Saturday, October 30, 2010

Abortion is Murder

On this morning's Ozarks Virtual Town Hall I was asked about my position on abortion. That page explains it.

When I Googled abortion and my name, my abortion page was not listed. My page on how to end abortion without the initiation of force by the government was listed, as was my page in defense of Ron Paul's views on abortion. But not the central abortion page.

I have to suspect that the abortion page was consciously removed by a human being at Google. I admit I'm paranoid, but I don't see how Google's search algorithm could have indexed the other abortion pages yet missed my central abortion page, which has been on the Internet longer than these other pages, and is linked to from many other web pages and blog posts, including these:

As it stands right now, Google says there are no pages that link to my abortion page. Not true.

Maybe this post will change that.

Until that gnome at Google deletes it from the index once again.

Friday, October 29, 2010

News-Leader Endorses Billy Long

The election of the Republican candidate is always a foregone conclusion in Missouri's 7th District. The Republican candidate needs the endorsement of no newspaper to win the election.

Nevertheless, the Springfield News-Leader has endorsed the Republican candidate.

I offer a few comments on the endorsement here.

Missouri News Horizon Interview

You can listen to the Missouri News Horizon interview me here:

Kevin Craig, Libertarian : Missouri News Horizon

Listening to the audio is more enjoyable than reading the transcript, I think.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Edge Reacts to News-Leader Coverage

EDGE Boston, which bills itself as "the largest network of local Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) news and entertainment portals in the world," has featured my answers to questions sent to me by the Springfield News-Leader concerning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

DADT Becomes Major Issue in Congressional Elections :: EDGE Boston

Wow; I even got a photo!

DADT is not a major issue for me. It's just a minor symptom of a government that has declared war on God and on His Commandments. The major issue is the myth of "the separation of church and state."

A secondarily major issue is at the end of the News-Leader article:

We face economic meltdown if we don't cut wasteful and unconstitutional "big government programs." The military is a "big government program. ..."

"The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and un-Christian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic theocracy under Sharia law. ...

"Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors." He offered more comments on his Web site.

That's correct. Check these webpages out:

Blessed Are the Peacemakers
The Defense Budget
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
Is War Ever "Just"
War and Imperialism
Blueprint for Afghanistan
Mutual Assured Destruction
Swords Into Plowshares
Was The Iraqi War Biblically Justified?
Don't Send the Marines!
Memorial Day 2010
Mideast Conflict
Who Owns the Holy Land?
Weapons of Mass Destruction (RNEP)
Torture is Un-American
Military Tribunals
Vengeance Belongs to God, Not to Man
Vine & Fig Tree: The American Dream
The Vietnam War
World War II and its Lessons
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Draft
Reclaiming the War Power
U.S Security Strategy
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Strategic Nuclear Forces and Missile Defense
Trade Sanctions
U.S. Security Strategy
Oil and the Moslem World
International Economic Policy
A Biblical Defense of Pacifism
A Pacifist for Congress
Israel: Is the State God?
Israel: The miracle country turns 60
Exiting the Balkan Morass
Patriotism: Loyalty to Country or to God?
Department of Veterans' Affairs

More important than "DADT" is imperialist mass murder by the federal government and the "patriots" who just follow orders. More important than DADT is the military-industrial complex, which America's Founders condemned when they warned against "standing armies."

I don't even have a webpage on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh yes, this blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Speak." I'm wrong; here's another blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oops; here's a web page: My secret life under "don't ask, don't tell." (Honestly, I lose track of what I've written. I'm over 1,000 blog posts and webpages now. I have to coax results out of Google.)

Here's my point: anti-war is more important to me than anti-homosexual.

Maybe I give homosexuals too much credit for being "sensitive" and cool, but it strikes me as odd that homosexuals would want to become paid killers for Halliburton and the Bush-Obama regime. A silly stereotype, I suppose.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Voting for Baum Helps "Liberty Under God"

You can help promote "Liberty Under God" in 2012 by voting for Charles Baum in 2010.

I enjoy running for office because it gives me an opportunity to promote "Liberty Under God." I might not have that opportunity if the Libertarian Party loses its ballot status. Without that status, I might have to gather as many as 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot. The Libertarian Party must poll 2% in one of the two statewide races or it will lose its qualified status.

Baum is the Libertarian candidate for Missouri State Auditor. If he gets 2% of the vote, I will benefit in 2012 by not having to collect all those signatures.

Is Baum qualified? I'll vote for him. Here's a message from his blog:

Susan Montee’s website celebrates her experience as an attorney and CPA, which she feels makes her the most qualified candidate to be Missouri’s State Auditor.

Tom Schweich proclaims how he loves to do audits.

I readily concede that both Tom and Susan can do a better audit than I do. I would love to have them on my staff.

However, the State Auditor has a staff of 125 people, many qualified to do a great audit. In fact, many of the audits are not even done by Susan. She just oversees them.

Susan claims to have saved Missouri millions of dollars. However, there is no accounting of this, which is kind of ironical in that the State Auditor has no real verification that she has saved the state any money.

The State Auditor’s budget is close to $5,000,000 and we really have no accounting of whether or not it pays for itself.

What we need is an auditor that can actually save the state of Missouri money.

Accountants are good at doing accounting, but not usually that good at achieving action and results. That takes a different skill. What we need is an auditor that can aggressively carry out the recommendations in the audit. How many of Susan’s staff’s recommendations are carried out? We don’t know. She does her audit, makes recommendations and moves on to the next audit. No real follow up.

We live in a society that loves to create volumes of paper. In fact, we are overwhelmed by paper. In 2009, Susan had overseen 151 audits, thousands of pages all buried away somewhere read by almost no one, like the 2,200 page financial reform bill that no one reads and no one knows what it will mean.

What we need today more than ever is simplicity, action, and leadership, not more audits. If the state auditor's job is to do audits and provide transparency, Susan has done a great job; but if it is to actually save the state money I’m afraid she falls short.

Accountants are great at counting the number of trees in the forest, but often miss the forest.


Charlie is a native Missourian, born in St. Louis, who lives in University City with Carol, his wife of 38 years. The Baums' daughter, Jennifer, is currently married living in Minneapolis with her husband Justin and daughter Camille. Charlie earned his bachelor's degree in Business with a major in Finance from the University of Missouri - Columbia and earned his master's degree in Teaching from Webster University. Charlie is a Certified Financial Planner and a Principal at Renaissance Financial in St. Louis. He has also earned the designations of Chartered Financial Consultant and Chartered Life Underwriter over the course of his career. He has over 25 years of experience in the financial services industry and is regularly relied on to mentor new advisors who join his company. Prior to his work in financial services, Charlie was a junior high school teacher in University City. Charlie has served on the boards of the Family Support Network and the Crisis Nursery in the St. Louis area.


An argument can be made that his opponents are more "qualified" than Baum, but they aren't motivated like a libertarian is to shrink the size of government, and voting for them does nothing to promote "Liberty Under God."

Individual audits are supervised by an auditor-in-charge, who normally is a senior auditor. Audit fieldwork is performed by senior auditors, staff auditors and audit assistants. Approximately 150 persons are employed by the state auditor’s office. About 50 percent of the audit staff are CPAs. That figure represents a marked increase from earlier years; in 1974 only about 10 percent of the staff were CPAs. [MO Manual, 2005-2006]

Sunday, October 24, 2010

5,000 Year Leap

Glenn Beck promotes a book called The Five Thousand Year Leap. It contains "28 Ideas that Changed the World." Since I've already been Banned by Beck for digging deeper than the principles of his "9-12 Project," I might as well incur further wrath for digging deeper than the "5,000 Year Leap." Especially since I admit I haven't even read the book. Don't even own it.

Here are the 28 principles, with comments and links to my campaign website:

1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is natural law.

I have explored the meaning of the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" on my website. It means the Bible. It does not mean that we look at "nature" and see that lions eat gazelles, and conclude that therefore Democrats should tax the rich. In this sense, "natural law" is a myth. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is God's Law, or "Theonomy," rather than autonomy.

America's "Organic Law" declares that "religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." "Religion" means revelation from God. It is not "natural," but supernatural.

2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

This is correct, provided that "virtue" and "morality" are defined by the Bible.

3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and a morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.

I agree that electing virtuous leaders is better than electing leaders without virtue. But this principle is wrong-headed. Education is more important than leaders. Bad education will produce voters who elect bad leaders. You can have a prosperous society without leaders, not but without parents who take control of their children's education and make every child a leader in the life of someone else in society. Not a leader by control, but a leader by influence. Compare #26.

4. Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

True, but true only for the true religion, not true for any false religion. A false religion, like the religion of Secular Humanism, leaves people in darkness, not freedom.

5. All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent and to him they are equally responsible.


6. All men are created equal.


7. The proper role of government is to provide equal rights, not equal things.


8. Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

OK. I prefer speaking of duties rather than rights. [And is it "Unalienable or Inalienable?"]

9. To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.

The second part is true. But it's not as though God is somehow obligated to protect man's rights; that man backed God into a corner through collective bargaining, and won a concession of "divine law" to protect his rights. See the link on "duties" above.

10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

"Governing" others is not a God-given right. It is historically true, however, that "the consent of the governed" is a concept that was derived from the Bible.

11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

True, but not through violence.

Why may not a minority abolish a tyrannical government if the majority are apathetic and don't object?

12. The United States of America shall be a republic.

Well, at least not a democracy.

13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.

Not "frailties," but depravity. Things like the desire to rule over others, the desire to take vengeance, the desire to get something for nothing, the desire to punish the rich. Not "frail" people, but evil sociopaths. The Constitution was not designed to empower the frail, but to bind down as with chains those who would be as gods.

14. Life and liberty is secure so long as the right to property is secure.


15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and minimum of government regulations.

True, true and true. Even people who maximize government rather than minimizing it like to quote Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least," without reading further: "Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have."

16. The government should be separated into three branches—legislative, executive and judicial.

God's government is separated into "three branches":

Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
it is He who will save us.

Do we need to create an earthly government when we already have God's government?

17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.

The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse. Human government is the power to abuse.

18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution.

Likely, but obviously not infallibly, as our own written constitution has failed to preserve our rights.

19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to the government, all others being retained by the people.

True. I am the only candidate in this race who believes in the concept of strictly enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.

20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

Sounds good. Has it ever happened in the history of human government? Does the minority get to withhold taxes for government programs it didn't vote for?

21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.


22. A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of man.

True. But if the majority votes to tax the minority, is this not "whim," even if it is enacted "according to law."

23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

False. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad spectrum of competing educational choices available to the public. We must affirm "the separation of school and state."

24. A free people will not survive unless they remain strong.

"Strong" morally? "Strong" enough to obliterate tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians?

25. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.

True, and utterly neglected by the Bush-Obama regime.

26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.

The first part is true, but given #19 above, what does "foster" mean? Should the government tax families to fund some cockamamie federal program to "promote stronger families?" I wonder how many government programs claim to "strengthen families" in some way.

27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.

Good point. A 3,000 year-old idea.

28. The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.

I don't know this to be a fact. The U.S. may have a "manifest destiny" to be an example to the world of how a once-Christian nation is utterly destroyed for repudiating that heritage.

I pulled the summary of these 28 points from Wikipedia, as well as these references:

W. Cleon Skousen - The Man Behind Glenn Beck By Bill McKeever. Mormonism Research Ministry

Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life. Zaitchik, Alexander (2009-09-16). Salon Magazine, September 16, 2009.

Five Thousand Year Leap

Glenn Beck Re-Energizes the Conservative Movement by Mark Skousen 19 March 2009. Human Events

Excerpts from The Five Thousand Year LeapThe New Yorker

Friday, October 22, 2010

Military Spending

I received the following email:

Mr. Craig:

One item that will be at the top of the congressional agenda next year is government spending. The deficit commission appointed by the president and Congress is expected to make recommendations on how to address this issue in December. Congress is planning to consider these recommendations early next year.

As a candidate to represent me in the House of Representatives, will you work to make sure that when Congress begins to look at government spending, the focus will be on cutting military spending and investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders?

Congress could save an estimated $2 trillion in the next ten years by not extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest households in our nation and by cutting the Pentagon budget using the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Will you support these sound policy recommendations?


[name withheld]

I responded:

Hi [name],

I am overwhelmingly your choice for Congress if you are for peace. I am opposed to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as opposed to the hundreds of military bases the U.S. has in over 100 foreign nations.

My website is probably the largest candidate website on the Internet, and my webpages on peace and nuclear disarmament are prominently highlighted.

I am a Bible-believing Christian, and it is deeply troubling to me that so many Christians support U.S. military intervention. If elected, I would use the "bully pulpit" to engage the over 200 million self-described Christians in America in a conversation to follow the "Prince of Peace" more consistently.

I have to be honest, however, and confess that I believe taxation is an act of violence and the moral equivalent of theft. Therefore I support the extension of the "Bush tax cuts."

Fully 50% of Americans do not pay taxes at all, so "tax cuts for the rich" is the only possible way to cut taxes.

Also, you speak of "investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders." We may disagree on these issues. For now.

I believe these tasks are outside the "enumerated powers" of the Constitution:

Government "investments" are counter-productive:

These "investments" actually destroy jobs:

Government compulsion is no substitute for helping from the heart those in need:

The federal government is the biggest threat to the elderly:

We don't need to increase taxes, and we don't need government "investments." We need to cut government spending, especially military spending:

Not just "waste," but the core of the defense budget needs to be slashed to bring it into line with the non-interventionist foreign policy of America's Founding Fathers:

This is a call for a massive change of heart and soul.

If America's Christians would tithe on their income (presently they give only about 2.5% rather than 10%), there would be enough private donations to bring basic healthcare and education to all the poor of the earth. Christians would still have another $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world. [source] The possibilities are staggering.

If we can get Christians to follow the Prince of Peace and practice the "works of mercy," we won't need government taxes and impersonal bureaucratic "investment" programs.

Maybe you disagree, but I'm happy that we agree on the possibility of starting with substantial cuts in spending for military aggression.

Please tell all your friends to vote for Kevin Craig on November 2.

Thanks for writing.

Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
Missouri 7th District
U.S. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Military and Veterans Issues

Here are my answers to questions from the News-Leader on Military and Veterans Issues:

1. How do you plan to vote on Amendment 2, the proposal to give former POWs who are totally disabled a break on their property taxes?
__X__ YES
_____ NO
Everyone should have a break on their taxes.
I may not take an hour to go to the polls on Nov. 2, but I will devote hundreds of hours in 2011 trying to cut taxes.

2. Should gay and lesbian people be required to keep the fact that they are gay or lesbian secret in order to serve in the U.S. military?

_____ YES
_____ NO
__X___They shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all.

Every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence believed that homosexuality is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Sodomy has always been a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military has a duty to ask if a soldier is unapologetically committed to violating an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

3. Will you support an amendment proposed by Sen. McCaskill to provide up to $100,000 to soldiers who suffer severe injury from vaccines?
_____ YES
_____ NO
I don’t know the details of McCaskill’s amendment, or the bill it amends. In general, I oppose “sovereign immunity” and support holding government accountable for its actions. But there is also a legal concept called “assumption of the risk.” See below.

4. Other comments on Veteran’s Issues

We face economic meltdown if we don’t cut wasteful and unconstitutional “big government programs.” The military is a “big government program.” The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and unChristian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic Theocracy under Sharia law. There is no draft, so those who enlisted in the armed services did so voluntarily, and are responsible for their decisions to participate in unjust wars and foreign policy debacles. For many, enlisting in the armed services is considered a shrewd “career move.” Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Debate in Willard

I'm going to have to fire my campaign manager for failing to get around to posting details on yesterday's debate in Willard. The debate was open to the public and some of you might have gone to see it. I was hoping to meet a few readers of this blog at the debate.

Streaming Video of the Debate

Post Debate Panel Analysis

That's OK, I wasn't paying myself enough to do that job anyway.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Voter Turnout

Here are some statistics on National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008 from

In the last mid-term election, 37.1% of the voting-age population turned out to vote.

That means that the results of the election represent about 15-20% of the people.


Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Romans 13

Tom Knapp has called my attention to an interesting article at the Center for a Stateless Society:

Give Nothing Unto Caesar

It has some interesting historical research, but reaches a faulty conclusion.

Jesus said we are not to resist evil, but "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). This does not mean that cheek-slappers are a "divine institution." It simply describes a Christian response to evil-doers.

Taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. But Biblical logic does not lead us to conclude that we should not pay the thief. The Bible says pay your taxes. "Turn the other cheek." "Resist not evil."

The desire to tax other people is sinful. The desire to rule over others by force is sinful. The desire for vengeance is sinful. The desire for a civil government is therefore idolatry. The desire to have a civil government is a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8). Therefore the State is evil. The State is a judgment sent by God.

But our relationship with these evil rulers is characterized by respect and honor (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Timothy 6:1; Exodus 22:28; Romans 13:7), not insult and defiance.

Our goal is persuasion, not revolution.

We must beat our swords into plowshares and help archists repent.

But this is not "us" vs. "them."

We all have our swords and we all want to be as gods.

We're in this together.

"Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
1 Peter 2:17

For Further Study:

Rushdoony on the Tribute Money

Jesus and the Tax Revolt - Rushdoony

I'm going to have to take a closer look at these (maybe after the election!):


Romans 13:1-7 - Jesus Radicals Discussion Forum

Obedience to the state; An exegetical exploration of Romans 13. - unlearning the problem

The Real Columbus Day

Today (October 12) is the real anniversary of Columbus making landfall in the New World in 1492. The first celebration of Columbus Day was held in New York on this day in 1792. One hundred years later (1892), the Pledge of Allegiance was first recited by students in many US public schools, as part of a celebration marking the 400th anniversary of Columbus's voyage. In 1992, TIME Magazine asked, "Is the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to America an event the country should celebrate?" Evidently not, as South Dakota has changed the day to "Native American Day," and the city of Berkeley, California has replaced Columbus Day with "Indigenous People's Day."

It was Columbus' goal to bring the light of Christianity to the New World. In the final years of his life he realized that he may have also brought the institutions of the Roman Empire (church, state, slavery) to the New World. He refused to don the uniform of the Admiral, instead choosing to wear the humble garb of a Franciscan monk.

In 1892, during the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus' landing, teachers, preachers, poets and politicians used Columbus Day rituals to teach ideals of patriotism. These patriotic rituals were framed around themes such as support for war, citizenship boundaries, the importance of loyalty to the nation, and celebrating social progress. (source)

In 1928, Calvin Coolidge could still speak admiringly of Columbus, mixing the themes of Christianity and statism. Obama cannot speak with the same admiration. Compare Coolidge and Obama here.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

What is a "Christian Anarchist?"

I used the phrase "Christian anarchists" in the KOLR10/KWTO debate on Thursday. The phrase was picked up by a blogger.

Let's start with a grammar lesson on prefixes and double negatives.

If you ain't got no money, then you ain't got no money.

The two negatives cancel.

If you are not an "anarchist," then you are an "archist."

But what's an "archist?"

An "archist" (I admit, I sort of made the word up; but it comes from the Greek root of "anarchist") is someone who advocates, defends, or practices the initiation of force as a solution to personal or social problems.

Note the word "initiate." It would be the "initiation of force" for me to use my tranquilizer dart gun as a technique for "date-rape." But using my tranquilizer dart gun against someone who is in the act of committing a forcible rape is not the initiation of force. It is a response to - and an attempt to end - the initiation of force.

A "Christian," obviously, is someone who follows the commands of Jesus Christ.

Before Jesus was executed and rose again, His disciples really didn't get the big picture. At one point Jesus had to rebuke the Apostle Peter: "Get thee behind Me, Satan! Your allegiance is to the ways of man, not the ways of God!" In the tenth chapter of Mark's Gospel, Jesus catches His disciples arguing about who is going to be the "greatest" in the coming Kingdom. Mark 10:42-45:

42 Jesus called them together and said, "The other nations have rulers. You know that those rulers love to show their power over the people, and their important leaders love to use all their authority. 43 But it should not be that way among you. Whoever wants to become great among you must serve the rest of you like a servant. 44 Whoever wants to become the first among you must serve all of you like a slave. 45 In the same way, the Son of Man did not come to be served. He came to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many people."

In the Greek, Jesus said that the kings of the Gentiles love to be "archists." The authority of kings in Greco-Roman times was the right to initiate force against others. Christ says His followers are "not" to be "archists."

Too many Christians (today and throughout history) believe in using the civil government to force non-Christians to think or act like Christians. This in itself is not thinking or acting like a Christian.

A Christian is not an "archist." A Christian should not vote for an "archist."

Saturday, October 09, 2010

What Kind of World Do You Want?

Carol Stark, editor of The Joplin Globe, and panelist at last Wednesday's debate at Joplin High School, gives her answer:

Carol Stark: Libertarian keeps his word » Editorial » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO

Joplin Debate Tonight

The debate which was held in Joplin on Wednesday between Libertarian Kevin Craig and candidates from the two "major" parties will be broadcast in the Joplin area tonight on KSN at 7pm.

It will be rebroadcast at 2 p.m. Sunday on KCLJ-TV, Missouri Southern’s television station, channel 35.

The broadcast will also be available on KSN’s website

In addition to Kevin Craig's presentation of the Free Market perspective, this debate features the two major party candidates sticking to the issues raised by the panelists, which included KODE reporter Gretchen Bolander, Joplin Globe editor Carol Stark, and Carthage Press editor John Hacker. In the debate in Springfield on Thursday, the issues raised by panelists were often ignored by the two major party candidates, who chose instead to bicker among themselves over an alleged candidate survey so much that planned rebuttals had to be dropped.

Medicare and Afghanistan

It is widely known and admitted by the government that there is massive Medicare fraud, to the tune of billions of dollars a year:

Bigger Than Madoff - Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven - Cato Institute: Commentary

It is not admitted by the government -- because it has not been investigated like Medicare has, and there has not arisen any public outcry -- that there is massive fraud in the Military.

The military is sacrosanct. Criticism of the military is "unpatriotic." Accusing the military of systemic waste is not "supporting the troops."

We must not forget that the Military is a "big government program." Expect waste to be a structural problem -- not a cause for "reform," but for systematic abolition.


U.S. is lining the Taliban's pockets by spending millions of dollars on private security in Afghanistan 08 Oct 2010 Heavy US reliance on private security in Afghanistan has helped to line the pockets of the Taliban with millions of dollars. It also threatens the safety of coalition troops because contractors often do not vet local recruits and wind up hiring warlords and thugs, US Senate investigators said. The report by the Senate Armed Services Committee follows a separate congressional inquiry in June that concluded that trucking contractors pay tens of millions of dollars a year to local warlords for convoy protection.

Security contractors in Afghanistan 'fund Taliban' 07 Oct 2010 Heavy US reliance on private security in Afghanistan has helped to line the pockets of the Taliban, a US Senate report says. The study by the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is because contractors often fail to vet local recruits and end up hiring warlords. Some 26,000 private security personnel, mostly Afghans, operate in Afghanistan. Nine out of 10 of them work for the US government.

Inquiry Finds Guards at U.S. Bases Are Tied to Taliban 08 Oct 2010 Afghan private security forces with ties to the Taliban, criminal networks and Iranian intelligence have been hired to guard American military bases in Afghanistan, exposing United States soldiers to surprise attack and confounding the fight against insurgents, according to a Senate investigation. The Pentagon’s oversight of the Afghan guards is virtually nonexistent, allowing local security deals among American military commanders, Western contracting companies and Afghan warlords who are closely connected to the violent insurgency, according to the report by investigators on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Report: US Contractors Hired Taliban, Warlords to Guard US Troops In Afghanistan --Senate Investigators Say Chaotic Security Contracts Pose 'Grave Risk' to US Troops 07 Oct 2010 A scathing Senate report says US contractors in Afghanistan have hired warlords, "thugs," Taliban commanders and even Iranian spies to provide security at vulnerable US military outposts in Afghanistan. The report, published by the Senate Armed Services Committee, says lax oversight and "systemic failures" have led to "grave risks' to US forces, including instances where contractors have employed Afghan subcontractors who were "linked to murder, kidnapping and bribery, as well as Taliban and anti-coalition activities."

Part of the problem is a departure from the foreign policy of America's Founders:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

If we had a Defense Department instead of an Imperialism Department we could cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the defense budget just for starters:

Drop Pretension to Supremacy
Defense Cuts: Start Overseas
The Pentagon on Defense
The US Should Cut Military Spending in Half
U.S. Defense and the Four Percent Smokescreen (Part I)
Does Military Power Keep Us Safe? (Part II)
The New World Order (Part III)

The Democrats favor welfare for the poor. The Republicans favor welfare for the Military-Industrial Complex, from defense contractors to veterans. Obama naturally favors the former, and seems now to have been pressured to accept the latter.

Friday, October 08, 2010

The Two Debates Last Night

There were two debates last night at the KOLR10/KWTO studios.

The first debate was moderated by former KOLR 10 anchor Mike Peters, and focused on issues raised by Joy Robertson of KOLR and Brian Calfano of KWTO. Kevin Craig participated in this debate.

The second debate was unmoderated bickering over Billy Long's position on Social Security and whether or not the Democrats and Republicans will ever end their partisan bickering and deal with the issues raised in the first debate. Kevin Craig did not need to participate in this second debate.

Comments From: Candidates clash over campaigns, issues in 7th District debate Springfield News-Leader

wubby13 wrote:
Shame on you Newsleader, I am not a libertarian but there were 3 candidates last night. Your front page does a nice job of eliminating Craig as even a viable option. We are all sick and tired of the establishment and complain that Washington is full of politicians interested in themselves but when it comes down to voting or in this case simply having a debate, our minds are already made up! Our government is certainly a representation of ourselves! We sound like Scott and Billy arguing for the sake of arguing. Kevin Craig sounds like a candidate that I would want to represent me in Washington. Ive never heard of him but maybe thats a good thing! We already have a bunch of Scotts and Billys in Washington!
10/8/2010 6:51:48 AM

HasSense wrote:
Kevin Craig was the only one who answered all the questions and acted like an adult. The other two avoided certain questions, and instead argued with each other like two immature little boys. They are untrustworthy liars, we have enough people like that already! Kevin Craig was the only choice. At least he would consider our best interests and make mature decisions, instead playing politics and fighting like a whiny child. Vote for the only responsible adult who will treat us like adults and run this Country responsibly. Throwing a hissy fit should not make a person more “popular”, don’t vote for the “name” that you hear the most. Vote like an intelligent adult. We will be able to tell how intelligent the people of the seventh district are based on how they will vote. I hope the voters are not whiny brats that want someone like themselves to be their “babysitter.”
10/8/2010 7:29:28 AM

HasSense wrote:
If we get rid of the Republicrat labels, people might learn to think for themselves. They might start paying attention to how politics control their life and destroy this country. Why vote for the lesser of two evils when there is an intelligent third choice? Why would you vote for whiny, immature, control freak brats who avoid questions to lie about each other? Why not vote for the only one who answered the questions like an adult? Are people so brainwashed that they vote for the person throwing the biggest hissy fit, rather than thinking for themselves and voting for the one with intelligent answers? No wonder people in this Country are obsessed with celebrities who are whiny brats. Nobody pays attention to people who make inventions, scientific discoveries, or offer solutions to saving this Country. Only people who are brainwashed by mainstream media will vote for a whiny brat over the intelligent adult Kevin Craig. The other two argued when they were confused about the questions.
10/8/2010 8:04:24 AM

WallynSpfd wrote:
I will be voting for Mr. Craig, never have voted for a libertarian before but I'm sure going to this time. We don't need anymore like the Dems and Repubs have running. Mr. Long should have shed some real pounds before his campaign, sure would help his image, just seems to fortify his lack of the issues in my opinion.
10/8/2010 8:50:03 AM

concerned4756 wrote:
Folks... I have read all the comments thus far and thus far I have came to the conclusion that this was just like trying to watch the television from 4:00 p.m. till 6:30 with all the political "slam-bam-boom" going on. It all starts out with one candidate hammering on one candidate, then another candidate hammering on another one. NO ONE is honest or worth while to run for office. In reading the comments thus far in MY HUMBLE OPINION I go with Kevin Craig.
10/8/2010 9:34:58 AM

theredpen wrote:
Kevin Craig "won" the debate. He was honest, straightforward and had some of the best answers.
His claim about the Constitution being about "
enumerated powers" is simply false. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before it was decided that the Federal government had broad latitude under the Commerce, General Welfare and Necessary and Proper clauses. That's documented history. I also found it sadly ironic that Mr. Craig might end up dying from a recurrence of his colon cancer because of his conception of how health care should work.
That said, Eckersley and Long made themselves look silly with their bickering and sniping. Craig was clearly too classy to say this, but a perfect closing statement would have been, "You need a reason to vote for me? Look to my left. You have a choice between a fresh and honest approach to government, or more partisan bickering."
10/8/2010 10:09:59 AM

daffymart wrote:
If not for Kevin Craig, the debate would have been unwatchable.
Thank you, Mr.Craig. I wish I could vote for you, but I simply don't agree with your positions.
The candidate who chose to ignore the questions and launch into repeated personal attacks should apologize to the debate hosts, the public, and the other candidates. What you were saying was not necessarily wrong or incorrect, but your timing was inappropriate. I have never missed a vote in a congressional election, but I am considering not voting in this race. If you apologize, you might still have a shot with me.
10/8/2010 11:42:06 AM

paintedpine wrote:
I agree with Kevin Craig on his vehement anti-war position and I appreciated Scott stating that our fiscal responsibility is at home first-not bankrolling the never ending Mid East wars.
Billy Long's "whatever it takes" on Iran and nukes made me want to puke. Roll yourself out there first Billy, and our boys may or may not be behind you. Craig was spot on about real reasons why the US is hated in the Mid East.
When asked about personal healthcare insurance, "Billy Send this Business Man to Congress I'll Dismantle Obamacare" said he didn't know how much he pays for health insurance because his wife handles it.
This is his own company insurance. Couldn't this business man even venture a guess?
Billy obviously doesn't lose sleep worrying about affordable healthcare for Billy.
Billycare? Is he uninsured?
Then Kevin Craig states he has no health insurance, he has a history of colon cancer and is overdue for a colonoscopy.
And politicians like Billy could care less.
10/8/2010 12:33:45 PM

theredpen wrote:
Replying to trip5:
I see your point, but I think it's been forgotten that Long's been ducking Eckersley for so long, that when Eck finally had a clear shot, he had to take it.
That's probably true, but as someone who hasn't followed the campaign at that level of detail (and I'll bet I'm more informed than many who watched), Eckersley overplayed his hand and came off looking a little petty. He should have been better prepared for Long's obvious responses (is there anything Billy Long does that isn't painfully simple-minded?).
Overall, Eckersley came across as the most qualified candidate. Craig's contributions were refreshingly forthright and, in foreign policy, well-informed. Long doesn't seem to know anything about anything except "signing the front of a check." Great, just what we need in Washington: someone who knows how to sign checks but doesn't know how much he's paying (re: answer on his health care).
10/8/2010 2:04:07 PM

pawsclawsvet wrote:
Although, I don't agree with everything Kevin Craig said, he will be getting my vote now. Scott and Billy have very, very limited intelligence and both came off as encapable of being our representatives. I hope people will think about how limited both Scott & Billy are in our local arena and get out of their Democratic or Republican thinking and vote for Craig. I can't vote Republican this time around. It would be wrong. News-Leader, you do owe Craig some more attention. Please help us all out here and give him some paper time. Plain & Simple we cannot trust either Scott or Billy.
10/9/2010 12:38:21 PM

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Anti-War Liberals Can Vote Libertarian
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian

WASHINGTON - In the violent wake of President Obama's military surge in Afghanistan, and his failure to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, the Libertarian Party (LP) says anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian with a clear conscience.

Sadly, President Obama is spending an even larger percentage of America's money on the military than George W. Bush did. According to the tracking website, during the first two budget years of the Obama administration (FY 2010 and 2011), military spending is expected to be over 6 percent of GDP: a larger percentage of GDP than during any year of the Bush administration.

LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Anti-war liberals who thought President Obama and the Democrats would reduce military spending and American interventionism have been betrayed.

"Liberals have also been betrayed by Obama's unwillingness to reverse the serious civil liberties violations of the Bush administration. Obama has claimed the authority to kill American citizens overseas without indictment or trial. Even worse, he has claimed that 'state secrets' prevent his targets or their families from challenging him in court. Obama's expansion of the 'state secrets' claim is a page taken right out of the neoconservative playbook."

LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, "In many ways, the Obama administration is looking like four more years of George W. Bush. A vote for Libertarians sends a message for peace and respect for the Constitution."

Benedict continued, "It's important to remember that many congressional Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and many also voted for the War in Iraq. They tried to blame Bush later, even though they deserved just as much blame as Republicans."

The Libertarian National Committee has passed resolutions calling for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

On September 12, 2001, the day after the major terrorist attacks, two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne courageously spoke out against American interventionism. In his article he wrote, "When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?"

Benedict said, "The Libertarian Party doesn't have the resources to take the lead in organizing mass protests, but we like to join anti-war protests when we can find them. When George W. Bush was president, Democrats helped organize many anti-war protests. Now that Democrats are doing the war-making, protests are hard to find.

"I made an effort to express the Libertarian position at the One Nation March on October 2.

"The terrorists have tricked our government into massive overreaction, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a small number of America-hating fanatics. Many thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in the process. We have gotten bogged down trying to rebuild entire governments. Democrats and Republicans have both given in to this terrorist trickery. Libertarians, on the other hand, see through this trickery, and we would stop wasting lives and money on the disastrous policies of foreign interventionism."

Liberal vs. Conservative Support

There is a myth frequently repeated in the media that Libertarian candidates take votes from conservatives. In reality, the situation is mixed: many polls show that Libertarian candidates actually receive greater support from liberals.

In this Kansas poll, the Libertarian candidates received more support from liberals than conservatives.

This poll showed North Carolina Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler with more support from liberals than conservatives.

Hinkle said, "Libertarians have a lot in common with liberals. In fact, people with a libertarian philosophy often call themselves 'classical liberals,' in the sense of the word as it was used historically. Libertarians sometimes describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'

"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."

The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.


Related links from Kevin Craig's Platform:


The Warfare State

Respect for The Constitution

Imperialism vs. the "City on a Hill"

Defense Budget


Swords into Plowshares


The U.S./Islamic-Oil Connection

National Security



War Powers

U.S. Security Strategy


Foreign Intervention




What is the Libertarian Party?

For nearly five years, Kevin Craig consistently maintained a prayerful vigil for peace on Fridays during evening rush hour at the gates of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station in Southern California, along with other members and friends of "Isaiah House," the Orange County Catholic Worker.

Questions on Immigration - Audio

Cory de Vera at the Springfield News-Leader has been very generous in her coverage of my campaign. She's already interviewed me on education, and now is interviewing me on immigration.

I've posted my answers to her questions here:

Questions on Immigration

Back-to-back Debates

I just got home from a debate in Joplin hosted by KSNF/KODE TV. I thought it went pretty well. Here's a report:

Candidates Square Off in 7th Congressional District Debate in Joplin, MO -

The Joplin debate was taped and will be broadcast on Saturday in the Joplin area.

Tonight (Wednesday) is another debate, this one in Springfield, which will be broadcast live on KOLR-10, simulcast on KWTO. Here's a report on this second debate:

Live Congressional Debate Oct. 7 on KOLR10 -

Political debates are largely an exchange of slogans. Each of the topics in both debates (e.g., healthcare, immigration, jobs, social security, etc.) deserve an hour of thoughtful debate in order to remind victims of government educational malpractice what Free Market economics is all about.

I try to be educational, rather than just another political opponent.

Thanks for your support as I champion "Liberty Under God" throughout Southwest Missouri.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Friday, October 01, 2010

Biopharmeceutical Research

A candidate questionnaire from We Work For Health:

1. The Council for American Medical Innovation (CAMI) study found that the U.S. regulatory review system lacks consistency. As a member of Congress (if elected/re-elected), how would you strengthen the FDA to bring safe, innovative products to patients?

Abolish the FDA:

Abolish all other unnecessary and unconstitutional federal regulations:


Billions of dollars are diverted away from productive research and development by regulations which are basically a make-work program for regulators and bureaucrats.

2. Millions of US patients are hoping and waiting for new cures in this country. Research and Development is the key to that medical progress. If you are elected, how would you improve existing federal government economic incentives to encourage investment in medical innovation?

Abolish all corporate income taxes, and taxes on dividends and capital gains:

Tax credits or deductions for investment in biopharmaceutical research.

Abolish over $2 trillion in unconstitutional federal spending, to free up resources for genuinely productive research and development of products which consumers will voluntarily pay for.

3. Private-public partnerships between government organizations and industry have led to significant medical advances in this country. These partnerships are dependent on supportive technology transfer laws and reliable intellectual property protections. How will you protect intellectual property and encourage more public private partnerships?

The value of IP laws on development of new products is vastly overstated.

4. As education systems around the country take cuts to their science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs, America’s students are losing their competitive edge at these important subjects, which are a large part of the knowledge base for the highly skilled biopharmaceutical workforce. What will you do to ensure that the United States has a workforce prepared to continue to fuel medical innovation?

I believe in the separation of school and state.

An education-business partnership would be much more productive than the present education-government entanglement.

The majority of useful products are developed in business, rather than academia. Government-buttressed university research is bureaucratic, uncompetitive, inefficient, and reflects the wishes of special interests more than consumers.

The University is a medieval system which cannot withstand competition in a Free Market. Those who graduate from a university are not necessarily better equipped to compete in a global economy than those who rise through the ranks of business without a college degree:

5. Are there other challenges that the federal government can address to better secure the future of an industry that supports more than 3 million jobs throughout America and that holds promise for the future of millions of America’s patients and how would you address them as a member of Congress?

Abandon fascism and socialism, return to the Constitution, and allow a Free Market economy to raise the standard of living of all Americans and bring life-saving technology to the entire world.

More Homosexual Fascism

Indianapolis bakery could lose lease for turning away homosexuals - - The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)

Bakery displays morals, now faces eviction -

"Meanwhile, homosexual groups are circulating memos encouraging people to stop purchasing at Just Cookies. Clark's response to that is to ask residents to do business there in support of the owners and their wholesome beliefs."

Private action is one thing, government action is fascism.

See also: "Hate Crimes"