Saturday, January 31, 2009
Now comes an official-looking person, who announces that he is indeed "official," and that you're on "government property." No government official has ever stepped foot on the land you have occupied for years. Bureaucrats in Washington passed a law some time ago declaring that the government "owns" all the land around and including your homestead.
You owe "property taxes," the official tells you. If you don't pay, the government will take its land back. If you resist, the government will kill you.
After you pay your taxes, the government announces that it has given its land to a special interest. You will now be required to pay "rent" to this govenrment-favored special interest. If you fail to do so, the new "owner" will "evict" you. The State will come to the aid of the new "owner," and threaten you with violence if you do not leave or continue to refuse to pay your "rent."
Alternatively, imagine that the government has transferred ownership of your land to a strip-mall developer. You need to move out of your house so that it can be torn down and redeveloped by the new "owner" of the property. If you don't allow the developer to tear down your house, the government will come to the aid of the developer in the form of threats of violence against you. You cannot win in a war with the government. You will be killed.
French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) is known for his claim that this kind of government-created, government-enforced "property" is "theft." Clearly, he was correct. "Taxation" and "eminent domain" are both forms of theft. They are immoral. They are an abuse of the term "property." When Democrats and Republicans talk about "property," they mean government power rather than every one dwelling safely under his own vine & fig tree. This concept of "property" is at war with The Family.
Twenty years ago I wrote a paper on Proudhon. A google search turned up several webpages that linked to this article, but not the article itself. Hopefully that will change now that I've linked this article on this blog:
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Agrarian Jurisprudence
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
This old webpage has now been updated.
In response, Cronkrite cites an article by Ted Weiland which claims that Americans have a "love affair" with the U.S. Constitution, amounting to a "national idolatry."
"Love affair" with the Constitution? On what planet?
I can number on my left hand the Americans who self-consciously follow the Constitution -- strictly follow. Nobody cares about the Constitution these days.
Weiland admits this when he says he hopes "to motivate people to think about the Constitution, a document which few Americans have read and to which fewer yet have given any serious thought." Would Weiland say that a Christian had a "love affair" with Jesus without ever reading the Bible or giving Jesus "any serious thought?"
Ted Weiland vs. the U.S. Constitution
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Lowery's concluding paragraphs:
We go now to walk together as children, pledging that we won’t get weary in the difficult days ahead. We know you will not leave us alone. With your hands of power and your heart of love, help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nations shall not lift up sword against nation; when tanks will be beaten into tractors; when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back; when brown can stick around; when yellow will be mellow; when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.
Hours later, Obama bombed Pakistan. "Tanks into tractors" was just "a feel-good-factor even Christian anarchists may enjoy."
Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie comments:
One of my unironic hopes for the Obama presidency is that it does close out 400 years and more of odious racial discourse in America and with it, a good chunk of political correctness. Then again, right on Inauguration Day, you get the minister Joseph Lowery praying about how he hopes that one day the U.S. will become anti-discriminatory: "Lord...we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."
What the hell was that? An unpublished Nipsey Russell rhyme from a lost episode of The $100,000 Pyramid? Yellow will be mellow? When the Jew can drink Mountain Dew? The wop can be a cop? The kraut can give a shout?
I realize Lowery is an old man and I cut him some slack for all the crap that he and too many others like him had to deal with for far too long. But I think we've hit that day where black is not asked to go back. And Asians, those poor, sad-sack model minorities, don't have to be any more mellow than the fans at a Ted Nugent concert.
Not The $100,000 Pyramid, but an interpolation of Big Bill Broonzy's "Black, Brown and White."
Hopefully the next generation of blacks won't be as racist as the outgoing generation. That transformation is not likely to occur under Obama's leadership, however. Lowery fails to see that blacks today are more racist than whites. More blacks voted solely on the basis of skin color in 2008 than whites did, and most whites who voted based on skin color did so out of guilt for the alleged racism of their ancestors. As a liberal, Lowery doesn't really believe the Bible, which is why he hasn't been a force for true reconciliation.
It's a worldview issue.
The Bush-Obama Administration believes bombs can secure mideast oil. The Welfare State threatens violence against productive people who resist spreading their wealth to the unproductive. Both rich and poor, black and white, want something for nothing, and are willing to initiate force to get it. Our problems aren't caused by racists, but by liberals (who are not as truly liberal as conservatives) and others who are part of the cult of statism.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Imagine that President Barack Obama declares that the new name of the United States is "The United Socialist States of America (USSA)." He says that we need "new vision" which "transcends individualism" and emphasizes that this nation is united and committed to social purposes above individual "greed," working together "on behalf of a common purpose."
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck are up in arms (even though this represents a continuation of Bush Administration policies).
Or, alternatively, imagine that President B. Hussein Obama declares that the new name of the United States is now "The United Sharia States of America (USSA)." Obama joins hands with "moderate" muslims around the world, announcing that Islam is really a religion of peace, and that by joining America with the Muslim world, we have a better chance of fighting terrorists that don't really represent the true teachings of Islam.
The Christian Right would be up in arms (even though this too represents a continuation of Bush Administration policies).
But one thing is clear: either of these Executive Decrees (or even proposals for a Constitutional Amendment) would cause a firestorm of controversy. The Blogosphere would be electrified, talk radio would double its wattage, Fox News would cover the story around the clock. Books, pamphlets, DVD's and fundraisers-disguised-as-petitions would be mailed out by ministries of the "Religious Right." Mountains of paper and electrons would be created in response to these proposed changes.
Imagine now that in 2010 a cosmic cataclysm resulted in the North American continent being fast-frozen under thousands of feet of ice.
The year is now 2209. Two centuries years after Obama, Archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians are all discovering a forgotten civilization as the ice melts.
Assume that the internet can be resurrected, and all the blogs, all the podcasts, and all the webpages can be recovered. All the books, magazines, and direct-mail solicitations published in 2009 are available for study by historians seeking to reconstruct the history of America.
As they examine the record, would they find any evidence of any controversy over Obama's proposed re-naming of the USA? Would there be any record of the dramatic shift from a Constitutional Republic (1776 and 1787) to Sharia Law or Communism?
Now let's return to the discussion that started here.
Recall that the original purpose of the first settlers of America was to propagate the Christian Faith. Every single one of the 13 colonies were Christian Theocracies. The Declaration of Independence (as amended) is Theocratic, insofar is it acknowledges that our nation is "Under God," a phrase that goes back before the 1600's. Even as late as 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court was able to say that the United States is (still) a Christian nation.
If Madison and Jefferson had proposed changing America from a Christian nation to an atheistic nation (some call it "secular," but the point is that America's federal government would no longer acknowledge itself to be "under God," obligated to obey God's commandments, behaving as though there were no God, as though atheism were true and Christianity were false), wouldn't that have created a firestorm of controversy? Why would the 13 Christian Theocracies have ratified a constitution that gave the federal government the power to secularize the states -- to impose atheism on them?
The basic meaning of the myth of "separation of church and state" is that the federal government has the right to prohibit local schools from teaching children that God says "Thou shalt not steal," and even to prohibit local schools from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence is really true. The practical result of the myth of "separation of church and state" is that the federal government has the right to impose atheism on states which were officially and pervasively Christian.
Would 13 Christian Theocracies have adopted a secular constitution which created this "separation?"
Where is the evidence that the federal constitution proposed in 1787 was a secular constitution, was intended to be such, and understood to be such? Where is the evidence that anyone in America believed that the proposed constitution was secular and would impose a "separation of God and Government?"
Saturday, January 17, 2009
On Tuesday Barack Obama will be inaugurated in a display of power that George Washington could never have imagined. Obama calls the spectacle, "Our Democratic Tradition," and is inviting Americans "across the country to work on behalf of a common purpose through a national day of service on Monday."
Would even single person who Signed the Declaration of Independence have participated in this national day of service?
Discuss the inauguration with us in a live teleseminar this morning at 10:30am Central time.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Yesterday she received too much medicine to counter a heart beat that was too high, and her heartbeat and blood pressure went way down dangerously low, requiring a "Rapid Response" team from ICU to get her blood pressure and heart rate back up.
Her white blood cell count was way up when she was first admitted, but is down somewhat.
Once again I fluctuate between thinking she'll be OK, and wondering if she'll ever be home again.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
This woman probably cannot read and understand the prayer of John Adams which we looked at yesterday. Literacy rates are higher in Christian nations than in secular nations.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the governing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributer of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness and rectitude of individuals and to the well-being of communities;
as it is also most reasonable in itself that men who are made capable of social acts and relations, who owe their improvements to the social state, and who derive their enjoyments from it, should, as a society, make their acknowledgments of dependence and obligation to Him who hath endowed them with these capacities and elevated them in the scale of existence by these distinctions;
as it is likewise a plain dictate of duty and a strong sentiment of nature that in circumstances of great urgency and seasons of imminent danger earnest and particular supplications should be made to Him who is able to defend or to destroy;
as, moreover, the most precious interests of the people of the United States are still held in jeopardy by the hostile designs and insidious acts of a foreign nation, as well as by the dissemination among them of those principles, subversive of the foundations of all religious, moral, and social obligations, that have produced incalculable mischief and misery in other countries;
and as, in fine, the observance of special seasons for public religious solemnities is happily calculated to avert the evils which we ought to deprecate and to excite to the performance of the duties which we ought to discharge by calling and fixing the attention of the people at large to the momentous truths already recited, by affording opportunity to teach and inculcate them by animating devotion and giving to it the character of a national act:
For these reasons I have thought proper to recommend, and I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they 
- call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence,
- implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions,
- and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come;
- • that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety  and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind;
- • that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people;" [Proverbs 14:34]
- • that He would turn us from our transgressions and turn His displeasure from us;
- • that He would withhold us from unreasonable discontent, from disunion, faction, sedition, and insurrection;
- • that He would preserve our country from the desolating sword;
- • that He would save our cities and towns from a repetition of those awful pestilential visitations under which they have lately suffered so severely, and that the health of our inhabitants generally may be precious in His sight;
- • that He would favor us with fruitful seasons and so bless the labors of the husbandman as that there may be food in abundance for man and beast;
- • that He would prosper our commerce, manufactures, and fisheries, and give success to the people in all their lawful industry and enterprise;
- • that He would smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion;
- • that He would bless all magistrates, from the highest to the lowest, give them the true spirit of their station, make them a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well;
- • that He would preside over the councils of the nation at this critical period, enlighten them to a just discernment of the public interest, and save them from mistake, division, and discord;
- • that He would make succeed our preparations for defense and bless our armaments by land and by sea;
- • that He would put an end to the effusion of human blood and the accumulation of human misery among the contending nations of the earth by disposing them to justice, to equity, to benevolence, and to peace;
- • and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world.
And I do also recommend that with these acts of humiliation, penitence, and prayer fervent thanksgiving to the Author of All Good be united for the countless favors which He is still continuing to the people of the United States, and which render their condition as a nation eminently happy when compared with the lot of others.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
[From C. F. Adams's Works of John Adams, Vol. IX, p. 172.]
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, John Adams, vol. 1, p.274-76
Now consider a more contemporary "American Prayer":
YouTube - My American Prayer - Dave Stewart (Captioned)
Are the singers, dancers, and political groupies in this video (and the lifestyles they represent) the creators of
• industrial civilization,
• the science and technology in our health care system,
• our computers, and
• the productivity of our economy,
or are they merely the beneficiaries of this labor and of "the Protestant Work Ethic?"
Which America has a future?
Which God do you believe can bring salvation to America: the God of John Adams, or the god, Barack Obama?
Some have suggested that Adams was a Unitarian who doubted the divinity of Christ. Yet his official acts as President were Trinitarian. Legal effect is determined objectively, not subjectively.
Piety, in principle, is a compound of veneration or reverence of the Supreme Being and love of his character, or veneration accompanied with love; and piety in practice is the exercise of these affections in obedience to his will and devotion to his service.
Noah Webster, Dictionary of American English, 1st ed., 1828.
Friday, January 09, 2009
A Biblical Defense of Pacifism
Because I am against violence, I am aginst the institutionalization of violence, which we call "the State." Here's why:
Anarchism: Order without Violence
Pacifists are always asked, "What Would You Do If . . . .?"
"Pacifism" doesn't mean doing nothing in the face of evil. There are lots of things one can do in the face of evil besides pull out a gun and blow out the brains of the evildoer.
Find out about the amazing story of how one 92-year-old woman responded to evil:
The Gospel at Gunpoint - Prison Fellowship - [new link]
This kind of thinking needs to become a social consciousness. If society as a whole thought the way this woman thinks, nobody would be cheering and waving flags at the wars of imperialists.
In the 20th century "governments" killed hundreds of millions of people, enslaved billions, and confiscated or destroyed trillions of dollars of private property, making the institution of civil government one thousand times more lethal and evil than the criminals from which we are supposedly being protected by the State. The State will not allow public school teachers to teach students that God says "Thou shalt not kill." If the State were abolished, people like you and me would quickly fill the gaps by creating schools that teach religion and morality, and businesses that pass on traditions of hard work and ethical behavior. Businesses -- working every day to provide the goods and services we need -- are far more ethical than governments. Governments encourage immorality.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
You decide to move to an area which you hear is much more prosperous, and the government less corrupt.
As you are about to arrive there, you are stopped by a group of what appears to be bandits. They are armed with automatic weapons. They wear similar looking clothing, which you take to be gang related. They start looking through your car.
Your initial fear of losing your life softens into curiosity, as it becomes evident that they are not going to kill you and your family, or even steal from you. As the questioning and conversation continues, you learn that at least one of the gang members believes in the same God you do. But before you can challenge his actions in terms of his professed religion, the gang leader tells you that you have to turn around and go back home.
Back home, you learn that many other people have had this same experience.
Now suppose that your home is Tijuana, Mexico, and you were trying to get a better job and live in a nicer home in San Diego, and the gang was the U.S. "immigration authorities."
Imagine further than many people who have been stopped by these armed "immigration authorities" are outraged at the initiation of force against them and the prevention of their being hired by employers who want to hire them and their purchase of homes by builders who want to sell to them.
Immigration laws are a violation of "rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator.
Angry opponents of immigration laws start launching rockets into government facilities in San Diego, sometimes missing and hitting innocent civilian targets. Some radical groups intentionally target innocent civilians on the grounds that they are not innocent, but complicit in the armed denial of human rights by their government.
Is violence on the part of pro-immigration forces justified?
Of course not.
Now imagine the government starts launching rockets from San Diego into Tijuana against the pro-immigration radicals, occasionally hitting schools, hospitals, etc. in Tijuana.
This is how I understand current events in Gaza. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some have suggested that the U.S. government is unwittingly subsidizing terrorism in the Middle East. Perhaps it's more than unwittingly. In any case, it is certainly unconstitutional.
Pictures of human beings not allowed to cross an arbitary political border to be with their families.
[video of an unexpected opening of the border]
View these photos and tell me why Israel is not guilty of using "weapons of mass destruction."
The Other Side of the Story! - Palestinian Mothers
Keep in mind that the Bush-Cheney Regime will describe hand grenades [pdf] as “weapons of mass destruction” when it suits the state's purpose.
Of course, this is not to deny that Hamas also uses “weapons of mass destruction.” (And the use of quotation marks is not meant to imply that these weapons are not horrifically anti-Christian in their moral character.)
Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
A conservative declares:
All of this talk of "innocent civilian casualties" is utter nonsense anyway. There are no more innocent civilians in Gaza than there were innocent Nazis in Germany. They are all Palestinians. They all voted for Hamas socialism and rule. They all defend and support Hamas in one way or another. They are all a part of the terrorist machine that Hamas represents (kind of like the people of Chicago supporting their corrupt political machine).
Mary Mostert points out that
There are only about 5.5 million Jews living in Israel, and 1029 of them have been killed by [Palestinian] terrorists (along with thousands of Jews wounded by terrorists).
Any U.S. criticism of Israel would have to be pretty hypocritical, since "That is approximately 20 times the equivalent percentage of people killed in the World Trade Center in the USA, with our 305 million population, when 3000 died on September 11, 2001." But at least Israel is aiming its rockets in the direction of the attackers. Not a single 9-11 terrorist came from Iraq, the nation that the U.S. destroyed after 9-11.
Lost in the Rubble Chris Hedges
"Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza" Jeremy R. Hammond - Foreign Policy Journal
Saturday, January 03, 2009
In his Saturday Morning Radio Address, President-Elect Obama proposes socialist violence to remedy our economic "crisis."
Both Democrats and Republicans ignore the Prince of Peace and the Way of Peace.
A week ago we celebrated Christmas and the ideal of "Peace on Earth" to which lip service is continually paid, but without the action required to create it.
Bush's support of the State of Israel creates violence in the Middle East.
Obama's support of state socialism creates violence in our economy.
Peace on Earth
Goodwill Toward Capitalists
We discuss these issues every Saturday at the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.
Friday, January 02, 2009
I said, "I don't see how libertarianism has a chance of succeeding if it spurns all those who believe in the God of the Bible."
David said, "I agree, with the caveat that I understand it to be about succeeding in our society in a comparatively short time, such as my lifetime or the lifetime of people now living. In a thousand years 'the God of the Bible' may be as forgotten as the God of the Zend-Avesta."
I'm reminded of the remark allegedly made by Voltaire (b. 1694): "One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker."
David continues, "Can you name any libertarians who actually want to spurn all Bible-believers? Or did you intend that as hyperbole?"
I know libertarians who tell other libertarians not to vote for me on the grounds that I believe in God.
I get the feeling there are quite a few libertarians who want to appeal to atheists and homosexuals (10%) even if it alienates Christians (90%).
Michael wrote: "Libertarianism does not spurn those who believe in God or the Bible. It does spurn those persons who would use those things as a justification to compel or forcibly coerce others to follow their way of belief, especially using the force of government to do so."
I'm an anarchist. I'm against all initiation of force.
Again, Michael: Libertarians can and do follow Christian beliefs. The difference is that libertarianism recognizes that there is a separation of church and state for a reason, and that when they are mixed they both fall into despotism. Libertarians oppose theocracy, not religion.
I'm against "religion" (churches), and the modern myth of "separation of church and state," but I support Anarcho-Theocracy. The Declaration of Independence created a libertarian Theocracy.