Friday, May 28, 2010
The United States has three holidays which honor those who chose war over peace: Veterans' Day (those who fought and lived); Memorial Day (those who fought and died) and Independence Day (those who took up arms to abolish their government). ("Armed Forces Day" is a runner-up.)
Shouldn't a Christian nation like America have a day to honor those who withstood the temptation to violence and vengeance and chose peace instead of choosing war?
"Choose war" -- what about those who were conscripted, as in the Vietnam conflict? They had no choice, right?
They had the power to refuse, even though they may have lost their status or even gone to jail. Jesus underwent worse forms of torture. Even those who are drafted have a choice, and can choose to "do violence to no man" (Luke 3:14), no matter what the penalties.
Cassius Clay converted to Islam and as Muhammad Ali said he would not fight in a "Christian war." Until the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision, Ali lost his right to work and faced 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine ($67,286.73 in 2010 dollars). He gave up the best years of his athletic career to make a point.
Would Jesus honor those who chose to fight (or did not choose not to fight)?
Didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Jesus never said "Bless and honor the warmakers."
It is appropriate to "weep with them that weep" (Romans 12:15). We should mourn the senseless loss of fathers, husbands, and sons, and -- perhaps more so -- mothers, wives, and daughters.
But every good human being -- and especially those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace -- should reject war and choose peace.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Jim Babka at DownsizeDC.org writes:
The news of Prohibition-caused violence south of the border is quite sobering . . .
* 22,700 have died in Mexico's War on Drugs since December, 2006
Mexico's drug war death toll climbs over 22,700 : News : KGBT 4
* Which is FOUR TIMES the number of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars since 2001
iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties
* More and more Mexicans are fleeing to America, NOT to "seek a better life" but because they fear for their lives
Fleeing Drug Violence, Mexicans Pour Into U.S. - NYTimes.com
* Violence is spreading to once-peaceful cities
In Mexico, Drug Wars Spread to Cities - International - The Atlantic
* Tourism is plummeting, and charitable missions to Mexico have been cancelled
Drugs are not tearing Mexico apart, drug prohibition is! As Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron notes:
"Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after."
Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence - CNN.com
But there is hope. Paul Armentano of NORML shows how we can defeat the drug lords. He notes that . . .
* Between 60 and 70 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market
* 28 percent of their profits are derived from the distribution of cocaine
How to End Mexico’s Deadly Drug War - The Freeman - Ideas On Liberty
If Congress repealed federal drug prohibition laws . . .
* the narcotics business would move from the black market, governed by violence, to the open market governed by the rule of law
* which means that drug users could start purchasing from legitimate businesses
* drugs would be regulated and taxed by the states in pharmacies and drug stores, not purchased on the streets and school grounds
* drug abusers could be treated for their addictions just as we successfully do with alcohol and cigarettes
* prison crowding would end, providing room to keep true social threats behind bars
* drug pushers and street gangs would see their profits disappear
* and drug lords from Mexico to Afghanistan would be crippled by financial losses
America has enough problems. The last thing we need is for the chaos in Mexico to spread here. End drug prohibition in America now, and the Mexican drug lords will suffer a fatal blow.
The federal government's Merida Initiative is a $1.6 billion program to "help" the Mexican government fight the drug cartels.
As we've seen, the results have been catastrophic. But Congress can help defeat the cartels and bring an end to this tragedy . . .
* without sending troops
* or more foreign "aid"
* while making your streets safer
* and saving the taxpayers tens of billions per year
Instead of supporting Mexico's militarization of the Drug War, we can bankrupt the cartels.
We can do this by embracing our most cherished national values, individual liberty and personal responsibility.
If we end drug prohibition, the cartels will lose their obscene black-market profits which they use to terrorize both Mexico and the United States.
If you want . . .
* peace and stability in Mexico,
* with lower crime and more freedom in the U.S.,
* then please tell Congress to end the War on Drugs.
Help End the Mexican Civil War - DownsizeDC.org
"But if we re-legalize drugs, won't millions of people become heroin addicts?"
Of course, nobody wants this.
Will it happen if we re-legalize drugs?
Did the end of Prohibition result in millions of new alcoholics?
Prohibition did not end alcoholism, and it created organized crime.
Conservatives should be the first to recognize that alcoholism and drug addiction are spiritual problems requiring a spiritual remedy, not a big-government remedy. Too many conservatives want to add federal troops on the border to supplement the federal agents in every public school classroom, who are destroying hope and meaning in the lives of children by removing religion and morality from classrooms which constitutionally belong to the parents.
Federal secularization of education is the real cause of the drug problem.
Federal monopolization of drug sales in the hands of organized crime is the real cause of drug profits, violent turf-wars, and the incentive to hook children.
We need the separation of school and state;
the separation of medicine and state,
and the separation of drugs and state.
I was asked to answer several policy questions. Here are the answers I submitted:
1) HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM WITH MEXICO? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ARIZONA LAW?
The "immigration problem" is actually a federal government problem.
Immigration is good. The federal government is not.
Immigration always raises the national standard of living.
The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III for restricting immigration.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration. It only provides that immigrants in Arizona would have the same requirements to become citizens as immigrants in California. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to build a fence or "secure the borders."
• Mexicans are endowed by our Creator with a right to travel, to work, and to live in America.
• Americans are endowed by their Creator with a right to hire Mexicans and make our businesses more competitive by lowering production costs.
• Consumers have a God-given right to benefit from lower prices.
All the problems experienced in Arizona in connection with immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.
• Government welfare lowers our national standard of living.
• Laws requiring drugs to be sold by criminals lower our standard of living.
• Laws requiring immigrant children to attend atheistic schools lower our standard of living.
2) HOW CAN THE CONGRESS PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOBS?
By getting out of the way of the Free Market.
Congress has no constitutional authority to try to "promote economic growth."
Congress can only impede economic growth.
If Congress shut down and went home, economic growth would begin.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to give a job to unskilled workers who cannot produce more than the minimum wage.
• Licensing laws make it illegal for consumers to hire the worker they want to employ, and stifle economic growth.
• Corporate taxes and regulation compete for the resources needed to create jobs.
3) WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO MAKE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE?
Get the federal government out of education.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to tinker with education. We need "the separation of school and state."
Education, like groceries, computers, and clothing, should be produced by the Free Market, not the government.
If parents want Christian schools, they should be able to choose them. If parents want schools that don't teach morality, they should be free to choose such schools.
Most parents want their children to be taught that God says "Thou shalt not steal." The federal government denies them their choice.
When our current Congressman, Roy Blunt, was first elected to Congress in 1996, the Republican National Platform promised to abolish the federal Department of Education. Not only did Republicans fail to do this (when they controlled all three branches of government), they doubled federal education spending from what it was under Bill Clinton.
4) EARMARKS… WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THEM AND WHY?
"Earmarks" is a red herring.
Every penny of Congressionally-appropriated funds should be earmarked.
But Congress should not appropriate funds for unconstitutional projects.
If Congress (including representatives from Missouri's neighboring states) passes an unconstitutional transportation bill, Missouri's representative has a duty to earmark the funds in a way that does the least harm to Missouri. Otherwise, the earmarking is done by the executive branch, which is even more unconstitutional, and serves political interests rather than the general welfare of Missouri.
I will vote against all unconstitutional spending, and to increase transparency will clearly earmark as many as possible of the funds unconstitutionally appropriated by Congress.
5) HEALTHCARE… WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE NOW THAT THE U-S HAS REFORMED HEALTH CARE?
The federal government has not reformed healthcare, but has further DEformed it.
All federal laws regulating health care should be repealed. They are unconstitutional.
States should "nullify" unconstitutional infringements of the Free Market by refusing to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
The Free Market gave us the best healthcare system in the world, until the goverment began meddling with it. More people get better quality healthcare under capitalism than under socialism.
6) DRILLING FOR OIL IN NATIONAL PARK LAND… AND HOW DO YOU PREVENT ANOTHER GULF OIL SLICK?
Congress has no constitutional authority to attempt to prevent oil slicks.
Oil slicks are best prevented by protecting private property and holding polluters liable for the damage they inflict on the private property of others.
Socialist governments have had a far more detrimental effect on the environment than capitalist businesses.
The federal government should stop subsidizing the oil industry and let a Free Market choose the clean energy it wants.
7) DISCUSS THE BALANCE BETWEEN PERSONAL PRIVACY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS VERSUS PROTECTION FROM TERRORISTS
For example- government monitoring email and cell phones / full body airport scanners / patriot act
Do we really have to choose between living in a Muslim state where women are forced to wear Burkas, or living in an Orwellian state where women can be seen naked by government airport screeners?
How about a nation of "Liberty Under God" where we enjoy the Fourth Amendment and the government does not invade and terrorize Muslim nations in order to pave the way for multinational oil pipelines?
Terrorism is "blowback" from unconstitutional U.S. foreign intervention.
The answer to terrorism is not more unconstitutional domestic intervention.
When Osama bin Laden declared a "fatwah" (holy war) on the U.S., he did so because the U.S. was killing Muslims. The U.S. should repent of its unconstitutional imperialism, even as Muslims should forgive the U.S. for its sinful acts, rather than take vengeance on us.
8) HOW CAN OUR GOVERNMENT REALISTICALLY CUT THE FEDERAL DEBT?
Cut federal spending.
Abolish unconstitutional programs.
Voters must stop demanding that the federal government steal from others and redistribute to the voters.
This isn't rocket science.
The National Debt is also increased by the ability of the Federal Reserve System to engage in the "monetization of debt." This is a fancy phrase meaning "create money out of thin air." The new money is created into the hands of borrowers, whether private or public. The Constitution says that no state shall "make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts." It is more difficult to create a gold debt than to create a paper debt.
We must abolish the Fed.
9) HOW CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY?
A Ponzi Scheme cannot be reformed.
It is an evil system, unethical and immoral.
If a private corporation administered its pension program the way the federal government administers Social Security, corporate officers would go to prison.
The Social Security system is Bernie Madoff on steroids.
Just like the last level of investors in a Ponzi Scheme are going to get ripped off, so an entire generation of Americans who expect Social Security benefits are going to lose. It is inevitable. Planning is better than denial.
Submitted links to my website don't appear on the KSPR website: kind of a cul-de-sac off the Information Superhighway.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Jacob Lawrence wrote:
> Mr. Craig,
> I am Jacob Lawrence, a 16 year old from Nixa.
Good to see someone your age interested in
politics. Are you homeschooled? [I just discovered
that he is.]
> As I search for information
> regarding the candidates for the 7th
> congressional district primary, I am
> unable to find straight question and answers.
My website is probably one of the largest
candidate websites on the internet, with
over 300 separate webpages on important
issues. In addition, I have over 600 blog
posts. I've never been accused of not
giving straight answers. :-)
> Because of this, I am emailing
> each of the you to ask a few questions.
> I would appreciate it if you had
> time to answer them.
> 1. As a Libertarian, how do your views
> differ from the other candidates?
Where to begin?
There are so many HUGE differences.
I am a Bible-believing Christian.
Therefore, I am a radical libertarian.
Jesus told His disciples that the kings
of the Gentiles love to be "archists"
(Mark 10:42-45). They love to rule --
to impose their will on others by
force. Jesus said Christians are NOT
to be archists. Christians are not to
initiate force in order to advance their
goals or to solve their problems --
personal or social.
My campaign theme is "Liberty Under God."
My Republican opponents will say that
by "liberty" I mean "anarchy."
My Democrat opponents will say that
by "Under God" I reveal an intention to
"impose a THEOCRACY on America."
Of course, central to my beliefs is that
coercion and compulsion are improper ways
of advancing "Liberty Under God." I do not
seek to "impose" my views on anyone.
However, I do in fact advocate "anarchy":
And I do in fact advocate "Theocracy":
Which is more "extreme": a nation of liberty,
or a nation under God?
Politics is a tug-of-war:
I am passionately pulling the political rope
toward "Liberty Under God."
By refusing to defend Christian Theocracy and
the "anarchy" of laissez-faire capitalism,
my opponents are either pulling the political
rope toward atheistic Obammunism, or they are
stuck in the mud in the middle of the two extremes.
Jesus condemned the lukewarm and the moderate.
If America's Founding Fathers were transported
through time to our day, I believe my opponents
would call them "radicals," "extremists," and
I believe if the Founders were here today,
they would take immediate steps to repeal
the Constitution they signed and abolish
the government it created, and make America
a libertarian Christian Theocracy:
I believe the current doctrine of "separation
of church and state" is a myth:
It is because I am a Christian that I am
for *liberty* from government compulsion.
The other candidates (as far as I can tell)
place a higher priority on *security* -- a gift
from a powerful, globe-encircling government --
than they do on liberty:
I believe I would get the vote of those who
participated in the original Boston Tea Party.
This is because I believe our government is
a tyranny -- a greater tyranny than the government
they overthrew in the American Revolution.
However, I myself would not have participated
in the original Boston Tea Party. I view
that event as an unChristian act of vandalism.
I also oppose the American Revolution, or
"War for Independence."
I am the only candidate who agrees with
America's Founding Fathers, that we have
a duty -- not just a right -- to *abolish*
our current government, because it is an
atheistic tyranny far more immoral than
the government denounced in the Declaration
I reject the violence of the musket and
the cannon that America's Founders approved.
I reject U.S. wars and imperialism:
I too used to believe that U.S. wars were
just wars, so I appreciate those members of
U.S. armed forces who have lost life and limb
in the unnecessary wars of our atheistic, fascist
government, but by their failure to oppose
these wars, they do not reflect the kind of
vision and leadership America needs for
the 21st century:
America's Founders would not vote for
any of the other candidates, based on
what I know of these candidates so far.
(Some do not yet have their campaign
> 2. How would you address the deficit?
There are only two ways to address (and
by this I assume you mean, "reduce")
1) spend less
2) tax more
I believe taxation is immoral:
No tax is a "fair" tax.
Therefore we must cut government spending.
I would start by abolishing all unconstitutional
government agencies. I would keep the solemn
promises that Republicans regularly make
-- and regularly break:
Another important way to reduce the deficit
is to hold Congress to the Constitution, which
prohibits anything but gold and silver from
being made a legal tender. James Madison,
the "Father of the Constitution," writing in
Federalist #44, spoke of "the pestilent
effects of paper money." Congress allows
the Federal Reserve to create trillions
of dollars out of thin air through a process
called "monetization of debt." Americans are
forced to pay interest on this Funny Money.
Madison correctly observed that this practice
destroys contracts ("the necessary confidence
between man and man,") "confidence in the public
councils ... the industry and morals of the
people, and ... the character of republican
government." The Federal Reserve and the creation
of "fiat money" must be abolished. Any candidate
who does not include this demand in his platform
is no friend of America.
> 3. How do you plan to bring jobs to district 7?
This question might reflect an enormous political
fallacy. I suspect it contains unconstitutional
and socialist thinking.
It is unconstitutional for Congress to even
*attempt* to "bring jobs" to any or all
congressional districts in any or all of
It is also impossible for Congress to succeed
in any such effort. Any action Congress undertakes
(which requires funding) depletes funds needed
to create jobs. Any funds Congress allocates to
"create jobs" creates fewer jobs than a Free Market
would create with the same funds. Congress does not
know which jobs Americans want created, or
where Americans want those jobs created.
Congress should therefore make no effort whatsoever
to "bring jobs" to the district. The States
should resist such efforts, such as Obama's
efforts to create "green" jobs, or to expand
health insurance coverage by compulsion:
Congress already destroys jobs, and should
repeal all legislation which adversely impacts
the creation of jobs by the Free Market:
> Thank you for your time and good luck!
Thanks for enquiring!
I see you've already endorsed another candidate.
It's very early in the campaign.
Make news by changing your endorsement!
Missouri should get credit for rejecting
the last 80 years of the two-party socialist
duopoly by sending America's first Libertarian
Libertarian Party Candidate
Missouri 7th District
U.S. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731
Monday, May 24, 2010
For Immediate Release: Monday, May 24, 2010
Contact: David Swanson email@example.com 202-329-7847
Forty-six congressional candidates and 17 activist organizations released a statement on Monday opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to sign on. The 46 candidates include 16 Libertarians, 15 Democrats, 14 Greens, 1 Independent, and thus far 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this). Forty-two are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and four for the Senate. They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending. But they all back this short statement:
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether. At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars. It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home."
The Coalition Against War Spending ( http://warisacrime.org/caws ) has posted online a variety of divergent statements -- in text and video -- from signers elaborating on their reasons for opposing war spending. A wide ideological spectrum finds consensus around opposing more spending to continue or escalate the current wars. The coalition is inviting any congressional candidate, incumbent or challenger, and any national organization to join.
This announcement comes just as Congress is set to vote on whether to spend another $33.5 billion in an off-the-books "emergency" supplemental spending bill to escalate a war in Afghanistan that polls show a majority of Americans opposes.
John Jay Myers, a Libertarian from Texas' 32nd District (Dallas) said simply: "There is nothing conservative about war."
Initial members of the Coalition Against War Spending (being added to at http://warisacrime.org/caws ) are:
Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives:
Nick Coons, AZ-05, Tempe/Scottsdale, Libertarian
Rebecca Schneider, AZ-06, Phoenix, Democrat
Carol Wolman, CA-01, northwest corner, Green
Clint Curtis CA-04, northeast corner, Democrat
Ben Emery CA-04, Nevada City, Green
Mark Williams, CA-12, San Carlos, Libertarian
Mary V. Larkin, CA-17, Monterey, Libertarian
Les Marsden, CA-19, Yosemite/Mariposa, Democrat
Randall Weissbuch, CA-26, Arcadia, Libertarian
Marcy Winograd, CA-36, Los Angeles, Democrat
William Hedrick, CA-44, Riverside/San Clemente, Democrat
Mike Paster, CA-49, Fallbrook, Libertarian
Tracy Emblem, CA-50, San Diego, Democrat
Michael Benoit, CA-52, San Diego, Libertarian
Gary Swing, CO-01, Denver, Green
G. Scott Deshefy, CT-02, New London, Green
Doug Tudor, FL-12, Riverview et al, Democrat
Marleine Bastien, FL-17, North Miami, Democrat
Regina Thomas, GA-12, Savannah, Democrat
Matt Reichel, IL-05, Chicago, Green
Bill Scheurer, IL-08, Lindenhurst, Green / Independent
Rodger Jennings, IL-12, Alton, Green
Doug Marks, IL-14, Carpentersville, Libertarian
Sheldon Schafer, IL-18, Peoria, Green
John Wayne Cunningham, IN-08, Terre Haute, Libertarian
James E. "Jim" Holbert, KY-05, London, Democrat
Peter White, MA-10, Cape Cod, Independent
Kevin Craig, MO-07, Springfield, Libertarian
Thomas Hill, NC-08, Fayetteville, Libertarian
Lon Cecil, NC-12, High Point, Libertarian
Jonathan Tasini, NY-15, New York City, Democrat
Emin Eddie Egriu, NY-28, Buffalo, Democrat
Ebert G. Beeman, PA-03, Lake Erie, Libertarian
Vernon Etzel, PA-05, Oil City, Libertarian
Ed Bortz, PA-14, Pittsburgh, Green
David Segal, RI-01, Democrat
Martin Nitschke, TX-23, El Paso to San Antonio, Libertarian
John Jay Myers, TX-32, Dallas, Libertarian
Claudia Wright, UT-02, Salt Lake City, Democrat
Ron Fisher, VA-08, Arlington, Independent Green/Progressive
Larry Kalb, WA-02, northwest corner, Democrat
Roy Olson, WA-09, Olympia, Green
Candidates for U.S. Senate:
Duane Roberts, CA, Green
John Finger, CO, Libertarian
Cecile Lawrence, NY, Green
Mel Packer, PA, Green
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
Consumers for Peace
The Democratic Activist
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Jobs for Afghans
Justice Through Music
Peace Majority Report
Progressive Democrats of America
Veterans For Peace
Voters For Peace
War Criminals Watch
Swords into Plowshares
Friday, May 21, 2010
Dr. Rand Paul --
There's nothing to debate about the Civil Rights Act -- this is 2010.
If you're asked about whether businesses have a right to segregate lunch counters, there's only one correct answer -- and that is, "No."
OFA State Director
In the context of this discussion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to say that businesses do not have a right to segregate is to say that if Prof. Walter Williams chooses to open up a restaurant that caters to black libertarians, and Prof. Williams chooses not to serve white fascists in his own restaurant, the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to send armed jack-booted thugs to Prof. Williams' restaurant and lock him in a federal prison with a psychopath to be sodomized. As George Washington is reported to have said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force." I believe racism must be overcome by reason, not force. This is the first reason I would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
The second reason is that I don't want to take the Lord's Name in vain, which I would do if I voted for the Civil Rights Act after taking a solemn oath to support the Constitution "so help me, God," when the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to dictate seating arrangements to restaurant owners.
Anyone who forms a judgment about the value of people based on the quantity of melanin in their epidermis should have all estimates of his I.Q. lowered a dozen points. Anyone who thinks government threats of violence make people more moral or intelligent should have all estimates of his I.Q. lowered two dozen points.
Update: "Civil Rights" and Total War - Pro Libertate: William Norman Grigg
In Defense of Bigots
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Suppose we assassinated Maurice Strong, George Soros, and all the other New World Order environmentalist financiers. Would the world be safe? Would the Constitution be restored?
There are lots of Strong/Soros wanna-be's waiting to move up. There are millions of Americans willing (if not eager) to carry out the orders of Bush, Obama, or any other puppet that the Soros/Strong crowd gets elected.
It is the masses, the millions, that are the real enemy, not Strong/Soros. Some will say ignorance is the enemy. Close, but no cigar. The real enemy is sin. The real enemy is the desire "to be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). The real enemy is the desire to be an "archist"; the desire to rule over others, imposing your will on the ignorant sheep using force or threats of violence.
Millions of Americans who get government jobs will never be as rich or as influential as Maurice Strong or George Soros. But they will feel better about themselves when they put on that new government uniform. And their self-esteem will get a shot in the arm when they exercise jurisdiction over you if you don't toe the environmentalist line charted by Strong/Soros.
Archism is the enemy.
Are you ready to be a coach or mentor to your archist neighbors or co-workers? Can you show them why archism leads to death? Or maybe you yourself are still an archist.
Find out here.
But when Caesar treads, the Bible counsels "submission," not vengeance and vandalism. Don't like the government tax on tea? Don't vandalize tea merchants who disagree. "Resist not evil."
Albert Einstein is usually credited with saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
We tried the Tea Party and the American Revolution already. What results are we expecting this time? We got out our muskets and shot the Red Coats, but now we have a much greater tyranny.
Imagine this example of insanity: the "Christian" "Hutaree" "Militia" staging an armed invasion of the Pentagon. Do they really expect success, or is this suicide mission just a publicity stunt?
"Futility" is thus a necessary component of "insanity."
What makes talk about a "Second American Revolution" so futile and insane?
James Ostrowski answers that question with another example of insanity:
History — Pickett’s Charge; The Charge of the Light Brigade – shows what happens when a smaller army attacks a larger army in a heavily fortified position. They lose!
The sad truth is, though we want to restore the spirit of the American Revolution, we are outnumbered by Red Coats!
The vast majority of Americans now support Red Coat government: an arrogant King in a big castle, with a large court, ruling by edict from a distant capital, endless wars across the ocean for a global empire, and heavy taxes to pay for those wars. And we are now embroiled in two land wars in Asia in countries that previously expelled the British! That’s why Rudyard Kipling wrote:
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that about ten percent of Americans are fed up and ready for radical change. That means that 90% are not. That’s a huge problem. Remember that at Lexington, when the government gun controllers and tax collectors came up the road, the men of the town greeted them with muskets ready to fire. Today, if we did that, most of the men of the town would side with the federales.
[Heck, in some towns most men (and women) are the federales, or have jobs working for the federales, or get welfare checks from the federales.]
Ladies and gentlemen, we are in 1770 again, when there was a small number of radicals who wanted independence but most people wanted to stay with England.
So the question is, how do we convince people to stop being Red Coats? Not: How do we load our muskets so we can shoot the Red Coats. Rather: How do we convince Americans not to become Red Coats -- to reject the tempting government job with a cushy civil service pension, getting paid to violate the privacy and confiscate the property of others -- and how do we convince Americans not to support Red Coats, whether here or in Afghanistan?
I believe this requires conversion: a new mind, and a new heart. Regeneration, not revolution.
But how will people adopt an ideal if they never hear the ideal presented (Romans 10:14)?
What is the ideal? What was the original "American Dream?"
The ideal is every American dwelling safely under his own Vine & Fig Tree.
The ideal is not "limited government." The ideal is not "a constitutional Republic." Those are simply suggested strategies for achieving or protecting the ideal, the Vine & Fig Tree society. History has now shown those political strategies to be failures.
It is insanity to keep trying them over and over.
Ultimately, these strategies are inconsistent with the ideal. "Limited government" means "limited confiscation of private property." It's like saying that every healthy body needs just a few malignant cancer cells. "Limited cancer."
If America's Founding Fathers were here today, they would show themselves to be true radicals and take immediate steps to repeal the Constitution and abolish the Red Coat government it ultimately created. The Revolution was fought for the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I believe America's Founders, who believed that God ordained civil government, could today be persuaded otherwise. True patriots -- radical patriots -- will have this same goal: Liberty Under God, not limited liberty under a Republican empire.
James Ostrowski has A 12-Point Plan for Direct Citizen Action which points in the right direction: true patriots must be mentors. True patriots must be educated, and then must take their education to their neighbors, and especially to those who work for the empire.
Are you preparing to be a Vine & Fig Tree mentor?
Saturday, May 08, 2010
1) Knowing his father smokes certain plant leaves
2) Knowing the police kill pets
From the description at YouTube.com:
This video shows a search warrant served by the Columbia Mo. police department. The cops bust in this guys house in the middle of the night and shoot his two dogs (one a pit bull that was caged in the kitchen and the other a Corgi) with children in the home. it turns out that rather than a big time drug dealer, this guy had a small pipe with some resin in it, a grinder, and what the cops here call "a small amount of marijuana" (meaning less than a few grams).
The War on Drugs is a war on children.
You reply, "Drugs hurt children."
Drug use is a symptom of prior child abuse by a hopeless, meaningless, impersonal, dehumanizing system of atheistic government schooling.
Monday, May 03, 2010
"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795.
I agree that we must abolish tyranny. It is not just our right, it is our duty. We must pray for a libertarian world, and take action to bring it about.
But when some "anti-government" types fly planes into an IRS building, we must do more than "weep." We must denounce this violence as a species of the very same violence we oppose in "the State." The State uses planes to drop bombs on the buildings of its opponents. The State drives its tanks into buildings it doesn't like. We are called to a higher moral standard than that of the State and its vengeance. We must win the hearts and minds of bureaucrats and politicians with sound arguments and irreproachable behavior, not threaten them or hurt them. They must repent of violence and follow the paths of peace.
"We the People" must do the same.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
--Thomas Jefferson: "On The Instructions Given To The First Delegation Of Virginia To Congress, In August, 1774." In his Memoirs.
Jefferson recounts how the Congress began:
The Legislature of Virginia happened to be in session, in Williamsburg, when news was received of the passage, by the British Parliament, of the Boston Port Bill, which was to take effect on the first day of June then ensuing. The House of Burgesses, thereupon, passed a resolution, recommending to their fellow citizens, that that day should be set apart for fasting and prayer to the Supreme Being, imploring him to avert the calamities then threatening us, and to give us one heart and one mind to oppose every invasion of our liberties. The next day, May the 20th, 1774, the Governor dissolved us. We immediately repaired to a room in the Raleigh tavern, about one hundred paces distant from the Capitol, formed ourselves into a meeting, Peyton Randolph in the chair, and came to resolutions, declaring, that an attack on one colony, to enforce arbitrary acts, ought to be considered as an attack on all, and to be opposed by the united wisdom of all. We, therefore, appointed a Committee of Correspondence, to address letters to the Speakers of the several Houses of Representatives of the colonies, proposing the appointment of deputies from each, to meet annually in a General Congress, to deliberate on their common interests, and on the measures to be pursued in common.
Would Jefferson recognize today's Congress as anything less tyrannical than the British Parliament?