Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Myth of "The Extra Mile"

According to Wikipedia, going "the extra mile"
refers to acts of service for others that go beyond what is required or expected. The expression probably comes from the Bible, when Jesus declares in his Sermon on the Mount, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (Matthew 5:41, (NASB))
But then Wikipedia accurately notes that:
The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres) -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg).
"Going the extra mile" is thus not a feel-good Hallmark Card. As Wikipedia used to note:
Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance God's kingdom through self-sacrifice.
We as Americans don't want to hear that last point. We don't want to "relinquish our rights." We don't like to hear anything about "self-sacrifice." Perhaps that's why the most recent edition of Wikipedia removed that last line and substituted this:
The editors of the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible have suggested that going the second mile would perhaps spare another from such compulsion.
In other words, "Don't ask ME to go the extra mile -- make my oppressors go the extra mile for me." Self-centered Americans. Wikipedia (and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible) thereby completely negates what Jesus was saying. Turns it upside down and backwards.

If you want an example of "oppression," imagine Jews in first-century Israel being subjected to military occupation by unclean pagans from Rome. Then imagine Americans having their one-party government of Democrats and Republicans replaced by members of ISIS.

Jesus said if a soldier putting your community under military occupation compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Are you ready for that?

Do you think the government will protect you from ISIS? Mitch McConnell is not going to grab a gun and personally protect your neighborhood from ISIS. He might conscript you to grab a gun and go protect someone else's neighborhood from ISIS. Will you obey the government and go fight ISIS? Will you be like the "zealots" and attempt to overthrow the military occupation of your "homeland?"

Or will you obey Jesus?

Why "National Defense" is Contrary to the Teachings of Christ

How to Become a Christian Anarchist

Sunday, November 09, 2014

Don't Vote -- Run!

Once again I was a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. Once again I did not vote. There are plenty of good reasons for not voting.

There is one good reason for voting: at least it's something. If you don't vote, how do you send a message to the incumbent(s) that it's time to leave the capitol and go home? Clearly, none of them are going to go home voluntarily. They'll keep committing acts of "government" even if they don't get the votes of a majority of their "constituents." If only one person votes for them, they'll still keep on levying taxes on everyone else and killing people all over the world.

If you didn't vote, I hope you at least sent an email and told the winner why you didn't vote. That's pretty easy. Maybe easier than voting. And maybe more effective. I believe America's Founding Fathers would do a whole lot more than just send an email if they could travel through time and see the size and intrusiveness of the government today. They would risk everything. The Declaration of Independence says we should "abolish" any government that becomes a "tyranny." That happened decades ago.

And it's not just a "right" to abolish tyranny, the Declaration says it is a "duty." So if you don't vote, how are you actively discharging that duty? (I don't believe you can passively discharge this duty.)

If you don't vote, please consider running in the next election, so that other non-voters might have someone to vote for. Run for anything. Over twelve thousand people took advantage of a chance to say NO to tyranny by voting for me.

Here are the results of the election. All in all, I did fairly well at the polls -- if you consider me a "real" candidate.

One out of every four people who voted in the previous midterm election (2010) did not go to the polls in 2014. In 2010, 6.2% voted for me, but in 2014, 7.678% voted for me, while both the Republican and Democrat candidates got a lower percentage of the vote than in 2010. I think I was the top vote-getter among Missouri Libertarian Party Congressional candidates (again).

But I've never considered myself to be a "real" candidate. I run for office to gain a soapbox. I run to educate, not to win. The biggest temptation is to try to be a "real" or "legitimate" candidate. After all, so many people won't even vote for the candidate who most closely represents the voter's own views if the candidate "can't win." I rationalize temptation by saying I can't educate without gaining "respectability." But can you speak the truth to government/media and still be "respectable?"

In 2014, I feel like I consistently failed to advance the heart and soul of my campaign* in media interviews. I allowed myself to be boxed in by their questions. Interviews go by so quickly. There's not much room for a thoughtful conversation with the mainstream media.

Don't get me wrong: the Press gave me fair coverage. They always treated the race as a genuine three-man race. I wasn't excluded from debates or anything like that. Nobody ever tried to paint me as an "extremist."

The problem is, I am an extremist! So I guess that means I wasn't a very good defender of "Liberty Under God," at least according to that webpage. I fear I chickened out too often.
* The "heart and soul" of my campaign is that we must abolish the government, for it has become a false god. That was the message of America's Founding Fathers. That's an "extremist" message.

When I first began to run for Congress back in 2002, I thought it would be a good soapbox to advance my agenda. I'm not sure anymore. Many Voters are both apathetic and boxed-in (not interested in "thinking outside the box"). Non-voters, ironically, are often more interested in the issues than those who vote. But the more you know, it seems, the more cynical you get. The people who are most likely to vote are those who have the least knowledge and interest in the real plight of America, and the real solution.

I probably need to attach less weight to the media and more weight to the individuals who were affected by my campaign if I'm going to avoid getting too depressed.

I still believe something is  better than nothing. But next time I run I'll be putting more into educating than being "respectable."

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Message for Democrats

Liberal, progressive, secular democrats don't have a candidate in this year's race for Missouri's 7th Congressional seat. Or so it seems. The Democrat in the race, Jim Evans, is a former Republican who is more conservative than Billy Long in some ways.

Jim Evans has taken time to write a thoughtful statement of his philosophy and policy prescriptions. It is with respect that I take time to read his platform and engage with it, providing links to my own philosophy and policies. I realize only a handful of voters are going to read Jim Evans' platform, and fewer will read my reply. But here it is anyway.

I try to make the point that progressives and conservatives share many of the same goals. In education, for example, we all want kids to grow up to be responsible adults. No progressive Democrat wants his own kid to be a disrespectful unemployable shoplifting drug user. I believe the Libertarian approach in my own platform is the best guarantee of the goals shared by conservatives and progressives, who disagree ferociously on the means to the end.

Democrat voters would be well-served to consider thoughtfully the possibility of breaking out of the two-party monopoly and voting Libertarian.

Contemplating these two competing platforms and following even a handful of the links I've provided is like going back to college and taking an entire political science class. America's Founders were willing to do at least that much, risking "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Welcome to Valley Forge.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Vine & Fig Tree

I just finished an interview with KSMU (National Public Radio), and as soon as it's available, I'll let you know on this blog. On Tuesday I spoke to a journalism class at the College of the Ozarks. In both cases I was able to remind listeners about the Vine & Fig Tree vision that made America the most prosperous and most admired nation in history. But in both cases the questions were oriented around the political campaign, and I find myself falling into the trap of talking like a legitimate political candidate rather than a wacko utopian extremist anarcho-pacifist. I'm not in the race because I have "hope" that I can win an election. I run to promote "wacko" ideas like these:

We've all been trained not to consider these ideas too seriously, if at all. I never get to (or feel constrained not to, or forget to) promote as much as I would like the extremist ideas I love. But maybe pretending to be more like a "mainstream" political candidate forces me to give a better introduction to these ideas, one that is a little less off-putting and extreme-sounding. I go back and forth on this question of strategy.

Here's a letter from the Journalism Professor at College of the Ozarks following my class interview:

Dear Mr. Craig,

Thank you so much for speaking to --and taking questions from-- our News Reporting class today.

It was a thought-provoking session, one that left our students with much to think over: what does it take to run for political office? why do people run for political office? how important -or dangerous- is political power? how much government is enough, or too much? what did the framers of our Constitution intend for our federal government to be - and to do?

And what did Thomas Jefferson envision for our nation when he said, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty"?

Your candid and thoughtful answers to our students' questions gave them a window on the political process - or at least the part of the process in which ideas are exchanged, explained, and debated.

Thank you for the gift of your time and thought. It is very much appreciated.

All the best to you --
My mother has been in the hospital the last two weeks, and this has allowed me to attend the League of Women Voters Forum, an interview with KWTO, and other campaign events. She returns home this weekend. That means I'll have to hire a qualified mommy-sitter to attend campaign events @ $130+ per day. At this time I have not yet raised enough money to pay my rent at the end of the month. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to "Vine & Fig Tree" which will help me pay the rent and hit "the campaign trail." There's a box at the top right corner of this blog, or you can save PayPal fees by mailing your check to

Vine & Fig Tree
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731

(Note: "Vine & Fig Tree" is separate from my political campaign and does not endorse political candidates. I have an obligation to the Libertarian Party to be a decent political candidate, but since I really have no realistic chance of winning, I am freely using the campaign process as a platform to advance the "Vine & Fig Tree" agenda. I can neither campaign as a candidate nor work for "Vine & Fig Tree" if the bills don't get paid. Contributions are "fungible," as we all know.)

Thank you for helping me do what I love to do.

"Under My Own Vine and Fig Tree, 1798" by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, Lora Robins Collection of Virginia Art, Virginia Historical Society
Under My Own Vine and Fig Tree, 1798
Jean Leon Gerome Ferris
Virginia Historical Society
Lora Robins Collection of Virginia Art

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

League of Women Voters Forum

The League of Women Voters has invited me to participate in their Candidate Forum on Tuesday night at the Plaster Student Union. I'm grateful to the League, as sometimes Libertarian candidates are excluded from these kinds of events.

On Wednesday I'll post their questions and my answers, with some links (of course).

Here are the questions that were asked of the candidates, with some links to details on my website. I prepared these answers in advance of the Forum, but answered more spontaneously live, so these are not exact transcripts of anything I said.

  • Please provide a summary in four minutes or less of why you are running to represent the 7th Congressional district, what your legislative priorities would be if elected and how you compare and contrast to the incumbent.
I am running to give voters who want government bound down with the chains of the Constitution someone to vote for. I am the only candidate in the race who can be depended on to stick faithfully to the oath of office and not exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution. My "legislative priorities" are to shrink government spending, beginning with the broken promises of the Republicans.
I am a Radical Libertarian
I am a Radical Christian
LP = Party of Liberty
Not all Libertarians are radical
Not all Libertarians are Christian
I'm with the LP because of, not in spite of, my being Christian
The biggest issue in 2016 will be whether Social Conservatives and Libertarians
     can join together and agree on a Presidential candidate who can
     defeat the Establishment Republican in the Primaries
     and defeat the Big Government Democrat in the General Election.
I am proof that the synthesis is possible.
LP Pledge: no initiation of force
Pacifist like Jesus commanded His followers

I am the Founder of a non-profit Christian ministry called Vine & Fig Tree          The V&FT vision | V&FT Home Page
V&FT: Every American in 1776 knew the Biblical allusion
             Americans today are utterly ignorant of the original American Dream.
"swords into plowshares" - anti-war, anti-compulsion, anti-coercion
My Campaign Theme is "Liberty Under God"
Liberty Under God is the Philosophy/Worldview that made America
            the most Prosperous and Admired nation in history.
Today: America is bankrupt and despised
"Liberty" = Freedom from the Initiation of Force
"Under God": The "Separation of Church and State" is a myth
       Separation of Government from "ecclesiastical bodies"
            Who can preach, baptize
            Taxing baptists to fund Presbyterians
       But not Separation of Government and God and His Laws.

Education is generally thought of as the solution to a number of pressing social and economic problems. Based on Representative Long’s voting record and public statements, he supports vouchers for school choice, and believes that the federal government should not be in the business of running schools. Instead he believes that state-funded vouchers should pay for privately-run education at private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, home-schooling, or whatever parents choose.
  • What are your views on public education? Do you believe the public school system should be privatized? Why or why not?
Education Is Very Important:
       Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
       in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Unconstitutional: Education is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Food is more important than education.
We trust parents to feed their children,
       without requiring them to send their children to
       Government Nutrition Centers to get meals.
We can trust parents to choose education programs for their children.
America's Founders would say Americans are
       Victims of educational malpractice       starving, suffering educational malnutrition

"Liberty Under God"/"Vine & Fig Tree" not taught in schools: Declaration of Independence
Religion/Morality relates to most other questions

Give parents choice: will choose
       Christian worldview
       work ethic
       respect adults

National Security:
Issues related to national security have been in the news quite a bit lately.
  • In terms of foreign policy, what do you think are the major threats to our national security?
  • What do you think is the strongest domestic threat to national security?
  • How would you address these issues if elected?
Not the greatest threat to the government
But the greatest threat to living securely under your own Vine & Fig Tree in Southwest MO?
The Greatest threat to this security is Washington D.C

Terrorists don't hate people of Springfield because we're free
     Terrorists hate the U.S. Federal Government because the
     U.S. Federal Gov't dropped a bomb on his cousin's wedding.
Osama told us why he attacked
U.S. Federal Government does not care about your security
     only the security of oil corporations
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’s emphasis] 
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
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) 
The U.S. Did not protect us from box-cutters.

TSA: no rational airline would treat passengers this way

U.S. =  Most dangerous and evil government on the planet.
   A couple of others might be more evil, but they are not more dangerous.

Currently, in the 7th Congressional district, nearly 18 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty level. Nearly 48% of single-mother families with children under 18 are living below the poverty line. Low wages are an issue in the district, even when considering the lower cost of living relative to the rest of the country.
  • If elected, what would you do to reduce poverty and improve opportunities for better-paying jobs in the 7th District?
Unconstitutional for Federal Government to engage in poverty relief/create jobs.

Poverty has been abolished: poor are rich vs. 300 years ago.
Poverty conquered by Free Market

Best thing gov't can do to reduce poverty:
            get out of the way of the creative energy of the Free Market
Single mothers: why hook up with an abusive, alcoholic man?
            this is a moral issue

Low Wages: Two things create high wages
**education** -- character, work-ethic, speak proper English, pants above crack
**capital** -- tractors, factories, computers, power tools,

Let parents choose schools which teach religion and morality.
Their children will enjoy high wages (if they want them).

Representative Long has been very outspoken in his opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Between Jan, 2011 and Dec. 2013, he voted to repeal the ACA, in whole or part, at least nine times.
  • Do you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act? Why?
Obamacare should be abolished
Libertarians believe in the separation of medicine and state.
Republicans may possibly repeal Obamacare, but they will then replace it with Romneycare, or some other Republican version of socialized medicine.
Federal involvement in health is Unconstitutional (outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution)
Abolish government Licensing: We don't always need a doctor; a practitioner or nutritionist may suffice
Obamacare = gift to Big Insurance/Big Pharma
      NOT about your health

If Government requires Milk or gas to be sold for 50¢ / gal., what would happen?
Long lines
Death in Britain/Canada as people wait for "free" government health care to be rationed out.

Social Issues:
As you know, the issue of sexual assault in the military and on college campuses has received a lot of media attention recently. In February, 2013, Representative Long voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act that was passed in 1994 and meant to provide resources to improve the criminal justice response to violence against women and ensuring victims of sexual assault and their families have access to services and safety needed to rebuild their lives.
  • Would you vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act if elected? Why or why not?
Domestic Violence is not a Federal Issue

Resolve disputes at lowest level.

Women oppose this law.
The problem is overstated.

Women who have regrets the morning after
     use this law as a sword rather than a shield
     "Gov't Violence Against Men Act."

Imposes Feminist Ideology

Ignores root issue
religion, morality, virtue, character
Why are so many men abusive?
Why do so many women allow themselves to be used
     without requiring a commitment to marriage?
Our Constitution (our system of limited government) is designed only for a moral and religious people. We can't stop all evidences of social breakdown by increasing the size of government coercion. The answer to big government is religion and morality. The path to radical libertarianism is "Theocracy."

Women’s health and family planning issues generate lots of emotion and are commonly used as divisive issues during election cycles. Long has co-sponsored legislation including the Pro-Life Act prohibiting abortion information at school health centers, the Sanctity of Human Life Act that states that life and human rights begin at fertilization or cloning and Title X abortion provider Prohibition Act that prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity if they perform abortions.
  • What actions need to be taken in order to increase access to family planning and women’s healthcare services?
Abortion is murder
It is not "a woman's body" -- it is another woman's body. (or a man's)
A baby conceived today will likely live into the 22nd century.A mother could terminate that future for the sake of a few months of personal inconvenience.
The "Sanctity of Human Life Act" is valid, but doesn't save a single baby's life.
Ron Paul regularly sponsored a bill that would have reversed Roe v. Wade, ending federal overruling of state abortion laws,
          but Republicans regularly opposed it.
Billy Long voted to appropriate funds to Planned Parenthood.

As you may be aware, levels of economic inequality have been rapidly increasing and are now at the highest level since 1928, the year before the Great Depression. The top one percent of families now control nearly 40% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 90% control 25.6% of the nation’s wealth.
  • Do you see increasing income and wealth gaps in the U.S. as a problem? If you do see them as a problem what would you do to address the issue if elected?
Inequality is not a problem.Envy is the problem
We were all equal 500 years ago. Equally poor. Except for the king.
Today: Inequal but advanced, civilized,
    wealthy beyond imagination
    we are all richer than those kings, even though some are richer than others.
I would rather be the poorest member of a rich society
       than "equal" to other members of a poor undeveloped society.
The question is not whether Jones is richer than we are, but
       How he got to be richer than the rest.
Serving consumers and being rewarded by them is not a problem
      it's a benefit for consumers.
Using Force or Fraud is a problem

Bush Bailout - $3,000 taken from every man, woman, and small child in America
      and transferred to Wall St. Barons.
Inflation = fraudulent transfer from savers to borrowers.

envy = bad health,
laws based on envy = poverty

Representative Long sponsored the Superfund Common Sense Act that amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 to exclude manure from the definition of “hazardous substance” and “pollutant or contaminant” for purposes of such Act.
  • Would you have voted on this amendment? Why or why not?
Federal laws on manure are unconstitutional
Manure is natural
It is only a problem when there is a concentration of big agri-business
Gov't Agriculture subsidies go to rich
Centralized government favors Concentration over decentralizationEPA targets families
Big corporations use lawyers, lobbyists to evade regulations

Resolve disputes locally, competing DRO's

Approximately 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that humans have contributed, at least in part, to climate change. Do you believe that the scientific evidence supporting global warming is accurate, or do you believe it is a hoax?
  • If you do believe the scientific evidence, what, if anything, can be done to address the issue?
Apparently nothing can be done:  Name one proposal that would significantly reduce warming.
There has been no warming for 17 years.
The 97% figure is misleading.
Many scientists reject "the consensus." Oregon Petition. | Heartland Institute.
The cost of cutting CO2 emissions by reducing energy use can cost millions of jobs, potentially millions of lives.
The benefit of doing so is what: avoiding bad weather?
The "Greenhouse Effect" might actually be good for everyone.
      Plants thrive on CO2 - increased productivity could end human hunger.
But this may be the heart of the problem: many environmentalists hate human beings.
They regard human beings as a "cancer," a "virus," and believe the planet would be better without any human beings
The Toxicity of Environmentalism

According to a statement on Representative Long’s website, he supports researching “clean coal,” offshore drilling, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to produce more energy domestically and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. According to his statements, he opposes a tax on carbon, and has signed a pledge to not support such a tax. He also voted to repeal weatherization assistance for low-income persons, and opposes EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.
  • Should the U.S. be limiting federal regulations of air pollutants and investing more resources in fossil fuel extraction, or should we be focusing more on regulation of pollutants, and investing in sustainable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectricity?
There is enough oil and natural gas in Alaska to provide all U.S. energy needs for over a century
But there are better forms of energy on the horizon.
Government "investments" are bad for everyone (except the corporation that receives the taxpayer subsidy, like Solyndra)
They are almost a mark of mental illness.

Kevin Craig is on a train that leads to "Liberty Under God."
You may favor smaller government, but not want to go all the way to "anarcho-capitalism."
Vote for "Liberty Under God," then write a letter to Billy Long and your favorite media (newspaper, blogs, social media, radio) explaining that you like the direction of Kevin Craig's train (smaller government) but you don't want to go as far as he does. But at least he's going in the right direction: Billy Long and the Republicans (and Democrats) are going in the wrong direction.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Constitution Day: Celebrating Dead Meat

Today is Constitution Day. On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. So West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd slipped an amendment into the Omnibus spending bill of 2004 designating September 17 as "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day."

If that weren't questionable enough, in 2005, Byrd inserted Section 111 in Public Law 108-447, An Act Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, otherwise known as "the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.” This Act requires all publicly funded educational institutions to provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day, thus making "Constitution Day" entirely unconstitutional, as Nelson Lund and the Heritage Foundation noted back in 2006.

It has been reported that Byrd carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket every day of his public life,

Every single person who signed the Constitution would agree that the Constitution is dead meat. No knowledgeable or rational person believes that the United States is governed by the Constitution in any meaningful way. Consider these three examples:

1. Separation of Powers. James Madison, known as "the Father of the Constitution," said that any government or branch of government which makes laws, enforces those laws, and adjudicates disputes about those laws, is “the very essence of tyranny.” Congress passes only a couple of hundred bills each session; most are meaningless (awards, namings, designations, etc.) and the rest unread. (Nobody read the Patriot Act. Nobody reads Omnibus Spending bills.) The real work of lawmaking is performed by "Administrative Agencies," who add tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register. Theses agencies then enforce their own legislation, and if you don't like it, you can tell it to the judge -- in an administrative court. Political scientists like Peter B. McCutchen quietly admit that we are not a "Constitutional Republic" any longer, but a "second best" system: an "Administrative State" (Mistakes, Precedent, and the Rise of the Administrative State: Toward a Constitutional Theory of the Second Best, 80 Cornell Law Review 1 (1994). The Constitution, with its vaunted "separation of powers," is dead meat.

2. Enumerated PowersChief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), exhorted us to
Start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)."
If "We the People" in the words of the Constitution did not give the Federal Government power over education (for example), then the Federal Government has no power over education. (Which is why a federally-mandated "Constitution Day" curriculum is "unconstitutional.") Back in 1996, the Republican Party carried a copy of the Constitution in its pocket, and in its National Platform promised the following:
As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of CommerceHousing and Urban DevelopmentEducation, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.
These promises were consistent with the idea that the Constitution created a government of "enumerated powers." But the Republicans not only reneged on their promises to abolish these unconstitutional bureaucracies, Republicans doubled Clinton's budget for the unconstitutional Department of Education, and increased funding for all those other unconstitutional cancers in the Body Politic. Even though during six years of the Bush Administration, Republicans controlled all three branches of government. They could have done anything they wanted. Now we know what they really want.

3. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended. And the Amendments that matter have been kicked to the curb. I've described the assault here. Constitutional scholar John W. Whitehead has updated this here.

I repeat: no knowledgeable or rational person believes that the United States is governed by the Constitution in any meaningful way. No knowledgeable or rational person should believe the promises of politicians who swear an oath to heaven to "support the Constitution," "so help me, God."

During my lifetime, the federal government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world. The federal government is dangerous, and not to be trusted.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Ferguson, MO and the Myth of "The Separation of Church and State"

When I was a kid, I never walked in the middle of the street. Doing so was daring and disrespectful. You walk on the sidewalks. Follow the rules. (Yup, I've always been pretty conservative.)

No surprise, then, when the police approach Michael Brown, who's walking down the middle of a street in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe an earlier car tried to get by, and couldn't get around Brown and his friend, so the driver called the police. At this point, I don't know.

Brown's friend says the officer yelled "Get the f**k on the sidewalk!!"

I wish I couldn't believe that report, but I've seen too many videos of police with foul mouths.

"You have to get tough on crime," some will say.

Did it work? Did Brown get out of the street? Does a vulgar show of force create respect for the force?

I don't think so.

Call me "soft on crime."

Since at least the end of World War II, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," has been quoted as saying:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
In other words, the American way is not to militarize the police to "get tough on crime."

While contemplating the violent upheavals of the French Revolution, John Adams expressed the same thought:
While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
George Washington, in one of the most famous addresses in American history, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Both Michael Brown and the police are the products of America's secular government schools. And "public felicity" is on the decline.

America was built on the belief that "Religion [and] morality [are] necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." The modern myth of the "separation of church and state" has little to do with the separation of "ecclesiastical bodies" (as Madison called them) and government, and everything to do with the separation of God and Government.
The separation of religion and police.
The separation of morality and Michael Brown.

Would the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum have prevented the violence in Ferguson? Surprising answer here.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Bojidar Marinov on the Immigration "Crisis"

Immigration and The Sabbath (Session 1) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the first lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

History of the Immigration Laws in the U.S. and the West (Session 2) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the second lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

Logical and Theological Analysis of the Anti-Immigration Ideology of Modern Conservatives (Session 3) by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the third lecture in a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

Immigration Conference Q&A by Bojidar Marinov
July 12th, 2014 · Download MP3 - This is the Q&A session following a series of 3 lectures that Bojidar Marinov gave at Church Of The King about the recent border immigration issue in America.

Sermons - Radio Spots - Church of the King - Faith of our Fathers

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Pacifism, Preterism and the Pentagon

I mentioned Harvard Professor Steven Pinker a couple of years ago. Pinker says the world is getting less violent. That comes as a surprise to most people, especially those who listen to the government-approved "Mainstream Media." We've all been trained -- especially in evangelical churches -- to believe that the world is getting worse and worse (not "better and better").

But Pinker is right. He has the numbers.
…the number of war battlefield deaths has dropped by a factor of 1,000, falling from 500 per 100,000 in prehistoric times, to 60-70 in the 19th and 20th century (notwithstanding epic wars) to… less than one such death per 300,000 now in the 21st. Genocide deaths have dropped by well over a factor of 1000 from 1942 to 2008.
He is wrong about the cause. Pinker says peace is caused by atheism ("secularism," "rationalism).

The real cause is The Great Commission and the spread of the religion of "The Prince of Peace" from 12 weak-kneed disciples to over a billion people around the world. The angels told the Christmas shepherds that the newborn Messiah was bringing "Peace on Earth."

The Bible commands us to beat our "swords into plowshares." Christians teach forgiveness and love of enemies. Imperfectly, granted. But cumulatively, the result is spectacular: nothing less than Western Civilization itself.

"Pacifism" (that is, taking the Prince of Peace "literally") is the foundation of civilization. Governments ignore the Prince of Peace, but today most people practice patience and forgiveness in their daily lives (family, business) rather than follow the politicians in beating the drums of war and bombing their enemies "back to the stone age."

The errant eschatology known as "Dispensational Premillennialism" has been predicting the End of The World for decades, and increasingly since 1948 (the humanistic formation of the non-Messianic political state of Israel). The Rapture eschatology is now nearly completely discredited. "Futurism" is rapidly being replaced by "Preterism." We should not be hoping for Armageddon as the doorway to world peace. Premillennialism is a theology of war succeeded by a police state.

The Christian must proclaim: "We Don't Need War."

Combine that with Randolph Bourne's observation that "War is the health of the State," and you have a paradigm-shifting combination that leads to peace and radically smaller government.

Here's a new article that expands upon that idea:

Ron Paul, Rand Paul Defy What Keeps Big Government Big

This is a tremendous article. Click that link and read it now.

A holistic Christian worldview will eventually discard "premillennialism" and the Pentagon and embrace both "postmillennialism" and "swords into plowshares."

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Pacifism and Civilization

Imagine you and I are playing billiards.

I whup ya.

You get angry.

In the heat of passion, you pick up a cue stick and announce your intention to skewer my heart. Everyone gasps in horror, as "the reasonable man" apprehends an imminent threat of bodily harm. As you aim the stick at my chest, I grab the stainless steel lid from a nearby garbage can, and use it as a shield. You thrust the cue at me, hitting my lid-shield, and your cue splinters into toothpicks. I am unharmed.

This is "self-defense."

No pacifist I've ever met is against "self-defense."

Now imagine your horror as I pick up the garbage can lid and stuff it into your mouth till you look like a Ubangi savage.

Is this "self-defense?"

No, I am no longer defending myself. I am taking vengeance. Your attack is over.

Pacifists oppose what is often loosely called "self-defense."

Most of what is called "self-defense" is a really vengeance for a previous attack, or is aggression intended to "deter" some hypothetical future attack.

Now imagine the opposite case. You whup me, I get angry, and I take the garbage can lid and whack your cue into splinters. We're looking at the same result -- your cue is broken by my shield -- but in one case the contact between your cue and my shield is "self-defense," but in the second case it is an offense, a tort and a crime, and I owe you a new cue stick.

My behavior is "uncivilized."

Jesus commands His followers to be "pacifists."

That doesn't rule out fleeing or the use of shields, but it does rule out vengeance, revolution (such as the one that began on July 4, 1776)  and "national defense."
Our lives -- and civilization -- will not be adversely affected by China taking down the Stars and Stripes and running the Chinese flag up every flagpole in America. If China takes over the U.S., we'll hardly notice. It isn't worth killing millions of Chinese people to prevent. Civilization will be protected and advanced by missionaries, not the Marines.

If we follow the pacifist Christ, we can have "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." We have no feeling of security, because we are no longer a Christian nation.

“Pacifism” as taught by Christ is the foundation of civilization.

Ancient empires were violent to the core.
Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
It is only with the Advent of Christ that governments began to be civilized (eventually to be eliminated).

Pacifism leads to anarcho-capitalism.

Biblical laws against murder and vengeance, and commands to forgive, love enemies, be patient, and serve enemies by laboring for their personal benefit, are at the heart of what we call "western civilization."
Acts of love practiced by billions of people are more important than acts of "government" committed by hundreds of people. In the U.S., these people are the source of crime, as they prohibit public schools from teaching students that God says "Thou shalt not kill." Their power is corrupting, not only of themselves, but of all of us. Those people and their "mainstream media" want to direct our focus to their actions, their laws, their decrees, their judicial opinions, their regulations, their inspectors, agents, officers, and soldiers, and we are instructed to view them as the guardians of civilization -- "the thin blue line" -- but they are not. Civilized behavior is pacifist behavior.

Someday I'll rewrite this page and highlight the significance of pacifist behavior vs. the warlike behavior of the State. It is the essential lesson of history.

It is pacifism that nurtures and protects civilization.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Passport Through Darkness

Here is an extraordinary interview by Janet Parshall with an extraordinary woman, Kimberly Smith:

In the Market with Janet Parshall - Listen

The solution to war, genocide, human trafficking, and terrorism, in far-away places like Darfur, is not the U.S. military, despite what you may have heard the last few days over Memorial Day weekend.

The answer is Christian missionaries.

The Spirit of God gives ordinary people far more courage than any boot-camp created by the atheistic Pentagon. Missionaries are willing to face unarmed the entire spectrum of corrupt government thugs, armies, international terrorists, and organized crime -- without infantry or "air support."

The U.S. Federal Government -- a pawn of banks and global corporations -- is more interested in protecting oil reserves in the Sudan than the lives of children.

Discussion of Darfur begins 30 minutes or so into the interview, suggesting to me that the nurturing of indigenous missionaries in uncivilized lands is far more important than raising the U.S. flag over Iwo Jima.

Notice also how Dr. Milton R Smith exercises patriarchal headship over his submissive wife using principles he doubtless learned from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The foreign policy implications of this interview are staggering. And if the theory of Six Degrees of Separation is true, there is a child in your neighborhood whose life has been fractured by the darkness in the African continent, probably because the U.S. government placed obstacles in the way of Christian missionaries.

The U.S. is no longer a City upon a Hill. Government officials have lost the vision of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," who, in one of his most famous works, said legislators should vote against any legislation if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
The Gospel changes lives and brings "Liberty -- under God." Christian missionaries plant the seeds of civilization and see them to harvest.

Please visit the Make Way Partners website for more information, or visit Kimberly's blog.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

In God We Trust?

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (just below the Supreme Court of the U.S.) has just ruled that "In God We Trust" is OK on our Mammon.


The Alliance Defending Freedom is pleased.


I'm not.

The Court followed numerous previous Federal District Courts and Appellate Courts which held that the word "GOD" cannot possibly offend atheists because the word is "secular" and "patriotic" and has "no theological . . . impact." In other words, atheists, chill out; its just a bunch of people taking the Lord's Name in vain.


The Second Circuit also followed a number of Supreme Court Justices who have noted that our nation's God-language is “a form [of] ‘ceremonial deism,’ protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because [it has] lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

“Ceremonial Deism?”

Back in 1844, when the word "God" had theological and religious meaning, and when the Supreme Court acknowledged that America was a Christian, rather than a "secular" (atheistic) nation, the Supreme Court declared that "deism" was a form of "infidelity" (which, if you went to government schools, means "faithlessness" [from the Latin fides, faith]). Back then, the Court said that government promotion of deism "is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country."

Monday, May 26, 2014

In Praise of Muhammad Ali on "Memorial Day"

“I was in prison and you came to Me.”
Matthew 25:36

In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States unambiguously declared that America was "a Christian nation." That decision was thrown out on its ear a few decades later as the 20th century saw the United States become a "secular" nation.

The 1892 case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, involved a church which hired a pastor from Great Britain, but was told by an officious immigration bureaucrat that the hiring violated a federal law which, the Court pointed out, was actually designed to prohibit importation of boatloads of Chinese to work on U.S. railroads.

The 20th century case involved a Canadian who wanted to teach at the Yale Divinity School, clearly parallel to the Holy Trinity case. But the Canadian was a Christian who followed the example of the Apostles, who said "We must obey God rather than man." The Canadian respondent, Douglas Clyde Macintosh, refused to promise to bear arms on behalf of the U.S. government if he thought the war was unjust. The Supreme Court ruled that Macintosh could not become a naturalized American citizen because his allegiance to God transcended the allegiance he was willing to give to the U.S. government. The Court said he must render "unqualified allegiance" to the government.

"Unqualified" means you cannot say, "Sure, I'll obey government laws . . . unless they require me to disobey God."

Any government that puts its own laws ahead of God's Law is a government that thinks it  is  God.

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. ($70,979.64 in 2014 dollars)

The Vietnam War was not a "Christian war." No war in the history of the United States can justly be called a "Christian War."

Not even "the good war," World War II. Although he promised to keep us out of foreign wars, Roosevelt, led by Communists in the White House, took the United States into war in order to defeat the forces of anti-communism. In Eastern Europe and the Far East, atheistic communists were the clear winners of World War II and the beneficiaries of the foreign policy of the atheistic ("secular") United States.

Since I was born (post-WWII), the government of the United States has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians. But why blame "the government?" The killing and destruction of trillions of dollars of property was committed largely by church-going "Christians."

No. Any Christian who willingly kills or dies for an atheistic government should be excommunicated. Better to be in prison with "the least of these" than to kill "the least of these" in an unChristian war. Better to be in prison for 5 years than leave your wife a permanent widow and your children fatherless. The fact that churches don't excommunicate soldiers explains why most Christians lack the discernment and knowledge of the facts to make the right decision. Church-goers are not taught to put God ahead of government, and peace ahead of the military-industrial complex.

In a letter to François Jean de Beauvoir, Marquis de Chastellux, April/May, 1788, George Washington wrote:
for the sake of humanity it is devoutly to be wished, that the manly employment of agriculture and the humanizing benefits of commerce, would supersede the waste of war and the rage of conquest; that the swords might be turned into plough-shares, the spears into pruning hooks, and, as the Scripture expresses it, "the nations learn war no more." 
 "The Father of his Country" was not 100% consistent with the teachings of Scripture. But he would be appalled at what his country has become. We must not only "learn war no more," we must study peace.

George Washington Coaching - Homeschooling for Adults

Thursday, May 08, 2014

The Myth of "The Rule of Law"

Tom Woods recently interviewed Professor John Hasnas of Georgetown University on the subject of The Myth of the Rule of Law.

Hasnas says the rule of law is a myth perpetrated by governments to make their populations more compliant.

Read his articles "The Myth of the Rule of Law," "The Depoliticization of Law," and "The Obviousness of Anarchy."

Good excuse to collect some of my own related webpages:

The Rule of Law

Why Rush Limbaugh's Brother is Wrong About the "Rule of Law"

Why Neal Boortz is Wrong About the "Rule of Law"

IRS and the Rule of Law

Tobacco and the Rule of Law

Monday, March 31, 2014

Entrepreneurs Beat Regulators

Michael Lewis has written a book entitled Flash Boys which exposes the shady world of "Dark Pools" which capitalize on inefficiencies in market trading down to the level of milliseconds -- where a stock can experience about 500 quote changes and about 150 trades in the time it takes a single pixel on a high-end TV to change color, or one beat of a tsetse fly's wings. Large stock trading institutions could be ripping off smaller traders to the tune of $160 million a day,  Lewis says in an adaptation of his book in the New York Times Magazine.

If you think government regulators can compete with high-speed Wall St. sharks, fuggitaboutit. International Business Times reports,
the regulators don’t seem prepared to handle or to even understand the nature of the risk – “it’s over their heads,” says one former bank executive. “They have no idea what is really happening.”
Once a bureaucrat gets sharp enough to figure out what's going on, the regulator knows there's more money to be made in the market than in civil service.

Lewis tells the amazing story of how a geeky entrepreneur with an ethical sense of fairness (Brad Katsuyama) figures out how the big boys are trading, and actually creates his own stock exchange, which now competes with the majors, saving smaller traders billions of dollars. 

The Free Market regulates itself better than the government does.

Don't ask me for stock tips. I'm willing to admit I don't know what I'm talking about. The problem is, government regulators and politicians are not.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Jeffrey Tucker: DO's and DON'Ts for Talking Liberty

Our lives are great when we make them so, not because a bureaucrat has somehow intervened to improve our lot. The myth that government is somehow supporting or sustaining civilization is an embedded part of our civic culture, but it is a myth easily refuted by daily experience. Monitoring what we do day-to-day, we discover that it is actually private enterprise that we depend on for all the comforts and excitements of life.
This is an inspiring realization. The notion that government is necessary is a very negative commentary on the capacity of people to manage their own affairs. Once you see the anarchy all around us, you realize that humanity is bursting with creativity, energy, the desire to get along, the impulse to fix problems, and the passion to value others and be valued ourselves. Government has only one power in the end, and that is the power to stall and thwart this constructive process with force. If by doing so it prohibits peaceful behavior, it normally diminishes the quality of life for all of us.

Jeffrey Tucker: Do's and Don'ts for Talking Liberty, p.19