our entitlement programs are insolvent: in a couple of decades they will face a shortfall amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the housing bubble is bursting and our dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China every day in order to prop up a bloated overseas presence that weakens our national defense and stirs up hostility against us. And all our political class can come up with is more of the same.
One columnist puts it like this: we are borrowing from Europe in order to defend Europe, we are borrowing from Japan in order to keep cheap oil flowing to Japan, and we are borrowing from Arab regimes in order to install democracy in Iraq. Is it really “isolationism” to find something wrong with this picture?
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free" goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in -- this is not a misprint -- 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality a going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion
This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.
If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the Presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.
Order the book now.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
An excellent analysis of the event is an essay entitled, "When a King Is Not a King," by Scott T. Whiteman at the TheAmericanView.com. The ACLU would consider this an extreme right-wing organization.
But then, the ACLU would probably consider America's Founding Fathers to be right-wing extremists. The Founders' reaction to the beheading of Charles I was largely sympathetic. One very influential pastor (and the ACLU has no conception of how influential pastors were in the American Revolution -- see here and here), Jonathan Mayhew, discussed resistance to tyrants like Charles I in a widely-published sermon, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers.” I have analyzed that sermon here.
The beheading of Charles I was a mortal blow to the idea of "the Divine Right of Kings." That idea was eventually replaced in America by the idea of "the Consent of the Governed."
As a radical libertarian, I do not accept the legitimacy (to say nothing of the "divine right") of kings. I do not even accept the legitimacy of those who in our day rule over a majority with the "consent" of a minority. So I can agree with the criticisms leveled against tyrants like Charles I.
As a radical libertarian, "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." I also do not believe in vengeance, or reciprocal force. The beheading of Charles I and the American Revolution against George III were unChristian and unBiblical. I have explained this here:
The Bible says to pay your taxes and pray for the king, not to kill him or his "redcoats." Beheading tyrants sows and waters the seeds of tyranny.
America's violent past may resurface again, as the political forces behind the assassination of JFK and RFK may set their sights on Obama.
Monica Guzman notes that the phrase "assassinate Obama" has appeared on a list of the top 100 Google search terms. When I saw Ted Kennedy endorse Obama, my first thought was that the Kennedy-haters would soon be springing into action. Whoever they are. The aftermath of such an event would make the Rodney King riots look like a picnic. (I was born in L.A. and was in L.A. when the verdict was handed down. The next day I drove down a nearly vacant Harbor Fwy to San Pedro to pick up a van load of surplus food, passing smoking cars and buildings on the way. A truly eerie experience.)
I've never been a fanatic student of the JFK assassination. If you disagree with my theories, I welcome your informative corrections. I've heard a few reports that make JFK sound like Ron Paul, with opposition to the Vietnam "police action" and the federal reserve making him a likely target. RFK strikes me as more Obama-like, or vice versa. 1968-2008. Hmm.
But as I noted yesterday, Obama is an establishment-approved Clinton clone, and not really a threat to those who thought the two Kennedys were a threat.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I would quit. You're going to see new faces and new ideas.
After the election, Mr. Carter promptly named Cyrus Vance to be his Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the head of National Security, exactly what Mr. Jordan had said would never happen. But the real question is: What is it about Mr. Vance and Mr. Brzezinski that prompted Jordan to make such a statement? And the answer is that these two men are pillars of the very Establishment that candidate Carter so often attacked.
Barack Obama's campaign slogan is "CHANGE."
Nothing will change.
The Washington Post published "A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties."
Here are Obama's "new faces," according to the Post:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, foreign policy adviser
Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser
Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser
Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser
Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser
Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive
Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser
Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser
Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser
Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate
Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser
W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser
James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser
Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser
Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser
Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator
Samantha Power, Harvard-based human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, foreign policy adviser
Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser
Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser
Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser
Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser
Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company, Middle East adviser
Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser
Any Democrat who feels that there is a big difference between Obama and Hillary is deceived. Obama is Clinton II.
Is there a big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, when measured by the advisors of the Republican candidates? Not at all. The list of candidate wonks for both parties is a veritable "Who's Who" of "the Eastern Liberal Establishment." Notice that many are advisors to Presidents of both parties.
Consider one well-known advisor. I'll not reveal which one just yet, or which party.
This advisor was asked about the fact that Osama bin Laden was our construct, a genuine US baby. He got his training under our CIA when they were conducting covert operations against the USSR via the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan. This advisor, who advocated the arming of Osama, was asked if he did not now regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism and given arms and advice to future terrorists. (Keep in mind that this interview was more than two years before the Sept. 11 attacks).
The interviewee answered, "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The day the Soviets crossed the border [into Afghanistan] I wrote to [the] President...: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’ Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."
The interviewer responded: "And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Interviewee : "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
So who is this obvious right-wing fanatic anti-communist cold-warrior, blinded to long-term consequences by short-sighted conservative ideology?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's and now Obama's national security advisor.
When they are out of power, these "establishment" advisors criticize the policies of those in power, even though the policies are identical to those advocated and implemented when the critics were in power. Then the parties change, those out of power once again assume the reigns of power, and those who were in power now criticize those in office for policies identical to the ones implemented while in power. The public criticisms are all for the benefit of gullible voters. The press loves it.
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown Professor and mentor of Bill Clinton, described political reality in these words:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
This is actually old news, but I just now learned of it. Four of the “Ten Most Wanted” are current Presidential candidates:
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
McCain was not mentioned, although elsewhere he is described as one of the candidates "with ethical issues" being monitored by Judicial Watch. But Bill Clinton recently mentioned McCain:
CNN Political Ticker: Bill Clinton: John McCain and Hillary are ‘very close’ « - Blogs from CNN.com
If there's one thing these ethically-challenged candidates agree they will bring to Washington D.C., it's “change.” But it's hard to see what's going to change.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
I have expressed my opposition to capital punishment here (an argument which should be understood before reading on). The fact that the liturgical shedding of blood which characterized the Old Covenant era is no longer required under the New Covenant, does not mean that those crimes are not in some important sense "worthy of death." At the very least, school children should be taught that these things are contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Society needs to make some kind of statement against these crimes.
But because I don't believe women who kill their children should themselves be killed, some pro-lifers say I'm not pro-life. Fine. Call me pro-choice.
I don't believe any woman should ever, for any reason, make the choice to kill her child, depriving that child of 80 or so years of God-given life, allegedly outweighed by a few months of the mother's inconvenience. But once the murder has been committed, I believe the shedding of Christ's blood spares us from the necessity of shedding the mother's blood (or the doctor's), as I explained in the link above. This allows us to deal with spiritual problems that led to the abortion, as well as problems caused by the abortion.
Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship has published an interesting example of the healing that can take place in the life of a mother who has murdered her children, now that we're not required to shed her blood in capital punishment. The correlation is especially interesting in light of abortion advocates who are also advocates of "death with dignity."
Caroline and Lydia are but two examples of what the Institute [for Bioethics and Social Research] calls an “unexpected correlation” between abortion and pain-relief care. Dying women experience unresolved guilt and psychological pain related to their abortion—guilt and pain that stand in the way of a peaceful death. Their guilt is so great, Echlin says, that it impedes the effectiveness of their pain medication. Only when the abortion issue is resolved—when someone listens to them and assures them of God’s forgiveness—is the pain medication made effective, and the women able to die peacefully.
Denying the value of the unborn makes death with dignity impossible. The death of Christ makes healing and restoration possible, and government vengeance unnecessary.
Update: More discussion here:
Murder-By-Abortion Advocates Raise Important Issue: Should Women Who Have Abortions Be Punished?
Pro-life hard-liners who demand capital punishment for abortionists, and who also demand that other pro-lifers demand capital punishment, miss the importance of self-deception on a cultural scale. We now have millions of people -- three generations now -- who are victims of educational malpractice at the hands of government's compulsory atheistic education. Even though they know God's Law in their conscience, they've been trained to believe that the unborn child is a worthless blob of tissue. Before a jury will sentence someone to death, they must be convinced that a crime has been committed. Refusing to vote for a candidate who will not advocate capital punishment for abortionists is putting the cart before the horse. Legal reform will not see a punishment inflicted before the voters are convinced that abortion itself is a crime.
One way to make this argument is to show God's judgment: the inability of pain medication to work, is an example of Providence in action. Increased occurrence of breast cancer in mothers who abort is another.
Killing one's children is indeed "worthy of death," but we must leave vengeance "to the Supreme Judge of the world."
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Abortion is government-legalized murder.
On this day in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if another human being will inconvenience you for a few months, you can deprive that human being of 80 years of his or her life.
Since that decision was handed down, an average of 4,000 mothers each and every single day have taken advantage of this "final solution" to a few months of inconvenience.
Many justifications are offered for this "right to choose" to kill another human being. These justifications are obviously invalid when applied to a mother who seeks to kill her 18-month old child on the grounds that the child cries too much or otherwise inconveniences the mother, even though these justifications are just as "true" as in the case of a pre-born child: the 18-month old child is an "unconsented tresspasser"; the 18-month old child is not a "viable" human being, since it cannot survive on its own outside the womb; etc. (Dump an 18-month old child in the middle of a national park and see how "viable" he or she is.)
Justifications for abortion are justifications for any murder.
The myth of government is that it exists to protect "life, liberty and property." The reality is that government exists to give a select group of voters, lobbyists, or special interests the right to destroy or confiscate the life liberty and property of those who inconvenience or get in the way of members of the special interest group.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Racism is unChristian. A white man who invokes a government law to force a black woman to surrender her seat to him and move to the back of the bus is not following Christ, but is a wretched deformation of humanity.
Racism is also irrational. To suggest that John Maynard Keynes or Karl Marx were better economists than Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams -- based solely on the melanin content in their skin or the ethnic heritage of their ancestors -- is lunacy.
To say that Martin Luther King, Jr., does not deserve to have a federal holiday is not inherently "racist." To question the long-term value of the "Civil Rights Movement" is not inherently "racist." Some racists may ask these questions. So may some who strongly oppose racism.
I have suggested Booker T. Washington as a better example than King.
Look at films of blacks and whites using "separate but equal" drinking fountains in southern cities in the 1950's. Are the blacks of New Orleans better off today? Is America better off after the expansion of federal power under Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights movement?
Would slavery have been eliminated without mass murder and federal intervention in the "Civil War?" Would segregation have been eliminated by a Free Market?
These are legitimate questions.
Kevin Craig's Platform: Racial Discrimination
Jackie Robinson and Capitalism
Capitalism: Discrimination's Implacable Enemy
Planned Parenthood - The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
The Myths of Martin Luther King - The American View
Martin Luther King’s Adultery
Martin Luther King’s Plagiarism
Socialist "Saint" - The New American
The Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul
Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus Epstein
MLK as Twentieth-Century Jesus by Paul Gottfried
Martin Luther King Day by Paul Craig Roberts
Enough Holidays by Gail Jarvis
Character Counts - The New American
Saturday, January 19, 2008
No, it's "Silent" Cal Coolidge.
Government has always known that government spending to "stimulate" the economy always means stimulating special interests at the expense of the politically powerless, out of whose paychecks the "stimulus" must come.
HT: Club for Growth
Today's "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall" discussed President Bush's "Economic Growth Package."
Thursday, January 17, 2008
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
America was unquestionably a Christian nation -- the U.S. Supreme Court has said so many times, notably in a lengthy opinion in an 1892 case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States. Not a single person who signed the Constitution would disagree with those declarations, nor agree with efforts in the 20th century to transform America from a Christian nation to a secular nation.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?Yes, and the provision of the IRS code that warns against this should be repealed. It was added by Lyndon Johnson in 1954 to undercut opposition to his campaign by certain conservative non-profits. The amount of "political" activity which a church can engage in is fairly broad, limited only with respect to endorsing or opposing particular candidates or legislation. In an attempt to stifle free speech, the forces of secularism (like the ACLU and Americans United) often threaten to sic the IRS on churches who speak out on conservative or religious issues as they apply concretely to political issues. What politicians and candidates need is more free (and critical) speech and more investigative journalism, not less. Churches should not be put in a position of having to choose between speaking the truth and suffering government sanctions.
Not only do I believe churches should be tax-exempt, I believe General Motors should be tax-exempt.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?I'm against government-operated schools, just like I'm against government-operated grocery stores. Parents should be able to choose from a wide variety of food and education for their children, a variety which only the Free Market can provide.
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that the primary function of government-operated schools was to teach religion and morality. The main purpose of learning how to read was to read the Bible. Knowledge of math and science was valuable to "exercise dominion over the earth" under God.
The first thing America's Founders did after creating the Constitution was call for prayer. Both houses of Congress and nearly every state legislature "sponsor prayer." If politicians are allowed to pray, why not students?
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?I'm against public school science classes, for reasons explained above in question 3. Most problems in this area are caused by the fact that the government has an unconstitutional monopoly over education, denying parental choice in the education of their children.
I would support a law that permits teaching creationism, and permits analyzing Darwinism and encouraging students to question all theories, subject all theories to scrutiny, and not to accept a theory on blind faith -- something secularists cannot tolerate.
Most creationists want their children to know about the theory of evolution -- and be able to refute it. Most Darwinists feel threatened if scientific evidence against the Darwinist faith is presented.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?This is a truly ridiculous question. Should the government force Jewish pharmacists to sell Zyklon-B to Nazis?
Every worker in every field should be able to do as she pleases based on her religious beliefs (unless her religion requires the initiation of force). The government should not force a pharmacist to sell anything other than what the pharmacist wants to sell. If a pharmacist wants to sell snake oil exclusively, she should be free to do so, and consumers should be free from government subsidies for "America's snake-oil industry," laws "protecting" consumers from foreign snake oil "dumping," and tariffs on snake oil imports designed to create a "level playing field."
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?What are those "rights?" Two people of the same gender have always had the "right" to call themselves "married." Nobody else has a legal obligation to accept their definition of "marriage." If a couple are committing acts which I consider to be an "abomination," I have the right to "discriminate" against them, by evicting them from my property, for example.
Since its inception, the United States of America has acknowledged a "law above the law," or a "higher law," called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This means that if Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones want to call themselves "married," they are free to do so, but Mrs. Wilson is also free to reject their claim. The federal government is obligated to reject that claim, as well as every state in the union. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court has correctly declared that every government official who takes an oath to "support the Constitution" is pledging support for "the organic laws" of the nation, which includes the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does not require the government to acknowledge that same-gender relationships are morally legitimate.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?"Public" (i.e., taxpayer) funds should not be confiscated or given to charities. Such funds do not belong to politicians to give to charities. If the government is going to confiscate money from taxpayers and give this money to charities, the government should appropriate revenue only to charities that uphold "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." If a charity wants to withhold food from someone who refuses to work, that charity should not be discriminated against by the government. If a charity refuses to hire a member of the church of Satan as a counselor, the government should not discriminate against that charity.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?A person is free to believe anything, but that person may not act in a way consistent with the belief that there is no God and no obligation to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The government has consistently ruled against the First Amendment claims of those who wish to violate Christian laws which run contrary to their own false religion. If God is dead, "all things are permitted" -- but not in a Christian nation.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?The Supreme Court (see question 8 above) has ruled that the "wall of separation" does not protect the Aztec worshiper in his desire to sacrifice virgins to the sun, because this is a Christian nation (see question 1 above). Modern deviations from this Constitutional understanding and the creation of a "wall of separation" are dangerous and unconstitutional.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?This is a false dilemma. Should religion guide our policies on human experimentation? Of course, otherwise we become Nazis. The Christian religion, with its belief in a rational God and a knowable, orderly universe, is the foundation of modern science, health and medical research.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
I'm very sensitive to this issue of "allegiance." Years before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that schoolchildren should not be permitted to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that court ruled that I could not have a license to practice law in California, even though I had passed the California Bar Exam and was otherwise completely qualified. I've provided details here:
In a nutshell, my allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to the government. If the government commands me to do something that God forbids me to do, or if the government forbids me to do something that God says I must do, I have decided in advance that I "ought to obey God rather than man." A federal court in Los Angeles said the U.S. Supreme Court says such defective allegiance renders a man unfit to be an attorney. My final brief on appeal before the Ninth Circuit was written pro bono by three well-known Professors of Constitutional Law and a former California State Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear my appeal.
For this reason I no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Not that I'm not permitted to do so, but that I do not wish to. After all, if the government says I don't have enough patriotism to become a lawyer, I surely don't have enough allegiance to say the Pledge.
My feelings were further confirmed when I saw video of tanks crushing children's toys at Waco, before incinerating 80+ Americans, all the while waving an American flag on their whip antenna. The flag has become for me a symbol of tyranny.
It used to be the case, when America was a Christian nation, that only Christians were allowed to become attorneys or hold public office. Atheists were excluded. This has been reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared we are now an atheistic nation, and Christians -- who reserve their ultimate loyalty to God -- are now persona non grata. They do not have requisite allegiance to the Messianic State. I discovered dozens of reported court cases (I'm sure there are many more unreported cases) in which Christians lost their jobs or were denied American citizenship because their allegiance to God was greater than their allegiance to the government. I cannot pledge my allegiance to such a government.
The Pledge is actually "to the Republic" for which the flag stands. But we are no longer a republic.
When I first saw the video of Obama defying the Flag Code (TITLE 36, Subtitle I, Part A, CHAPTER 3, § 301), I had a great deal of respect for the man, regardless of his reasons, for standing alone in public. But it appears that no principle is involved, as he sometimes does, and sometimes does not, recite the Pledge or place his hand over his heart for the National Anthem.
I guess that irritates me. I don't understand why Obama does not feel obligated by law, custom, tradition, or public norms to do what all other ordinary Americans do. He strikes me now as an egotist. (You may say I'm the egotist, since I don't ever say the Pledge. But the reason I initially admired Obama was because it is very difficult for me to buck the crowd. I don't like to stand out or call attention to myself, and I usually try to arrive late to meetings where the Pledge is recited, just to avoid a confrontation. I went through years of litigation, probably reading more than a thousand court opinions and law review articles on the issue of allegiance and "the separation of church and state" in order to convice the government that I have sufficient allegiance to be given a Bar card. I take this issue seriously. It goes to the core of our national identity. The issue is not just flag ceremony. It is whether we are a nation "under God." The government says we are not. And when the government is not "under God," the government is god.
In fact, when the Pledge is recited, I defy the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by saying only two words of the Pledge: "under God.")
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The evidence I offered for my claim was the music: the plantation produced "Negro Spirituals" while Federal Housing Projects have produced "gangsta rap."
Economically, dependence on secular govenrment welfare is not any more promising than the plantation. For all their "freedom" and "opportunity," there are blacks alive today whose grandparents were on welfare, and whose grandchildren will probably be on welfare. But, of course, welfare recipients today have television, so they're obviously better off than those who lived on the plantation before the Civil War. If slavery were still legal in 2008, slaves would likely have a DVD player for entertainment, and movies that did not encourage them to become "uppity" or lose good work habits. In other words, the material differences between today and the ante-bellum South are inconsequential.
It is the spiritual differences that matter.
Southern-style slavery is still immoral, but so is secular welfarism.
There's an interesting parallel between (1) my claim that the southern plantation was more humane to and for blacks than the civil rights culture undergirding today's government welfare system and (2) my claims about the American Revolution. I have written that the American Revolution was un-Christian:
This does not mean that Britain was justified in practicing "taxation without representation." They weren't. And I certainly believe that Washington D.C. in 2008 is far more tyrannical than London in 1776. But if the man in the Red Coat demands your money, you don't have the right (as a Christian) to use your bayonet or musket on him. Give him your money (Matthew 5:42).
When the Romans conquered Israel and subjected her to despotic military occupation, they imposed a law which said that Roman soldiers could conscript Israeli citizens to carry the soldier's pack for up to one mile. Jesus, speaking indirectly to the "zealots" of the day who, like Sam Adams, fomented revolutionary resistance against Roman tyranny, said that if this law should be invoked, His disciples -- required by law to go only one mile -- should be willing to go two miles (Matthew 5:41).
What should a Christian do if ordered to go less than a mile -- say, 50 feet -- to the back of the bus?
Biblical teaching on submission is not popular.
In many ways Southern slaves reflected the character of Christ better than their masters. In most ways they better reflected Christ than today's rappers and the heroes of the "Civil Rights" movement.
Planned Parenthood has criticized R.J. Rushdoony for not denouncing Old Testament laws on slavery. They quote him saying,
The law here is human and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognize his position and accept it with grace. [more]
Planned Parenthood wants us to believe Rushdoony believes one race is superior to another. Ron Paul critics want us to believe that Dr. Paul is also a racist.
A white man who invokes a government edict to force a black woman to surrender her seat on the bus to him and move to the back of the bus is not following Christ, but is a wretched deformation of humanity. But among those who are oppressed by members of such a species, who is more Christlike?: the one who submits to government segregation and discrimination with grace, praying for the oppressor's repentance, or the one who refuses, resists, denounces, villifies -- and then claims an entitlement from the same government that once segregated them?
Americans would be more Christian if they had not resisted the Red Coats with muskets. In the same way, Blacks were slowly given the opportunity to open one of two doors: the first was opened by Branch Rickey, and Jackie Robinson went through the door. It may not be clear who opened the second door, but Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and the Civil Rights movement went through it. Victims of white supremacists would have been more blessed by God if they had entered Branch Rickey's door.
Going the Second Mile:
Whites need more whites like Branch Rickey.
Blacks need more blacks like Booker T Washington.
The issue is not race.
The issue is religion.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Although as a voter I'll probably vote for Ron Paul if I have a chance, as a candidate I don't have any desire to be seen as a Ron Paul wanna-be. So I'd like to take a few posts to respond to the allegations in The New Republic. Not to defend Ron Paul, but myself, in case anybody associates my campaign with Dr. Paul's newsletters.
There seems to be a consensus that Ron Paul himself probably did not write those articles. The ghostwriter has not yet been identified. Thomas L. Knapp has speculated that Christian Reconstructionist Gary North was the author. I've known Gary North for about 30 years. Not closely, but he has published a couple dozen of my articles. I was a "Chalcedon Scholar" at the think-tank formed by his father-in-law. I asked him for the "scoop" on his involvement with Ron Paul's newsletters. He told me this morning,
I worked for Ron Paul from June, 1976 to January 2, 1977, when his term expired. My salary was paid by the U. S. Congress. That was my last connection to him financially.
Gary North is a hard-core Christian Theocrat, and is busy churning out the blueprints for America (and the world) as a Christian Theocracy. You can see his output for the 1990's on this page at his freebooks.com website. In addition, he was spending way too much time in the 1990's listening to the "experts" on the y2k problem. And he spends a great deal of time formulating investment advice and Specific Answers to current economic issues in his $95/yr investment newsletter, Gary North's Remnant Review.
So why would anyone suspect that Gary North was also doing pro bono work for Ron Paul's investment newsletter?
Perhaps the fact that his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony has (and other "Christian Reconstructionists" have) written some racist-sounding lines, and has been accused of being a "holocaust denier" and a "racist." More. The "hard right" or Theocratic right is often accused of racism, and the hard right often responds in ways that seem to confirm the accusation.
Let's face it: blacks are in bad shape. They are disproportionately in jail or on probation, on drugs, illiterate, and diseased. I thought about linking each of those words to nifty webpages documenting the accusation, but we all know these demograhpics are true.
And when someone (usually a "conservative") points these sad facts out, and is then accused (usually by a "liberal") of being a "racist," the conservative often digs in his heels, solidifies his position, and comes out looking even more like a racist. I've seen people who are really not racist at heart sound like racists when arguing with Democrats, when what they're really arguing against is Democratic social policies. There can be no doubt that the New Republic and similar articles are dodging the social policy debate by slinging "racist!" and other scare words.
My definition of "racism" is the belief that sad demographic realities are inherent in all members of the race. A connection, perhaps, with the quantity of melanin in their skin. Who knows what genuine racists believe causes these things; I don't. I really doubt that Ron Paul or Rushdoony believe that blacks -- because of something inherent in their genetic make up -- will always be criminals or government welfare dependants rather than economists or guest-hosts for Rush Limbaugh.
Gary North has taken Rushdoony to task for some of the awkward things he has said about race: Rushdoony on "Hybridization." He has also confronted the belief often stated at LewRockwell.com that slavery was not the central issue in the Civil War (Appendix D in his commentary on First Timothy).
As I read the excerpts from Ron Paul's newsletters, I don't see much of anything that is not factually or demographically accurate. I can't vouch for the inner motivations of the ghostwriter, but "statistics don't lie."
In line with my basic campaign strategy, "Bad Publicity is Better than No Publicity At All," I'll go on record saying that blacks were better off on plantations than they are now. I like to look at it this way: when blacks were slaves to Christian slavemasters, they wrote music we now call "Negro Spirituals." Now that blacks are enslaved by the secular federal government instead of people like Philemon , and have been relocated from Southern plantations to Northern "projects," they write music called "gangsta rap." Are blacks better off now that they've been "freed?" Listen to the music.
I don't say this because I support slavery (I don't, and Gary North has also explained why from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective) or because I think any race is genetically inferior to any other. I say this because some political theories are genetically inferior. The political strategy of Democrats condemns blacks to perpetual slavery; slavery to sin and slavery to the feds. The "Saints" of the Democrat pantheon have not led blacks to the promised land.
My heartfelt desire would be for blacks to be free: free from federal education, free from the initiation of force, and free from myths that legitimize their own initiation of force or the initiation of force "on their behalf" by Democrats and other socialists. In short, I want to see all blacks become "classical liberals" and Christocrats.
Next: Ron Paul and "Gays"
I've said before, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." So it's time for me to announce that if I have to choose, I hope the Muslims enslave America.
Benjamin Rush once wrote in defense of teaching Christianity in public schools,
Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament.
Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.
If I have to choose between atheistic materialism and Islam, I guess I'd go with Islam. William Norman Grigg explains why "Dhimma" ("a kind of social contract between victorious Muslims and their conquered subjects") may be preferable to "Homeland Security" under the religion of Secular Humanism:
The "social contract" (no, not the Constitution of 1787 -- the Sixteenth Amendment and Federal Reserve Act) defining our current system permits far greater impositions on the governed than the poll and land taxes extracted from dhimmis, and confiscation of personal property on the whim of our rulers is standard federal practice today. In similar fashion, those who enforce the will of our ruling class enjoy broad discretion in the use of lethal force against civilians, who can't so much as touch or even speak brusquely to an enforcer without facing the prospect of immediate torture and summary imprisonment.
In his must-reading blog, Grigg goes on to point out the even greater irony: that we may already be under "dhimmitude." The Bible says, "The borrower is the slave of the lender." (Proverbs 22:7). Proverbs 12:24 warns, "The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Secular American materialists are facing tribute and servitude, as Grigg writes:
On November 27, an SWF controlled by the government of Abu Dhabi, an oil-rich member of the United Arab Emirates, spent $7.5 billion to buy a roughly five percent share in Citigroup, America's largest and most prestigious bank. Like most of the banking system, Citigroup is in potentially mortal peril from the collapse of the Federal Reserve's housing/mortgage/debt bubble. The willingness of Abu Dhabi to pump billions – the legal limit – into Citicorp prompted a brief but significant market rally, as the investor class prostrated itself with gratitude before its Arab benefactors.
Compare Psalm 72:9.
Gary North says “The great fire sale has begun.”
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
"Not at all" Goldberg (or his publicist) responds to the question, "Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order?
Did anyone in 1938 think of Hitler as a "genocidal maniac, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order?" If the Bush-Cheney establishment is not intent on "conquering the world" and creating a "New American Century" around the world, who is? Maybe not a "new racial order," but certainly a New World Order, probably dominated by one race, but maybe only accidentally. "Genocidal?" The Bush-Clinton regime has killed over a million Iraqis since 1990, and displaced millions more.
"But wait . . . Goldberg is talking about liberal fascism; you've been talking about arch-conservatives George Bush and Dick Cheney." If the only thing we change about Bush's 8-year administration is his party label, his policies would mark him as one of the most "liberal" Presidents in American history. See:
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Stereotyping is dangerous. "All right-wingers support Bush and his use of torture," the left-wing anti-war type stereotypically says.
The answer to the question:
WorldNetDaily: Waterboarding is not torture
The New American: Mukasey a Bad Omen for Liberty and the Rule of Law
Now let's analyze the two sides. Gary Benoit, writing for the John Birch Society, makes an irrefutable case that waterboarding is torture:
Former U.S. Navy instructor Malcolm Nance, who trained U.S. forces to resist harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding, wrote on the Small Wars Journal blog that waterboarding is torture "without doubt." Though waterboarding is often described by the media as simulated drowning, Nance points out that it is "not a simulation" at all but a "controlled drowning." In waterboarding, Nance explains,
the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.Nance continues: "Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration — usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death."
. Syndicated columnist Joseph Galloway, coauthor of We Were Soldiers Once … and Young, recently described a waterboarding he had witnessed as a young reporter covering the Vietnam War. (His character is depicted in the movie We Were Soldiers.) According to Galloway: "When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto the rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs start to fill with water and he's suffocating and drowning, that is torture."
. The waterboarding witnessed by Galloway was performed by South Vietnamese Army troops against a Viet Cong suspect. "The victim was taken to the edge of death," Galloway recalled. "His body was wracked with spasms as he fought for air. The soldier holding the five-gallon kerosene tin filled with muddy water from a nearby stream kept pouring it slowly onto the rag, and the victim desperately sucking for even a little air kept inhaling that water instead."
. "Did the suspect talk?" Galloway rhetorically asked. "I’m sure he did. I'm sure he told his torturers whatever he thought they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not." Galloway, however, was not present to witness that since one of the American Army advisers attached to that South Vietnamese unit, who had walked away before the waterboarding began, came back to tell Galloway he had to leave.
. Why did he have to leave? Why did the American advisers walk away? "That adviser knew that water torture was torture; he knew that it was outlawed by the Geneva Convention; he knew that he couldn’t be a party to it; and he knew that he didn't want me to witness such brutality," Galloway wrote in his column.
. Evan Wallach, who teaches the law of war at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School, also knows that waterboarding is torture. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post entitled "Waterboarding Used to be a Crime," he noted that the U.S. government has in the past "severely punished" those who applied waterboarding, citing as one example the convictions of “several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war” during World War II.
How does WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah respond to this revealing analysis?
"Let's use our heads for a minute," he says, often a cue to avoid the intellectually sound arguments of the opposition.
. Imagine American law enforcement or military authorities have captured a terrorist mastermind who has knowledge about an imminent nuclear detonation in an unknown American city. He knows the time, the location and the details about the warhead.
. The bomb could be going off at any minute. It could kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
. Would you really want waterboarding to be banned under all circumstances? What alternatives would you suggest for quick results? Should we call in top negotiators from the State Department? Should we play loud rap music? Should we force the prisoner to listen to Hillary Rodham Clinton speeches?
. While I also find those experiences unpleasant, I don't think they would produce the needed results in time to defuse the bomb.
His article does not in any way prove that waterboarding is not torture, only that we should use it anyway because the end justifies the means.
This is not analysis, it's fascist propaganda. Here's Farah's pitch:
Let's not tie the hands of future Jack Bauers who will need to do what they have to do to save lives.
Will Grigg analyzes Farah's propaganda here:
Pro Libertate: "Turbo"-Charged Idiocy About Torture
But some people still might hesitate to rule out torture. "We have to be realistic," they say. "You're just too idealistic." (It's always "too idealistic" to apply things like morality to "real-world" things like politics and foreign policy.) "Sure, torture is normally wrong. It's certainly wrong when they do it to us. But isn't it better to torture one terrorist than allow thousands of innocent people to die?"
"Jack Bauer" analysis will never be overcome by "Jesus Christ" analysis in the minds of those who vote for Huckabee because Chuck Norris says so. The Prince of Peace, who said "Love your enemy," is against violence. "But if we use violence against the terrorist, we will save lives." Jesus says, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
Here's why Jesus is correct.
Before we get to the point where Jack Bauer is about to find out where the bomb is by using violence, we have to enact a policy allowing violence. That policy will declare that when we set out to prosecute a "war on terror," torture will be allowed. It is this policy, which reflects a violent mindset, and results in wars costing thousands if not millions of innocent non-combatant policies, which gives terrorst recruiters something to harp on, and an excuse to bomb us.
Suppose instead of spending a trillion dollars bombing Iraq and killing over a million innocent non-combatant children since 1990, we had simply decided to donate a trillion dollars to Iraq, a little at a time, everytime they attend a class on the Constitution and Christianity. Of course, the federal government has for decades held that welfare benefits cannot be conditioned on sitting and listening to a sermon, but let's say we finally admitted with William Rehnquist that "The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." Let's suppose also that we re-adopted the foreign policy of America's Founding Fathers: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," and no U.S. military bases in over 100 countries.
Would this affect the ability of terrorists to recruit new bombers? Of course it would.
When a man's ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Proverbs 16:7)
Our national motto is "In God We Trust," but in practice we trust Jack Bauer more than God when it comes to "national security." And God says we will not have security as long as we think and act this way. If we adopt a policy of military occupation to secure our oil, and a policy of torture against those who don't like our smart-bombs, we will never be safe from our enemies, ever-increasing in number.