tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242735152024-03-12T21:43:07.308-05:00Kevin Craig for CongressLibertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, Missouri's 7th District — Promoting "Liberty Under God."Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.comBlogger878125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-6787681304835940732022-07-25T00:56:00.000-05:002022-07-25T00:56:46.635-05:00Jumping into the 2022 CampaignOnce again, I've filed my papers and I'm now the <a href="https://kevincraig.us/libertarian.htm" target="_blank">Libertarian Party</a> candidate in the race for Missouri's 7th Congressional District -- the seat currently occupied by Billy Long.<br />
<br />I previously ran in 2020, and in just about every previous election going back to 2002.<br />
<br />
The government's response to coronavirus prevented any meaningful campaigning in 2020. No crowded Candidate Forums and S.R.O. Town Hall meetings. <br /><br />My campaign theme is "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/liberty.htm" target="_blank">LIBERTY UNDER GOD</a>." Sounds conventional. It's not.<br /><br />Everyone knows I won't win the election. <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691138732/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter" target="_blank">Voters are not rational</a>. Voters are <a href="https://kevincraig.us/education.htm" target="_blank">victims of educational malpractice</a> at the hands of a socialist school system. <br /><div><br /></div><div>This month America celebrated "Independence Day" on the 4th of July. Many voters believe that on "Independence Day" we celebrate the freeing of the slaves. If the men who signed the Declaration of Independence could travel through time from 1776 to 2022, they would be appalled, then outraged. The Declaration says we have a duty -- not just a "right," but a <i><b>duty </b></i>-- to abolish any government that becomes a <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/tyranny.htm" target="_blank">tyranny</a>. What would America's Founders think about a government that <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/schools.htm" target="_blank">prohibits local public school teachers</a> from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence is actually <b>true</b>? </div><div><br /></div><div>I believe every conscientious American has a duty to abolish our tyrannical government, but as a Christian and a <a href="https://kevincraig.us/pacifist.htm" target="_blank">pacifist</a>, I don't believe this duty should be discharged using muskets and cannons. We could start following the Founding Fathers by abolishing or defunding all unconstitutional bureaucracies. Republicans have been <a href="https://kevincraig.us/promises.htm" target="_blank">promising to do this for decades</a>. <b>They never will</b>. Republicans don't want to <b>abolish </b>wasteful, harmful, and unconstitutional bureaucracies. They want to <b>populate </b>these bureaucracies -- with Republicans. Get their friends on the government payroll. You pay the salaries of all those Republican bureaucrats -- whose <a href="https://mises.org/library/which-seen-and-which-not-seen" target="_blank">every action</a> lowers your standard of living.</div><div><br /></div><div>The winner of this election will take <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/oath.htm" target="_blank">a solemn oath</a> to follow the Constitution. That can only mean refusing to fund unconstitutional government programs. Congress repeatedly passes budgets filled with unconstitutional spending. Abolishing all unconstitutional government programs would mean cutting the federal budget by trillions of dollars. Not just billions, <b><i>trillions</i></b>. Neither of the two major parties will ever, ever, even <i>consider </i>doing that. Their solemn oath means nothing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thomas Jefferson said we should have a new constitution every 20 years. 19th-century legal theorist Lysander Spooner said that the Constitution "has either authorized such a government as we have, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." </div><div><br /></div><div>But if we followed America's Founding Fathers and abolished the Constitution, what would we replace it with? </div><div><br /></div><div>Nothing.</div><div><br /></div><div>I believe the two centuries that followed the ratification of the Constitution constitute a vivid social experiment:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>During the first century after the Constitution went into effect, America had perhaps the most libertarian government in the history of the human race, and America became the most prosperous and most admired nation in history. </li><li>During the second century, the government exploded in size and intrusiveness, and America's prosperity was turned into <a href="https://kevincraig.us/bankrupt.htm" target="_blank">bankruptcy</a>, and our admirers began to (justifiably) loathe or <a href="https://kevincraig.us/admired.htm" target="_blank">ridicule</a> us.</li></ul></div><div>The last two hundred years have proven that there is nothing the human race needs to accomplish that can only be accomplished under <a href="https://kevincraig.us/socialism.htm" target="_blank">socialism</a> -- requiring threats of <b>violence </b>from government. Everything human beings require to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous society can be achieved through voluntary cooperation in a <a href="http://kevincraig.us/freed_market.htm" target="_blank">Freed Market</a>. <br /><br />But we must, of course, be a nation "<a href="https://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/UnderGod.htm" target="_blank">under God</a>." <br />And that's not "nothing." That's the most important "something" of all, and it's something secular progressives have been working for the last 150 years to eradicate.</div><div><br /></div><div>My opponents seek to mislead you. On the one hand they'll tell you I'm trying to "impose a <a href="https://kevincraig.us/theocracy.htm" target="_blank">theocracy</a> on America!" Out of the other side of their mouth they'll tell you I want you to be free from all socialism, and that makes me an "<b>Anarchist</b>!" They say "<b>Theocracy</b>!" so you'll think "legalist!" and then they say "anarchist" so you'll think "lawlessness!" My opponents can't have it both ways. </div><div><br /></div><div>But I can. "<a href="https://kevincraig.us/liberty.htm" target="_blank">Liberty Under God</a>" is the philosophy that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history.</div><div>
<br />
You might be asking, "Aren't there already WAY TOO MANY candidates like you, who are Bible-believing Christian anarchists who seek to repeal the Constitution and abolish the government of the United States and make America a Theocracy, who don't believe in "the separation of church and state," but instead believe in the <b><i>abolition</i></b> of church and state," seeking hundreds of offices in every level of government from local to federal, in every political party, across this nation.<br />
<br />
I get asked that question all the time.<br />
<br />
Give me a moment to think of an answer.<br />
<br />
(Actually, to be honest, not a single human being has ever come close to asking me that question.)<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
This blog is not exactly the happenin' place to be. Join me on Facebook: <a href="http://facebook.com/KevinCraigforCongress">Facebook.com/KevinCraigforCongress</a><br />
<br />
I haven't substantially updated my website since 2014, but it's still an encyclopedia of timeless issues from the perspective of "Liberty Under God": <a href="http://kevincraig.us/">KevinCraig.us</a> </div>Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-23127299562789375142022-07-24T10:33:00.001-05:002022-08-07T10:36:04.110-05:00Unarchy<a href="https://kevincraig.us/unarchy.htm">UNarchy</a>: The only answer to poly-archy.Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-77880282624068301112020-03-19T20:31:00.000-05:002020-03-19T20:31:28.204-05:00Jumping into the 2020 CampaignI've filed my papers and I'm now in the race for Missouri's 7th Congressional District.<br />
<br />
Again.<br />
<br />
I previously ran in 2014, and in just about every previous election going back to 2002.<br />
<br />
I hope the coronavirus will have retired this summer, so that I can appear before crowded Candidate Forums and S.R.O. Town Hall meetings. Otherwise it will be a "virtual" online campaign.<br />
<br />
You might be asking, "Aren't there already WAY TOO MANY candidates like you, seeking hundreds of offices in every level of government from local to federal, in every political party, across this nation, who are Bible-believing Christian anarchists who seek to repeal the Constitution and abolish the government of the United States and make America a Theocracy, who don't believe in "the separation of church and state," but instead believe in the <b><i>abolition</i></b> of church and state?"<br />
<br />
I get asked that question all the time.<br />
<br />
Give me a moment to think of an answer.<br />
<br />
(Actually, to be honest, not a single human being has ever come close to asking me that question.)<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
This blog is not exactly the happenin' place to be. Join me on Facebook: <a href="http://facebook.com/KevinCraigforCongress">Facebook.com/KevinCraigforCongress</a><br />
<br />
I haven't really updated my website since 2014, but it's still an encyclopedia of issues from the perspective of "Liberty Under God": <a href="http://kevincraig.us/">KevinCraig.us</a> Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-20612383136912046402018-08-20T20:40:00.000-05:002018-08-20T20:40:35.981-05:00Legalize Child Pornography and Abolish the Sex Offender RegistryTom Woods has an interesting discussion on why the sex offender registry should be abolished:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://tomwoods.com/ep-1202-abolish-the-sex-offender-registry/">Ep. 1202 Abolish the Sex Offender Registry?</a><br />
<br />
Here's an outline of my position on the issue of child pornography. <br />
<br />
The word "pornography" comes from two Greek words, <i>porneia</i>, "fornication" or sexual sin of some kind, and <i>graphe</i>, "writing." In an illiterate society, <a href="http://kevincraig.us/literacy.htm">such as ours</a>, pictures substitute for words. In the Bible, the book called "Song of Solomon" is about marriage, not fornication. It is not designed to cause the reader to be sexually stimulated over the prospect of committing a sexual sin. It is therefore not "pornography."<br />
<br />
<img alt="Easy Button" border="0" src="https://KevinCraig.us/images/easy.jpg" style="cursor: hand; float: right; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 200px;" />If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could abolish all laws against possession of child pornography by pushing that button, I would push the button . . . <span style="font-size: 85%;">PROVIDED</span> that pushing the button would <strong><em>also</em></strong> eliminate the rest of the federal government, especially the federal Department of Education and the pressure it puts on local schools to legitimize sexual deviancy, and all federal court precedents removing God, the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments from public schools. In other words, I believe the adoption of the complete libertarian program would, on balance, eliminate more child abuse than retaining the present system with its child pornography laws and abusive school system.<br />
<br />
And let's face the fact that the Signers of the Constitution would be horrified and angered at the government's atheistic and immoral education system, which pushes homosexuality and fornication on children in its captivity.<br />
<br />
If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could cause all pornography to vanish, I would push the button. Pornography would then begin to reappear soon thereafter. A Godly society wants to keep this from happening. Some folks suggest that pornographers, especially child pornographers, be locked in a cage with a psychopath who will sodomize the pornographer and maybe even beat him to death. This is not a Christian option. <br /><br />I agree with the Bible that all sexual contact outside marriage is sinful and should be socially condemned. I also agree with the Bible that some forms of sexual contact are sinful even if "the government" claims the parties are "legally" "married." I believe most parents want their children to wait until they are married to just the right person in a life-long commitment before they have sexual contacts. The complete libertarian program would give these parents their wishes, or at least remove all government-sponsored undercutting of parental desires.<br />
<br />
Government schools are presently the largest and most systematic criminal child abuse ring in America. This is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F1891375237%2F&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">The Harsh Truth About Public Schools</a>. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:6;%20Mark%209:42;%20Luke%2017:2&version=50">Luke 17:2</a>). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/religion/nature.htm">The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God</a>." Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by <a href="http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/homosexeducate.html">teaching children</a> that homosexuality is not sinful.<br />
<br />
Homeschool pioneer John Holt was not a Christian, and I'm sure he would be appalled at some of the things I've said in this post; and I don't agree with many things he said, but I am in fundamental agreement with his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FEscape-Childhood-John-Holt%2Fdp%2F0913677043%2F&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325"><em>Escape from Childhood</em></a>. No, I don't believe a child should jump into an airplane and start flying -- I admit to the need for "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Freview%2FR19FX28E85LX2F%2F&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">flight instructors</a>" -- but if my 14-year-old daughter, physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature beyond her years, meets the moral and intellectual equivalent of John Hancock or Samuel Adams, and she wants to marry Mr. Hancock, I don't believe <em>the federal government </em>has any rightful (or constitutional) authority to say she cannot. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who would appreciate John Hancock and want to begin a family with him? Not many in the government's school system, I'm sure of that. The government wants all citizens to be perpetual adolescents and dependents. John Holt says children should be encouraged to be mature and treated with at least the same respect we are willing to give to immature and irresponsible adults.<br />
<br />
Sensible libertarians admit that some people will make bad decisions if given the freedom. Does that justify the entire institution of socialist education and coercive violence which is the essence of today's government? I say no.<br />
<br />
The federal government is not the friend of children.<br />
<br />
Part two of this analysis is here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2012/01/legalize-3-hs.html">"Legalize" the 3 H's!</a>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-62107158911318802192016-07-26T17:24:00.000-05:002016-07-26T17:24:10.437-05:00On Destroying ISIS<p>News today of an ISIS attack on a church in France, in which ISIS terrorist slit the throat of octogenerian priest.</p><ul> <li><a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-knifemen-forced-french-priest-8497681">ISIS knifemen forced French priest to kneel and filmed themselves slitting his throat in horror church attack</a> - Mirror Online</li></ul><p>At the RNC convention, Donald Trump promised to "destroy ISIS."</p><p>This is not the first time he's said this, of course.</p><ul> <li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8">Donald Trump on ISIS - "I would bomb the SHIT out of 'em!"</a> - YouTube</li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiHvF1Or16g&feature=youtu.be&t=31">Trump: "I Would Bomb The Hell Out Of ISIS"</a> - YouTube</li><li><a href="https://grabien.com/file.php?id=74503">Trump: ‘I Will Destroy ISIS’ :: Grabien - The Multimedia Marketplace</a></li><li><a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/5036336634001/donald-trump-use-nato-to-destroy-isis-this-is-war/?#sp=show-clips">Donald Trump: <b>Use NATO</b> to destroy ISIS; this is war | Fox News Video</a></li></ul><p>I think most people agree with this goal, and the means to the end, but quite a few are unwilling to be as blunt and transparent about it as Trump (which some voters find attractive). Obama, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, drops bombs on ISIS:</p>
<ul> <li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOQvNm1SEg">OBAMA BOMBS BAD GUYS with us military airstrike in Syria</a> - YouTube</li></ul><p>As a pacifist, I agree with the goal (destroying ISIS) but not Trump's (and Obama's) means to the end (dropping bombs on Syria, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/former-u-s-diplomats-decry-the-u-s-backed-saudi-war-in-yemen/">joining with Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen</a>, and strengthening NATO).</p><p>So how would a Christian pacifist "destroy ISIS."</p><p>And why are so many Democrats quiet about Obama's bombing of ISIS?</p><p>Democrats believe in "multiculturalism."</p><p>The idea of destroying an entire culture doesn't sit easy with them.</p><p>As a Christian <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/theocracy.htm">Theocrat</a>, I'm all for destroying all non-Christian cultures.</p><p>But as a Christian pacifist, I'm against bombs and other forms of violence to accomplish this "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide#In_practice">genocide</a>."</p>
<h3>Historical Precedents</h3><p>ISIS is not the first group of terrorists Americans have had to deal with. President Thomas Jefferson dealt with terrorists during his administration. Those terrorists were called "Indians." Not all Americans treated all Indians in a consistently Christian manner, and not all Indians were terrorists, but many Indians attacked not only American settlers, but <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/indians.htm">other Indians as well</a>. In 1779, Jefferson <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=z4czAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA954&ots=3nR0T7txOv&dq=Sir%20Guy%20Carleton%20jefferson%20%22known%20rules%20of%20warfare%20of%20the%20Indian%20savages%22&pg=PA954#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Guy%20Carleton%20jefferson%20%22known%20rules%20of%20warfare%20of%20the%20Indian%20savages%22&f=false">explained</a> to Sir Guy Carleton, the Governor of Canada:</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: rgb(242, 248, 255);">"The
known rule of warfare of the Indian Savages is an indiscriminate butchery of men, women and children."</span></blockquote><p>Sounds like ISIS.</p><p>Jefferson's letter was an echo of the Declaration of Independence, which said King George III</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: rgb(242, 248, 255);">has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions</span></blockquote><p>Not all religions are equal. Any religion which kills innocent people is a "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/false-religion.htm">false religion</a>," to use <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/false-religion.htm">the words of James Madison</a>, the "Father of the Constitution."</p><p>We do not live in a meaningless, random,
evolving, amoral world. There really is such a thing as "evil," and it is defined by <a href="http://kevincraig.us/religion/nature.htm">"The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God,"</a> which Blackstone said were only to be found in the Christian Bible.</p><p>Christian culture -- whether in Africa, Brazil, Byzantium, New England, or China -- is good. ISIS culture is bad. The world would be a better place if it were eradicated.</p><p><a name="Jefferson">Jefferson</a> and America's Founding Fathers knew how to deal with terrorists from false religions. Jefferson compiled a collection of his favorite teachings of Jesus Christ <a href="http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/indian_evangelization.htm">in order to civilize the Indians</a>. Congress appropriated funds to various missionary agencies to Christianize the heathen. This was good foreign policy.</p><p>It was a good thing to for America to <a href="http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/indian_evangelization.htm">destroy "native American" culture</a>. They lived in poverty, "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/darkness.htm">darkness</a>" and superstition. They needed the Light from a shining <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/cityhill.htm">City upon a Hill</a>. The chiefs of the Delaware Indians wanted their people to lose their dysfunctional culture and become like the Americans. On May 12, 1779, in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, <a href="http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=18502434&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=jesus+christ&id=gw150049">George Washington</a> advised them:<blockquote><p>You do well to wish to learn
our arts and ways of life, and above all, <strong>the religion of Jesus Christ</strong>. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.<br><font size="1"><em>The Writings of George Washington</em>, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC: US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55.</font></p></blockquote><p>I oppose <a href="http://kevincraig.us/taxation.htm">coercing taxpayers</a> into funding missionary agencies, but the <b><i>direction</i></b> of America's Founding Fathers is a direction we must follow today.</p><p>And while it was good to destroy savage Indian culture, it was immoral and unChristian to use violence to do so. And sometimes the destroyer of culture does not represent true Christianity, and may be destroying Christian culture. The real goal is to create conditions in which savage cultures want to abolish themselves. We see this with the Delaware Indians. This is called "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/repent.htm">repentance</a>."</p><p>Americans have a lot to repent of. A lot of American "culture" <a href="http://culturalgenocide.org">should be extermintaed</a>.</p><p>We must destroy ISIS through evangelism. <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm">We should have used evangelism in Iraq</a> rather than armed invasion.</p><p>This (non-violent evangelism) is the policy that will be most vocally attacked by Democrats. They will sound the alarms against "Christian Theocrats" and deploy all their "multiculturalism" weapons. They are horrified at the prospect of "destroying" an "indigenous" "culture." But they won't say anything if Hillary promises to destroy ISIS by murdering them all
using weapons of mass destruction.</p>Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-1683615608172673272016-06-30T16:40:00.000-05:002016-07-01T07:34:27.692-05:00Hospitality and Refugees<p>Last month (June 14), I wrote to my Congressman, Billy Long, inquiring about Syrian
refugees. I asked how I could get in line to open my home to one or more of them. I
received what appears to be a form letter, rather than the specific steps I must take to
emulate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/americas/canada-syrian-refugees.html">others</a>
who have shown <a href="http://KevinCraig.US/hospitality.htm">hospitality</a> to <a href="http://KevinCraig.US/xenophobia.htm">strangers</a>:</p>
<hr>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "times new roman";">June
28, 2016</span></p>
<table cellspacing="5" cellpadding="0" align="center" border="0" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<td style="padding: 10px"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "times new roman";">Mr.
Kevin Craig<br>PO Box 179<br>Powersite, MO 65731-0179<br><br>Dear Mr. Craig,</span>
<div class="Section1">
<p><span>Thank you for contacting me regarding the Syrian refugee crisis. As
you may know, the civil war in Syria has resulted in horrific violence and
instability when Arab Spring protests escalated into violent
conflict. This intense struggle between President Bashar al-Assad’s
forces and rebel groups has resulted in massive civilian casualties and
widespread human rights abuses. The United Nations estimates that
as many as 200,000 people have died since the violence began. The
violence has also spilled into neighboring countries, including Jordan,
Lebanon, and Turkey, which is a NATO member. As many as 7 million Syrians have
been displaced from their homes and more than 3 million are now considered
refugees. The vast majority of these refugees have resettled in neighboring
countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. This influx of refugees
has placed significant strains on these countries food and water supply,
housing, hospitals, and schools. In response, the United Nations Refugee
Agency plans to refer 30,000 refugees to countries outside of the region. The
United States participates in this program, but it will accept only a small
portion of this number. Additionally, the number of total refugees is capped
for each year at a maximum of 70,000, and there is a further cap every 3
months to minimize the strain placed on the law enforcement and intelligence
communities in order to screen and verify each refugee entering the United
States. In September 2015, President Obama announced that the United States
would accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees over the next
year. America has a long history of accepting refugees from all
over the world fleeing hardship, oppression, and conflict. However,
the security of the United States remains paramount—especially after the
terrorist attacks in Paris—and we cannot allow extremists or terrorists into
our country. That’s why I signed letters to Governor Nixon and
President Obama asking them to halt the process of incoming refugees and to
refuse them from entering Missouri and the United States. In
addition, I voted in support of H.R. 4038, a bill that would effectively pause
President Obama’s refugee program by requiring additional vetting and
background checks prior to Iraqi and Syrian refugees ever being admitted the
United States. Specifically, it would prohibit any refugees from
Iraq and Syria being admitted to the United States unless the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) certifies to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Director of National
Intelligence that the individual has received sufficient investigation to
determine that they are not a threat to the United States. H.R.
4038 passed the House of Representatives on November 19 by a vote of 289-137.</span></p>
<p><span>But aside from these measures, processes like our country’s visa
waiver program (VWP) are critically flawed. The VWP allows citizens
of other participating countries –mostly European countries—to come to the
United States and stay for up to 90 days without a visa. In fact,
it would be easier for a terrorist to come through the VWP than as a
refugee. As a result, I voted in favor of H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver
Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. This bill
addresses the vulnerabilities of the VWP and requires the participating
countries to share counterterrorism and intelligence information. </span></p>
<p><span>This will continue to be an ongoing issue for the United States and I
appreciate having the benefit of your views. I remain committed to
defending the safety of American citizens above all else, and I will continue
to monitor this issue very closely. </span></p>
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "times new roman";">Again,
thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Hearing the views of
all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important
issues could impact the people of the Seventh District and the future interests
of the nation.<br><br>For additional information regarding current legislation,
my representation of the Seventh District, and to sign up to receive my monthly
newsletter, I invite you to visit my website at <a href="https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=MO07BL&crop=14220.7327303.7304442.9293470&report_id=&redirect=http%3a%2f%2flong.house.gov" target="_blank" title="This external link will open in a new window" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204);">http://long.house.gov</a></span>
<p> </p>
<table cellpadding="2" align="right" border="0" style="width: 350px;">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<td style="padding: 10px; width: 326px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "times new roman"; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sincerely,<img alt src="https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/Customers/MO07BL/BillyLongSig.png" style="border: 0px;" width="99" height="52">
Billy Long<br>Member of Congress</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br><br><br><br>
<p><br><br><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times;"><br>BHL:tw
</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<p>Please read this article from <i><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/americas/canada-syrian-refugees.html">The
New York Times</a></i>, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/americas/canada-syrian-refugees.html">Refugees
Encounter a Foreign Word: Welcome</a>." These people who show hospitality to
refugees are ordinary people, not professionally-trained, certified and accredited,
elite refugee professionals and bureaucrats. They are "Canadian hockey moms, poker
buddies and neighbors."</p>
<p>Then read the final parable in <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/mercy.htm">Matthew 25</a>.</p>
<p>Sure, if I open my home to a refugee, I run a very small risk that I might be opening
my home to a Jihadi terrorist. My life could be cut short by 20 years.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if I refuse to show hospitality to a terrorist, and hope that my
grace might lead to his/her redemption, I live for an additional 20 years on this
planet, and then spend eternity as a goat. ("Goat" is a reference to the Words
of Jesus in Matthew 25.)</p>
<p>What does it profit a man if he gains 20 years of fleeting life and loses his soul? (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+8%3A36&version=KJV">Mark
8:36</a>)</p>
<p>This weekend America is purportedly celebrating the signing of "The Declaration of Independence." A document which the Federal Government has declared must not be taught in public schools <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/schools.htm">as objective truth</a>. We might ask that document, Why are there terrorists? That document would tell us to ask "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/judge.htm">The Supreme Judge of the World</a>." </p><p>And what would the Judge tell us? <blockquote>Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.<br>Ezekiel 16:49 </blockquote> <a href="http://Romans13.com/sendevil.htm">God sends the terrorists</a>.</p>
<hr><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgentourlClquL0d6wUPdv9Mke15AYAOeGFF0QeltumxaQ_sgtyqk5EUybDtuGpzgxyWrcH9qI5uTpEOA3Y2A8Fp_m8plAtJPOweqyatyHwHQAVPanOvOILymPjdnMQMyI5PoUx/s1600/refugees.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgentourlClquL0d6wUPdv9Mke15AYAOeGFF0QeltumxaQ_sgtyqk5EUybDtuGpzgxyWrcH9qI5uTpEOA3Y2A8Fp_m8plAtJPOweqyatyHwHQAVPanOvOILymPjdnMQMyI5PoUx/s320/refugees.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<hr>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-52354678775112866662016-03-29T14:28:00.000-05:002016-03-29T14:28:33.742-05:00City on a HillOn this day in 1630, John Winthrop <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=JKIMAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA23&ots=QcpffBkDAK&dq=winthrop%20journal%20%22march%2029%22%20%22easter%20monday%22&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=winthrop%20journal%20%22march%2029%22%20%22easter%20monday%22&f=false">began compiling a journal</a> that would be contain a history of New England. Winthrop was a Puritan who saw Europe slipping away from pure Christianity. He joined the Massachusetts Bay Company to establish a "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/cityhill.htm">City Upon a Hill</a>" in the New World; a beacon of light to a world of <a href="http://kevincraig.us/darkness.htm">darkness</a>.<br />
<br />
What would Winthrop think about the New World today? Today's churches are surely less pure than the Church of England was in the 1600's.<br />
<br />
Where would Winthrop go today to establish a City without the impurities of America's atheistic, hedonistic culture?Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-68240246648388290882015-11-11T08:12:00.000-06:002015-11-11T08:12:55.519-06:00Would Jesus Celebrate Veterans' Day?<p>Well, it's Veterans' Day, and I haven't updated my "<a href="http://WouldJesusCelebrateVeteransDay.com">Veterans Day</a>" website in a few years. I think the site goes back as far as 2007.
<p><a href="http://kevincraig.us/townhall10nov2007.htm">Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - Veterans Day - November 10, 2007</a></p>
<p>Here's a summary of the argument of that website, with a few new webpages added.</p>
<p>I believe unrepentant vets should be excommunicated.</p>
<ul>
<li>A "Veteran" was part of an organized killing machine.</li>
<li>The Bible says "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/6th-murder.htm">Thou shalt not kill</a>."</li>
<li>It is therefore a <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/sin.htm">sin</a> to be a <a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2009/08/foab.html">part</a> of the U.S. Armed Forces.</li>
<li>Veterans who do not <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/repent.htm">repent</a> (repudiate their sin and pledge to move in the opposite direction, beating <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/swords.htm">swords into plowshares</a>, making <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/restitution.htm">restitution</a>, and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/life.htm">promoting life</a> and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm">peace</a>) should be kicked out of Christian churches ("excommunicated") -- just like unrepentant adulterers.</li>
</ul>
<p>Here are some new pages to supplement this argument.</p>
<p>Since I was born, the U.S. Armed Forces have killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant civilians. The Armed Forces continue to be committed to killing anyone who gets in their way.</p>
<p>"In the way of what?" you might ask.</p>
<p>Since 1971, when <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/15/forty-years-ago-today-nixon-took-us-off-gold-standard.html">Nixon</a> removed the last connection between gold and "the dollar," the Armed Forces have been committed to the goals of propping up the "Petrodollar" and protecting the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporations, particularly oil corporations with assets in foreign nations.</p>
<ul>
<li>NOT "defending" the U.S. "homeland" against armed foreign invasion (but even if it were, <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/defense-slavery.htm">Jesus says "national defense" is a sin</a>. [Better Red than making the other guy Dead.]).</li>
<li><a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/troops-dont-support-constitution/">NOT "defending the Constitution</a>."</li>
<li><a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/troops-dont-defend-freedoms/">NOT "defending our freedoms</a>."</li>
</ul>
<p>Why did the U.S. overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein (and <a href="http://kevincraig.us/iraq.htm#christians">destroy the largest population of Christians</a> in the Arab world) but doesn't lift a finger against the government of North Korea? Because Saddam threatened to stop accepting "dollars" for oil. This threatened "the dollar" as an international "reserve currency."</p>
<p><font size="4"><b>The United States is an atheistic, aggressor nation.</b></font><br>
• <b>Atheistic</b>: The United States federal government now <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/duty.htm">expressly repudiates</a> America's <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm">Christian heritage</a>. Your local public school teacher cannot teach students in a government-operated school that the Declaration of Independence is <i><b><a href="http://kevincraig.us/schools.htm">really true</a></b></i> -- because that document is based on a Christian <a href="http://kevincraig.us/worldview.htm">worldview</a>. U.S. foreign policy promotes abortion and homosexuality <a href="http://kevincraig.us/tentacles.htm">around the world</a>. U.S. troops are killing the innocent in defense of pornographic atheism.<br>
• <b>Aggressor</b>: <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/enemy.htm">The United States federal government is the most evil and dangerous entity on the planet</a>. (The government of North Korea may be more evil, but it is not more <b><i>dangerous</i></b>. An innocent child anywhere in the world is more likely to be killed by a member of the U.S. Armed Forces than by the armed forces of North Korea.)</p>
<p>There are certainly veterans who have suffered greatly. They may still have nightmares about the innocent people they killed in defense of "the dollar" (PTSD). They may have lost limbs. They may be battling cancer from the depleted uranium bombs and other weapons they deployed against innocent populations. This is indeed tragic, and on a purely humanitarian level, we should help these "<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/08/vet-charity-s-new-fight-to-waste-your-cash.html">wounded warriors</a>." On a Christian level, however, they still need to <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/repent.htm">repent</a>. Kudos to <a href="http://www.veteransforpeace.org/">those who have</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25849&st=warrior">Republican National Platform of 2000</a> says that</p>
<p><font style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)">We [Republicans] will once again make wearing the uniform the object of national pride.</font></p>
<p>The wearing of a U.S. military uniform should be an object of public disgrace.</p>
<hr>
<center>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" width="210" bgcolor="#FFF0FA">
<tr>
<td width="100%"><a href="http://peacetakescourage.cf.huffingtonpost.com/animations/wwjd.html"><img border="0" src="http://KevinCraig.us/images/iraq-floyd.jpg" align="top" alt="Wounded Iraqi Child - Click Photo for Video" width="500" height="374"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%"><font size="2">It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.<br>
Luke 17:2</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
</center>
<hr>Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-79709126022984405442015-08-07T16:08:00.000-05:002015-08-07T16:13:14.676-05:00War as Terrorism: The Moral Calculus<p>This week is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan by the United States.</p>
<p>Most Americans still feel the bombings were justified.</p>
<p>Probably the majority of the Japanese people who were killed, if given a choice, would have preferred surrender vs. a continuation of the war.</p>
<p>But these innocent non-combatant civilians were not the decision-makers.</p>
<p>They were pawns.</p>
<hr>
<p>Terrorism is <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t">widely defined</a> as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" and "a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."</p>
<p>The bombing of Japan -- not just the atomic bombing, but the sustained conventional (and probably more lethal) bombing that preceded it -- was an act of terrorism. It was "violence for political purposes."</p>
<p>In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011031024008/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html">fatwah</a>" against the United States in opposition to (1) U.S. Bombing of Muslims in the middle east (2) U.S. military bases on Muslim holy land (3) U.S. support of Israel's anti-Palestinian policies. 9/11 was an act of violence intended to intimidate and force change of these political policies.</p>
<p>The bombing of Japan was a protracted act of terrorism -- violence intended to change the political policies of the Japanese government. It was perhaps 750 9/11's inflicted on Japan.</p>
<p>Conservative, patriotic Americans will object to U.S. policy being equated with Al-Qaeda policy. But the objection is not based on morality. It is based on <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/patriotism.htm">patriotism</a>, which is a non-rational allegiance to a particular political regime. They are morally equivalent.</p>
<p>To say that Japan and the United States are moral equivalents will offend some. Japan was evil. We are good. Japan was aggressive and invading China. U.S. sanctions against Iraq were two or three times more lethal than Hiroshima, but Clinton's Secretary of State would say the deaths of half a million children were "<a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/iraqi-sanctions-worth/">worth it</a>." That is, "moral."</p>
<p>Let's do some moral calculations.</p>
<hr>
<p>I have used this illustration in my discussions of <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/allegiance.htm">allegiance</a> and the oath of office: Suppose the government requires your parents to get a blood test, and based on the medical data obtained from the test, the government concludes that your parents are genetically likely to experience certain end-of-life medical conditions which will be very costly to treat. In order to protect the fiscal solvency of the Medicare and Social Security systems, the government orders you to put your parents to sleep. That means <b><i>kill them</i></b>. Would you obey the government's order? It could save the government over a million dollars, and any <a href="http://www.lifehappens.org/insurance-calculators/calculate-human-life-value/">life insurance</a> company would agree that your parents don't have <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/calculating-the-value-of-a-life">a
million dollars of life value</a> left in them.</p>
<p>I wouldn't obey the government. The Bible says "Honor your father and mother" and "Thou shalt not kill." According to the Supreme Court, putting God ahead of the government in this way <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/nolawyer.htm">renders you ineligible to hold any public office</a> because of your lack of allegiance, patriotism, or loyalty.</p>
<p>It is immoral to take the life of a human being based on this kind of political calculation. Can we agree on that?</p>
<p>How about another illustration.</p>
<p>You receive a letter from the government ordering you to get your affairs together and report to the local hospital. There are five people waiting for you at the hospital. Each of these people has a life-threatening need for your vital organs. By sacrificing your heart, lungs, liver, and a couple of other organs, you will save the lives of <b>five</b> people.</p>
<p>Does the government have the moral right to take your life based on this calculation? One life saves five! What a deal!</p>
<p>If you voluntarily chose to do that, an argument about the morality of suicide would ensue. I'm talking about a government making the choice for you, without or against your consent.</p>
<p>Does the government have the right to take your life based on the fact that <i><b>five </b>lives</i> will be saved?</p>
<p>This week we commemorate the U.S. government's choice to take the lives of 200,000 innocent non-combatant Japanese civilians without their consent in order to save the lives of a million American soldiers. At least that's the most popular patriotic justification for the bombing. "One life saved five."</p>
<p>But those Americans Soldiers weren't going to die of some inevitable natural cause, but were going to die because their government was prepared to order them to die. A million American soldiers who really did not have to invade Japan anyway. As Eisenhower <a href="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html">put it</a>, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."</p>
<p>Not only was it unnecessary to kill 1 Japanese person to save 5 Americans, U.S. policy likely increased human deaths by nearly 100 times. Crushing Japan meant crushing the Japanese government's ability to invade China. This allowed the spread of Communism in China, which ultimately cost the lives of <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/LiberalsProgressivesAndSocialists.htm"><b>76 million</b> Chinese people</a>. </p>
<p>Do we really trust politicians to make such God-like calculations? Obama? Bush? Truman? Should one man have the power to kill a human being based on a fiscal cost-benefit analysis? Should a politician have the power to kill a million people based on a geo-political calculation?</p>
<p><b>Communism</b> was <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/worldwar.htm">the clear winner of World War II</a>. Communism in China; Communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia. That's what "we" fought for. That's what tens of millions of people died for. Was it "worth it?"</p>
<p>"<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm">Thou shalt not kill</a>."
<p>We must allow simple Christian morality to prevail over Harvard-educated patriotism.</p>
<hr><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGS71dFLZPUgO67rYGS_g0W1TUET439SZPyhHyQKhjMauew4jogvIilZBjxfCKt4kuAZz2L6j4R6eI3GbjvEWhCbzpjcyZWzQ7NbmsRrG_2g1dmPQhDiTC11gTat7gIlteduTg/s1600/Ike-bomb.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGS71dFLZPUgO67rYGS_g0W1TUET439SZPyhHyQKhjMauew4jogvIilZBjxfCKt4kuAZz2L6j4R6eI3GbjvEWhCbzpjcyZWzQ7NbmsRrG_2g1dmPQhDiTC11gTat7gIlteduTg/s320/Ike-bomb.png" /></a></div>
<p>Previously:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2006/08/hiroshima-nagasaki.html">2006</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/08/hiroshima-gulf-of-tonkin.html">Hiroshima - Gulf of Tonkin</a> 2007</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/08/nagasaki-august-9-1945.html">Nagasaki</a> 2007</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2008/08/hiroshima-august-6-1945.html">2008</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2009/08/religion-and-national-security.html">Religion and National Security</a> 2009</li>
<li><a href="http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/hiroshima-from-christian-republic-to-atheistic-empire/">Hiroshima: From Christian Republic to Atheistic Empire</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2011/08/hiroshima-august-6-nagasaki-august-9.html">2011</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/hiroshima.htm">Campaign Platform: Hiroshima</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/hiroshima-photos.htm">Pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki</a></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p> </p>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-48522359185111210512015-07-21T14:58:00.000-05:002015-07-21T14:58:31.496-05:00Politicians are Depraved Sociopaths<p>America is (or was intended to be) <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm">a Christian nation</a>.<br>More specifically, <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/protestant.htm">a Protestant nation</a>.<br>More specific than that, <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/calvin.htm">a Presbyterian nation</a>.<br>The British (Church of England) referred to the American Revolution as "<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=nUYUAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA63&ots=wNcCRlOzfh&dq=%22the%20Presbyterian%20junto%22&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=%22the%20Presbyterian%20junto%22&f=false">the Presbyterian junto</a>"<br>I'm a Calvinist. I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/depravity.htm">the depravity of man</a>."<br>The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed in "the depravity of man."
James Madison studied under John Witherspoon, the Calvinist President of Princeton University and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. <a href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1982">As Madison put it</a>, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary." This is arguably the most famous line from <i>The Federalist Papers</i>. We've all heard this in our civics class. We need "government" to keep society in line.</p><p>But in that particular essay (#51), Madison was not trying to emphasize the need for society to have a civil government. Everybody already agreed on that. He was stressing the need to control the controllers:</p>
<blockquote>
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary <b>to control the abuses of government</b>. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place <b>oblige it to control itself</b>. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
</blockquote>
<p>Hence the need for such "auxiliary precautions" as "checks and balances," a "separation of powers," and a Bill of Rights. All because we cannot trust men with political power. <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/trust.htm">Trusting the government is un-American</a>.</p><p>But, as we know, the Framers trusted men with political power anyway. They (wrongly) believed that <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/romans13sep.htm">God required men to form governments</a>. If you go through the Bible verse by verse, at each step asking the question, "did God just now command human beings to form what we know as 'the State?'" after each of the 31,103 verses you will have to answer "No." God never commanded human beings to form "the State." "The State" was invented by unGodly rebels like Nimrod. <a href="http://AnarchistBibleBet.com">I'll
betcha</a>.</p><p>The institution called "the State" is responsible for <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/state-criminal.htm">more evil than any other institution</a> ever created by man. More evil than all organized crime. More evil than all "private sector" evil. And the United States, believe it or not, is <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/enemy.htm">the most evil government on the planet</a>. </p><p>Some will say, "But if we don't have any government, society will be plunged into <b><font color="#FF0000">anarchy</font></b>."</p><p>"<b><font color="#FF0000">Anarchy</font></b>" in this case means "chaos, lawlessness, rampant crime."</p><p>Why would "chaos, lawlessness, and rampant crime" break out without politicians? Because of "the depravity of man." That's the usual conservative answer.</p><p>I would like to
suggest that human beings are better than that.</p><p>The Bible says that every human being knows it is immoral to steal or to hurt other people. See the first two chapters of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>14 The Gentiles do not have the law [which was given through Moses]. But they do what the law says because their own hearts tell them to. They have a law of their own, even though they do not know the law [of Moses].<br>15 They show that the law is written in their hearts. They know what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Their own thoughts tell them they have done what is wrong or what is not wrong.)<br><a href="http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+2%3A14-15&version=WE">Romans 2:14-15</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The King James Version renders verse 15:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Christians are often told they should not judge homosexuals, adulterers or abortionists. That, of course, is an intolerant judgment of/against Christians.</p><p>I believe <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/judgment.htm">judging people is a good thing</a>. The world would have been a better place if the German people had properly judged the Nazis, and been a little less "tolerant" and a little more "<a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-am-bigot.html">bigoted</a>."</p><p>As the KJV suggests, we all accuse or excuse other people all the time, based on our internal moral compass.</p><p>This capacity for judging others holds us all in check. I would like to suggest that our concern over the moral judgments of our family, neighbors, co-workers, employers, and Facebook friends, is more immediately important to us than what politicians in
Washington D.C. think about us.</p><p>If Washington D.C. were to fall into hell, nobody would notice. "Anarchy" would not break out, even if we lived in a state of literal anarchy, that is, a stateless condition. People will still be judgmental. There will be social pressure not to steal. The Bible says <a href="http://95days.blogspot.com/2008/11/thesis-91-unconverted-in-millennium.html">unbelievers tend to pretend to be believers</a>. This is why you have so many "hypocrites" in church.</p><p>If you believe in the "depravity of man," you might admit that there are times when you would like to steal, but you're afraid someone will find out. You don't want to be publicly branded as a thief.</p><p>Not simply that you don't want to be arrested by the government's police. Most criminals think they can evade the police and "get away with
it." Non-criminals like you are more concerned about what other non-criminals like you think about you.</p><p>People who don't care what others think are called "sociopaths."</p><p>They can inflict harm on others, because they don't care what others feel.</p><p>They are not social.</p><p>Here's why anarchy (a <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/society.htm">society</a> without politicians) is our best option.</p><p>First, the cost of creating a "civil government" -- a socialist monopoly on security -- to deal with the small percentage of people who are criminal sociopaths is greater than the cost to society inflicted by those sociopaths. You pay about <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/burden.htm">2/3 of everything you earn</a> to the federal government. Every year. Do you think if we abolished the federal government that private sector criminals would inflict
that much damage on you? By abolishing corporate income taxes (which you pay at the checkstand) and income taxes and all other ways Washington D.C. has its hand in your wallet, your disposable income would double, and you could afford to buy a much better system of security than the government provides, at a more competitive price. Capitalists would see to that very quickly. (Right now, there's less of a market for private security because consumers live under <a href="http://fee.org/freeman/detail/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection">the illusion</a> that the government protects them. <a href="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3742.10">Which it doesn't</a>.)</p><p>Second, government destroys the family, and <a href="http://www.ruthinstitute.org/ruth-speaks-out/empathy-and-the-me-generation">it is families that create empathy</a> and <a href="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/spiritual-growth-for-kids/teaching-servanthood/raising-caring-kids">prevent
children from growing up to be sociopaths</a>. More powerful government means less powerful families, with mothers forced to get a job outside the home to pay the government's taxes, and<b> more sociopaths</b>. Then the cry goes up for <b>more government</b>, and you have a vicious cycle of declining <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/civilization.htm">civilization</a>.</p><p>Third, sociopaths are attracted to government like bees to honey. <a href="http://google.com/search?q=politicians+sociopath">Politicians are more likely to be sociopaths than any other occupation</a>. You want more government? Get ready to pay more taxes to hire more sociopaths. Sociopaths love the power to control, to steal, to inflict pain, and -- best of all -- to do it "legally." And get paid handsomely to do it. Why on earth would you hire sociopaths to protect you from sociopaths?</p><p>Let's
start imagining a less sociopathic society. Let's imagine how human beings would interact without sociopaths in "government." <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/DRO.htm">Start here</a>.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_uh9b5-faOeNdZZKkvsaiBX_EKuVMXfE10v2UPzF35vPWAaeGpBIylET7omb6m9WdvuyXioE95TKtb5Z-BMEhzn4TutMkkeP2NXTr2UViJlhxte65dx14wYOEML9eERmly5MD/s1600/bush-obama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_uh9b5-faOeNdZZKkvsaiBX_EKuVMXfE10v2UPzF35vPWAaeGpBIylET7omb6m9WdvuyXioE95TKtb5Z-BMEhzn4TutMkkeP2NXTr2UViJlhxte65dx14wYOEML9eERmly5MD/s320/bush-obama.jpg" /></a></div>
<hr>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-90565735393346267012015-07-17T14:30:00.000-05:002015-07-17T14:30:41.426-05:00The Iran Deal - A Christian Anarchist Backgrounder<p>Republicans seem to oppose a deal with Iran regarding the development of nuclear energy in Iran.
<p><a href="http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2015/07/16/the-gops-iran-dilemma/">The GOP’s Iran Dilemma</a> by Patrick J. Buchanan -- Antiwar.com
<p>How would a Christian government (as opposed to a secular humanist government, such as we have today) deal with Iran?
<p>To answer this question, I suggest reviewing my answer to the question, "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm">How would a Christian government deal with Iraq</a>?"
<p>The U.S. didn't follow that policy, and destroyed the nation of Iraq, and the largest Christian community in the Arab world. There were over one million Christians in Iraq, and they had the freedom to publicly evangelize, which would be a death penalty offense in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. "ally." Today there are less than 20% of those Christians alive in Iraq.
<p>The United States federal government is the enemy of Christianity. It is also the enemy of followers of Abraham, and followers of Muhammad. The atheistic ("secular") government of the United States <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/enemy.htm">is the enemy of mankind</a>.
<p>If the federal government had even the slightest interest in following the Constitution and the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932225633/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1932225633&linkCode=as2&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkId=G4AMSYOP46BZJVYI">Original Intent</a> of the Founding Fathers, it would <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/prayer.htm">declare a national day</a> of fasting, prayer and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/repent.htm">repentance</a> for the monstrous evil it inflicted on Iraq, and continues to inflict on the Middle East.
<p>The federal government should begin asking the question, How can we make restitution for the senseless destruction of so many lives and so much infrastructure in Iraq?
<p>Only then can the United States even <i><b>begin</b></i> to start to understand how to approach Iran.
<p>Dealing with Iran requires spiritual (Biblical) insight, as well as political/diplomatic insight. How well has the United States done in this regard so far?
<p>The United States helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953. It imposed a dictatorship on the people of Iran for the next 25 years. That dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, and U.S. diplomats were taken hostage. In retaliation, the U.S. assisted Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, which lasted a decade, and cost the lives of a million human beings. Through its sanctions policy, the United States has imposed an incalculable burden on the people of Iran.
<p>The U.S. cannot see clearly without repenting of its unconstitutional and unChristian behavior for the last 50 years or more. "Patriotic" Americans cannot assess the value of "The Iran Deal" because they are <a href="http://AnarchistBibleBet.com/1why-lose.htm">victims of educational malpractice</a>.
<p><a href="http://buchanan.org/blog/does-iran-really-want-a-bomb-15711">Does Iran Really Want a Bomb?</a> — Patrick J. Buchanan
<p>The federal government, consisting of defenders of "the dollar" (the Federal Reserve System") and defenders of the military-industrial complex, are on the side of terrorists. That sounds like the paranoid claim of an insane person, until you give it a little thought and apprehend the facts.
<p>"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism">Terrorism</a>" is the use of violence to achieve a political objective. The U.S. military, propping up dollar-hegemony, uses violence to achieve its political objectives. It puts weapons in the hands of "terrorists" who, it is hoped, will topple governments which are seen as obstacles to U.S./dollar hegemony.
<p><a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-u-s-and-al-qaeda-are-on-the-same-side-in-yemen/">The U.S. and Al Qaeda Are on the Same Side in Yemen</a> | The American Conservative
<p>The U.S. spends almost as much money on weapons as the rest of the world combined. It uses these weapons to achieve its political objectives. That is "terrorism" by definition. Nobody is attacking the United States in an attempt to invade it and "take over." There are numerous groups who, having been attacked by the U.S., seek to defend themselves. But the United States is not defending itself against any enemy that was not created by its own policies. Russia and China would rather have Americans working hard and selling their goods and services to Russians and Chinese. They have no desire to "invade" America, or to drop nuclear bombs on the goose that lays the golden eggs. Americans are already slaves to the Russians and the Chinese, insofar as they spend their days working as capitalists for consumers in Russia and China. "The customer is king," as they say, and capitalists are their slaves.
<p>If you don't want to work for the Chinese, and you prefer using the military to get what you want (something for nothing), then <a href="http://Romans13.com/sendevil.htm">God will raise up terrorists in judgment against you</a>.
<p>This is why the hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans turn over to the military-industrial complex every year -- instead of to<ul><li>single mothers contemplating abortion,</li><li>immigrants fleeing drug war cartels to work in peace and feed their families,</li><li>children of absent fathers who need a better education than they get in government schools,</li><li>or to a couple of billion people overseas who need the help more than Raytheon or Lockheed Martin</li></ul> -- represent not just bad stewardship, but <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/defense-slavery.htm">a sinful rejection of the teachings of Jesus Christ</a>.
<p>Go back to Sunday School, and then you'll be equipped to take a position on the Iran Deal.</p>
<hr>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-87946635765789476252015-07-06T15:00:00.000-05:002015-07-06T15:00:42.833-05:00The United Dis-Nations<p><font face="Times New Roman">Some people say I'm crazy because I'm an anarchist.<br><br>Of course, what I say is, "<a href="http://IAmNotanARCHIST.us">I am not an ARCHIST</a>."<br><br>An "<a href="http://howtobecomeachristiananarchist.com/#archist">archist</a>" is someone who believes he has a right to impose his will on others by force or threats of violence.<br><br>Am I really crazy to say that using coercion and threatening <a href="http://kevincraig.us/violence.htm">violence</a> is unethical and immoral?<br><br>Is the following really a crazy <a name="thought">thought</a>:</font></p>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="1" width="87%" cellpadding="10">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#EAEEFF"><font face="Times New Roman">For the last few centuries, human beings have tried organizing their societies using a monopoly of violence called "the State." The State has done the following in the last 100 years:</font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman">murdered <b><span style="background-color: #F9FF79">hundreds of millions</span></b> of innocent non-combatant civilians</font></li>
<li><font face="Times New Roman">enslaved <b><span style="background-color: #F9FF79">billions</span></b> of human beings (the Soviets and the Maoists enslaved entire countries)</font></li>
<li><font face="Times New Roman">stolen (taxed or confiscated or nationalized) <b><span style="background-color: #F9FF79">trillions</span></b> of dollars of private property.</font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">We have tried the idea of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state">the nation-state</a> for hundreds of years now." It has been a dismal failure. <b>Let's try a state-less Free Market system</b>.</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">Is that really a reckless proposal?<br><br>Two things are needed to stop this march of death:</font></p>
<ol>
<li><font face="Times New Roman">persuade the people who wear government uniforms that what they do is unethical or immoral.</font></li>
<li><font face="Times New Roman">persuade those who salute or vote for these people that their lives will be improved once we abolish the machinery of death.</font></li>
</ol>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">Too many people believe that without "governments," <b>criminals</b> -- murderers, thieves and kidnappers -- will:<br><br> • murder hundreds of innocent non-combatant civilians<br> • enslave thousands of human beings<br> • steal millions of dollars of private property.<br><br>Compare that with the record of "<b>the State</b>" <a href="#thought">above</a>.<br><br>In 1994, private non-state criminals in the U.S. stole $28 million.<br>That same year, the government stole $2 BILLION -- one hundred times more -- through just one government revenue program: "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/asset.htm">asset forfeiture</a>."<br><br>"But if we abolish the government in Washington D.C., we will
not be able to defend ourselves, and we will be invaded and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/defense-slavery.htm">enslaved</a>."<br><br>
Yes, by other <B><i>governments</B></i>.<br><br>
Imagine a silent invasion. An enemy government replaces all the people who currently wear U.S. government uniforms with the people who wear government uniforms in Russia or China. It all happens overnight, without a shot being fired. Would Americans notice the difference? You have been invaded and "enslaved." What difference would it make? Would your taxes go up if suddenly all U.S. government employees were Chinese? If the government forced you to bake a cake for a Communist Rally or a homosexual wedding, would you feel better about it solely because the gun pointed to your head was held by your next-door neighbor rather than a "commie" from China?</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">So let's make this a global project.<br><br>Let's persuade human beings in every nation that <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/8th-steal.htm">theft</a>, <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/6th-murder.htm">murder</a>, and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/conscription.htm">kidnapping</a> are immoral, even if conducted by people calling themselves "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/government.htm">the government</a>."<br><br>Let's abolish the United States using a treaty with the people of Russia who agree that both "governments" will resign and disappear simultaneously from the face of the earth. Let's get rid of <b><i>all </i></b>the nation-states at once. <br><br>We could form a non-profit organization to promote this idea and hire experts who could draw up legal blueprints which could be adopted as treaties by governments as their last official act,
abolishing themselves.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">We could call it, <b>"The United Dis-Nations."</font></p></b>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://KevinCraig.us/UN.htm">The United Nations</a> was promoted as <a href="http://kevincraig.us/peace.htm">a path to peace</a>. The path to peace and a "<b><i><font color="#008000">Vine & Fig Tree</font></i></b>" <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/VFT.htm">world</a> is a <b>state-less </b>path.</p>
<p align="right">Christian Globalism: <a href="http://ChristianGlobalism.com">The Vine & Fig Tree Worldview</a></p>
<hr></font>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-58086620845017215902015-06-26T16:02:00.001-05:002015-06-27T00:59:25.463-05:00Obergefell v. Hodges<p>Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.<br />Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.</p>
<hr size="3" />
<p>Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/religion/nature.htm">the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God</a>." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."</p>
<p>In <a href="http://kevincraig.us/commonlaw.htm">centuries of Anglo-American common law history</a>, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers <a href="http://kevincraig.us/marriage.htm">when it declared</a>: "<b>Marriage was not originated by human law</b>."</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/marriage.htm">Marriage was created by God</a>.</li>
</ul>
<b>Choosing the Path of Coercion</b><br />The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/religion/nature.htm">the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God</a>," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."
<p>I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
Nor have I read Justice Scalia's dissent:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/26/scalia-burns-the-supreme-court-as-a-group-of-unrepresentative-elitists/">Scalia burns the Supreme Court as a group of ‘unrepresentative’ elitists in gay marriage ruling - The Washington Post</a></li>
</ul>
<p>I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.<br />Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm">America was a Christian nation</a>. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.</p>
<blockquote>
"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3
</blockquote>
Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."<br />Marriage is not about love.<br />Marriage is not about sex.
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.str.org/quickthoughts/is-marriage-about-love#.VY2nSvlVikp">Is Marriage about Love?</a> | Stand to Reason</li>
</ul>
Marriage is about God' creating human beings "male and female," as Jesus said (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19%3A1-15&version=NKJV">Matthew 19</a>).<br />Marriage is about <b>commitment</b> to God's order.
<blockquote>
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."
</blockquote>
Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated <a href="http://kevincraig.us/14thAmendment.htm">and allegedly ratified</a>, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNoPH-3z7eF6pxSw0JZVtOqH9rD2vE95p9Iq7ONJShmxYhq1ekyuC15rPPBbxLQOO0DvvfLggChqAH1D1foczFID03TvYPjuRE_aJPtyOsy7wH0inE83S6dc8XL2sLicKpy41U/s1600/thomas-clarence-virginia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNoPH-3z7eF6pxSw0JZVtOqH9rD2vE95p9Iq7ONJShmxYhq1ekyuC15rPPBbxLQOO0DvvfLggChqAH1D1foczFID03TvYPjuRE_aJPtyOsy7wH0inE83S6dc8XL2sLicKpy41U/s320/thomas-clarence-virginia.jpg" width="320" /></a>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas and wife Virginia Thomas<br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html">POLITICO.com</a></span>
</div>
<br />
<hr size="3">
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-85856660392737237112015-06-18T10:45:00.000-05:002015-06-18T10:45:17.446-05:00Anarcho-Capitalism and Abortion<p>The biggest issue in the 2016 Presidential race will be whether the forces of smaller government can unite behind a single candidate to run against the candidate of the forces of bigger government.</p>
<p>"The forces of smaller government" are:</p>
<ol>
<li><b>Conservative Christians</b>, a.k.a. "the religious right."
<ul>
<li>Believe abortion and homosexuality (etc.) must be eradicated.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><b>Secular libertarians </b>-- I'll call them "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/anarcho-capitalism.htm">anarcho-capitalists</a>"
<ul>
<li>Don't care about, or even endorse, abortion and homosexuality (etc.).</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Christian conservatives <b><i>say </i></b>they want smaller government, but they want a government big enough to fight abortionists, homosexuals, and Muslims.
<p>Secular libertarians want smaller government, but they don't seem to care if mothers kill their own children, two (or more?) people of the same sex get "married," and don't realize that their secular worldview is no match for Islam.</p>
<p>Can these two groups agree on a candidate to run against the Big Government candidate?</p>
<p>If they don't, then the Republican candidate will either displease conservative Christians, who will stay at home rather than vote for another Mitt Romney who does not oppose abortion and homosexuality, or the Republican candidate<i><b> will</b></i> please social conservatives, but neo-conservatives (who despise conservative Christian morality) will vote for a hawk like Hillary, and secular libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will be crowned.</p>
<p>As it stands right now, I don't think Christians and libertarians can agree, and the reason is that conservatives -- even "Christian" conservatives -- do not really support smaller government.</p>
<p>Socially conservative Christians must become libertarians on the social issues: abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, you name the "hot-button" issue. Only by moving toward the "anarchist" side of the political spectrum can these sins be <b><font color="#FF0000"><i>eradicated</i></font></b>.</p>
<p>In every case, Christian conservatives look to the government for solutions, forgetting that the government caused the problems in the first place, and will only make the problems worse.</p>
<p><b>Abortion</b> is an interesting example. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/06/nation/na-abort6">Millions of dollars have been spent</a> by conservative Christians seeking government solutions to abortion. <a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/27606">There is good reason to believe</a> that the decline in abortion over the last decade does not represent an upsurge of Christian morality, but a decline in the "stigma" attached to out-of-wedlock births (which are now nearly "fashionable"), allowing single mothers to get support for the children they might otherwise have killed for convenience. This in turn suggests that <b>Christians</b> -- instead of giving loving <i>support </i>to unwed mothers -- gave them "<b>stigma</b>," and directed massive resources (which they might have employed in supporting unwed mothers and giving a Christian upbringing to their illegitimate children) to political lobbyists, to get laws passed which would, I suppose, put in prison mothers who kill their kids, or maybe have them executed. <i><b>After</b></i> they kill their kid.</p>
<p>Why is it that the mothers of 55 million babies since 1973 found the greedy, bloodthirsty abortion industry more attractive than Christians opening their heart, homes and wallets to support those children?</p>
<p>On <a href="http://kevincraig.us/abortion_sanctions.htm">this issue</a> and issues like <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/immigration_sanctions.htm">immigration</a>, Christians have failed to follow the <a href="http://kevincraig.us/missions.htm">dictates of their religion</a>, and have lobbied for bigger government. </p>
<p>Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/standing-armies.htm">size</a> of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/false-religion.htm">false religions</a>, using government to aid in "<a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/12/day-7-kingmas-christ-king.html">The Great Commission</a>" is <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/tithe.htm">unChristian</a>. And destroying <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/true_religion.htm">the
true religion</a> using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm">Iraq</a>.</p>
<p>America is no longer a "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/cityhill.htm">City upon a Hill</a>," as Jesus used that phrase. The United States is an <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/imperialism.htm">imperialist</a> war-monger state.</p>
"<b>Obamacare</b>" is God's <a href="judge.htm">judgment</a> on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "<a href="mercy.htm">works of mercy</a>" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Hospitals were built by Christians with Christian money. Modern Christians wanted government Medicare subsidies for their aging parents. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/salvation.htm">give glory to the State</a>. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for all the poor of the world. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Sider">Prof. Ronald J. Sider</a> notes;
<blockquote>
<p><font size="4">“</font>If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough <b><i>private Christian</i> dollars</b> to provide basic health care and education to <i><b>all the poor of the earth</i></b>. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”<br><a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/996-book-review-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-conscience.html"><font size="2">Book Review: <i>The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience</i> - Acton Institute PowerBlog</font></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>But American Christians prefer a Frappuccino® and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches. Let the government take care of the poor folks and the old folks.</p>
<p>Again, had Christians taken their responsibilities (and their financial power) seriously, advocates of "Obamacare" could never have gotten a foothold.</p>
<p>Further, the importance of providing <b><a href="http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm">education</a></b> for all the poor of the earth should not be overlooked. Education is the foundation of <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/civilization.htm">Christian civilization</a>. Global Christian education has <b>staggering</b> foreign policy implications. See the concept outlined on <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm">our Iraq page</a>. Some Muslims understand this better than most Christians. See <a href="http://chalcedon.edu/blog/2012/10/11/do-we-need-to-go-to-war-to-stop-the-advance-of-islam-a-chalcedon-moment-special-edition/">this</a> extraordinary admission by Muslim leaders:</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://chalcedon.edu/blog/2012/10/11/do-we-need-to-go-to-war-to-stop-the-advance-of-islam-a-chalcedon-moment-special-edition/">Do We Need to Go to War to Stop the Advance of Islam?</a></p>
<p align="center"><center>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9nUYjp5oiA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></center>
<p>Sure, it's not easy to assume the financial responsibilities that come with obeying Christ when <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/burden.htm">Caesar is working 24/7</a> to <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm">empty your pockets</a> of everything you worked to earn. But the Bible says <a href="http://Romans13.com/sendevil.htm">God sends Caesar</a> and Pharaoh and Bush-Obama against the people that will not put God and His commandments first.</p>
<p>In every case, the institution we call "the State" or "civil government" eventually destroys Christian civilization.</p>
<ul>
<li>The State has destroyed <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/schools.htm">education</a> (which was originally created to make sure everyone could <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/bible-education.htm">read the Bible</a>),</li>
<li>and <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/healthcare.htm">healthcare</a>,</li>
<li><b><font color="#FF0000">the Military</font></b> <a href="http://Romans13.com/nisbet.htm">is at war with the family</a> (causing divorce and suicide)</li>
<li>and <a href="http://costsofwar.org/article/us-veterans-and-military-families">tears the fabric of life</a> at home and abroad
<ul>
<li>675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability</li>
<li>More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars</li>
<li>As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed</li>
<li>The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians</li>
<li>Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians</li>
<li>The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women</li>
<li>Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003</li>
<li>The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion</li>
<li>Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians</li>
<li>The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The State is at war <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/war.htm">against Christian virtues</a>.</li>
<li>Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/tentacles.htm">around the world</a>.</li>
<li>The government is a model of <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm">violence</a> as a solution to <a href="http://kevincraig.us/zap.htm">personal and social problems</a>.</li>
<li>Christians err grievously by voting for the "lesser of two evils," which is each and every candidate who does not trumpet the truth that "<a href="http://howtobecomeachristiananarchist.com/#acton">power corrupts</a>," and legalized violence is the cause of every problem and the solution to none.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<font size="4" color="#000080">From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?</font><font color="#800080" size="4"><br></font><b><font color="#800080" size="5">In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government <i>is</i> the problem.</font></b>
</blockquote>
<dl>
<dt align="right">-- <font size="4">President Ronald Reagan</font>, <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43130&st=In+this+present+crisis%2C+government+is+not+the+solution+to+our+problem%3B+government+is+the+problem&st1=">First Inaugural Address</a></dt>
<p>In no case is the government a better solution to social problems than Christians families, businesses, charities, and an army of <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/missions.htm">voluntary associations</a>, working outside the State, and sometimes against the State. </p>
<p><font size="4">Christians need to realize that <span style="background-color: #FDFFB3">Radical libertarianism</span> is the best way to advance <span style="background-color: #EAEEFF">socially conservative morality.</span> </font></p>
<p>If you give the State an inch to do the work of the People of God, you give the State a mile to undercut it. Libertarians who do not oppose abortion and homosexuality -- but who actually oppose bigger government in practice -- do more to help Christians be "<a href="http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:13&version=KJV">salt</a>" and "<a href="http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A14-16&version=KJV">light</a>" and a "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/cityhill.htm">City upon a Hill</a>," and therefore do more to end abortion and homosexuality than neo-conservative Republicans who solicit funds from the Christian Right with empty talk about "values." Christians should be libertarian with respect to political power; willing to endure accusations of trying to "impose a <a href="http://KevinCraig.US/anarcho-theocracy.htm">Theocracy</a>" because we uphold a strong and clear moral standard. And above all, characterized by self-sacrificing love, which trusts in the Holy Spirit to change hearts.</p>
<p>Without a commitment to personal obedience and responsibility, it is all too likely that Christians in 2016 will once again vote for an <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/establishment.htm">Establishment</a> Republican who promises government solutions to problems that can only be cured by Christians.</p>
<p>Please leave a comment if you can think of a social problem which is better solved (and was never caused in the first place) by the State, rather than by "the Church," that is, by Christians of every denomination who function as the Body of Christ.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://HowToBecomeaChristianAnarchist.com">How To Become a Christian Anarchist</a></p>
</dl>
<hr>
<p>We are not Christian anarchists because we do not want to obey God's Commandments. We are Christian anarchists because "<b><font color="#FF0000">archists</font></b>" invented "the State" to evade God's Commandments.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://KevinCraig.us/audio/chartier/CONSCIENCE%20spring%202012%20(5th%20printing).pdf">The Conscience of an Anarchist </a><font size="1">[pdf]</font> | Gary Chartier</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199365164/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0199365164&linkCode=as2&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkId=AI3DF4BME2VFHLDF">Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life</a> | Edward Peter Stringham | anarchist blueprint newly published by Oxford University Press.</p>
<hr>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-45440189253211986752015-06-15T11:41:00.001-05:002015-06-15T11:41:10.729-05:00Your Magna Carta Reader<p>Today (June 15) is the 800th Anniversary of the signing of the "Magna Carta" in 1215.</p>
<p>If you went to a school approved by the government, you know next to nothing about this document.</p>
<p>Probably the main reason the government doesn't want you to know about it is that the document is an explicitly Christian document.</p>
<p>It is proof that "Western Civilization" is really "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/civilization.htm">Christian Civilization</a>."</p>
<p>Take an hour out to read up on history.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm">Magna Carta</a> -- The text of the document
<p><a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/27583">Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta</a> -- Breakpoint.org</p>
<p><a href="http://americanvision.org/3524/the-forgotten-clauses-of-the-magna-carta/">The Forgotten Clauses of the Magna Carta - The American Vision</a></p>
<p><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/search?q=%22magna+carta%22">Free Association: "Magna Carta"</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/paul-craig-roberts/happy-800th-birthday/">Happy 800th Birthday</a> - Paul Craig Roberts</p>
<p><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/bionic-mosquito/legitimizing-the-state/">Legitimizing the State</a> - The problem with a Charter (making an agreement) with the State</p>
<p>Here's a discussion I had on <a href="http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/magna_charta.htm">The Magna Carta</a> and Christian Civilization with a Secular Humanist back in 1998:</p>
<hr>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" width="86%" bgcolor="#F2EEDF">
<tr>
<td width="66%"><strong>The Liberty Window</strong><br>At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. <strong>The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.</strong>
<p align="right"><small><cite><a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006409.jpg">The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774</a></cite><br>Stained glass and lead, from The Liberty Window, Christ Church, Philadelphia, after a painting by Harrison Tompkins Matteson, c. 1848<br>Courtesy of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia (101)</small></p>
<p align="center"><small>From The Library of Congress<br>"<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html">Religion and the Founding of the American Republic</a>"</small></td>
<td width="34%">
<p align="center"><img src="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc6409th.jpg" align="center" width="100" height="150"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
<hr>
<p>Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. and TenCommandments<br>From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)<br>Date: 05 Apr 1998 19:24:49 EDT<br><br>In article <1998033106354001.BAA13549@ladder03.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:</p>
<p><b><font color="#FF0000">>I pointed out that, contrary to Kevin's assertion, the Supreme Court did not<br>>say that the mere posting of the 10 Commandments on a school wall is<br>>forbidden, but rather that government officials may not order the posting for<br>>religious purposes.<br>><br>>Kevin said: </font> >>So are you saying that it is constitutional for a school to<br>>post copies<br>>of the 10 commandments? Have you read <a href="http://VFTonline.org/TestOath/Stone.htm">Stone v. Graham</a>, 449 US 39?<br>>Sure doesn't sound like it.<br><font color="#FF0000">><br></font></b><font color="#FF0000">></font><a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39">http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39</a><<<br><font color="#FF0000"><b>><br>>If
a school were to post a series of codes that are illustrative of the<br>>heritage of U.S. law, and those codes were to include the 10 Commandments,<br>>the Court would probably let it stand. The Court itself has such an<br>>historical display in the bas reliefs in its chambers. If you include the<br>>Code of Hammurabi, the Koran, the Code Napoleonic, the works of Maimonides,<br>>the works of Solon -- sure, the Court would allow the Ten Commandments to be<br>>posted. I<br>>have been in many schools that feature the American Legions "documents of<br>>freedom," including the Ten Commandments. In context, it makes a lot of<br>>sense. </b></font></p>
<p>Only if you're a Secular Humanist, who wants to deny the authority of the Christian religion. These codes contradict each other. Students are taught the lesson that they must make up their own religion as they go along. The Founders did not give equal weight to all religions. Some were "<b>false</b>," <a href="http://VFTonline.org/TestOath/memorial.htm#12">as Madison declared</a>. The Constitution absolutely and unequivocally does not prohibit the states from teaching students that the Bible is the Word of God and other "writings" are not.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code. . . Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.<br>John Quincy Adams, <em>Letters of JQA to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings</em>, (1850), pp. 70-71</p>
<p>Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.<br>-- Sam Adams 1790 [To John Adams, who wrote back:<br>"You and I agree."]</p>
<p>One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.<br>-- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,<br>Founder of Harvard Law School</p>
<p>[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.<br>(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>I haven't looked at Stone v. Graham for a few months -- but I don't<br>>think you will find anywhere the Court saying that posting such a code is, by<br>>itself, offensive. </b></font></p>
<p>That is PRECISELY what the Court said. As you correctly surmised above, only by reducing God's Law to the same level as other "false" religions would the Court let the posting stand. The mind of man must be exalted above the Word of God, according to the Court.</p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>What is repugnant to the Constitution is the order that<br>>the Ten Commandments alone be posted, to illustrate the way kids should<br>>behave. </b></font></p>
<p>How much better to have kids gunning each other down, as in Jonesboro, Ark.!! This thinking is repugnant to everything the Founders fought for. They would repudiate this thinking. They would consider your argument a danger to the Republic, just as <a href="http://kevincraig.us/deism.htm#Paine">Franklin urged Thomas Paine not to publish his scurrilous *Age of Reason.*</a></p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>I said earlier: >It DID say that the state legislature may not order any<br>>>version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom of the<br>state<br>>>in order to promote Christianity. <<<br>><br>>Kevin said: >></b></font>Was it the purpose of Kentucky to "promote Christianity," or<br>>to make<br>>students aware of the foundations of Western Civilization? <br>><br>> [T]he legislature required the following notation in small print at the<br>> bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments: "The secular <br>> application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption <br>> as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and
the Common <br>> Law of the United States." 1978 Ky. Acts, ch. 436, 1 (effective June 17, <br>> 1978), Ky. Rev. Stat. 158.178 (1980).<<<<br>><br><font color="#FF0000"><b>>It's always been curious to me why Kentucky refused to acknowledge the<br>>influence of the Magna Carta on U.S. law, </b></font></p>
<p>The Magna Charta? Do you even know the basic issue behind the Magna Charta?</p>
<p><b><font color="#FF0000">>claiming that the 10 Commandments<br>>was essentially the only influence. </font></b></p>
<p>"Only?" No such claim was made. It clearly was the "fundamental" influence in Western Law. Not Buddha, not Solon. Why is this so difficult for you infidels to understand? KY did not "refuse" to acknowledge the Magna Charta. But if you had limited wall space in a classroom, would you post the Ten Commandments, or the Magna Charta? Well, fortunately, Kentucky didn't ask you. But even if they had, the result would have been "unconstitutional":</p>
<p>Harvard Prof. Harold Berman:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed all England under interdict and excommunicated King John, threatening to depose him and give his crown to Philip Augustus of France. The reason was John's refusal to accept the pope's nominee as Archbishop of Caterbury. "England groaned under the interdict." Churches remained closed for years. King John counterattacked by putting his own men in clerical offices, but he ultimately submitted; in fact he gave England to the pope and received it back as a feif, swearing an oath of vassalage and agreeing to send a yearly tribute to Rome. In 1215 King John, in the very first provision of Magna Carta, declared <i>quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit</i> -- "that the English Church be free" -- which meant, of course, free under the papacy from control by kings or barons. Law and Revolution, pp. 262-63</p>
<p>The right and duty to disobey the divinely appointed king-autocrat when he violates fundamental law was based on the belief that that fundamental law was itself divinely instituted. Popes and kings made laws, but they did so as deputies of God; not they themselves but "God is the source of all law." Thus the concept of the rule of law was supported by the prevailing religious ideology. <br><i>Law & Revolution</i>, p. 293</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, as I see it, the basic debate on this board is this: I say that the civil government has a duty to conform to Biblical/Christian principles. You say the state has an obligation to be secular. The Magna Charta is CLEARLY not on your side, but on the side of Kentucky and the Ten Commandments.</p>
<p>Shall we read the document?</p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<h3>THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):</h3>
<p>Preamble:<br>John, <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">by the grace of God,</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ooops, fails the <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/war.htm#LEMON">Lemon Test</a> already</p>
<blockquote>
<p>king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul,</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>oh dear . . .</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>how embarrassing . . .</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, [names withheld] of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope . . . .</p>
<p>1. In the first place <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">we have granted to God</span>, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever <span style="background-color: #FFE1FF">that the English Church shall be free</span>, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all
the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All the rights subsequently guaranteed are stated in order to establish the proper church and ensure that God's Law is followed.</p>
<p>Some of the rights are curious:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.<br>11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But properly understood, they are not secular.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.</p>
<p>45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.<br>46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.<br>48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">chosen by the honest men</span> of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not
be in England.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>"<a href="http://kevincraig.us/22leaders.htm">Chosen by honest men</a>" is a Scriptural concept.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.<br><br>61. Since, moveover, <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">for God and the amendment of our kingdom</span> and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security,</p>
<p>62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.<br>63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that <span style="background-color: #FFE1FF">the English Church be free,</span> and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the
aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>That's a silly position that not even<br>>you would defend, Kevin. And it didn't wash with the Court. Kentucky did<br>>not intend to make a secular display, as evidenced by their erroneous<br>>statement of history, and their completely ignoring other more relevant<br>>historical<br>>documents. </b></font></p>
<p>No document is more relevant to "the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."</p>
<p><b><font color="#FF0000">>What about the Declaration of Independence? What about the<br>>Constitution? </font></b> </p>
<p>Neither of those documents establishes whether and why killing, stealing, and raping are immoral and should be illegal.</p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>Kentucky's position was silly and indefensible, though I admit<br>>they wasted a lot of taxpayers' money trying to defend it. </b></font></p>
<p>Words of a fool. The collapse of Western Civilization can be laid at your feet.</p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b>>Kevin said: >></b></font>But of course, no matter what the state says its motivations<br>>are, the omniscient Sup Ct will impute evil motivations and say, "Oh, no,<br>>you're just doing that to promote Christianity. BAD BOY!"<font color="#FF0000"><b><<<<br>><br>>As with most of these cases, the conspiracy to put forth a phony set of<br>>motivations always fails. If the legislature were concerned with the<br>>heritage of U.S. common law, why didn't they order a high school course in<br>>common law? Their argument that third grade students needed to know the<br>>heritage of common law is guffaw-worthy.<br>><br>>Do you seriously believe the legislature was worried about Western<br>>Civilization, Kevin? <br>><br>>Ed</b></font></p>
<p>Western Civilization has pretty much been trashed by Secular Humanism. At this point, the biggest worry of Kentucky teachers is that some student who thinks he is god is going to gun them and a few students down. But the Legislature SAID they were worried about "Western Civilization," that's what the plaque below the Ten Commandments said (not "the Word of God" or anything religious), and it is outrageous that the Humanists on the Supreme Court imposed <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/humanism.htm">their religion</a> on the schools of Kentucky.<br>The Constitution is dead meat, thanks to Secular Humanists.</p>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-31450988987797491542015-05-31T14:20:00.000-05:002015-05-31T14:22:12.901-05:00Drones and Workers<p>I learned something about insects today.<br><br>I used to think "drones" were "workers." This is evident on <a href="http://google.com/search?q=drone+site%3Avftonline.org">several of my old webpages</a>. For example, on <a href="http://vftonline.org/TestOath/02intro.htm">this page</a> (which I notice was last edited on Monday, July 13, 1998, 12:10:36 AM) I spoke of the "worker-drone" who was held captive by the modern "American dream" of working an unfulfilling job to pay the mortgage and accumulate the trinkets of modern society, but not aspiring to any higher spiritual purpose:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the material realm, life in the 1990's consists mainly of a dreary 8-5 job shuffling papers or manufacturing weapons for the New World Order, making interest payments on a mortgage, and keeping the volume down on the kids' Nintendo. This "middle-class" lifestyle differs radically from that envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. His land-owning "yeoman farmer" was much closer to the Biblical ideal of the wealthy Patriarch <a href="http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/7/abraham.htm">Abraham</a> (Genesis 13:2), and both are a far cry from the secularized American <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">worker-drone</span>. The televised vision of the "American Dream" effectively serves the agenda of the ruling elites in Washington. As millions of serfs labor, the lords increase their wealth.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But "drones" are not "workers."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/648071/worker">Among termites</a>, "The sterile castes are the workers and soldiers. Both are wingless and usually lack eyes."</p>
<p>That's what I was thinking of: a wingless worker who lacks eyes. (There's a profound metaphor there.)</p>
<p>The common meaning of the word "drone" has changed a great deal since I wrote that page above. Today the most common identification of a "drone" is an unmanned bomber or surveillance aircraft.</p>
<p>In the world of insects, as I was thinking of them, "drones" were mindless workers. In reality, drones are not workers, they are worthless maters. They do nothing of value until they die impregnating the Queen bee.</p>
<center>
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qO37yoTi9es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<p>Worker bees are females. Drones are males. (More metaphors.) Other than mating with the Queen bee, drones are worthless. They don't work, they just eat honey.<br><br>In <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CzIIAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA254&ots=6l57ez1TqK&dq=%22may%20fairly%20be%20compared%20to%20the%20aristocracy%20of%20a%20state%22&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q=%22may%20fairly%20be%20compared%20to%20the%20aristocracy%20of%20a%20state%22&f=false">Episodes of Insect Life</a>, Volume 1, L. M. Budgen observes that drones, because of "their worthless qualities, may fairly be compared to the aristocracy of a state, where birth, not worth, makes the man."</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/ant-anatomy"><img border="0" src="http://KevinCraig.US/images/worker_major_minor.jpg" width="500" height="288"></a></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://antark.net/ant-facts/"><img border="0" src="http://KevinCraig.US/images/dorylus_.jpg" width="300" height="277"></a></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/courses/genomics_course/roanoke/evolution.html"><img border="0" src="http://KevinCraig.US/images/drone-aristocrat.gif" width="400" height="675"></a></p>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-69137140302453378992015-05-18T16:30:00.000-05:002015-05-18T16:30:26.310-05:00Why I Weep at All Military Parades<p>Here's an interesting article about the recent parade in Russia commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Russian Army:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/13/why-i-wept-at-the-russian-parade/">Why I Wept at the Russian Parade | Veterans Today</a></p>
<p>The author has fallen for the propaganda of the military parade.</p>
<p>Many people will agree that National Socialism (also known as Nazism -- "Nazi" is short for <i>Nationalsozialismus</i>, the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (<i>Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei</i>) was a great evil.</p>
<p>Many people will agree that International Socialism (also known as Communism, the ideology spread by Moscow) is evil.</p>
<p>A growing number of people around the world are coming to agree that "democracy" (also known as "freedom," "free enterprise," "free market," the ideology spread by those who call themselves a "Constitutional Republic") is also evil. Those who call it evil might also call it "crony capitalism," or "fascism." (It has very little to do with freedom and <a href="http://www.theadvocates.org/free-market-freed-market/">freed markets</a>.)</p>
<p>There is growing concern about Russia and China working together to spread Communism. (Or whatever you want to call their form of "government.") Many nations have long been concerned with the United States spreading "democracy" in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, and many other nations. </p>
<p>There is good reason to believe that the United States Federal Government is the most evil and most dangerous entity on the planet. "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/enemy.htm">The enemy of mankind</a>."</p>
<p>Thankfully, the United States is dying. It might be that the U.S. will ignite another world war just to protect its crumbling hegemony, but in the long run, the kind of imperialism and mass death promoted by the U.S. during the last 150 or so years cannot be maintained long into the 21st century.</p>
<p>World War II was a war against Christian civilization. Franklin Roosevelt, led by communists in the White House, brought the U.S. into the war to protect the spread of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia. The United States is responsible in large part for the casualties of the war itself (as many as 90 million) and the deaths caused by Communism in China (76 million). The carnage of two atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. was dwarfed by the massive Allied firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, and other major cities.</p>
<p>No rational Christian can support <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/worldwar.htm">World War II</a>. Russia was not any better off materially, financially, or spiritually under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler. Good arguments can be made that Hitler could not have terrorized the Russian people from Germany as effectively as Stalin did from Moscow. Jesus expressly commanded His followers <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/defense-slavery.htm">not to resist invasion and military occupation</a>. More than a hundred million human beings died to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. Private Property, including architecture and art representing centuries of human progress, produced and appreciated from the depths of the human heart and imagination, were destroyed on a massive scale. Again, to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. This is truly a form of insanity, lunacy, madness. What word describes such lethal society-wide sociopathy as massive destruction over two obviously false antitheses? </p>
<p>In Moscow, hundreds of thousands of Russians, many with portraits "of the estimated 27 to perhaps 30 million Soviet citizens who never returned alive from World War II" watched a parade of soldiers and weapons of mass destruction through the main boulevard in Moscow, and elsewhere throughout the nation. The soldiers of the Russian Army should have reached the same conclusion <a href="http://kevincraig.us/ali.htm">Muhammad Ali</a> reached, when he decided to stay out of the Vietnam war and face prison rather than kill or be killed in a senseless war.</p>
<p>World War II was an "unnecessary war," to quote the title of <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?280462-2/book-discussion-churchill-hitler-unnecessary-war">Pat Buchanan's book</a>. The parades in Russia celebrated the war rather than mourning it, and mourned the soldiers who fought it rather than forgive them their trespasses, and honor those who stayed home to raise their families. And the author of the article above seems also to have been "impressed" rather than depressed.</p>
<p>Jesus came to bring "Peace on Earth." In many ways, the world is more peaceful to day than it was before Jesus came. A huge percentage of human beings in the ancient world died violent deaths, whereas today over 7 billion people enjoy levels of peace and prosperity which the ancient world could not have imagined. Twelve disciples have changed the lives of billions of people and many nations.</p>
<p>But we have a great distance to go. The pro-military parade in Russia is taking us backward. Those who yearn for a "united" America, in solidarity with "the troops" and "proud" of "our government," are also taking us toward war and totalitarianism and away from freedom and peace.</p>
<p>We must "beat our <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/swords.htm">swords into plowshares</a>" (which some derisively call "<a href="http://TheonomicPacifism.com">pacifism</a>"), to the point where we abolish the myth of legitimate <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/zap.htm">aggression</a> ("<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/state-criminal.htm">government</a>," the absence of which some call "<a href="http://AnarchistBibleBet.com">anarchism</a>"), and trust in "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/religion/providence.htm">Divine Providence</a>" rather than government <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm">coercion</a>. America once thought of herself as a nation "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/UnderGod.htm">under God</a>." Today this is ruled out as "<a href="http://KevinCraig.us/theocracy.htm">Theocracy</a>." The alternative is mass death under
atheistic despotism.</p>Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-52696538217295350182015-05-07T13:13:00.000-05:002015-05-07T13:13:08.324-05:00National Day of Prayer<p>Today is the <a href="http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/national-day-prayer">National Day of Prayer in the United States</a>.</p>
<p>Prayer used to be about God. Today prayer is about ME. Maybe about US. Not about God. Not about <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/duty.htm">duty</a>. Not about <a href="http://KevinCraig.us/repent.htm">repentance</a>.</p>
<h3>Resources for the National Day of Prayer</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/Adams13.htm#Proclamation">A Proclamation by President John Adams, March 6, 1799</a>
<ul>
<li>Notice that the emphasis is on our need to repent before God.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/06/presidential-proclamation-national-day-prayer-2015">Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Prayer, 2015 | The White House</a>
<ul>
<li>Notice how prayer is seen as an offense against "religious freedom"</li>
<li>Prayer is, at best, something that is self-empowering, not really God-centered</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2009/05/national-day-of-prayer.html">National Day of Prayer</a> - Obama vs. Bush
<ul>
<li>Hypocrisy is better than hostility</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="http://vftonline.org/VFTprayer/Proclamations/National%20Day%20of%20Prayer%20Proclamation%202002.htm">National Day of Prayer Proclamation</a> George W. Bush, 2002</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2010/05/conspiracy-theory-and-day-of-prayer.html">Thomas Jefferson, Conspiracy Theory and the Day of Prayer</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/prayer.htm">Government-Sponsored Prayer</a>
<ul>
<li>The government used to acknowledge that God is God and the government is not</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-prayers.html">Two Prayers</a> - Two Americas</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2008/05/national-day-of-prayer.html">National Day of Prayer</a>, 2008</li>
<li><a href="http://vftonline.org/VFTprayer/webpages/Prayer%20of%20Jabez%20-%20Spurgeon.htm">Prayer of Jabez</a> as told by Charles H. Spurgeon</li>
<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0925279420/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0925279420&linkCode=as2&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkId=7X3HLJIG6XOGJZKP">America: To Pray or Not to Pray: David Barton</a>
<ul>
<li>America's Decline since the government began opposing prayer</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/hindu-prayers-in-senate.html">Hindu Prayers in the Senate</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2006/05/national-day-of-prayer.html">National Day of Prayer</a>, 2006</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://extraordinarychristiancoaching.com/daily.htm">Why Daily Prayer</a><a> - read the Bible and Pray</a> <i>Daily</i></p>
<b> Q.98 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:</b>
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dt>Prayer is</dt>
<dd>• an offering up of our desires unto God<br>• for things agreeable to His will,<br>• in the name of Christ,<br>• with confession of our sins,<br>• and thankful acknowledgement of His mercies.</dd>
<dt> <br>From the <a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2009/10/welcome-to-westminster-180.html">Westminster Standards in 180 Days</a>.</dt>
</dl>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-145-how-to-pray-part-1.html">Day 145: How to Pray, part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-146-how-to-pray-part-2.html">Day 146: How to Pray, part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-147-how-to-pray-part-3.html">Day 147: How to Pray, part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-148-lords-prayer-part-1.html">Day 148: The Lord's Prayer, part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-149-lords-prayer-part-2.html">Day 149: The Lord's Prayer, part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-150-lords-prayer-part-3.html">Day 150: The Lord's Prayer, part 3</a> - "Thy Kingdom Come"</li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-151-lords-prayer-part-4.html">Day 151: The Lord's Prayer, part 4</a> - "Thy Will Be Done"</li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-152-lords-prayer-part-5.html">Day 152: The Lord's Prayer, part 5</a> - "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread"</li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-153-lords-prayer-part-6.html">Day 153: The Lord's Prayer, part 6</a> - "Forgive Us Our Debts"</li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-154-lords-prayer-part-7.html">Day 154: The Lord's Prayer, part 7</a> - "Lead us Not into Temptation"</li>
<li><a href="http://westminster180.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-155-lords-prayer-part-8.html">Day 155: The Lord's Prayer, part 8</a> - "For Thine is the Kingdom"</li>
</ul>
<hr>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-10954425682887784432015-04-27T19:27:00.000-05:002015-04-27T19:31:02.265-05:00Tomorrow: Historic Supreme Court Case<a href="http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/SCOTUS-marriage-case/index.html">Tomorrow</a> the Supreme Court will hear the case of <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/" target="_blank"><em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em>.</a> It could be one of the most important cases in the history of the United States.<br />
<br />
Just 30 years ago, in a Georgia case, the Supreme Court upheld state laws which made it a crime to engage in homosexual acts. A <b>crime</b>. <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140">Bowers v. Hardwick</a>, <a href="http://www.justia.us/us/478/186" target="_blank">478 U.S. 186 (1986)</a> Writing for the Court, Justice White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road to "illegitimacy."<br />
<br />
The Court looked back on <span style="background-color: yellow;">thousands of years of human history</span> and the entire history of the United States, and said:<br />
<blockquote>
It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. [<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/case.html#F5" name="T5" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a44a7; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Footnote 5</a>] In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. [<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/case.html#F6" name="T6" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a44a7; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Footnote
6</a>] In fact, until 1961, [<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/case.html#F7" name="T7" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a44a7; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Footnote 7</a>] all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.</blockquote>
Then, less than 20 years later, the Court reversed itself. <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102">Lawrence and Garner v. Texas</a> <a href="http://www.justia.us/us/539/558" target="_blank">539 U.S. 558 (2003)</a> The Court's reasoning in this case should have overruled <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, as <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html#586">Antonin Scalia</a> pointed out in his dissent (begins p. 586).<br />
<br />
Tomorrow the Court will hear a case which may result in the most "facetious" opinion in American history, sending the Court to the end of the road to <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/">complete</a> "illegitimacy," by ruling that homosexuality is a fundamental "right," and that calling it a "sin" (as the Bible does) is hateful "animus" without a "rational" basis, and that America must officially declare that two homosexuals can be genuinely, truly "<b>married</b>" in the eyes of God.<br />
<br />
It is staggering that thousands of years of human history can be swept away in less than 30 years. It is more staggering that Americans could be forced -- by being threatened with fines, incarceration, and the destruction of the businesses they have worked a lifetime to build -- to publicly applaud, honor, celebrate, and affirm behavior which was once universally recognized as being contrary to "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/religion/nature.htm">the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God</a>." Such a decision would mean the end of the First Amendment as the framers of the Bill of Rights knew it.<br />
<br />
Homosexual conduct should not be punished by the government by <a href="http://kevincraig.us/fines.htm">fines</a>, being <a href="http://kevincraig.us/prisons.htm">locked in a cage</a> with a violent psychopath, or <a href="http://kevincraig.us/capital_punishment.htm">firing squad</a>. Neither should the refusal of an artist to portray the immoral act in a laudatory way.<br />
<br />
You should take a moment right now to pray for the attorneys who will be arguing this case tomorrow, and for the Justices who will be rendering their decision in the weeks to come.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGfi8rsQ31wsmjiS8oQINe3HJZjQkjB2wvrQ6EdqB_0dhVM1xjeM57yIJ8X87tqarr7fIjzIuOuPV04gBgCHkO-DThVx_Me7aYlGQ4ecB1DuBguyJV53uD98j-2zhL3rq5Vdtf/s1600/us-sup-ct.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGfi8rsQ31wsmjiS8oQINe3HJZjQkjB2wvrQ6EdqB_0dhVM1xjeM57yIJ8X87tqarr7fIjzIuOuPV04gBgCHkO-DThVx_Me7aYlGQ4ecB1DuBguyJV53uD98j-2zhL3rq5Vdtf/s1600/us-sup-ct.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-49563956277825610732015-03-16T15:11:00.000-05:002015-03-16T15:11:57.381-05:00A Christian Nation? Since When?There's no doubt that some irreligious people use Christianity for purposes which are not consistent with their religious rhetoric.
<br />
<br />
Princeton history professor Kevin M. Kruse has compiled some interesting examples of how “Christian nation” rhetoric was used in the 1930's (and subsequently) to oppose the New Deal and support “Big Business.” He speaks of these people as "Christian libertarians."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/a-christian-nation-since-when.html?_r=0">A Christian Nation? Since When? - NYTimes.com</a>
<br />
<br />
Opposition to government tyranny (such as the <a href="http://kevincraig.us/newdeal.htm">New Deal</a>) is not inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, but government-subsidized consumerism (“corporatism,” “crony-capitalism”) is. However, saying that America is “a Christian nation” is not inconsistent with history.<br />
<br />
Prof. Kruse says,
<br />
<blockquote>
But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and
slogans that come to mind
when we consider whether this is a Christian nation.
Our grandfathers did. Back in the 1930s . . . .
</blockquote>
He's a liar. The Founders did.<br />
Not to say that America's Christian history
has not been exploited by government and mammon
in the secular 20th century, -- especially as
Washington D.C. was deliberately <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/war.htm">secularizing</a> America, and universities were scrubbing her history of
all Christian influence -- but it is false to say
that America's Founders did NOT intend to create a Christian nation.<br />
<br />
<div>
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed American
history going back to Columbus and declared
that America “is a Christian nation.”<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm">America is “a Christian Nation” -- <i>Holy Trinity Church v. United States</i> (1892)</a></li>
</ul>
That America is (was) a Christian nation is a legal fact. Obviously the Court in 1892 was much more conservative
than the Court today. Seeing the rise of Darwinism
and secularism, the <i>Holy Trinity</i> Court took the opportunity
of a case involving the Holy Trinity Church
in New York to remind the nation of
her heritage, taking up half of the Court's
unanimous opinion with a review of America's
Christian history.<br />
<br />
A generation later, and continuing to the present day, Kruse says "Christian nation" rhetoric was used to promote “capitalism,” a term which in our day refers to a union between big government and big business. As Kruse puts it,<br />
<blockquote>
they began an inspired public relations offensive
that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity.
</blockquote>
The relationship between Christianity and Capitalism
was proven back in 1905 by Max Weber.<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/protestantethic/summary.html">SparkNotes: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: Summary</a></li>
</ul>
Other historians have argued that capitalism exploded as a result of the doctrine of “The Priesthood of All Believers,” in that merchants and businessmen were raised to a level of social respect previously reserved for clergy (and philosopher-kings).<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.info/priesthood.htm">The Priesthood of All Believers - R.J. Rushdoony - Journal of Christian Reconstruction</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.garynorth.com/public/10812.cfm">"How Come We’re So Rich?"</a></li>
</ul>
Plus, The Protestant Reformation challenged the political power of the Pope and the “Divine Right of Kings,” which destroyed mercantilism and opened doors for capitalism (liberty) to flourish.<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/romans13rev.htm">The Bible vs. Tyranny</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/why-does-1-of-history-have-99-of-the-wealth/">Learn Liberty | Why Does 1% of History Have 99% of the Wealth?</a></li>
</ul>
The idea that America was A Nation “Under God” was not invented during the Cold War. It goes back to the beginning, long before the people described in this NYT article.
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>America: <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/UnderGod.htm">A Nation “Under God”</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
Possibly Kruse would say that big government welfare programs like the New Deal are more "Christian" than <a href="http://kevincraig.us/capitalism.htm">laissez-faire capitalism</a>. I disagree. Government “welfare” programs are impersonal acts of theft, not personal acts of heartfelt giving. They encourage resentment and violence.<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/welfare.htm">Welfare and Charity</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kevincraig.us/newdeal.htm">The New Deal - A Bad Deal</a></li>
</ul>
I would rather spend my time collecting evidence that America's Founders, and Presidents like <a href="http://stevedeace.com/news/reagan-religion-and-our-pending-reckoning/">Ronald Reagan</a>, <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/endorse.htm">endorsed</a> and <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/promote.htm">promoted</a> Christianity, rather than collect the evidence that they were hypocrites. To say that someone is a “hypocrite” is an invitation to consistency. Merely pointing out a contradiction between actions and words accomplishes nothing. Prof. Kruse wants us to become more consistent with our hypocrisy; that is, not to become more consistent with our “Christian nation” <b>rhetoric</b>, but to become more consistent with our selfish, secular. God-denying <b>actions</b>. Where will those anti-"Christian nation" efforts take us?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW4u0GsyCuCtgE7_uzyF9EPp3i4MNt4Qpvol3vMnMzFwDUpMgyOjo4DOb54TFHJJejcQY9OrXAasFCWybpESJ88Q5GkL_axn1GQBBgj6VHCC8TYwqCsvdSxUHj5sd6JwTzzqGu/s1600/board-prayer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW4u0GsyCuCtgE7_uzyF9EPp3i4MNt4Qpvol3vMnMzFwDUpMgyOjo4DOb54TFHJJejcQY9OrXAasFCWybpESJ88Q5GkL_axn1GQBBgj6VHCC8TYwqCsvdSxUHj5sd6JwTzzqGu/s1600/board-prayer.jpg" height="255" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-11395267235702771602015-02-14T12:55:00.000-06:002015-02-14T12:55:54.026-06:00Evolution and ProhibitionSteven Wishnia writes:
<br />
<blockquote>
The movement to prohibit alcohol was part puritanical, part racist. In the big cities, it was anti-immigrant. Bishop James Cannon of the Anti-Saloon League in 1928 denounced Italians, Poles and Russian Jews as "the kind of dirty people that you find today on the sidewalks of New York," while in 1923, Imogen Oakley of the General Federation of Women's Clubs described the Irish, Germans, and others as "insoluble lumps of unassimilated and unassimilable peoples — 'wet' by heredity and habit." In the South, it was anti-black. "The disenfranchisement of Negroes is the heart of the movement in Georgia and throughout the South for the Prohibition of the liquor traffic," Georgia prohibitionist A.J. McKelway wrote in 1907. "Liquor will actually make a brute out of a negro, causing him to commit unnatural crimes," Alabama Rep. Richmond P. Hobson told Congress in 1914, a year after he'd sponsored the first federal Prohibition bill. (He said it had the same effect on white men, but took longer because they were "<b>further evolved</b>.")
<br />
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory">Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory | Alternet</a>
</blockquote>
This was a decade before the "Scopes Trial."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.garynorth.com/public/7634.cfm">The Real Scopes Trial</a><br />
<br />
The full title of Charles Darwin's book was <i>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of <b>Favoured Races</b> in the Struggle for Life.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Some people say Darwin was not a "racist" because he treated the inferior races with <b>kindness </b>and <b>compassion</b>.
<br />
<br />
Read that sentence again.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/humanism/DarwinRacism.htm">Darwin and Racism</a>
<br />
<br />
Racism is the first cousin of statism. Evolution is the uncle of both.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htm">Evolution and Genocide</a>
<br />
<br />
"Compassionate" progressives and liberals will put millions to death, "for their own good."
<br />
<br />
That's what "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/state-defined.htm">the government</a>" is all about.<br />
<br />
(By the way, <a href="http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Funfacts/PuritansToProhibition.html">the Puritans</a> were <a href="http://www.covenantreformed-eg.org/Pages/Articles/Gentry%20Article.html">not prohibitionists</a>.)<br />
<br />Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-25314559701230673752015-01-01T00:23:00.000-06:002015-01-01T17:08:32.600-06:00Endings and BeginningsHappy New Year to everyone!<br />
<br />
My mother passed away a few hours ago.<br />
<br />
I believe what Jesus said about death and resurrection. I like the words of the Apostle Paul:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
O death, where is thy <span style="font-size: 16px;">sting</span>? O grave, where is thy victory?<br />
<span style="color: #b37162; font-size: x-small; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+15:55&version=KJV" style="color: #b37162; text-decoration: none;">1 Corinthians 15:55</a></span></blockquote>
No sarcasm intended by wishing "<i><b>Happy </b></i>New Year" at a time of my own loss. It's not exactly a grief-filled night. I have been mourning her loss for several years. In 2008 she got hit with a really bad case of pneumonia plus some infection in her blood, which an infection specialist up at St. John's in Springfield worked on. Before her month-long stay in the hospital for all that, we were walking a mile a day around our somewhat rural "neighborhood," but she pretty much ended her walking after the pneumonia. When she came home from the hospital around December of that year, I began helping her with everything, from helping her get out of bed at the beginning of the day, to helping her get back in bed at the end. Previously the Queen of Chit-Chat, she began talking less and less. The high-tech photos showed brain atrophy. She hadn't spoken a word since August of 2013.<br />
<br />
So tonight was not a surprise.<br />
<br />
But I'm certainly not ready for the New Year, and what essentially will be a new life for me. My job -- especially since our house was destroyed by that tornado 2+ years ago, and mom got a helicopter ride back up to the hospital in Springfield -- has been to turn my mom over in bed every couple of hours. And keep her feeding tube pump going. It has been a 24 hour shift. I'm sure I'm writing on adrenaline right now. Because I'm not 100% sure what my new job is going to be.<br />
<br />
I've been contemplating a new career as a "life coach." But I'm not really interested in band-aid solutions to superficial American problems. So I've toyed with a few websites that propose to offer a more profound personal transformation. Here's one, still not yet ready for prime-time:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://georgewashingtoncoaching.com/">GeorgeWashingtonCoaching.com</a><br />
<br />
I thought I might target pro-American conservatives with this and a couple other patriotic domains. But -- and I need to be careful about how I feel, having labored with some pretty heavy sleep deprivation during the last couple of years -- I'm not feeling very pro-American these days.<br />
<br />
Here's an article which I read last week and found eye-opening and depressing at the same time:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/26/the-empire-is-crumbling-that-is-why-it-needs-war/">The Empire is Crumbling, That is Why it Needs War</a></div>
<br />Some adult language. (Actually, it's not "adult" language." It's the language of juvenile delinquents in the un-monitored corners of the playground [at least it was when I was a kid, decades ago]. General Washington threw soldiers out of the already-starved-for-troops Continental Army for bad language. I don't see any justification for "adult" language. But then, I'm told <a href="https://bloodstainedink.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/the-apostle-paul-on-jesus-and-shit/">the Apostle Paul used "adult" language</a>. What do I know?)<br />
<br />
If anyone deserves to be described with Apostolic or "adult" language, it may well be the United States. During my lifetime, the U.S. government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians. I've said elsewhere (too distracted to track the link down right now) that <b>the United States of America is the most evil and dangerous government on earth</b>. Some governments may be more <b>evil</b> (North Korea comes to mind), but those governments are not as <b>dangerous </b>as the U.S. Government. Dangerous to <a href="http://kevincraig.us/civilization.htm">civilization</a>, not just "the bad guys." Some smarter people than I are saying the U.S. government is taking us to World War III in 2015.<br />
<br />
If you think that's a ridiculous, anti-American, commie nut-job thing to say, I don't blame you. I would have said the same thing decades ago.<br />
<br />
What makes the Establishment elite in Washington D.C. so dangerous? I don't mean "What is the evidence for the claim that they are dangerous?" -- see the article above, and <a href="http://kevincraig.us/trust.htm#Un-wise">here</a> and <a href="http://kevincraig.us/tentacles.htm">here</a>. I mean "What are the underlying psychological or cultural or religious energies at work in those people that makes them do all the evil things that they do?<br />
<br />
As a Christian, I say the problem is <a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/humanism.htm">the Religion of Secular Humanism</a>.<br />
<br />
The author of the "Crumbling Empire" article above -- and I agree the U.S. is every bit the pagan <a href="http://kevincraig.us/imperialism.htm">empire</a> that Rome was -- has hateful things to say about Christians too, some of which I think are exaggerated, or just outright falsehoods. He may have said those bad things about Christianity itself, I'd have to re-read the article to see. But in my opinion the actual teachings of Christ (and His foul-mouthed Apostles) have made the world a more civilized place. <a href="http://princeofpeacecoaching.com/pinker.htm">Less violent</a>. Because they strongly spoke the truth against falsehoods. Not a fist-in-the-air "protest" against "social injustice." But the profound historical fact -- and the even more profound <i>reason <b>why</b></i> -- God became man on <a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2007/12/12-days-of-liberty.html">Christmas</a>. <br />
And why <a href="http://95days.blogspot.com/2008/11/thesis-13-fall-of-man.html">man cannot become God</a> every other day of the year.<br />
<br />
Here's another article I read last week. Another depressing article about the Religion of Secular Humanism, on the other end of the economic/political class spectrum from the plutocrats in Washington D.C.:<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://allenbwest.com/2014/12/quite-possibly-racist-article-will-ever-read/">Quite possibly the most racist article you will ever read</a></div>
<br />
The article is reposted by <a href="http://allenbwest.com/2014/12/quite-possibly-racist-article-will-ever-read/">Allen B. West</a> at his blog, <a href="http://allenbwest.com/">AllenBWest.com</a>. I've never been a fan of his. He's black in case you don't know of him. The original article is written by Michael Smith entitled, “<a href="http://www.amren.com/features/2014/05/confessions-of-a-public-defender/">Confessions of a Public Defender”</a> and originally posted at American Renaissance on May 9, 2014.<br />
<br />
I've always thought a "racist" was someone who believed in the genetic inferiority of other people. This has nothing to do with genetics. This is about <b>culture</b>. Or as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801022738/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0801022738&linkCode=as2&tag=libertyunderg-20&linkId=6EVZ5ZGOXAJ3GQDC">Henry R. Van Til</a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=libertyunderg-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0801022738" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" />
called it, "<b>religion externalized</b>."<br />
<br />
If George Washington or other Founding Fathers spoke of someone having a "false religion" (<a href="http://kevincraig.us/EndTheWall/false-religion.htm">and they did</a>), nobody called the Founders "racists" on that account. This isn't about race. But it is about genocide. The genocide of urban blacks committed against them by <a href="http://kevincraig.us/establishment.htm">the Eastern Liberal Establishment</a>. The same kind of evil "the Establishment" in Washington D.C. has committed against more races than I can count. People in the Philippines just over 100 years ago. People of Laos and Cambodia, during the Vietnam war. <a href="http://kevincraig.us/iraq.htm#Christians">Christians in Iraq</a>. <br />
<br />
There was a third article I encountered last week that was almost as depressing as the two above. I'll address that article shortly.<br />
<br />
And hopefully turn it into something a little more optimisticizing. (The opposite of "depressing.")<br />
<br />
As Gary North has said, I may be a short-term pessimist, but I'm <a href="http://optimillennialism.com/">a long-term optimist</a>. I don't know if the revelation of God's Word in the Bible will be used by Christians to prevent the worst predictions about World War III in 2015, but I do believe the Bible -- in the Bible's own time -- will cause us to beat our "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/swords.htm">swords into plowshares</a>" and bring the "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/peace.htm">Peace on Earth</a>" that Christ came to bring.<br />
<br />
<br />Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-31932837574145131312014-11-11T15:25:00.000-06:002014-11-11T15:37:01.713-06:00The Myth of "The Extra Mile"According to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extra_Mile_(disambiguation)">Wikipedia</a>, going "the extra mile"
<br />
<blockquote>
refers to acts of service for others that go beyond what is required or expected. The expression probably comes from the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible" title="Bible">Bible</a>, when <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus" title="Jesus">Jesus</a> declares in his <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount" title="Sermon on the Mount">Sermon on the Mount</a>, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (<a class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:41&version=NASB" rel="nofollow">Matthew 5:41</a>, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible" title="New American Standard Bible">(NASB)</a>)</blockquote>
But then Wikipedia accurately notes that:<br />
<blockquote>
The verse is a reference to the practice of "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment" title="Impressment">impressment</a>" which, among other things, allowed a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army#Imperial_Roman_army_.2830_BC_.E2.80.93_AD_284.29" title="Roman army">Roman soldier</a> to conscript a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history#Roman_rule_in_the_land_of_Israel_.2863_BCE_.E2.80.93_324_CE.29" title="Jewish history">Jewish native</a> to carry his equipment for one <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mile#Roman_mile" title="Roman mile">Roman mile</a> (<i>milion</i> = 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).</blockquote>
"Going the extra mile" is thus not a feel-good Hallmark Card. As Wikipedia used to note:<br />
<blockquote>
Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God" title="Kingdom of God">God's kingdom</a> through <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074054/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sacrifice" title="Self-sacrifice">self-sacrifice</a>.</blockquote>
We as Americans don't want to hear that last point. We don't want to "<a href="http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-repudiate-second-amendment.html">relinquish</a> our <a href="http://kevincraig.us/rights.htm">rights</a>." We don't like to hear anything about "self-sacrifice." Perhaps that's why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extra_Mile_(disambiguation)">the most recent edition of Wikipedia</a> removed that last line and substituted this:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #252525; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: small;">The editors of the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible have suggested that going the second mile would perhaps spare another from such compulsion.</span></span></blockquote>
In other words, "Don't ask ME to go the extra mile -- make <i><b>my oppressors </b></i>go the extra mile <b><i>for me</i></b>." Self-centered Americans. Wikipedia (and the <i>New Oxford Annotated Study Bible</i>) thereby <i><b>completely negates</b></i> what Jesus was saying. Turns it upside down and backwards.<br />
<br />
If you want an example of "oppression," imagine Jews in first-century Israel being subjected to military occupation by <b>unclean pagans </b>from Rome. Then imagine Americans having their one-party government of Democrats and Republicans replaced by members of ISIS.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<img border="0" src="http://KevinCraig.us/images/isis.jpg" height="360" width="640" /></div>
<br />
Jesus said if a soldier putting your community under military occupation compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
<br />
<br />
Are you ready for that?<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://kevincraig.us/conscription.htm">conscript</a> <b><i>you</i></b> 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 "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/defense01.htm#zealots">zealots</a>" and attempt to overthrow the military occupation of your "homeland?" <br />
<br />
Or will you obey Jesus?<br />
<br />
<hr color="#808080" size="12" />
<h3 align="center">
<a href="http://kevincraig.us/defense01.htm">Why "National Defense" is Contrary to the Teachings of Christ</a></h3>
<h2 align="center">
<a href="http://howtobecomeachristiananarchist.com/">How to Become a Christian Anarchist</a></h2>
Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-82099823339989364302014-11-09T14:03:00.000-06:002014-11-09T14:03:19.076-06:00Don't Vote -- Run!Once again I was a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. <a href="http://kevincraig.us/PRno-vote.htm">Once again</a> I did not vote. There are plenty of <a href="http://kevincraig.us/vote.htm">good reasons for not voting</a>.<br />
<br />
There is one good reason for voting: at least it's <i>something</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
If you didn't vote, I hope you at least sent an email and told the winner <b><i>why</i></b> you didn't vote. That's pretty easy. Maybe easier than voting. And maybe more effective. I believe America's Founding Fathers would do <b>a whole lot more</b> than just send an email if they could travel through time and see the size and intrusiveness of the government today. <a href="http://kevincraig.us/risks.htm">They would risk everything</a>. The Declaration of Independence says we should "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/overthrow.htm">abolish</a>" any government that becomes a "<a href="http://kevincraig.us/tyranny.htm">tyranny</a>." That happened <i>decades</i> ago.<br />
<br />
And it's not just a "<b>right</b>" to abolish tyranny, the Declaration says it is a "<b>duty</b>." So if you don't vote, how are you <b>actively </b>discharging that duty? (I don't believe you can <i>passively </i>discharge this duty.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kevincraig.us/2014results.htm">Here are the results of the election</a>. All in all, I did fairly well at the polls -- if you consider me a "real" candidate.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2014-election-night-updates">top vote-getter</a> among Missouri <a href="http://kevincraig.us/libertarian.htm">Libertarian Party</a> Congressional candidates (<a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/top-2012-libertarian-campaigns-for-us-house-of-representatives">again</a>).<br />
<br />
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?"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
The problem is, <a href="http://kevincraig.us/extremism.htm">I <b><i>am</i></b> an extremist</a>! 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.<br />
* The "heart and soul" of my campaign is that we must abolish the government, for it has become a <a href="http://kevincraig.us/idolatry.htm">false god</a>. That was the message of America's Founding Fathers. That's an "extremist" message.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I still believe something is better than nothing. But next time I run I'll be putting more into educating than being "respectable."Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24273515.post-81002593929915690462014-10-30T13:50:00.001-05:002014-10-30T13:50:40.614-05:00Message for DemocratsLiberal, 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.<br />
<br />
Jim Evans has taken time to write <a href="http://jimevansforcongress.com/platform.html">a thoughtful statement</a> 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. <a href="http://kevincraig.us/democrats2014.htm">But here it is anyway</a>.<br />
<br />
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 <i><b>goals </b></i>shared by conservatives and progressives, who disagree ferociously on the <b><i>means </i></b>to the end.<br />
<br />
Democrat voters would be well-served to consider thoughtfully the possibility of breaking out of the two-party monopoly and voting Libertarian.<br />
<br />
Contemplating <a href="http://kevincraig.us/democrats2014.htm">these two competing platforms</a> 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, <a href="http://kevincraig.us/risks.htm">risking</a> "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kevincraig.us/democrats2014.htm">Welcome to Valley Forge</a>.Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.com0