Friday, March 28, 2008

Government as Criminal Syndicate

William Norman Grigg's blog, Pro Libertate ("For Freedom"), is must-reading. Grigg is today's Paul Revere, riding to Lexington and Concorde, shouting the bad news.

Yesterday's post, "Tyranny, The One-War Mirror, and the Criminal Syndicate Called the ATF" must not be missed. It is truly horrifying.

As you read the blog, remember that Lexington and Concorde was a stand-off between American colonists and the British equivalent of the ATF.

In terms of the American Revolution, the ATF is the most un-American and un-Constitutional of all unconstitutional and unamerican government bureaucracies.

I have tried to make two points on this blog:

1. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence would call today's Bush-Clinton Regime a "tyranny." It must be abolished, or we expose ourselves as covetous slaves, rather than free human beings. Approval and support of the government is the mark of diminished moral capacity. America's Founding Fathers would take up arms against today's government, to abolish it.

2. They would be wrong to do so.

Not because they would be wrong to call today's government a tyranny -- today's government is clearly ten-times more tyrannical than the government against which America's Founders rebelled in 1776 -- but because the Bible commands us to pay our taxes and not resist tyranny by returning evil for evil.

Jesus said to put down swords, not take them up.

On strictly pragmatic grounds, it is futile to believe that you can resist today's truly evil and truly gargantuan government. They have nukes; you have saturday-night specials. You're toast.

Grigg's post reveals that the government is paranoid, and any hint that you intend to use force to defend yourself -- to say nothing of aggressing against any named bureaucrat -- will be interpreted as a threat to the government, and you will be arrested (and worse).

But Christ's "Great Commission" to us is to use weapons of persuasion, not lethal force. The government should never feel threatened by us (in terms of the use of force). The government should perpetually feel threatened by us in terms of truth, justice, ethics, and rights like private property; the government should realize that we recognize the difference between producers and pirates, and morally disapprove of the latter. The government should realize that millions of people are being persuaded to disapprove of government thugs. Government officials like the ones described by Grigg should realize that growing numbers of people have no respect for government goons, and that all government pirates should repent and resign.

Our weapon is persuasion, not violence.

We must abolish the government by persuading all government officials to repent of their violent ways, that is, to resign -- after they abolish their office.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney from Florida's Treasure Coast says don't discount a Gore-led ticket. "If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

Mahoney is a Democratic Party "superdelegate" who has not yet endorsed either Hillary Clinton or B. Hussein Obama. If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

I actually hope that Clinton gets the nomination, so that my ConservativeChristiansforHillary.com website isn't rendered obsolete. But I did predict last year that November would be a sleepy battle between John McCain and Al Gore. (Oops! Looks like I need to update the Hillary site.)

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Patrick Henry Was Wrong

On March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, Patrick Henry delivered a powerful speech that is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution calling the Virginia troops into the service of the Revolutionary War.

"We must fight!" he said. "I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"

We would consider Patrick Henry to be aligned with the "Religious Right." Perhaps the British thought of him as a left-wing radical:

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

His final line is so famous that it may even be known by several recent graduates of government-run schools:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The actual meaning of this call to arms, of course, is "Give me liberty or give THEM death." Or as General George S. Patton, Jr., put it in June, 1944,

Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

George Washington phrased it this way:

Unhappy it is though to reflect, that a Brother's Sword has been sheathed in a Brother's breast, and that, the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with Blood, or Inhabited by Slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous Man hesitate in his choice?

Nobody in America today believes that Patrick Henry was justified in calling for a War for Independence. Nobody today would sign the Declaration of Independence. Americans love their taxes. Economic historians have quantified the "chains and slavery" that Patrick Henry denounced.

The total tax burden imposed by the British Empire on the colonies in 1775, as distinguished from the taxes imposed by colonial legislatures, was approximately 1% of national income in the North, and about 2.5% in the South. The main burden was from customs duties placed on non-British imports into the colonies. These were tariffs, i.e., sales taxes on imports.

If we were to experience this rate of taxation today, Henry's "slavery" would be considered a "libertarian utopia." Political polls are considered accurate within 3-5%. If this economist's estimate of the colonial tax burden is off by 100%, we are still paying ten times more in taxes than Patrick Henry called "slavery."

But Americans today pay these exhorbitant taxes because they labor under a delusion that they're getting more in government benefits than they pay. "Something for nothing." Americans accept slavery because they have larcenous hearts.

America's Founding Fathers would undoutedly call today's Americans a bunch of slaves, unworthy of the name "American."

And they would probably be correct.

But to advocate the taking up of arms -- of muskets and cannons against brothers -- was unChristian. The Bible clearly commands the paying of taxes and prohibits the violent overthrow of the government. Our job is to live to witness to our captors, not to kill them.

Patrick Henry was known for putting evangelistic tracts in the jurors chairs in every trial he argued. It was certainly not his goal to replace the colonial Theocracies with a secular government. Patrick Henry's speech invoked the blessing of God, and frequently cites the Bible. But Jesus said, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52
Patrick Henry's America has indeed perished.

Patrick Henry by David Dieteman

Mourn on the 4th of July.

An Uninspiring Easter Message

Our message for Easter 2008 is this: George Bush should be impeached.

We believe this is a faithful application of the Easter message in the New Testament, and a distinctively American message that would have characterized America's Founding Fathers.

The real meaning of Easter has been all but lost in a nation that once called itself a "Christian nation." So now that the traditional Easter activities are over, let's see if we can figure out the real meaning of Easter.

Each year millions of Americans show up at church dressed in new Spring outfits. Children sometimes bring their colored eggs and chocolate bunnies to Sunday School. Other than at Christmas, this may be the only time they're seen in church. They hope to hear an inspiring, uplifting Easter message.

An Easter message suggesting that Bush should be impeached would certainly not be considered "inspiring." For millions of Americans, that message is unsettling, impolitic, even sacrilegious. A sermon only the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would preach. The only thing more socially unacceptable than mixing religion and politics is mixing religion and bad politics.

Except perhaps, bad religion and bad politics.

And that pretty much describes the Bible. Which may be why Easter is being left out of contemporary Sunday School lessons. As editors of the "First Look" curriculum explained, "We have made this choice because the crucifixion is simply too violent for preschoolers. And if we were to skip the crucifixion and go straight to the resurrection, then preschoolers would be confused."

Adults also find Easter to be "bad religion." Not because of the violence, which is actually fashionable at the box office (and churches long ago stopped censoring movies). If the violence had been perpetrated against the rich by the poor, it would pass muster with the Religious Left. But the violence against Jesus was actually directed against the Religious Left. And the Religious Right.

Violence is an inescapable part of the Bible. The God of the Bible is a very angry God. And contrary to the popular myth, Jesus was more angry and violent than the God of the Old Testament. But what offends modern sensibilities is that this violent anger is directed against us. The Bible says we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God."

In order to escape God's anger, the Hebrews were instructed to slaughter animals in the Temple. Jesus was said to be the last sacrificial animal, "the Lamb of God." His execution was not an unforeseen event, but was planned and predestined even before we were created (Revelation 13:8). The violence directed against Jesus by the Jews and the Romans was actually the anger of God toward us, and Jesus became the scapegoat, the propitiation of His Father's wrath. Some ostensibly Christian leaders have found this account to be a form of "cosmic child abuse." (Government schooling, which leaves millions of children functionally illiterate and unable to comprehend the concept of "propitiation," and thus the meaning of Easter, is not child abuse, of course.)

An angry God is bad enough, but anger directed at us -- that's intolerable. That's bad religion.

Easter converts bad religion into bad politics. The Lamb who was slain in an act of cosmic child abuse becomes a cosmic dictator (Revelation 5:12) and terrorist, taking vengeance against His enemies, driving them to say to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" (Revelation 6:16)

These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
Revelation 17:14

It is now our duty to serve the Lamb-King before His throne (Revelation 22:3).

This means suffering martyrdom rather than worshiping Caesar.

This means paying more at the pump rather than asking Caesar to create an empire, enslaving or killing millions, in order to keep the oil flowing to the homeland.

In his Saturday morning radio address, President Bush -- who famously said that Jesus Christ was his favorite political philosopher -- said Easter "is the most important holiday in the Christian faith." Indisputable.

But how do Christians live once they have been transformed by Easter? How do Christians serve the Lamb-King? According to Bush, Easter is lived out in the war in Iraq:

On Easter, we remember especially those who ... have lived out the words of the Gospel: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Is this really what the Christ of Easter bids us to do: take up arms and overthrow foreign governments, killing tens of thousands of innocent women and children in the process? Or is that really bad politics?

Perhaps the first question we should ask is, "Who sez?" Where should we turn to learn the real meaning of Easter. Who is the expert? Who is the authority? Does Bush define Easter?

An encyclopedia maybe? The long article on Easter in Wikipedia begins with this statement:

Christians celebrate this day in observance of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, now estimated to have taken place between the years AD 26 and AD 36.

Good enough. But the rest of the article consists almost entirely of ecclesiastical discussions about which day or month Easter should be celebrated, and sections on "The Religious Observance of Easter" (church services) and Non-Religious Easter Traditions (coloring eggs). Was Christ tortured to death and raised from the dead so we could have a wide variety of church services to choose from on Easter Sunday? Is Easter over at midnight on Sunday?

There is nothing in the Wikipedia article that would tell anyone if President Bush's recommended Easter tradition of armed invasion and military occupation is correct or not.

How about the Bible. Can we trust the Bible?

The men who signed the U.S. Constitution would have said yes.

The man usually thought of as the co-founder of the Harvard Law School was also America's expert on the Law of Evidence in the common law system. Simon Greenleaf also wrote a book which argued that if the Testimony of the Evangelists (the authors of the four Gospels) were to be tested in a court of law using the common law rules of evidence, the court must conclude that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact.

But this is actually circular reasoning of a sort, because Western Civilization is Christian Civilization, and the common law is built on Christianity. As we saw last week, while the Roman Empire was crumbling, St. Patrick and the Irish monks were creating Christian civilization. Following the command of the Resurrected Lamb-King, Christians were bringing every nation before His Throne, re-working the legal codes of the day and making them conform to Biblical Law, as did Justinian, Ethelbert, and Alfred.

John Locke, quoting the Puritans, said in the late 1600's,

[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
Two Treatises on Govenment, Bk II sec 135.

The Delaware Supreme Court echoed this in 1837,

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the Court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Thomas Jefferson Chandler
, 2 Harr. 553 at 561


Easter therefore transforms individuals from enemies of God to the friends of God (John 15:14; John 15:15; James 2:23; Matthew 11:19), and transforms nations from empires of conquest into something we may not have a word for: a "Vine & Fig Tree" society.

A government or legal system that does not begin with Easter ends with a gulag.

President Bush avoids the bad religion and bad politics of Easter, and transforms the event into a Hallmark Card:

Easter is a holiday that beckons us homeward. This weekend is an occasion to reflect on the things that matter most in life: the love of family, the laughter of friends, and the peace that comes from being in the place you call home. Through good times and bad, these quiet mercies are sources of hope.

I'm a family-values kinda guy, but Easter is not about family. This political muzak provides a comfortable atmosphere for Bush's murderous imperialism: millions of refugees; hundreds of thousands killed; hospitals, schools, roads, utilities, all destroyed with American weapons of mass destruction; all for the purpose of keeping gas prices down. And Bush actually portrays this covetous aggression as "living out the words of the Gospel: 'Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'" Americans aren't giving their lives for the people of Iraq; we're taking their lives to protect our cushy lifestyle. It would have been more Christian for us to liquidate our assets and give them to the Iraqis. Instead, we have spent a trillion dollars to liquidate their assets. And in God's judgment, we may find our remaining assets liquidated. Past Presidents have urged Americans to pray "that He would turn us from our transgressions and turn His displeasure from us." The idea that God is displeased with America is costing Obama points in the polls, and wasn't heard in many churches this Easter.

-----=====******O******=====-----

"He is Risen" The New American
Why Easter stubbornly resists the commercialism that swallowed Christmas - By James Martin - Slate Magazine
An Historic Look at Easter - CWN
Has the 'notion of sin' been lost? - USATODAY.com
Pro Libertate: Reflections on Resurrection Sunday: We're Commanded To Be Free

Friday, March 21, 2008

Good Friday

Today, "Good Friday," commemorates the assassination of Jesus Christ.

This is a central fact for humanity. The world's only sinless human being, who did no evil and worked to heal the sick, was murdered by the two institutions who claim (above all other institutions) to be the benefactors of the human race.

The religious leaders of Jesus' day held a kangaroo court in the middle of the night to satisfy their legalistic religious requirments, passing a sentence of "blasphemer" on Jesus. Then these "holy men" solicited the strong arm of the State to put Jesus to death, on the grounds that Jesus spoke "against Caesar," and anyone who failed to condemn Jesus was no friend of Caesar (John 19:12).

Was this murderous church-state conspiracy an aberration, or is it the very nature of the "archist" to oppose God and that which is truly holy and peaceful?

Good Friday exposes the biggest lie in the history of the human race.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Spitzer Conspiracy Pt. 2

Last week I asked if there was a conspiracy to take down Eliot Spitzer. Greg Palast says yes.

Palast believes that he has the right to kidnap his friendly neighborhood banker and lock him up in the Palast Family basement with a psychopath if the banker charges "improper" interest rates. Or at least he believes he has the right to vote for Eliot Spitzer to do something like that.

Republican Rallying Cry

Bold.
Uncompromising:


John McCain - If I Have To... I Guess...



Monday, March 17, 2008

Holy Week

"Holy Week" is the phrase used to describe the last week of Jesus Christ's life before He was executed on "Good Friday" and rose from the dead on "Easter Sunday."

His execution was a conspiracy between church and state.

Simon Greenleaf is considered to be the co-founder of the Harvard Law School. He wrote the definitive treatise on the law of evidence, found on the bench in nearly every American court for generations. He concluded that if the testimony of the Gospel writers were to be judged by the common law rules of evidence, the Resurrection of Christ on Easter would have to be considered a historical fact.

But if Jesus actually rose from the dead as a matter of historical fact, then we ought to obey His commands, and this intolerable conclusion leads many to deny that anything at all can be considered a historical fact, or to deny the very possibility of truth. Better to live in a world without the concept of truth than to live in a world where Jesus is "the Supreme Judge of the world." Or as John Milton described the thinking of Satan:

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

This thinking is, of course, the surest way to create hell on earth.

Yesterday was "Palm Sunday," commemorating the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, when the enthusiastic crowds, experiencing something like "Obamamania," placed palm branches before Jesus and his donkey, claiming that He was the prophesied Messiah who would restore Edenic conditions to the world. Four days later, the same crowd would be calling for His execution.

Voters for the last 60 years have been placing electoral palm branches before the Messianic State. They may soon be calling for its execution.

For further reading:

Palm Sunday peace message from Pope Benedict « Vox Nova

The Nonviolent Palm Sunday and the Nonviolent Holy Week of 33 AD by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy on LewRockwell.com

"St. Patrick and U.S. Foreign Policy"

Lament for a Palm Sunday Church: Reflections on the Political Captivity of the Churches - The Acton Institute

Does anyone still remember how President Clinton celebrated Palm Sunday in 1996? (Ann Coulter) (The Post Chronicle)

Sunday, March 16, 2008

St. Patrick for Today

Those who are planning to participate in today's LIVE webcast conversation on St. Patrick will most assuredly want to read:

Previous Blog posts:
2008: Happy St. Patrick's Day!
2007: St. Patrick: Christian Libertarian

Other Blogs:
• Vox Nova: If You Want to Celebrate St Patrick This Year

Articles:
Apostle to the Irish
St. Patrick: Voice of Justice and Mercy
A Man of the Book
Service of the Scribes
Witness to Greatness
Quiet Flirtation
A Culture of Plunder and Praise
A People with a Past
The St. Patrick's Four and Resistance to the War in Iraq

Books:
• Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization (Doubleday, 1996).
• T. M. Moore, Celtic Flame: The Burden of Patrick (Xlibris, 2000).
• Mark Atherton, ed., Celts and Christians (University of Wales Press, 2002).
• Philip Freeman, St. Patrick of Ireland: A Biography (Simon and Schuster, 2004).
• John Carey, King of Mysteries: Early Irish Religious Writings (Four Courts Press, 1998).
• Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005).

Read:
The Confession of St. Patrick (translated from the Latin by Ludwig Bieler)
St. Patrick’s Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus.
St. Patrick's Breastplate Prayer

Video:



Our goal is not simply to retell the story of St. Patrick, but to apply the lessons of his life to such contemporary issues as:

• The War in Iraq
• Homelessness
• The Decline of Mainstream Religious Denominations
• Anything you can think of

3pm central for live webcast
This link should take you to the replay and MP3 download

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

On Sunday, March 16, at 3pm Central time, join us for a live internet discussion of what Americans can learn from St. Patrick (c. 385–461 AD), whose feast day is usually celebrated on March 17, but this year is being celebrated on the 15th by Roman Catholic Church leaders (because the 17th falls during Holy Week), though others contend that St Patrick's Day is not a moveable feast (at least the parade, anyway).

Last year's St. Patrick's Day blog post, adorned with green beer, raised the basic question that faced St. Patrick: are human beings better off (1) under the direct sway of the Roman Empire, (2) under the direct sway of unconverted Irish, or (3) under the direct sway of a Christian monastery. Americans today generally believe (1). We live in a pagan or atheistic empire, and Ceasar promises to be our savior. The vast majority of Americans would recoil in horror at the idea of living the life of St. Patrick.

But in many ways, it was the lifestyle of hard work and faith that made America the most prosperous and most admired nation in history. During its first 200 years, America was in many ways a monastic nation: there was close community (as compared to today's anonymous, atomistic impersonalism) and a daily routine of work, prayer, invention, study, and commerce. Medieval monks were the first capitalists, and the Christian faith -- not Rome -- was the foundation of Western Civilization.

St. Patrick has some good advice for us on how to Christianize a pagan nation -- the parallels between pagan Ireland and moslem Iraq are obvious, but U.S. government policy in no way resembles the Christian approach of St. Patrick.

Join the live conversation on Sunday, listen to the permanent replay, or download the MP3.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Spitzer Conspiracy?

Chuck Baldwin, a "Moral Majority"-type preacher and talk-show host, has submitted his Thoughts On The Spitzer Sex Scandal.

Baldwin has a "conspiracy theory" involving an unknown reason why Spitzer was "outed" as an adulterer but hundreds of other New York and Beltway Insiders -- equally adulterous -- have not:

They say that Governor Spitzer was "Client 9" for this particular hooker. So, who are "clients 1-8"? And who are "clients 10-100"? Why do we not know their names? Anyone able to afford this prostitute's price of $1,000 per hour has to be someone of means. Who were they?

Were the other "clients" CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? If so, which ones? Were they congressmen or senators? If so, who? Were they White House executives? Were they Pentagon brass? Were they media celebrities? If so, what are their names? Were they foreign diplomats? If so, who are they, and from which countries did they come? Do you get my point?

How is it that in this elaborate FBI "sting," only Governor Eliot Spitzer was "caught?"

Interesting question, but there is as yet no evidence of anything other than a zealous bureaucrat performing his/her "duty," and proudly carving a notch for Spitzer on his/her bureaucratic weapon as another "hit." Baldwin goes on to recount a similar incident in his own life, with no evidence of any "conspiratorial" activity, just amoral bureaucrats "following orders," protecting "the rule of law":

The other element of this story that is being vastly underreported is the fact that federal police agencies are secretly looking at the financial transactions of the American people all the time. According to the USA Today, "Banks and credit unions as well as currency dealers and stores that cash checks reported a record 17.6 million transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in 2006, according to a report from the network, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department."

The Today story goes on to say, "The Treasury Department's database now contains records of more than 100 million financial transactions going back to at least 1996, said network spokesman Steve Hudak."

Today also reported, "Financial institutions have long been required to report cash transactions over $10,000. Those reports--simple notices of a deposit or withdrawal--account for more than 90% of the records the enforcement network gets each year.

"Far more controversial are secret 'suspicious activity reports' filed by financial institutions and reviewed by teams of agents spread around the country. . . .

"The number of suspicious activity reports soared from 413,000 in 2003 to 1 million in 2006, according to the enforcement network."

The American people are largely unaware that they are now living in a universal surveillance society. Virtually every major financial transaction--as well as much of their travel--is reported and monitored by the federal government. This total surveillance system, that began in earnest under Bill Clinton's administration, has mushroomed into a ubiquitous and finely tuned science under George W. Bush. Dare I say that Dubya's neurotic fixation with spying on ordinary citizens rivals Comrade Stalin's paranoiac obsession with a total surveillance society?

I can tell readers first-hand what living in this Brave New World is like. Back in the late '90's, I bought a used 1995 GMC half-ton, four wheel drive pick-up truck (which I still own). Over the course of a few years, I had saved around $5,000 in cash. I then sold my well-worn Ford Ranger pick-up truck for $5,000 cash. I was hoping I could pay cash for a bigger and better truck. Over the years growing up, I had watched my dad pay cash for most all of his purchases, including his vehicles. I thought it was one of the ultimate marks of freedom and enterprise in these United States to be able to work, save, and buy something of value with cash. I quickly discovered that the Federales in power these days do not share that same vision of freedom.

When I finally found the truck I mentioned, it cost a few thousand more than what I had saved, so I had to write a check for the difference. So, with $10,000 in cash and a check on borrowed funds, I drove off the car lot with my new (used) truck. It happens every day, right? Nothing unusual, right?

Wrong!

To my shock and chagrin, a few days following the purchase of my truck, a criminal investigator from the IRS came to my front door and demanded to know where I got the cash to pay for my truck. I am not making this up, folks. After a lengthy interrogation, the IRS man left, but not before issuing me a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury. Remember, this was in the late '90's, before Jorge Bush and Alberto Gonzales got their dictatorial hands on the helm of the myriad federal police agencies.

Mark it down, folks: you and I are constantly being watched, listened to, monitored, taped, and stalked by our own government. So, do any of us really believe that we still live in a free country? All this talk about a war on terrorism is a bunch of hooey. What is really happening is a war on freedom. The so-called "War on Terror" is only a smokescreen to hide the real agenda, which is to develop a federal police state where individual liberty is completely vanquished. And the really sad part of all of this is the manner in which the American people -- especially our pastors and churches -- seem to be willing to embrace and accept this burgeoning police state.

Why were the lives of Spitzer and Baldwin invaded by the feds? A high-level "conspiracy?" Or just the blind forces of tyrannical bureaucracy?

I don't deny conspiracies; I just don't assume them without evidence.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Tax Relief At Last!

With the price of oil topping $100/barrel, there's good news: gas taxes have gone down dramatically (when computed as a percentage of the cost of gas). Gas taxes are not a whole bunch higher per gallon than they were ten years ago, when oil prices were around $10 a barrel. A one-dollar tax on a ten-dollar barrel is 10%. But that same one-dollar tax on a $100 barrel is only one percent! That's like "cutting taxes by 90%!"

I wonder why President Bush hasn't been explaining to the American people how his policies have been bringing us "significant tax relief."

But with all good news, there has to be bad news, which in this case is the undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are ignorant, unpatriotic slaves.

Surely that would be the verdict of America's Founding Fathers -- especially the "Sons Of Liberty," a Boston group which included Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, James Otis, John Adams, and his cousin, Samuel Adams. In the famous "Boston Tea Party," they tossed the tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax of 3 pence per pound.

The British underestimated the patriotism of the colonists.

"They have no idea," wrote a great tea lover of the time, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, "that any people can act from any other principle but that of interest; and they believe that threepence on a pound of tea, of which one does not perhaps drink ten pound in a year, is sufficient to overcome the patriotism of an American."

They only drank ten pounds of tea a year, and the tax was only three pence per pound, and they tossed it in the Harbor and began a revolution, risking "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" rather than accept these taxes.

Today's Americans use at least ten gallons of gas with every fill-up, and pay ten times more in taxes per gallon than America's Founders would tolerate. They called it tyranny. We call it "progressive."

Every 4th of July we continue to celebrate "Independence Day." Why bother? Is there anything America's Founders believed that Americans believe today?

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Client 9: Elliot Spitzer

My grandparents would have been angered that a governor would violate the oath he took to God and his wife by spending nearly $100,000 for prostitutes. Bill O'Reilly, in contrast, said on Wednesday's show, "Prostitution is no big deal."

Spitzer did not resign because he adulterated his marriage; that's "a private matter" we're told, proving once again that America is no longer a Christian nation. It once was, and America's criminal code relating to adultery was based on the 7th Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

I've had people tell me that American Law was not based on the Ten Commandments, nor was it explicitly Christian, but was "deist." They're wrong.

The easiest way to prove this is by citing the anti-polygamy cases, which I have done elsewhere. The US Supreme Court rejected "religious freedom" arguments from Mormons who wanted to practice polygamy. The Court said this was a Christian nation, and polygamy is forbidden in all "Christian nations."

Marriage laws were based on the origin of the marital union in the book of Genesis. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

This opinion hearkened back to an earlier decision by the Texas Supreme Court in 1848, which declared that the legal contract of marriage

is the most solemn and important of human transactions. It is regarded by all Christian nations as the basis of civilized society, of sound morals, and of the domestic affections. . . . The mutual comfort and happiness of the parties are the principal, but not the only, objects of the engagement. It is intended also for the benefit of their common offspring and is an important element in the moral order, security and tranquility of civilized society. The parties cannot dissolve the contract, as they can others, by mutual consent, and no light or trivial causes should be suffered to effect its recision. . . . [A]ccording to the experience of the most enlightened nations, the happiness of married life greatly depends on its indissolubility.
Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79, 85-86 (TxSupCt 1848)

This court was articulating the position of the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton lamented the anti-Biblical, anti-Family evils of the French Revolution:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country, if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion. It is among the singular and fantastic vagaries [freaks] of the French Revolution that . . . a new law of divorce was passed which makes it as easy for a husband to get rid of his wife and a wife of her husband as to discard a worn out habit. . . . [T]hose ties . . . are the chief links of domestic and ultimately of social attachment.
Papers, Syrett, ed., Columbia Univ Press, 1974, vol. XXI pp 402-404, "The Stand No. III." New York, Apr. 7, 1798.

James Wilson, who was a US Supreme Court Justice after he signed the Constitution, emphasized the importance of a Biblical concept of the family:

Whether we consult the soundest deductions* of reason, or resort to the best information* conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in Holy Writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.
By that institution the felicity of Paradise was consummated . . . . Legislators have with great propriety . . . provided as far as municipal law can provide against the violation of rights indispensably essential to the purity and harmony of the matrimonial union. . . . By an act of the legislature . . . all marriages not forbidden by the law of God shall be encouraged . . . . But of causes which are light or trivial, a divorce should by no means be permitted to be the effect. When divorces can be summoned . . . a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war.
Works, McCloskey, ed., Balknap/Harvard Univ Press, 1967 II:598-603

*How does one determine which deductions of reason are "sound" or which historical facts are the "best?" Ultimately, the answer is found by comparing their conclusions with the Bible.

In James Kent's Commentaries on the Constitution, one of the greatest legal works of the 19th century, we are reminded:

All Christian states favor the perpetuity of marriage, and suspicion and alarm watch every step to dissolve it . . . . Unlike other contracts, marriage cannot be dissolved by mutual consent . . . . The laws of divorce are considered as of the utmost importance as public laws affecting the dearest interests of society . . . . The domestic relation . . . of parent and child . . . [and] the duties that reciprocally result from this connection are prescribed . . . by the positive precepts of religion and of our municipal law.
Kent, Commentaries on American Law, DeCapo Reprint of 1st ed., 1826-30, II:96-98,159

Adulterers and polygamists were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment.

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859),

These views were echoed by the US Supreme Court in the anti-polygamy cases.

The Seventh Commandment was the basis for American Family Law.



Years ago the State of California considered adopting legislation on sex-education for public schools requiring that:

Course material and instruction shall stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse [one man and one woman] within marriage is a traditional American value.

The ACLU was outraged:

It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools. . . . We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment.

The Framers of the First Amendment did not.

They more likely would have agreed that every law in some sense "legislates morality" and establishes "religious doctrine." The question is not whether, but whose religion and morality will be imposed. One religion or another will be imposed as long as "the government" exists.



But today's government will not prosecute Spitzer for what he did to his wife, to the institution of marriage, and ultimately to God. (King David, after seducing his neighbor's wife and then murdering his neighbor, admitted that his sin was primarily against God, not just a private matter between adults.) Spitzer's crime will not be adultery, but "structuring."

I wonder what percentage of Americans know what "structuring" is.

The "crime" involves (for example) making two separate withdrawals of $5,500 from your own bank account when deep down in your criminal heart you actually wanted to withdraw $11,000 all at once.

Of your own money.

That's a "crime."

Adultery is not.

In our modern atheistic dictatorship, "offenses" against the IRS are more important than offenses against God, marriage, and one's wife.

But there's "poetic justice" here, because Spitzer climbed the ladder of political success by prosecuting crimes more than he prosecuted actual sins.

Here are some commentaries on Spitzer's record as a prosecutor. He has not been fighting for people like his wife and daughters. He has been fighting for the government. Now Spitzer has been hoist on his own petard.



Houston's Clear Thinkers: What's the big deal with the Lord of Regulation?

Spitzer the Thug -- Spitzer Watch

Of Prostitutes, Prosecutors, and Other Miscreants -- Pro Libertate



Cato-at-liberty » Eliot Spitzer

Ken Langone Reacts to Spitzer - CNBC Video

Spitzer's Rise and Fall - WSJ.com

Fake Crimes by Paul Craig Roberts

How the Protection of Law Was Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

The Patriotic Bust of Spitzer

Those Dangerous Prostitutes

Boudreaux's Commentary -- July 2004

Why Payola Doesn't Matter

Dave Lindorff: Bringing Down Spitzer

Once Upon a Time...: As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap...But Oh! The Outrage!

Chris Floyd Online - The Abuser Abused: Eliot Spitzer Meets the Real Governor of New York

SPITZER'S TWISTED GAS CRUSADE by TOM ELLIOTT - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion

LewRockwell.com Blog: The Remnant Takes on Spitzer

Payola Unbound by Michael S. Rozeff

Cato-at-liberty » Power Corrupts: Elliot Spitzer’s Record as N.Y. Attorney General


Spitzer Caught in His Own Reign of Terror - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer and the Myth of Independent Analysis - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Spitzer Charges Against Wall Street Were Baseless - Mises Economics Blog

Eliot Spitzer Finds WMD - Mises Economics Blog

Finally, Someone Challenges Spitzer - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer Continues Wall Street Purge - Mises Economics Blog

Spitzer Central Plan for Stock Research Backfires - Economics Blog

Spitzer: Anti-Sedition Crusader? - Mises Economics Blog

Broker Acquitted of Spitzer Late Trading Charges - Mises Economics Blog

Harassing Hedge Funds Subsidies for Stock Pickers - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Finally Someone Says It: Investors Are Responsible for Losses - James Sheehan - Mises Institute

Let Freedom Sing … Properly - C.J. Maloney - Mises Institute

Why Fear Hedge Funds? - Christopher Mayer - Mises Institute

Corporate Governance Standards Harmed the NYSE - Mises Economics Blog

The Genius and Struggle of PayPal - William L. Anderson -- Mises Economics Blog

Mozilla: Meet Sarbanes-Oxley (and Henry Blodget) - Ludwig von Mises Institute Economics Blog

Save or Else - Mises Economics Blog



Free New York Blog » Governor Sptizer

Not Spitzer's Job Not Spitzer's Job

Spitzer’s Shakedown: His rough game was always about money and politics

Trial by Press Release Trial By Press Release

Calling the Dogs off on Wall Street

Mutual Fund Fee Fantasy

Who Killed PayPal?

Libertarians, Beware the Rigid Reign of Rudy



Eliot Spitzer's Attack on the Securities Industry by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Eliot Spitzer Should Investigate Paul Krugman by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Arbitrary Power and Legal Mass Destruction: Eliot Spitzer's Frightening Powers by Paul Blair - Capitalism Magazine

Business versus Statist Government: Whose Side Are You On? by David Gulbraa -- Capitalism Magazine

SEC Should Support Markets and Not Central Planning by James K. Glassman -- Capitalism Magazine

Mutual-Fund Industry's Campaign Against Independent Analysts by Don Luskin -- Capitalism Magazine

Bush's Regulatory Crackdown on Business Has Harmed the Economy by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein -- Capitalism Magazine

Spitzer's Real Scandal - Free Market News Network



The Addiction of Eliot Spitzer

Whoreable Behavior - Ann Coulter

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Would God Bless This?

George W. Bush Hates America

Warning: the video in the blog post linked above contains exceptionally foul language; severe, gratuitous cruelty to civilians; inexcusable abuse of innocent children; and lethal cruelty to helpless animals.

And we haven't gotten to the torture part, the chemical weapons, the white phosphorus, a decade of sanctions, and other violence officially directed by the Executive Branch of this nation's government.

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”
Mark 9:42

What kind of school system produces soldiers like these?

The very same Congress that passed the First Amendment passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which required:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Teachers are now prohibited from teaching children in schools owned and operated by the govenrment that the Declaration of Independence (1776) is actually true.

We now live under an atheistic dictatorship. Americans have failed "the first duty of citizens."

Friday, March 07, 2008

Unilateral Disarmament

I generally like Ron Paul's stand on National Defense, but Dennis Kucinich took a Stronger Stand on U.S. Nuclear Disarmament. This is important, but it's not enough.

90% of Americans claim to be Christian (at least in some vague sense). Most of these people believe that libertarianism is "impractical" and "unrealistic," and that we will always need a big strong central government to prevent society from collapsing into "anarchy" -- a doctrine America's Founding Fathers strongly rejected.

In the same way, most Americans believe that peace is "impractical" and "unrealistic," and that we will always need a government possessed of a vast storehouse of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in order to prevent nuclear destruction(!).

Statism is a Christian heresy. Before America can become libertarian, Christians must become libertarians. Kucinich will never convince most Christian-leaning Americans to disarm. And whoever does will use more than a few sound-bites and bumper-stickers to accomplish the task. The lengthy journey begins with the recognition of two premises:

1. Nukes are sinful
2. "In God We [Must] Trust"

For over a thousand years, Christians have judged whether a war is just or not on the basis of something called "Just War Theory." One of the criteria of a "just war" is often phrased this way:

The war is waged with the proper discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.

Every sensible assessment of nuclear weapons -- but especially a Christian assessment -- would conclude that a weapon which can kill hundreds of thousands of people with one mighty blast cannot possibly discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Untold numbers of women, children, grandparents, and all forms of innocent life will be killed by a large nuclear bomb.

Such a weapon should never be used. Such a weapon should not even be manufactured in the first place. Those who are a part of the "military-industrial complex" and work to make or to deploy weapons of mass murder will be held accountable as accomplices to mass murder. We can sing "God Bless America" all day long, but God will not bless America as long as she threatens the innocent of the world with nuclear weapons. All such weapons should be destroyed. We should begin with our own.

This is called "unilateral disarmament."

Many will criticize this proposal as "naive" and "unrealistic."

Destroying our nuclear weapons would invite invasion and destruction at the hands of our enemies, they say.

Never mind that these "enemies" have been propped up with foreign aid from the federal government.

It all boils down to this: Do you really believe in God and in the Declaration of Independence? Or was America built on a delusion, a superstition, a fairy tale? If there is no God, then obviously our nation's motto, "In God We Trust," is a lie, and it would be hypocritical to suggest that we could have "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence." There are no "self-evident" truths -- or any "truth" at all -- and we have not been endowed with unalienable rights by our Creator. There are no "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and we have no obligation to love our neighbor. As existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre concluded, God is dead; my neighbor is the devil.

Atheism is a recipe for mass-murder and global destruction.

And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
1 Sam 8:7 compare Thomas Paine

National Security comes from God, not from nukes. In a very real way, the lives of billions of human beings depend on Christians in America returning to "the Faith of our Fathers," serving the "Prince of Peace," and moving forward in terms of that premise.

14 “Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! 15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
16 So the people answered and said: “Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods;
Joshua 24:14-16

Additional resources:

Mutual Assured Destruction
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Cult of the Omnipotent State
Defense

Thursday, March 06, 2008

The State vs. Society

Aristotle said,

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the "Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one."

Aristotle was confused. "The State" is not "natural." The Mafia is not "natural." Society is natural.

Human beings can be loyal to "tribe" (family), law, and "hearth" (religion) without being a part of "the State" or "the mafia."

Aristotle failed to draw the distinction between "society" and "the state."

Thomas Paine did not make that mistake. Society Is a Blessing, but Government Is Evil.

Franz Oppenheimer also made the distinction. Murray Rothbard sums up his thinking:

In essence, he said, there are only two ways for men to acquire wealth. The first method is by producing a good or a service and voluntarily exchanging that good for the product of somebody else. This is the method of exchange, the method of the free market; it’s creative and expands production; it is not a zero-sum game because production expands and both parties to the exchange benefit. Oppenheimer called this method the "economic means" for the acquisition of wealth.

The second method is seizing another person’s property without his consent, i.e., by robbery, exploitation, looting. When you seize someone’s prop­erty without his consent, then you are benefiting at his expense, at the expense of the producer; here is truly a zero-sum "game"--not much of a "game," by the way, from the point of view of the victim. Instead of expanding production, this method of robbery clearly hobbles and restricts production. So in addition to being immoral while peaceful exchange is moral, the method of robbery hobbles production because it is parasitic upon the effort of the producers.

With brilliant astuteness, Oppenheimer called this method of obtaining wealth "the political means." And then he went on to define the state, or government, as "the organization of the political means," i.e., the regularization, legiti­mation, and permanent establishment of the political means for the acquisition of wealth.

In other words, the state is organized theft, organized robbery, organized exploitation. And this essential nature of the state is high­lighted by the fact that the state ever rests upon the crucial instrument of taxation.


Wendy McElroy has also done helpful work Defining State and Society.

Here are some more definitions of "the State."

"The State" is the Greatest Criminal in the world.

An orderly and harmonious society is our goal. Not a strong "State."

In 1776 America declared her independence from the British State, but not from the entire concept of "the State." The British government was replaced with a new government created by "The Articles of Confederation." That government was subsequently abolished and replaced by a new one created by the Constitution of 1787. The Founders could not imagine living without any State at all, just a prosperous, orderly, and harmonious society. America's Founders believed that the State was ordained by God to hold society together.

Today they would see that "the State" is at war with society.

The basis of our Declaration of Independence from Britain was said to be certain "self-evident" truths regarding the rights which were endowed to us by our Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world. Rights are not arbitrary customs or conventions, nor are they the creation of "the State"; they are the product of "Intelligent Design," the social blessings that result when human beings conform their behavior to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

"The State" -- our State -- the "United States" -- the federal government -- makes it illegal -- "unconstitutional" -- for teachers in government-owned schools to teach children the self-evident truths that create an orderly and harmonious society. The federal government is thus a threat to a humane society. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence would agree that such an atheistic government is a tyranny which must be abolished. Not only would they agree that this atheistic tyranny is worse than the one Americans fought in 1776, but they could now see that the entire concept of "the State" is a threat to liberty, true religion, and the existence of mankind. They would abolish "the United States" and not replace it.

We should join them.

And hopefully we would all agree that muskets and cannons are not the weapons of choice in the battle against atheistic tyranny.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The $2 Trillion Nightmare

Imagine that Mr. Smith puts out $1,000 for a huge fireworks display for a 4th of July block party. The total cost of this party is not just the money spent on fireworks, but the money lost to the Smith family that could have been earned had the money been invested. That amount is somewhat speculative, but a reasonable guess could be made. It wouldn't even take a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

The New York Times carried an op-ed yesterday on a Congressional hearing in Washington last week concerning Bush's "$2 Trillion Nightmare." Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz [pdf] testified that the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion. Said Prof. Stiglitz [pdf]:

Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.

The total cost comes out to about $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

If you had been asked in 1989,

“Would you like to spend $10,000 for every member of your family to defend
Kuwait, kill several thousand Americans and several hundred thousand Iraqis, overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein (which permits Christians to live, worship, and evangelize), and replace it with an Islamic theocracy (destroying the largest Christian community in the Arab world, making most of them refugees)?”

would you have forked over the dough? Would that be a good use of your family's money?

America wasn't asked this question because the answer would have been No: Americans would not have wanted to pay for this war. No nukes were found in Iraq, nor any relatives of even a single 9-11 hijacker.

But the government doesn't need "the consent of the governed" any more; not with the Federal Reserve ready to print up trillions of dollars of new money (and get paid interest for it).

Remember that in addition to the money the government is spending on "shock and awe," it is also collecting votes every election by promising trillions of dollars in benefits: $83.9 trillion, to be precise. Combine the testimony heard in Congress last week with this, in the same congressional committee, from 30 years ago:

Senator William Proxmire: "...there are 37 million people, is that right, that get Social Security benefits?"
Social Security Commissioner James Cardwell: "Today between 32 and 34 million."
Proxmire: "I am a little high; 32 to 34 million people.
Almost all of them, or many of them, are voters. In my state, I figure there are 600,000 voters that receive Social Security. Can you imagine a senator or congressman under those circumstances saying, 'We are going to repudiate that high a proportion of the electorate?' No.
"Furthermore, we have the capacity under the Constitution, the Congress does, to coin money, as well as to regulate the value thereof. And therefore we have the power to provide that money. And we are going to do it. It may not be worth anything when the recipient gets it, but he is going to get his benefits paid."
Cardwell: "I tend to agree."

(The Social Security System, Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 94th Cong., 2nd Session, May 26 and 27, 1976, pp. 27-28. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977.)

Your pension, your social security, your stock portfolio -- all will have a nice dollar figure -- and all will be utterly worthless in terms of purchasing power.

Every Congressman that voted for the war and for $80 trillion in benefits programs is either financially incompetent or fundamentally unethical. Probably both. Will Americans vote these Congressmen out of office in November? Probably not. Even if they did, would voters elect representatives of a completely different moral character? Probably not.

Here is why men run for Congress. Except Ron Paul.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

The End of Impeachment

Bill Clinton may have been the last U.S. President ever to be impeached.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He writes:

White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers were found in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas and refusing to cooperate with congressional committee investigations of the Bush Regime's political firings of eight Republican US Attorneys.



Following the now established practice by the Bush Regime, Mukasey told the Speaker of the House that members of the executive branch are above the law and are not accountable to the US Congress, formerly a co-equal branch of government under the US Constitution in the days now past when the executive branch felt obliged to abide by the Constitution.

Mukasey boldly asserted in his letter to Congress that Miers and Bolton are immune from congressional subpoenas and, thereby, their "noncompliance did not constitute a crime." According to Mukasey, "The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege."
The way matters stand in America today, the executive branch can falsely prosecute, frameup, and imprison members of Congress and governors of states at will, but itself cannot be held accountable to law.

Pelosi herself was instrumental in making the executive branch unaccountable to Congress or to law when she declared impeachment of Bush to be "off the table." This declaration by the Speaker of the House has effectively released the Bush Regime from any accountability, just as the Enabling Act released Hitler from any accountability to the Reichstag, the German constitution, or statutory law.

Moreover, the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney--indeed the entire administration--is by far the most powerful and necessary case for impeachment that has ever existed. By declaring Bush unimpeachable, Pelosi is giving away Congress' only remaining power to prevent tyrannical rule by the executive branch. If Bush is above impeachment, every future president will be as well.

The Democrats naively believe that just one more year and the Bush Regime horror will be gone. But that is not the case. No matter who is the next president, the Bush Regime has established that the executive branch is no longer a co-equal branch of government. It is the primary branch, armed with unaccountability and the discretion to consult with other branches of government if it so wishes. The US Congress cannot give up the powers it has given up during the Bush years and ever expect to get them back.

The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush's destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty.



Sunday, March 02, 2008

Naomi Wolf: "The End of America"

Over the last several years, under the pretense of the "war on terror," the White House has dismantled the Constitution, concentrating power in the President and undermining the rule of law. THIS IS UN-AMERICAN.

That's why I just visited the American Freedom Campaign and signed the American Freedom Pledge to protect our Constitution and oppose giving any President unchecked power -- especially [whichever one is going to be elected in November].

Please take a moment to show your support for this effort and add your name to the American Freedom Pledge. Click this link to add your name.