Kevin Craig for Congress

"Legalize" the 3 H's!

2012-01-19T12:45:00.003-06:00

Why we should "legalize" the three "H's":

Homosexuality
Heroin
Harlotry

An unscripted, off-the-cuff rant against Christian "social conservatives" who won't vote for Ron Paul or other libertarians.

Click to listen

Just because you don't imprison or execute people for the three H's doesn't mean you endorse the three H's.

Reference is made to the following parts of my campaign platform:

Extremism
Fundamentalism
Creationism
"Homophobia"
I am a Bigot
I am a Theocrat
What is the Libertarian Party?
Persuasion, not Coercion - The Zero-Aggression Principle
A City upon a Hill
War and Imperialism - "Nation-building" - "Spreading Democracy"
The Debasement of Currency - How Government Steals from the Poor
The Federal Reserve System - Cause of Inflation, Engine of Corruption
Taxation is the Moral Equivalent of Theft
Atheistic Government Schools and the Declaration of Independence
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system
The Christian Religion
Alcohol
Enumerated Powers
Worldview: Your Philosophy of Life
Religion & Morality vs. Socialism
The Dominion Mandate
Service vs. "Archism"
Government Tentacles of Atheism and Immorality
No government deserves the Judgment of God more than the Federal Government in Washington D.C.

Grassfire Nation - Tea Party Survival Guide

2012-01-11T23:18:00.002-06:00

If any reader of this blog contributes to Grassfire Nation, please send me your extra copy of their "Tea Party Survival Guide."

Click for Tea Party Survival Guide

Mail it to
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731

Make sure you leave a comment indicating that you've done this, so others won't have to.

Or if a pdf is available somewhere, please send me the link.

Thanks!

Ronald Reagan and the Strategic Defense Initiative

2011-12-28T01:43:00.001-06:00

On this day in 1984, Ronald Reagan wrote the Foreword for a Report on the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Contrary to some detractors who slanderously characterized Reagan as an ignorant actor, Reagan was capable of understanding these issues, as his hand-written radio broadcasts reveal.

Reagan understood the danger of nuclear weapons and the insanity of "Mutually Assured Destruction." Clearly, Missile Defense is the more Christian policy.

But today, the danger is less from ballistic missiles and more from "briefcase bombs" or "dirty bombs." The detonation of just one of these bombs in any western nation will result in martial law and the end of the Constitution.

The United States federal government owes an apology to the world for developing nuclear weapons and being the only government to deploy them against innocent non-combatant civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The United States must lead the world to nuclear disarmament by announcing unilateral nuclear disarmament as an act of moral leadership. Repentance must be the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, as we suggested a month ago.

Infant discovered in barn, child protective services launch probe and put child in foster care

2011-12-25T00:47:00.001-06:00

Infant discovered in barn, child protective services launch probe and put child in foster care 12/25/11

Infant discovered in barn, El Paso County child protective services launch probe and put child in foster care

Nazareth carpenter being held on charges involving underage mother and child abuse

December 25, 2011, Eastern El Paso County, Colorado ‹ Authorities were today alerted by an anonymous call from a concerned citizen who noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Department of Human Services Child Protective Service (EPC DHS) personnel, accompanied by sheriffs deputies, took into protective custody an infant child, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by his 14-year old mother, Maria of Nazareth, Texas.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth, Texas, attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to take the child, but were restrained by deputies.

Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise men from an eastern country. ICE (La Migra) and Homeland Security officials are seeking information about these wise guys who may be in the country illegally. A source with ICE states that they had no passports, but were in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances, and claimed to be following a star in the west. They resisted arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical substances in their possession will be tested and the "star in the west" is apparently a light on Pikes Peak.

The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning and faces charges for violating health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable. Civil authorities are also investigating possible zoning violations involved in maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district.

The location of the infant will not be released, and the prospect for a quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when the child would be returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said, "The father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are checking with officials in Nazareth, Texas, to determine what their legal relationship is."

Joseph has admitted taking Maria from her home in Nazareth because of a problem about a "green card."

However, because she was obviously pregnant when they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure. Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation, kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape.

Maria was taken to Memorial Hospital where she is being examined by doctors. Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a virgin and that the child is the Son of God.

The director of the psychiatric wing said,

"I don't profess to have the right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely affect the safety and well-being of others ‹ in this case her child ‹ we must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the scene didn't help her case, but I'm confidant that with the proper therapy regimen we can get her back on her feet."

A spokesperson for EPC DHS said,

"Who knows what was going through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public, you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."

Atrributed to Equal Justice Foundation. ejfi.org

The Gospel According to Charles Schultz

2011-12-11T21:09:00.002-06:00

On February 1, 1993, The Washington Post got into a heap of PR trouble after reporter Michael Weisskopf wrote in a news story that followers of the Christian Right are "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

But the secular left has long believed that. Washington D.C. believes they have the right to command us. The secular mainstream media gatekeepers believe they have the right to inform us of everything we need to know.

A notable example goes back to 1965: the television special, "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

CBS Executives almost scuttled the show because they felt it was "too religious."

The story is told by talk radio kingpin Lee Habeeb in the National Review Online.

As a "culture warrior," I feel a sense of triumph every time Linus is heard over the mainstream media airwaves reading from the Gospel of Luke.

But the war goes beyond the Bible. Secular elites believe they have the right to tell us when to laugh. And they believe Christians are too shallow to appreciate Vince Guaraldi. In the 1960's, the media believed the serfs could only appreciate 3-chord rock'n'roll.

Here's an interview with Habeeb from the World Magazine podcast, "The World and Everything In It":

Listen

Newt and Infidelity

2011-12-11T00:12:00.003-06:00

Since there is no essential ethical or moral difference between the oath one takes in marriage, and the oath of office, it is proper to ask questions about the political qualifications of one who has repeatedly violated his oath to be faithful to one woman, "in sickness and in health," "till death do us part."

Nobody contests the accusation that Newt Gingrich was not faithful to his first two wives. Constitutionalists like Ron Paul will charge that Newt has consistently promoted government programs which are not authorized by the Constitution, thus repeatedly violating the oath of office he has taken many times.

Now Newt wants to take an oath that will make him the most powerful human being on the planet, and subject him to those powerfully corrupting influences.

Does anyone seriously believe that Newt "Mr. Globalism" Gingrich can remain faithful to a sickly 224-year old hag called the Constitution when the opportunity to run off with a rich young New World Order presents itself?

Evangelism and Foreign Policy

2011-12-09T10:19:00.002-06:00

On this day, December 9, in 1822, President James Monroe sent the following message

To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 22d of February last, "requesting the President of the United States to cause to be collected and communicated to the Senate at the commencement of the next session of Congress the best information which he may be able to obtain relative to certain Christian Indians and the lands intended for their benefit on the Muskingum, in the State of Ohio, granted under an act of Congress of June 1, 1796, to the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, showing as correctly as possible the advance or decline of said Indians in numbers, morals, and intellectual endowments; whether the lands have inured to their sole benefit, and, if not, to whom, in whole or in part, have such benefits accrued," I transmit a report from the Secretary of War with the accompanying documents.
JAMES MONROE.

One can learn more about this act at the Library of Congress:

An ordinance of Congress of Sept. 3, 1788, set apart three tracts of 4,000 acres each at Shoenbrun, Gnadenhutten, and Salem, on Muskingum river, for the Society of United Brethren, to be used in propagating the gospel among the heathen. By act of Congress approved June 1, 1796, provision was made for surveying and patenting these tracts to the society in question, in trust for the benefit of the Christian Indians.

Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 103-104 (1985), wrote:

As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education [472 U.S. 38, 104] for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16.

I oppose all "faith-based initiatives." Congress should not tax people to send missionaries.

However, I support the Christian worldview evident here.

The Indians were often terrorists. Instead of bombing them "back to the stone age," the U.S. Federal Government felt their terrorist activities should be replaced by Christian civilization.

The current anti-Christian regime in Washington D.C. has dedicated $3 trillion to replace a secular/pagan regime in Iraq (which allowed freedom for Christians to propagate the Gospel) with an Islamic theocracy under Sharia Law (where Christian churches are burned with impunity).

A true leader in a Christian nation would inspire voluntary contributions to missionary efforts to civilize the Muslim world, teaching Christianity and capitalism and forging bonds of commerce. Not only does our government prohibit commerce with nations which need to be evangelized, like Cuba, it goes well beyond this isolationism to engage in un-Christian acts of war.

Iraq should have been a mission field, not a battle ground.

From Feasting to Fasting

2011-11-27T17:49:00.002-06:00

Thanksgiving is over, so let's change the subject somewhat.

I was hoping to complete a post on Foreign Policy this Thanksgiving weekend, but that hasn't happened. Here is an outline of the idea.

Thanksgiving is a religious holiday, a clear violation of "the Separation of Church and State." It has a long pedigree in American history. See some examples here.

But in addition to upbeat days of Thanksgiving, there were also official government-proclaimed days of fasting, humilation, and prayer. Here are some:

John Adams issued a proclamation for a day of prayer, encouraging the nation in Trinitarian repentance:

call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence,
implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions,
and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come;

If we can list our nation's blessings, can we also list our nation's sins? Do we understand the concept of repentance?

Conservatives will be quick to list off sins we should repent of: abortion, homosexuality, divorce, Godless education, etc. I agree.

But what about our foreign policy?

I'm inspired to ask that question by the recent debate over foreign policy, and the way the mainstream media fawns over Romney and Gingrich while dismissing Ron Paul. The CBS Sunday show "Face the Nation" last week showed the contrast between The Knowledgeable Gentleman vs. the Venomous Viper. The Viper described Ron Paul's foreign policy against the potentially nuked-up Iran as "being nice to Iran."

That got me thinking.

Doesn't Jesus Christ command nations to "be nice" to their enemies?

If I believed the federal government had constitutional authority to set religious days of fasting and prayer, I think it should proclaim one for our foreign policy sins against Iran:

Overthrowing their popularly-elected government in 1953, in violation of Romans 13.
Putting in place a dictator who was worse than the one complained about in the Declaration of Independence.
Arming another dictator to wage war against Iran after Iran overthrew the U.S. puppet dictator.
Arming Saddam with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran

This list of sins could be repeated for U.S. sins against many other nations on earth.

God's commandments cover not just acts of violence against others, but also the failure to discharge the requirements of love. "Thou shalt not steal" also means building up the estate of others. "Thou shalt not kill" also contains a duty to create greater health and longevity for others.

America, the once-Christian nation, has gone from being a "City upon a Hill" to being an imperialist warmonger. We no longer export the Gospel, we are the world's largest arms dealer.

This deserves a national day of "humiliation and prayer" and repentance leading to a reforming of our anti-Christian foreign policy.

This is absolutely vital to our "national security." Only by repenting of militarism and imperialism can the United States ever hope to have "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."

Committees of Correspondence

2011-11-20T10:15:00.002-06:00

On this day in 1772, Samuel Adams began a work that would earn him the title, "The Father of the American Revolution."

On November 20, 1772, Adams sent his first letter to the American colonists through a network of communication called "The Committees of Correspondence." You can read his letter here.

Unless you went to a government-run school.

America is largely illiterate compared to America in Samuel Adams' day.

Even those who know their phonics can't follow complex political arguments, like those that Adams used to inspire Americans to declare their independence from a tyrannical government.

But even those who can follow complex arguments are uncomfortable in the Christian milieu of the American Revolution. Adams' letter spoke of three issues:

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.

Sam Adams did not see himself creating a new secular government, but operating within the centuries-old framework of Christianity.

1930 Article in Yale Law Journal Proves America is a Christian Nation

2011-11-16T14:42:00.005-06:00

In 1930 the prestigious Yale Law Journal published a pioneering article by B.H. Hartogensis entitled, "Denial of Equal Rights to Religious Minorities and Non-Believers in The United States."

The article complains about all the ways federal, state, and local governments acknowledge Christianity, and demands that we become a secular [atheistic] nation.

By advocating such change back in 1930, the Yale Law Journal admits what the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1892: That the United States is a Christian nation.

Perhaps the title of this post should be, "1930 Article in Yale Law Journal Proves America Was a Christian Nation." It certainly isn't any more. We've been deceived by the myth of "Separation of Church and State,"
which really means the separation of God and Government,
which is the claim that Government need not be "under God,"
which is the claim that Government can rightfully rebel against God,
which is really the claim that the Government is God.

While illustrative, this article is not a "smoking gun." By the time the Law School at the University of Colorado published an article entitled, "The Legal Enforcement of Morality" by Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner in 1967, the revolution was already well completed. Some suggest that the revolution began in 1923, with the founding of the American Law Institute, which began purging criminal codes of any Christian influence. Others would go back to 1870, when Christopher Columbus Langdell was appointed by Harvard Law School to replace "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" with a more "scientific" (Darwinian) approach to legal education. Others would even go back to the Constitution itself.

But if we can change from being a Christian nation into an atheistic nation, we can change back. Or forward, to Christian anarcho-capitalism. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it can collapse about that fast.

Holy War

2011-11-14T10:02:00.002-06:00

The verses in the Old Testament which are used by supporters of "capital punishment" today are verses which required the shedding of blood to make atonement. Smaller sins required the shedding of the blood of smaller animals, but so-called "capital crimes" required the shedding of the blood of the murderer himself.

The concept of "holy war" in the Old Testament is capital punishment on a national scale. God promised Abraham the land of Canaan, but waited until all the nations of the land were completely devoted to genocide, child sacrifice, or ritual homosexuality.

Genesis 15:16
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Leviticus 18:24-28
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

No Christian today should use Old Testament verses on warfare to support U.S. intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa. No shedding of animal or human blood brings atonement or has any efficacy after the Cross.

"Holy wars" in the medieval age (the "Crusades") were defensive (e.g., defending Jerusalem from Muslim invasion) and limited to professional armies bound by medieval Christian codes of warfare which barred involving innocent non-combatant civilians.

Rushdoony makes the important point that today we live in an age of holy wars.

Much is said about "holy wars" in past history, and most of it is nonsense. The true holy wars in the fullest sense of the word are after Darwin and Marx. World Wars I and II were holy crusades "to make the world safe for democracy," and to "end war and ensure peace," and so on. The terminology of communist warfare is the most intense example of holy warfare in all history.
Since accepting the necessity of struggle for survival, our humanism of today has in it the grounds for the holy war of our evolutionary faith.
The age of the state, already firmly geared to warfare as an instrument of politics, thus turned warfare, with Darwin and Marx, into the holy crusade of humanism on its march to utopia.

The Warfare State

As James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, documented in his book, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, the rise of Marxism and Communism in the 19th century were explicitly religious, a perverse mirror image of Christianity. In 20th-century Protestant nations, however, the Religion of Secular Humanism has postured as completely non-religious and "scientific." Nevertheless, since all men are created in the Image of God, all men are at root religious, and secularism is a passionate faith which now dominates once-Protestant nations.

The fact of warfare gained prestige when Darwin set forth his theory of evolution. The struggle for survival was widely assumed to mean warfare in one form or another, economic and class warfare, warfare for resources, warfare in every area. When Darwin published his Origin of Species on November 24, 1859, a waiting world was delighted with his thesis and the entire edition sold out on the day of publication. Two of the happiest of the earliest readers were Marx and Engels, who rightly saw in Darwin the confirmation of their beliefs: they correctly held that Darwin's success would ensure the triumph of socialism. The reason is an obvious one. If evolution rather than creation by God is true, then two things follow: first, life is a struggle for survival, and, second, if God is eliminated, nothing morally binding remains to ensure private property, Christian marriage, and religious authority in any realm. Life is then an amoral struggle for survival, and in that amoral struggle mass man has the best chances for victory, supposedly.

Darwin promised the end of Biblical morality.

Secular holy wars have thus rejected the moral limits of Christian "just war" theory. Whereas hundreds, even thousands, of people were killed in medieval crusades, modern secular holy war has annihilated tens of millions of human beings.

War is the secular sacrament that brings salvation. Its architects passionately believe they are bringing in utopia by their political and military liturgies. "We the Sheeple" believe our leaders will bring us security. We believe it religously. We take their word by faith.

This is why I have spoken of "the Cult of National Security."

Do "Capitalists" Believe in Capitalism?

2011-11-13T14:41:00.005-06:00

I have defined "capitalism" as

the social system based on the rejection of the initiation of force or violence against others

Many in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement have harsh criticisms of the Wall Street crowd -- Paulson, Rubin, Geithner, and others moving in the Revolving Door between Wall Street and Washington D.C.

Do these "capitalists" believe in capitalism? Gary North answers:

Hardly. Adam Smith described them well in 1776: ready to collude together against the public interest whenever they can get the state to provide them with a monopoly through state coercion.

Consumers pay them for only one thing: their ability to deliver the goods at a low prices. Capitalists stand ready at any time to get the state to skew the conditions in their favor. Smith did not have one good word to say for businessmen as a class. He distrusted their motives completely. But [Ayn] Rand treated them as if they were heroes under siege by the state. Better to see them as ideological trimmers laying siege on their competitors and consumers alike by means of the state’s collusion with them.

Ayn Rand Did Not Understand Capitalism * Godfather Politics

Review: The 2008 Bailout

Would Jesus Celebrate Veterans Day?

2011-11-11T07:51:00.003-06:00

I myself have often succumbed to temptation, and have taken the easy way rather than courageously take the hard, narrow road of faithful obedience to God.

The military recruiters of Washington D.C. tell us that joining the armed services is a "patriotic" and noble way to "serve your country." They tell us it's a shrewed career move, a path to pay for college, a great adventure, or a way to "be all you can be."

All we have to do is kill some unknown brown people on the other side of the world.

Sometimes they threaten us with prison.

That makes it even easier to give in to temptation.

I can sympathize with Veterans, but I cannot honor them.

A truly honorable American questions the Federal Government.

A truly knowledgeable American knows that no war engaged by Washington D.C. has been a "just war."

On this Veterans Day, let's ask the question, "Would Jesus Celebrate Veterans Day?"

"America," my country, is an ideal:

A people who enjoy "Liberty Under God."

A "City upon a Hill," not a Roman-style empire.

A country once identified by the Supreme Court of the United States as "a Christian nation."

A place where an immigrant can get off the boat with nothing in his pocket and work and save and eventually live securely under his own "Vine & Fig Tree"

The Federal Government of the United States is at war with "America."

I love "America."

I hate "the United States."

Please use the comment box below to tell me why it is honorable to serve this atheistic regime.

Please tell me why I should honor those who chose to kill other human beings created in the Image of God, to destroy the homes they built, and leave their families in poverty and misery.

Please tell me which of the wars ever fought by the U.S. Federal Government has been a "just war."

We can debate this passionately, but we can also discuss it factually, rationally, Biblically, and prayerfully.

"Would Jesus Celebrate Veterans Day?"

Please leave a comment or join me at tomorrow's Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.

Can an Anarchist be Bribed?

2011-11-07T00:13:00.003-06:00

Imagine that you receive an anonymous tip that a government entity is about to raid your home or business. Let's stipulate that the raid is manifestly, patently, indisputably unconstitutional, and that your rights will be vindicated in a few years after lengthy and costly litigation, and the government official who authorized this raid will be ignominiously drummed out of office in a great scandal which irreparably damages the reputation of his office, adversely affecting his successor's ability to discharge his duties.

Should you bribe this government official in an attempt to persuade him to call off the raid on your home or business?

Gary North defends Theonomic Bribery.

Does that justify the likes of Jack Abramoff?

Lesley Stahl of CBS News gets 'Jacked' on '60 Minutes'

An anarchist does not believe in using government force to redistribute wealth. This is a major benefit anticipated in exchange for a bribe.

Sometimes a person might bribe a Congressman to prevent the use of force directed against an otherwise peaceful and voluntary act of consenting capitalism. No need to bribe an anarchist to achieve this result, since the anarchist is already committed to that goal. A bribe would be wasted, since it would effect no policy change.

Everybody knows that lobbyists don't bother knocking on Ron Paul's door. He will always say "NO" to the unconstitutional use of government force to secure private advantage.

What if some really stupid criminal person offered Ron Paul a bribe to get the Federal Reserve audited?

If elected, I would accept bribes for this purpose, theologically speaking (Proverbs 13:22, Proverbs 28:8).

Legally speaking, I'd have to think about this. Does it violate anti-bribery laws to accept a gift if it can be proven that it had no effect on policy?

The Supreme Court further clarified the law by setting standards for federal bribery statutes in United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999). The Court concluded that a person did not violate the law merely by giving a gift to a public official. Prosecutors must show that there was a connection between a specific official act in the past or future and the gift.
Bribery - Definition, Court Cases, Articles, History - LawBrain

Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

2011-10-29T09:09:00.002-05:00

I asked that question back in 1999:

Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I still don't have the answer.

Here is the text of that post, with the links updated:

*****

Should We Celebrate "Reformation Day?"

I say NO.

I'm grateful that there is an Internet mailing list like this one.
Imagine a carrier-pigeon mailing list a couple of months before
Y1k. The question asked: "Should We Celebrate Constantine Day?"
There were certainly some advantages to Constantine's removal
of Christianity from the list of illegal religions. But it was a
mixed bag. As much good as Constantine may have done, it's
a good thing we got out of the "Holy Roman Empire" biz.
"Reformation Day" is a celebration of Martin Luther.
I'm glad I'm not a Catholic, but I'm also glad I'm not a Lutheran.
Luther is like Constantine. God used him to make progress,
but we're not finished yet.

I received the following email from a Christian organization.
It's an "educational" piece. It appears to be filled with historical facts
of which most Christians are probably not aware.

I'm all for educating Christians, of course. But I'm not sure
this piece is telling us anything important. Let's read it and
then ask some questions.

----------==========**********O**********==========---------

Subj: 31 October
Date: 10/30/99 8:27:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: http://www.blogger.com/group/vft/post?postID=tDloJXdTh2jFu1TGeOUFZvlTS1Nf4XloGRrIXKwhG_nmAdoo0rBedUg00LqHRltjmH7MkTbDVzZE_y8X6g (Servant_l)
To: http://www.blogger.com/group/vft/post?postID=Kkg65MJrgkQeOPL2qRC8l0myrpk5EzZ6jWD0UoOCzfLObXlB3HMcqxBSj_b0wXH_dQ8Q6FyNIlk

Hi Servant_L and CHRISED-L folks!

Last year Christian History Magazine sent out the first part of the
following in their newsletter. Further down, separated by dashed lines
and the byline of the new editor, is the rest of the story.

I just thought to send this to you because it truly marks what the
date of 31 October is really all about. While it is true, as noted below,
that we have better issues to distinguish ourselves on, let us continue
to fight prayerfully against the forces of darkness that attempt to exert
tremendous influences on this day as no other.

This story will not be repeated in the monthly SERVANT_L newsletter.

God bless

-----------------------------------------------------
The Importance of October 31
From Ted Olsen, Assistant editor

October 31. Forget about Jack-o-Lanterns and Trick-or-Treating -- history
took a major turn on this date nearly 500 years ago. Though officially,
most Protestant denominations will celebrate it on Sunday, October 31
is Reformation Day -- the day in Martin Luther walked up to the Castle
Church in Wittenberg, took out a hammer, and nailed his 95 Theses to
the door.

Well, probably, anyway. Luther himself never actually reported engaging
in such an act of protest. The whole nailing story actually comes from
his younger colleague, Philipp Melanchthon--who wasn't anywhere near
Wittenberg in 1517 and who didn't record the event until years after
Luther's death.

According to many historians, Luther probably mailed, not nailed, his
Theses to his fellow Catholics.

But even if his Theses didn't leave a hole in the Wittenberg door,
they certainly left a giant mark on Christianity. It began on when
Luther publicly objected to the way preacher Johann Tetzel was selling
indulgences. These were documents prepared by the church and bought by
individuals either for themselves or on behalf of the dead that would
release them from punishment due to their sins. As Tetzel preached,
"Once the coin into the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward
springs!"

Luther questioned the church's trafficking in indulgences (though he
did not oppose indulgences rightly practiced) and called for a public
debate of the 95 theses he had written. Instead, his 95 Theses spread
across Germany as a call to reform, and the issue quickly became not
indulgences but the authority of the church.

Pope Leo X soon moved to "quench a monk, ... Martin Luther by name,
and thus smother the fire before it should become a conflagration."

By the time an imperial edict was issued, calling Luther "a convicted
heretic," he had escaped, and would spend the rest of his life as an
outlaw. He elicited so much hostility that it was rumored--and taken
seriously for a time by some respected intellectuals of the day--that
he was the product of a bathhouse liaison between his mother and the
Devil. The church called him a "demon in the appearance of a man."

Still, he was a sensation. In 1520 and 1521, Luther was the rage.
Posters with his picture (single-sheet woodcuts) sold out as soon
as they went on sale, and many were pinned up in public places.

He's a fascinating character, not just for the importance he serves
in Christian history, but in the often strange details about his life.
He was infamous for his vulgar language. Evidence suggests he may have
made his astounding discovery of justification by faith while he was on
the toilet. At his first Mass as priest, he almost dropped the bread and
cup, and was so terrified that he tried to run from the altar. He claimed
that he hadn't even seen a Bible until he was 20 years old. And though he
has contributed several key documents to the church totalling more than
60,000 pages (including an important German translation of the Bible,
the hymn "A Mighty Fortress is Our God"; his Larger and Smaller
Catechism), he hoped that "all my books would disappear and the Holy
Scriptures alone be read."

That hasn't happened. In fact, it has been said that in most libraries,
books by and about Martin Luther occupy more shelves than those concerned
with any other figure except Jesus of Nazareth.

But for all that importance, many Christians today don't use the day to
discuss justification by faith alone. Or whether they're trying to buy
their way into heaven. Or countless other areas that Martin Luther's life
still bears relevance. Instead, it's all about the evils of Halloween.
It seems to me that there are better issues for us to distinguish
ourselves on and say, as Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other."

By the way, both of our issues on Martin Luther, Issues 34 (early years)
and 39 (later years), can be ordered online at
http://st3.yahoo.com/cti/chrishispasi1.html or by calling 1-800-806-7798.

=======================================================

Return to Augsburg
from Elesha Coffman, assistant editor of Christian History

It's not often that in remembering the anniversary of a historic event
we can also highlight corresponding "history in the making." But the
ceremony in Augsburg on October 31 will go a long way toward bringing
one story full circle.

This Sunday, representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the
Vatican will sign a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,
thus stating agreement on an issue that has divided Protestants and
Catholics since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg
door on October 31, 1517. The declaration reads, in part, "Together we
confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because
of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy
Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good
works." Dialogue leading to this agreement began after the Second Vatican
Council in 1967, and much of the scholarly work behind it was carried
out in the United States, but no better place than Augsburg could have
been chosen for the signing itself.

In 1518, Cardinal Cajetan met Luther in Augsburg with the goal of
forcing the upstart monk to recant his controversial theses. Luther,
of course, refused, and he immediately fled the city. In 1530, Luther
still couldn't show his face in Augsburg, so it was his friend Philipp
Melancthon who appeared on his behalf to submit the conciliatory
Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V. Melancthon's attempt at making
peace was, however, unsuccessful, and religious conflict continued to
escalate.

Augsburg was again the site of an attempted compromise in 1548, when the
Interim of Augsburg was proffered as a temporary settlement between
Protestants and Catholics, awaiting a final settlement at the Council
of Trent. But various issues kept the Council of Trent from settling
much of anything that met the Protestants' approval, and it was not
until the 1555 Peace of Augsburg that a long-term solution was accepted.
This settlement recognized the existence of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism and stipulated that people should follow the religion of
their local ruler. This was more a victory for territorialism than for
tolerance (though people could sell their property and move, shifting
their allegiance).

In addition to the ghosts of past conflicts, however, Augsburg features
a visual reminder that peace is possible. On the plot of land where a
Roman temple once stood, the churches of St. Ulrich and St. Afra sit
side-by-side. Built between 1476 and 1500, the structures were once part
of the same ecclesiastical compound. However, after the Peace of Augsburg,
Lutherans took over what had been the monastery assembly hall and
established St. Ulrich's as a Protestant church. A shared crypt houses
the remains of the two namesake saints.

At the end of the 1530s, Luther said, "I am worried that we will never
gain come so close together as we did at Augsburg." His fear was justified
for several centuries, but this weekend, his descendents and those of his
former foes will once again be as close as Ulrich and Afra have always been.
---

----------==========**********O**********==========---------

KC:
So as I understand this letter, the big issue to be discussed on
"Reformation Day" is "Justification by Faith Alone." The meeting
in Augsburg will undoubtedly have some hard-core Reformed
pundits shouting about "compromise" and retreat from the
"purity" of the Reformed Doctrine of Justification by faith alone.

http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/Ref_Day.htm

It seems to me that Luther's ideas were important because
they liberated Christians from liturgical slavery; Luther prompted
revolution against Humanistic ecclesiocracy and man-made
traditions. I suppose this is a good reason to celebrate
"Reformation Day."

But for the most part, the letters above seem to me to be hopelessly
irrelevant.

Just a few years after Luther nailed/mailed his theses,
20-30,000 peasants were killed with Luther's tacit approval,
in uprisings which Luther had no small part in fomenting.
Not only was the issue in those uprisings (usury) never
resolved, but Luther (and Calvin), by retreating from a
full Theonomic position, entrenched the economics of
usury, and it is today the central organizing feature of
modern economics and foreign policy, supplanting
constitutional liberties in America and resulting in
the enslavement of millions more peasants in "Third World"
nations.

Should we celebrate "Reformation Day?"

http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/13-0index.htm

http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/frn/unabomb3.htm

I am a Theonomist. My passion is to see God's Law
obeyed throughout the world.

What has been the effect of the doctrine of "Justification by
faith alone?" Incomparable evil. Half a billion people deliberately
murdered in this century alone (not counting murders unauthorized
by the State), and the big discussion is the doctrine of
"imputation." I hasten to note at this point that I just reviewed
the chapters in the Westminster Confession of Faith on
soteriology (chas. 11-18), and find nothing I really disagree
with. In fact, I still find it to be a remarkably accurate statement
of Biblical doctrines, at least in this limited area of life. But as
a slogan, "Justification by Faith" has proven to be a washout.

The Catechism says man's chief purpose in life is to glorify
God. Our first question should be, "How can I glorify God?"
The "Justification by Faith" slogan has focused men's
attention on the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
**Indirectly,** of course, God is glorified by saving sinners.
But the focus of this question is man-centered: "What
do I have to do to avoid eternal punishment?" "What do I
have to do to make the after-life easier for myself?"
"What can I do for ME?"

Millions of people believe in "Justification by Faith Alone"
and fail the tests of the Justified Man in James 1-2.

The "Vine & Fig Tree" vision of the Prophet Micah does not
focus on "Justification by Faith." Its themes are

1. The Presence of God with us in His Kingdom
2. The World-wide Triumph of His Kingdom
3. The Thirst for Righteousness (Theonomy)
4. The Blessings of Peace
5. Family Values
6. Property
7. Community.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/micah.htm

Why have these Biblical Themes been neglected in favor of
"Justification by Faith?" Why are thousands of verses in
the Bible ignored and huge tomes written on just a few
verses in Romans and Galatians?

http://covenanter.org/Justification/justificationhome.htm

Why has such a vast amount of theological ink been
devoted to "personal peace and affluence" in the after-life,
while ignoring "True Religion" as James defined it (James 1:27).

Theology by slogan is a strategy of death. It creates
superficiality rather than disciplined learning and wisdom.
But if I had to come up with a slogan to replace "Justification
by Faith," it would be "Justification by Allegiance." Just
as modern retrospective psychoanalysis of Luther has
"discovered" the origin of "Justification by Faith" in
Luther's internal, subjective angst, so "Justification by
Allegiance" comes out of my own wrestling with the
California State Bar in an attempt to become a licensed
attorney. The concept of allegiance is a fundamental
category of federalist or covenantal thought. It expresses
loyalty, willingness to obey orders, and a participation
in the blessings of the commonweal.

http://vftonline.org/TestOath/WhatIs.htm

None of this is present in any sufficient degree in
"Justification by Faith." (Although it is certainly implicit
in the term "Faith" -- see WCF, 14:2, "Saving Faith" --
"By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is
revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself
speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which
each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience
to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and
embracing the promises of God for this life,
and that which is to come.")

Finally, IMHO, the key to the fulfillment of Micah's
"Vine & Fig Tree" prophecy is the elimination of
the institutions of church and state. "Reformation Day"
gave us little if anything in this direction. As Milton
wrote, "New presbyter is but old priest, writ large."

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/attend.htm

Again, I emphasize my near-enthusiastic agreement with
everything in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters
11-18. But the time has come for a paradigm shift.

Kevin C.
http://VFTonline.org/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

[end 1999 post]

10 Years of Secular Sharia Law

2011-10-26T11:03:00.004-05:00

Ten years ago today, Congress passed the PATRIOT ACT -- without taking the time to read or debate it.

None of the powers created by the Patriot Act would have prevented the events of 9/11, because everything that the government needed to know to prevent 9/11 was known. No new intelligence powers were needed. These new Patriot Act powers are used against people like you -- who have no rational connection to terrorism.

Not a single person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have voted for the Patriot Act. Go to Downsize DC to learn the following about the Patriot Act, and send a letter to your "elected representatives" to repeal it because:

First, The Patriot Act attacks the First Amendment:

Americans can be investigated for what they read and write, and what websites they've visited
The Feds can "gag" my bank, my librarian, and my Internet Service Provider, preventing them from telling me if I'm under investigation

Second, it undermines the Fourth Amendment:

The Feds do not even have to show "reasonable suspicion," let alone "probable cause," to gain access to my records
Because I can be investigated without my knowledge, I have no means to challenge illegitimate searches

Third, there is little reason to believe terror acts have been prevented by the Patriot Act:

If the law was used to foil terrorist plots, the Administration would boast about such instances
Instead, foiled terrorist plots are frequently sting operations using undercover operatives and informants

Fourth, there is reason to doubt whether protecting the people from terrorism was ever the Patriot Act's real purpose:

Expanded wiretap and search authority are used in ordinary domestic criminal investigations, not just in terror cases
The Executive branch has a "secret" interpretation of the Patriot Act that is inconsistent with a plain reading of it
Meanwhile, the FBI continues to collect data collection through National Security Letters -- some 40-50 thousand are issued per year: http://tinyurl.com/3varjc9

How is it permissible for the Executive to have "secret" interpretations of the law? What is the Executive doing with the information it secretly collects about us, without our knowledge?

Shouldn't citizens of a Republic be ASHAMED of this behavior by their "government?"

The Patriot Act promotes secrecy and prevents accountability in our federal government. It has fostered a Big Brother culture throughout Washington DC that led to similarly egregious legislation like REAL ID and the FISA Amendments Act.

The government consistently trumpets the claim that the Patriot Act is needed to protect our freedoms and our way of life. Actually, laws like the Patriot Act are destroying America.

Consider this alternative history:

One year before 9/11, in the Fall of 2000, "Ayatollah Dagwood," an American-born convert to Islamic Jihadism, was running for President against George W. Bush and Al Gore. His platform called for the abolition of the Constitution, the three branches of government, the FBI, the CIA, and everything else in Washington D.C., and the initiation of the rule of Sharia Law to be carried out by "the Ayatollah" and his supporters.

Of course, that must have been a virtual army of jihadists, to be able to successfully attack the greatest nation on earth on 9/11. Right?

As it turns out, the Ayatollah Dagwood lost the election. The only real support "the Ayatollah" had was from the dozens of 9/11 hijackers and everyone who played a part in the conspiracy that unfolded a year later, on 9/11/2001, which was the act of his supporters in retaliation for this defeat of their candidate.

But suppose he had won the election.

Suppose he abolished the United States. (I have proposed precisely this.) Suppose he abolished:

Department of Education - savings: $72 billion
Department of Energy - savings: $30.8 billion
Department of Agriculture - savings: $131 billion
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - savings: $901 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - savings: $43 billion
Department of Transportation (DOT) - savings: $79.8 Billion
Department of Commerce - savings: $9.2 billion
Department of Labor (DOL) - savings: $116 billion
Department of the Interior (DOI) - savings: $13 billion
Department of Veterans Affairs - savings: $123.7 billion
Department of Justice (DOJ) - Attorney General - savings: $31.3 billion
Department of State (DOS) - savings: $53.8 billion
Department of Defense - savings: $719 billion
Department of the Treasury - savings: $93.94 billion

All the office buildings for these bureaucracies were sold to Apple, Exxon, IBM, Ben & Jerry's, or other corporations. All the federal bureaucrats got jobs with these or other businesses, doing something consumers were willing to pay for voluntarily. All the weapons of mass destruction built and owned by the federal government and ready for deployment on innocent, non-combatant civilians or ready for sale to "allies" like Saudi Arabia were dismantled.

You no longer pay income taxes. Corporate taxes are no longer added to your bill at the checkstand. Your disposable income doubles. Education businesses are promising you kids who are smarter and better-behaved if you enroll them in their schools (which, unlike federally-controlled schools, teach children that the Declaration of Independence is really true). Government roads and government-subsidized petroleum-burning automobiles are being replaced by magnetic hovercraft. Welfare bureaucrats get jobs with churches and non-profits who find jobs for the poor (because federal pro-union labor laws have been abolished) and put an end to perpetual government-subsidized intergenerational poverty.

Now suppose the Ayatollah Dagwood and his jihadist thugs have declared themselves to be the rulers of America, and have decided to impose Sharia Law on America. An America free of the federal government.

Who would carry out the Ayatollah's orders? Who would operate the webcams in every American's bedroom to see if adultery or some other offense against Sharia Law were being committed?

If the federal government were abolished, Sharia Law would be no threat. If the federal government did not have hundreds of military bases around the world, and had not killed a million muslims, terrorist recruiters would not find recruits to threaten retaliation against Americans.

But if the federal government still existed, and still had the power to tax you or print up money to steal purchasing power from your savings, then the federal government could purchase loyalty and promise cushy jobs to those who "just want to feed my family." The federal government could hire these people to open your luggage at airports, read your email, snoop in your medical records, spy on your financial transactions, read the titles of books you check out at the library, and lock the door of your prison cell if you violate Sharia Law and insist on your unalienable rights in the Constitution.

It is U.S government laws like the Patriot Act that are destroying our freedoms and the American way of life. Islamic terrorists are no threat to America. The real enemy of America is the United States.

Mitt Romney: A Competent Muslim?

2011-10-21T11:48:00.003-05:00

In a previous post ("Mitt Romney is a Member of a Dangerous Cult") we looked at the controversy over a Dallas pastor who said Mitt Romney was a member of a "cult."

Many respectable Christians (e.g. Chuck Colson) are distancing themselves from the Dallas pastor by quoting Martin Luther, who said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk—that is, a Muslim—than an incompetent Christian.

First, whatever competence Luther exhibited as a theologian and expositor of the doctrine of "Justification by Faith," his competence as a political advisor is less assured. In fact, Luther had dangerous antinomian tendencies, as August Lang, R. J. Rushdoony, and Benjamin Nelson have pointed out. His bad political and economic advice led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people in his lifetime. The roots of our own secular government and usurious economic problems trace back in part to Luther.

Second, the idea of a "competent ruler" is less than Biblical. Jesus said the kings of the gentiles love to be rulers (Gk.: archists), but Christians are not to initiate force or threaten violence to impose their will on others. In this sense, a "Christian ruler" is a contradiction in terms.

Even the idea of a competent judge to resolve disputes cannot find rest in the idea of the "competent turk." Paul told the Christians in Corinth that the most "incompetent" Christian was a better judge of Christian disputes than anyone from the secular government (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).

Finally, why this false alternative? Why am I required to vote for either an incompetent Christian or a "competent" Muslim, Fascist, Mormon, Socialist, Liberal, Communist, or practitioner of any other false religion? Why do I have to vote at all? Please don't give me arcane analysis of your strategic reasons for voting for McCain, Giuliani, or Romney or any other "competent" non-Christian rather than for Ron Paul or some other outside-the-beltway Christian. You are not Biblically required to vote for the "lesser of two evils" as a way of keeping the allegedly "greater" of two evils from winning.

No, you're not.

If Mitt Romney believes that he (and his celestial wives?) gets to be the god of his own little world after he dies, I'll not vote for him. He may want his Mormon rewards in this life and at my expense. Or he may just be silly to believe all that. Call it a "religious test" if you want (it isn't), but I would never vote for someone who obviously lacks good judgment and believes such kooky things. Mormonism is kooky, which is why I automatically assume that no Mormon I know -- nice folks all -- knowingly believes in Mormonism. I initially assume that even Mitt Romney -- who undoubtedly spent a lot of time earning $250 million managing private equity investments -- didn't have the time to learn all about Mormon doctrines. I doubt that we'll ever hear him publicly say, "Oh, no, I know all about Mormon doctrine, I believe it, and I look forward to being the god of my own galaxy after I die." He'll always say his religious "faith" is not relevant to politics. Keep them "separate."

And/or he'll say we're a nation "under God" ("god?" "gods?") and "faith" -- of any kind -- should be welcomed in the public square (see his "defense" video here).

America's Founding Fathers urged Americans to vote for Christians, not for members of False Religions.

Are Mormons Christians? -- from Bulletproof with Brett Kunkle

Treaty with Tripoli

2011-10-16T10:17:00.003-05:00

It seems like every day I receive a letter from someone telling me that the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, and citing a Treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Here is part of a letter I just mailed:

Look at the Treaty and its revision a few years later:

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/tripoli-treaties.htm

The 1805 Treaty is more DETAILED and EXPANDED
over the 1796 Treaty. Virtually everything in
the 1796 Treaty is retained in the 1805 Treaty

***************** EXCEPT *****************

the line about the U.S "not in any sense founded
on the Christian Religion"

******** THAT PHRASE WAS REMOVED *********

This ** PROVES ** that the United States

******************* IS ********************

Founded on the Christian Religion.

Congress looked at that phrase, "not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion" and said,
"Wait a minute. Who put that in there? That's
not correct." And they REMOVED IT. The United
States **IS** founded on the Christian Religion.

And the answer to the question, "Who put that
in there?" is "Joel Barlow, an apostate chaplain
who went into the toilet with Thomas Paine."

http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#Paine

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that
America is founded on the Christian religion.

http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm

On May 12, 1779, in a speech to the Delaware Indian
Chiefs, George Washington advised them:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life,
and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. 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.
The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC:
US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55.

Good Advice

Mitt Romney is a Member of a Dangerous Cult

2011-10-15T01:36:00.001-05:00

One thing I like about the Libertarian Party is its opposition to politicians who are members of a dangerous cult.

The word "cult" is a hot-button item. A supporter of Rick Perry recently caused a stir by using the word to describe Mitt Romney's religion.

Evangelical Christians have long used the word to describe Christian-looking groups who deviate significantly from the theology of the historic Christian creeds. The ministry founded by D. James Kennedy says Mormons believe God to be a “man of flesh and bone who lives on a planet called Kolob and sexually procreates spirit children with his harem of wives.” (To which one Mormon left a comment, “Wow I have been a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over 20 years and have NEVER been taught what you wrote in your article.” Probably a majority of mainstream Christian church-goers could not intelligently articulate the tenets of their own religion.) Mormonism and Christianity seem to be very different religions, though the personal names might be similar. Christian theologians have long used the word "cult" to describe the divergent groups, while non-Christians use less pejorative terms, even if they agree on the wide divergence of beliefs.

On the other hand, the word "cult" is also used to describe mind-control programming and loss of personal identity under the sway of an authoritarian personality who can command cult members to pool their personal property under communism or engage in mass suicide. An example that comes to mind is the "Heaven's Gate" cult in Southern California.

Mitt Romney is a member of a "cult" in both senses of the word. While missing the boat on Christian theology can result in eternal consequences after death, being a brainwashed member of a mind control cult is more dangerous in this life.

The basic political philosophy of the Libertarian Party is stated in its Statement of Principles:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Gene Healy at the Cato Institute speaks of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

Another word for being brainwashed by this cult is "patriotism."

The Republican Party is a Cult.

Belief in the promises of cult leaders with regard to "Social Security" results in loss of personal property.

Belief in the promises of cult leaders with regard to "National Security" leads cult members to commit suicidal or genocidal acts.

The "cult of the omnipotent state" does not only engage in brainwashing through its schools, but it uses violent physical force against those who resist its brainwashing, including armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, and genocide using lethal weapons of mass destruction.

Evangelical Christians are supposed to believe that Christ is our Savior. Mitt Romney and Republicans like him (Democrats too!) believe the messianic State brings salvation.

Drudge Coincidence?

2011-10-13T17:08:00.003-05:00

At this moment, these three photos span the inimitable Drudge Report website:

Cute.

Dominionism and Theocracy

2011-10-07T18:38:00.002-05:00

I listen to Janet Parshall's show "In the Market" nearly every day. I seldom agree with everything I hear, but I appreciate intelligent Christian conversation.

Hour 2 of the October 5, 2011 show with Dr. Alex McFarland was disappointing. I think it muddied the waters rather than bringing clarity.

Listen.

McFarland opposes atheistic or immoral law, but claims that "Christian Reconstruction" goes too far, farther than America's Founding Fathers wanted us to go.

The problem with this claim is that every single state in the union was a Christian Theocracy by ACLU standards, and even by McFarland's vague definition of "theocracy." Adultery and homosexuality were illegal in every state. These laws were taken from the books of Moses. Early American law codes even had the Biblical references to Leviticus in the margins of the statute books.

America was a Christian Theocracy. Maybe not perfectly, but intentionally.

McFarland quoted Harry Truman in defense of a vaguely "moral" government, but not one that comes from Leviticus. According to McFarland, Truman said:

If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

Great quote!

Unfortunately for Dr. McFarland, the paragraph that immediately preceded this quote from President Truman was this:

The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.

Was Truman a Christian Reconstructionist?

More on:

Theocracy

Theonomy

The Constitution is NOT a "Secular Document"

Capital Punishment -- A Theonomic Reconstruction

Harry Truman's Christian Nation

2011-09-28T01:02:00.003-05:00

On this day in 1951, President Harry Truman violated the modern myth of "the separation of church and state."

241 - Address to the Washington Pilgrimage of American Churchmen.
September 28, 1951

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Pruden, my friends:

I am happy to have the privilege of speaking to this meeting of the Washington Pilgrimage of American Churchmen. You have come to the Nation's Capital to visit its monuments and to look at the basic documents on which our Government was founded. Many people come to Washington to do these things, but you have come here for a special purpose. You have come here to emphasize the fact that this Nation was founded on religious principles.

You will see, as you make your rounds, that this Nation was established by men who believed in God. You will see that our Founding Fathers believed that God created this Nation. And I believe it, too. They believed that God was our strength in time of peril and the source of all our blessings.

You will see the evidence of this deep religious faith on every hand.

If we go back to the Declaration of Independence, we notice that it was drawn up by men who believed that God the Creator had made all men equal and had given them certain rights which no man could take away from them. In beginning their great enterprise, the signers of the Declaration of Independence entrusted themselves to the protection of divine providence.

To our forefathers it seemed something of a miracle that this Nation was able to go through the agonies of the American Revolution and emerge triumphant. They saw, in our successful struggle for independence, the working of God's hand. In his first inaugural address, George Washington said, "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States."

Another fact which you will notice in the course of your pilgrimage is that the makers of our Constitution believed in religious toleration. Theirs was the highest type of religion, forbidding the use of coercion or force in matters of mind and spirit. Religious freedom was a part of their religious faith. And they received that from Roger Williams, a Baptist, from William Penn, a Quaker, and from Lord Baltimore, a Catholic. That's the reason for our constitutional approach to religious freedom.

It is said that when Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention he was asked, "What have you given us?" He answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." Millions of Americans since then have believed that the keeping of our Republic depends upon keeping the deep religious convictions on which it was founded. From the worship and teachings of the synagogues and churches of our land, have come a moral integrity, a concern for justice and human welfare, a sense of human equality, a love of human freedom, and a practice of brotherhood which are necessary to the life of our national institutions.

It is fitting and proper that at this time of international peril and uncertainty we should look back to those beginnings and rededicate ourselves to those ideals.

It is not enough, however, simply to look back. It is not enough to congratulate our selves upon the religious spirit of our forebears. We must ask ourselves if we truly believe the things which they believed. We must examine our conduct to see whether we are carrying out in our daily lives the ideals we profess.

This is not easy. Our religious heritage imposes great obligations upon us. It does not permit us to be self-satisfied and complacent. Indeed, if we accept the faith which has been handed down to us, our task as a Nation is much more difficult. We cannot be satisfied with things as they are. We must always be striving to live up to our beliefs and to make things better in accordance with the divine commandments.

The people of Israel, you will remember, did not, because of their covenant with God, have an easier time than other nations. Their standards were higher than those of other nations and the judgment upon them and their shortcomings was more terrible. A religious heritage, such as ours, is not a comfortable thing to live with. It does not mean that we are more virtuous than other people. Instead, it means that we have less excuse for doing the wrong thing--because we are taught right from wrong.

Our religious heritage, in my opinion, imposes great responsibilities upon us as we face the problems of today.

It means first of all that we must constantly strive for social justice in the life of this Republic. It means that we must fight against special privilege, against injustice to those of low income, and against the denial of opportunity, against discrimination based upon race, creed, or national origin.

Our religious heritage also means that we must struggle to maintain our civil liberties. No nation which hopes to live by the law of God can afford to suppress dissent and criticism. You may remember that Israel persecuted the prophets. The prophets had unpleasant things to say about what was going on in ancient Israel. They criticized social injustices and the wasteful luxury of the privileged few. They criticized the way in which the ancient Hebrews had turned away from true religious principles. They said that Israel would be punished for its misdeeds. The prophets were not popular, and the kings and the priests of Israel tried to deny them freedom of speech. But the prophets were right, and Israel was punished as the prophets had said it would be.

We must always keep the way open for self-criticism. We must not stop up the mouths of those who are saying unpopular things. We must preserve the Bill of Rights--which, in my opinion, is the most important part of the Constitution--so that the voice of protest and dissent may always be heard. We must not try to destroy people by fear and slander, because if we do, we shall weaken the moral fiber of our own country.

Another great lesson which our religious heritage has for us today is that we must not be led astray by self-righteousness. We must remember that the test of our religious principles lies not just in what we say, not only in our prayers, or even in living blameless personal lives--but in what we do for others.

I am going to repeat that, because I think it is of vital importance to this meeting. We must remember that the test of our religious principles lies not just in what we say, not only in our prayers, not even in living blameless personal lives--but in what we do for others.

It is all too easy for churchgoing people to be satisfied with a superficial standard of morals. It is all too easy to sit in judgment on the shortcomings of others. It is all too easy to feel morally superior because we go to church and profess to follow the faith of our fathers.

We must remember that in his ministry on earth, Jesus delivered His strongest condemnation against those who were superficially and publicly good. The scribes and the Pharisees He attacked were the respectable people of his day. They were the leaders of the community who set the standards for others. To them He said "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Ah, would that we could live by that !

Self-interest can blind us today, just as it blinded the scribes and Pharisees of biblical times. We must always be on our guard against this danger.

If we are to respond to our religious heritage, we must be guided by the principle of charity--charity in the biblical sense of love for one's fellow man. This is the greatest virtue, without which other virtues are of little worth.

We must work for morality in public life and in private life. You can't make an honest man by law. He has to be raised by the rules of the 20th chapter of Exodus, and the Sermon on the Mount, if he has the right moral fiber to become an ethical public or private citizen.

We must have high standards of personal conduct. But even if we do all these things, it is still not enough. The final question that will be asked of us, as individuals and as a society, is "What have we done for our fellow man ?" What have we done to ease his burdens, to give him greater opportunity, to help him in time of trouble, and to make the world a better place for him to live in? For unless we can answer those questions, we will not have carried out in our lives the religious heritage which has come to us from our forebears.

Today, our problem is not just to preserve our religious heritage in our own lives and our own country. Our problem is a greater one. It is to preserve a world civilization in which man's belief in God can survive. Only in such a world can our own Nation follow its basic traditions, and realize the promise of a better life for all our citizens.

Today, the whole human enterprise is in danger--and serious danger. On the one hand, we have to resist the expansion of a power that is hostile to all we believe in. It is a power that denies the rule of law, the value of the individual, and belief in God. It is a power which has become militant and aggressive, using the weapons of deceit and subversion as well as military might.

On the other hand, we must do all we can to prevent the outbreak of another world war. Such a war, using modern instruments of destruction, would be more terrible than anything the world has ever experienced. It would make a battleground of the crowded and complex cities of the modern world. It might well shatter the whole economic and social system, and plunge mankind back into barbarism.

This is the great problem we must meet. We cannot yield to Soviet communism, without betraying the ideals we live for. We cannot have another world war without jeopardizing our civilization.

In this perilous strait, our greatest source of strength, our greatest hope of victory, lies in the God we acknowledge as the ruler of us all. We turn to faith in Him to give us the strength and the wisdom to carry out His will. We ask Him to lead us out of the dangers of this present time into the paths of peace.

In this crisis of human affairs, all men who profess to believe in God should unite in asking His help and His guidance. We should lay aside our differences and come together now--for never have our differences seemed so petty and so insignificant as they do in the face of the peril we confront today.

It is not just this church or that church which is in danger. It is not just this creed or that creed that is threatened. All churches, all creeds, are menaced. The very future of the Word of God--the teaching that has come down to us from the days of the prophets and the life of Jesus--is at stake.

For some time I have been trying to bring a number of the great religious leaders of the world together in a common affirmation of faith. And that common affirmation, as I said awhile ago, is in the 20th chapter of Exodus, and in the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew-the Sermon on the Mount. And I have been trying to make a common supplication to the one God that all creeds and all religions profess. I have asked them to join in one common act that will affirm these religious and moral principles on which we all agree.

Such an affirmation would testify to the strength of our common faith and our confidence in its ultimate victory over the forces of Satan that oppose it.

I am sorry to say that it has not yet been possible to bring the religious faiths together for this purpose of bearing witness in one united affirmation that God is the way of truth and peace. Even the Christian churches have not yet found themselves able to join together in a common statement of their faith that Christ is their Master and Redeemer and the source of their strength against the hosts of irreligion and danger in the world, and that will be the cause of world catastrophe. They haven't been able to agree on as simple a statement as that. I have been working at it for years.

Despite the barriers that divide the different churches, there is a common bond of brotherhood that underlies them all. We must continue our effort to find those common ties, and to bring the churches together in greater unity in a crusade for peace. In this way, we shall come closer to the one God who is the Father of us all. In this way, we shall find greater power to meet the troubles of our time.

The way to such unity is long and hard. But we must continue to strive for it. And we must ask God's help. If we really have faith, God will give us what we are not able to attain by our own efforts.

May God grant that we may speak together, as brothers, of His power and His mercy, and bear witness of Him against those who deny Him.

And may God unite the churches and the free world, to bring us peace in our time.

Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. at the National City Christian Church in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Dr. J. Warren Hastings, pastor of the National City Christian Church and chairman of the meeting, and Dr. Edward H. Pruden, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Washington, which the President attended.

The pilgrimage was held in Washington, September 28-30, 1951.

Citation: Harry S. Truman: "Address to the Washington Pilgrimage of American Churchmen.," September 28, 1951. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13934.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Harry S. Truman: Address to the Washington Pilgrimage of American Churchmen.

Truman's worldview -- the worldview of "the greatest generation" -- is dead. This is because it was static. It can be helpful to try to unite various theistic religions against atheism and communism, but everyone grows toward "epistemological self-consciousness." Nobody stays the same. We are either growing in consistency with the truth, or we are becoming more consistently rebellious against God. Truman wanted us forever to remain vaguely theistic, with Christianity "first among equals." It didn't work. It can never work. We cannot use force and coercion to compel others to become more Christian, yet our own goal must always be to become more narrowly focused on the truth, and intolerant of error.

The Crack-Up Boom of a Christian Conservative

2011-09-27T11:42:00.004-05:00

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
— Lord Acton

I have over 10,000 books in my personal library. I haven't read them all. Some I haven't even opened.

I recently discovered one such book. When I opened this 1974 book, I discovered it was autographed by the author. I think I bought it at a John Birch Society bookstore.

I was too young and politically immature to know much about the author. I had heard of the author when I was in high school because I lived close to his political district, but never learned much about him. Perhaps because he was Catholic, and I was a pretty narrow-minded Protestant.

As I skimmed through the book a few days ago, I realized I had a lot more in common with this author than I ever suspected. If I knew he was a conservative, I had no idea he believed Christianity must be applied politically. Were he alive today, he would be lambasted as a "Dominionist," a "Theocrat," and likened to those "Christian Reconstructionists." Just like me.

The subtitle of the book is "The Anatomy of an Amoral Decade, 1964-1974." It is a collection of the author's newsletter articles. The articles could easily have been pulled from Christian Reconstructionist newsletters like Gary North's Remnant Review. They are conservative and many are explicitly Christian, in a way most Christian-in-name-only "conservatives" are afraid to be. Here are some of the subject headings in the table of contents:

Enduring Values, Absolute Truths
Morality in an Amoral Age
The Right to Life
Education and Child Control
Judicial Tyranny
The Nature of our Enemy
The Sellout to Red China
Trading With the Enemy
The Enemy Within
National Defense
Big Government vs. the Free Market
Decline of the Dollar
The Welfare Burden
Gun Control and Crime
Government Control of Medicine
Watergate
The Energy Crisis

The Foreword to the book was written by L. Brent Bozell, who married William F. Buckley's sister and was influential in National Review circles. His son, L. Brent Bozell III, is founder and president of Media Research Center. Bozell is listed under his Foreword as the President of the "Society for the Christian Commonwealth," and senior editor of Triumph Magazine. The "triumphalist" R.J. Rushdoony contributed to this magazine.

Bozell's Foreword paints a glowing picture of a political saint. I should be so lucky as to have some distinguished figure write such hagiography for me. Looking ahead from 1974, it is inspiring. I would like to be such a person. Looking back on history, it is frightening. I don't want to be this person. But maybe that's where political aspiration inevitably leads.

Here is Bozell's Foreword:

The Christian regeneration of the American public order in an apostate, secular humanist age: there can hardly be a more difficult task for any man or group to undertake in the United States today. It demands in very large measure all the theological virtues -- faith, in the source of the grace which alone can make such a regeneration possible; hope, that it is not and never will be too late to save even a nation whose moral disintegration has so far advanced that millionfold baby murder is a constitutional right; love, to inspire the sacrificial efforts necessary to sustain any such mission in contemporary America. The man who embraces this apparently quixotic cause is, by virtue of his extraordinary commitment, unique.

Rarely is this commitment found in America today. More rarely still is it found in the political arena, whose usual effect on a man is more likely to corrupt than to inspire.

Yet this is precisely the commitment to which John Schmitz's eight years of elective political office -- first in the California State Senate, then in the United States Congress -- finally brought him. Always a strong, unapologetic Catholic, Schmitz realized more and more clearly the longer he worked in politics that nothing could help our country short of a fundamental re-ordering of American life and thought in a Christian direction. No mere tinkering with political machinery or "electing better men to office" could halt, let alone reverse, the dominant tides of the age: secularization, dehumanization, the disintegration of the family, the abandonment of objective moral standards, the institutionalization of sexual perversion, crime and corruption.

As he so well said in TRIUMPH magazine last year: "It is time we realized that the sickness in America today has penetrated far deeper than politics, and requires much more than politics to cure it.

As a candidate for President of the United States in 1972 -- the year of Watergate and "you don't want McGovern, do you" -- Schmitz, though very little known outside California when the campaign began, garnered more than a million votes. This was a truly extraordinary accomplishment for a man whose campaign began with no money and less than a week's advance notice, a man whose name was not even printed on the ballot in nearly one-third of the states, and who had no explicit support from any leading political figure.

This book tells the story, through a "political autobiography" and a selection of the best of Schmitz's political writings of the past decade, of how John Schmitz made his way from a conventional kind of conservative politics in California, through a Presidential candidacy, to a conviction that the United States must seek actively and purposefully to become a Christian commonwealth if it is to survive. I salute this man for his understanding of the duty to which God is calling America's Christians in this difficult and often discouraging period of history, and his open and unequivocal assumption of the essentially apostolic mission of making America Christian.

Where Schmitz will go from here is known only to the Lord of men and of history. But how he came to be where he is today -- how he came to see where America truly stands at this moment, what he said about it and proposes should be done about it -- this book sets forth. Schmitz finished his years in public office a better man than when he entered it -- the opposite of what usually happens. He is apparently proving that the Christian is not ruled by history or by fate, but with God's guidance and grace may challenge and even defy both -- and in the end emerge victorious in that domain whose true and eternal rule is Christ the King.

L. BRENT BOZELL
President
Society for the Christian Commonwealth
Senior Editor - Triumph Magazine

In case you don't know, this man's life crashed and burned in sexual scandal. The details are bizarre. His children were also infected by this corruption.

Why is it that those who seek political power so often seek some kind of sexual power as well?

Why is it L. Brent Bozell and other discerning political leaders never see the scandals coming? Could anyone have predicted Schmitz's future unraveling?

Every time I think about jumping my political campaigning up a notch, in the vain imagination that I could actually win an election, I'm warned by something like this of the corrupting influence of "the government." I want a Christian society, but not a "Christian commonwealth."

Six Killer Apps of Western Civ

2011-09-20T02:28:00.002-05:00

At the end of China's "Cultural Revolution" (and the murder of tens of millions of Chinese by the Communists), the average American was 20 times richer than the average Chinese. Historian Niall Ferguson attributes this economic growth to "Six Killer Apps" or institutions unique to the West:

He lists the following as sources of economic wealth, arising largely after 1800:

1. Competition
2. The Scientific Revolution
3. Property Rights
4. Modern Medicine
5. The Consumer Society
6. The Work Ethic

To the extent that these are valuable and durable institutions, they are Christian institutions. "The State" is destructive of Christian institutions.

1. "Competition" means "freedom." The State hates competition. The State is itself a monopoly. The State attracts those who hate competition like a light attracts moths.

2. The Scientific Method "is not Western, but Christian," concluded Stanley Jaki, a prizewinning historian of science. (Jaki is discussed by Tom Woods in a book we referenced back in 2007.)

3. Property rights are described by the Prophet Micah:

And each of them will sit
under his vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.

80% of people living in Protestant nations own property. 10% in non-Christian nations.

More private property has been confiscated by thieves in the public sector than by thieves in the private sector. The greatest enemy of private property is archism.

4. Modern medicine stands in contrast to shamanism. Science and healing are dominion and charity. It was missionaries that took medicine to Africa. The availability of modern medicine to the masses is the product of private property and

5. The Consumer Society
Ferguson notes that most of the world's wealth (over $100 Trillion), was created after 1800. This also marks the rise of secularism in the west. Does this show that economic growth is better served by secularism than by Christianity? Economists consider porno DVD's as "wealth." Value is subjective. "The Consumer Society" is both a covetous and an idolatrous society. "The Consumer Society" eventually becomes the Warfare Society, to protect and conquer coveted "wealth." In the medieval era, wars were limited events fought by professional soldiers, and left workers and consumers alone. With the rise of "the consumer society," wars are fought by and against consumers, slaughtering them on a massive scale. Again, the State is the beneficiary.

What Ferguson should have identified as the valuable institution ("app") is the Division of Labor.

6. The Work Ethic, once known as the Protestant Work Ethic, is now the South Korean work ethic. The education of the average 15 year old in Shanghai is now superior to that of the average American teen to the same degree that the average American's test scores are higher than the average teenager from Albania or Tunisia.

The Calvinist Work Ethic was the doctrine that being a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker was every bit as holy as being a priest, and that God blessed work with economic prosperity as a foretaste of eternal salvation. Calvin was opposed to the covetous consumer society.

The rise of secularism, consumerist "wealth," and the mega-warfare/welfare state, coincide with the death of the Protestant Work Ethic.

"Western Civilization" is Christian Civilization.
"The Consumer Society" is not.

Competing with the Federal Reserve

2011-09-19T22:29:00.003-05:00

"Federal Express" is not a federal agency, that is, an agency of the federal government. It is a private business. Its competition includes UPS and DHL. Competition forces all these businesses to do a better job.

The "Federal Reserve Board" is not a federal agency, that is, an agency of the federal government. It is a private business. Its competition includes . . .

... nobody.

The Federal Reserve creates our money. It has no competition. As a result, the value of the Fed's money has gone steadily down. The Fed is an evil monopoly which ought to be abolished.

The government requires everybody to use money created by the Federal Reserve through "legal tender" laws.

The Constitution says:

No State shall ... make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts;

James Madison, explained this clause of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. He said paper money (currency not backed by gold or silver) has "pestilent effects" "on the industry and morals of the people." That means paper money causes economic productivity to go down, and crime to go up.

That's exactly where we are today.

Just like businesses are allowed to compete against "Federal Express," entrepreneurs should be allowed to set up currency businesses to compete against the Federal Reserve, and create currencies which are more moral, and more in line with the Constitution.

The Post Office was a needless monopoly. The Federal Reserve is a needless monopoly.

From The Monetary Future:

The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011

The Spirit of Deregulation

2011-09-14T20:55:00.001-05:00

Ignoring bureaucratic laws to do what's right.

It's a good thing FEMA didn't know about this. They would have found a way to "protect" us from this "anarchy."

Schlafly on China

2011-09-02T17:14:00.002-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly says Candidates Should Be Talking About China:

The media are absorbed with the race for the Republican presidential nomination, commenting on daily fluctuations in the polls, and predicting who will win. But why are they omitting discussion of the elephant in the room — China?

When Donald Trump briefly considered running for President, his straight talk about China helped him rise to the top of the Republican field. So, why aren't the media interrogators asking other candidates any China questions?

Communist China is a tremendous national security issue. The only cut Barack Obama is willing to make in federal spending is in our military power, which means he will be ceding our military superiority to China and other hostile totalitarian nations.

While Obama is shutting down our U.S. space program, China is going full-speed ahead to achieve space dominance along with the ability to deny it to America. Space is essential to the gathering, transmission and use of information necessary to fight and win future wars.

This year China unveiled a new, high-tech stealth fighter plane that could pose a significant threat to our air superiority. A Chinese military milestone was passed when China's first aircraft carrier completed its maiden voyage.

China is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers. China is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons to use against our aircraft carriers in any conflict over Taiwan.

Communist China is a huge jobs issue, and jobs is the number-one presidential campaign issue. China is a killer of U.S. jobs, not only from U.S. outsourcing but by taking thousands of construction jobs away from U.S. workers.

Despite California's 10 percent unemployment, China will soon finish rebuilding the great San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge damaged in the 1989 earthquake. A Chinese company built the construction machinery and the 12 bridge segments in China and is installing them in California, using 3,000 imported Chinese workers (steel-cutters, welders, engineers, etc.), paid $12 a day, working 7 a.m. till 11 p.m., seven days a week, and sleeping in a company dorm.

China has already built seven U.S. schools, and has bought a large chunk of real estate in Toledo, Ohio and oil and gas fields in Texas. China has contracts to build a 4,000-room casino in Atlantic City, and to refurbish the Alexander Hamilton bridge over the Harlem River.

In Idaho, China is using a federal program that grants permanent residency to foreign nationals and special tax exemptions to foreign firms that move to the U.S. But surprise, surprise, the Chinese industries in Idaho will be staffed by imported Chinese workers.

Targets of Chinese investment in New York include the New York subway system, a Metro-North train platform near Yankee stadium, luxury apartments, and major leases in the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center.

After General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, closed all G.E.'s U.S. Edison light bulb plants and opened a light bulb plant in China, Barack Obama named Immelt his Jobs Czar. Immelt then announced G.E. will move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Wisconsin to Beijing, where G.E. will invest $2 billion, train 65 engineers, and create six research centers.

G.E. is now pursuing a joint venture with China to build the avionics for a new commercial plane that will compete with Boeing and Airbus. Of course, China will use this technology for military purposes, too.

China is now asking Missouri taxpayers to build a cargo hub at Lambert-St.Louis Airport, called Aerotropolis, for the use of Shanghai-based China Cargo Airlines. China expects Missouri to give the Chinese $360 million in tax credits to subsidize this cargo hub, with millions of square feet of warehouse and factory space.

The new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial should be stamped "Made in China." It was sculpted in China by a Chinese sculptor out of Chinese granite and assembled in the U.S. by imported Chinese workers.

Communist China is a big medical issue. More than 80 percent of the active ingredients for prescription drugs sold in the United States are made in other countries, mostly in China or India, where the manufacturers and facilities are rarely or never inspected.

Several years ago, the Chinese deliberately substituted a cheap fake ingredient in the blood-thinner Heparin. That caused 81 U.S. deaths before it was pulled from use.

Now we learn that 180 drugs needed to treat leukemia, cancer and other diseases are in dangerously short supply because of contamination in facilities in China and India. While a deal is now being negotiated to start U.S. inspection of Chinese drug plants, there is no reason to believe that occasional inspections will make the drugs safe.

This is a combination of real problems and boogey-men.

There are two ways to deal with the real problems: power or service. Put another way: bombs or ethics. Put still another way: imperialism or a City upon a Hill. America was built on a Christian social foundation which held that "Religion, morality, and knowledge, [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind." Religion and morality are the only antidote to big government.

The "military superiority" which Schlafly advocates is indistinguishable from Chinese Communism. It is the "big government" solution. The ideology of the Chinese "communists" is not fundamentally or qualitatively different from the ideology of Bush-Paulson-Obaba-Geithner. Someday the Big U.S. Government will decide to merge with the Big Chinese Government, and nobody will really notice.

Government Welfare

2011-08-18T13:48:00.002-05:00

Penn Jillette writes:

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

My own take.

Fostering multi-generational dependence on government welfare programs is not compassion. It is slavery. It is evil.

Peace One Day

2011-08-12T01:25:00.003-05:00

Here is an energetic campaigner:

So why don't I share his optimism?

First, as long as human beings are at war with their Creator, they will be at war with every human being who is created in His image.

Second, those who want to “be as gods, knowing good and evil” -- and I'm speaking primarily about those who are part of "the State" -- will never give up war, because "war is the health of the State." To the extent that heads of state join in promoting this day of peace, it is only symbolism, as one of his critics said. I can agree with Bretigne Shaffer:

if we are even to imagine "... a bright, warless world," then it is not enough to build memorials, march for peace or repeat the mantra "never again!" It is not enough to appeal to those who start and live by wars to make them stop. We must identify the real source of all war: Not a particular nation or even a particular kind of weapon, but the institution of the state itself, with no real mechanism to hold it accountable, that enables some people to rain death and unimaginable misery upon others with impunity
Remembering Mr. Miyamoto

But this still begs the question. How to get those at the helm of the State to repudiate the vehicle through which they exercise their own deity. The fundamental issue is not military or political, it is religious.

I certainly support his idea for a day of peace, however. And I can only be impressed with the degree to which he has put his feet to the pavement in pursuit of his goal. I should be as dedicated in pursuit of my goal.

Hiroshima, August 6 / Nagasaki, August 9

2011-08-05T19:25:00.003-05:00

Saturday is the anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. The U.S. Federal government is the only government on earth that has used nuclear weapons to annihilate thousands of innocent, non-combatant civilians.

While some have suggested that this saved thousands of U.S. soldiers from dying in a U.S. invasion of Japan, others of equal credibility and authority have rebutted that claim. Japan was ready to surrender before the Bombs were dropped, but wanted the Emperor to be allowed to save face. The U.S. Government demanded unconditional surrender, dropped the atomic bombs on innocent populations of people, then allowed Japan to keep the Emperor anyway.

Speculations about how many U.S. soldiers might have died if there had actually been an invasion of Japan should be weighed against speculations as to how many Chinese would have been murdered by Japan had Japan conquered mainland China, and these speculations need to be compared with the non-speculative actual results of history: over 60 million Chinese were actually murdered by the communists, who filled the void the U.S. left by disabling Japan.

All these speculations cannot justify nuclear annihilations of populations. They simply have no legitimate place, because the Bible says we should beat our swords into plowshares. The Bible also says we are not to resist "the powers that be":

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Is the United States now on the brink of receiving economic damnation 70 years later for resisting Powers-That-Be Group A (The Axis powers) and replacing them with Powers-That-Be Group B (the Communists), inflicting 72 million casualties world-wide as a direct effect of the resistance, and another 100 million deaths subsequently inflicted by U.S.-backed Communism?

Sentencing this many people to death -- sacrificing them to geo-political speculation -- is the mark of unbridled arrogance on the part of a government that thinks it is God. "The Powers that be" are not ordained by Washington D.C.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Kevin Craig on Hiroshima

Ozarks Virtual Town Hall, August 6th -- Pacifism

2011-08-05T13:08:00.003-05:00

Looking back at the 20th century, the pacifists have been proven right. No war in the 20th century resulted in the net expansion of liberty or a higher standard of living for the planet's population.

Saturday's "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall" will begin with the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb. The first use of an atomic bomb -- on a civilian population -- is one of the epic events in all of human history. Will either party mention it in their Saturday morning addresses to the nation? Will either party call for a return to the foreign policy of Jefferson and George Washington:

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

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

Will either party call for an end to the federal government's micro-managing hegemony in hundreds of foreign nations around the world?

Listen on Saturday at 10:30 am and find out:

Phone number to call:

Webcast Player:

Question Submission:

The Department of Un-Subjection

2011-07-31T17:11:00.004-05:00

People criticize pacifists like me for being "utopian." They say following Jesus the Pacifist is "impractical" and "unrealistic" in a world of terrorists and would-be invaders.

People also criticize anarchists like me for not being in "subjection" to government. They quote Bible passages like these:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

They don't usually quote this verse, though it fits perfectly:

Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Israel, you may recall, had been invaded by the barbaric, pagan, unclean Roman Empire, who put Israel under tribute, and stationed soldiers throughout the country. These soldiers were authorized to conscript Israeli citizens and compel them to carry the soldier's provisions for up to one mile. This infuriated many Israelites, who longed for the Messiah to liberate them from the Roman occupation. Many were making plans to be a part of a violent revolution against Caesar.

Jesus repudiated violent revolution. "Render unto Caesar." Pay your taxes.

This surely means that the American Revolution was not Biblically justified.

The Apostle Paul echoed Jesus in Romans 12 and 13. Jesus said "Resist not evil." Paul adds, not even the government, the greatest evil-doer of all.

And if we are not allowed to resist the powers that be, how can we justify resisting the powers that wanna be -- imperialists who are not yet "the powers that be," but are invading our country with the intention to set themselves up as "the powers that be."

Was it Jesus' position that Israel should have/could have resisted the Roman invasion, but once the invasion was successful, Israelites could no longer resist the occupation?

Those who patriotically support the government and the traditional interpretation of Romans 13 usually also "support the troops."

But isn't the Defense Department actually a Department of Un-Subjection? Isn't the Defense Department an unwillingness to obey Biblical commands to be in subjection, and not to resist the powers that be (or the powers that wanna be)? Isn't the U.S. Department of Un-Subjection not only fomenting resistance on our part, but actively engaged in resisting "the powers that be" in many foreign nations? If the people of Iraq were commanded by Jesus to "render unto Saddam," how is the U.S. Defense Department justified in violently overthrowing this foreign government, and exempt from these commands to be in "subjection?"

The same Greek word in Romans 13 is found in 1 Peter 2, where slaves are commanded to be "subject" to their masters. Were Christians like William Wilberforce violating the Biblical worldview by attempting to abolish the institution of slavery? What argument can be made that we should not abolish the institution of "the State" that would not prohibit us from abolishing slavery? Without slavery, slaves would not work, but would riot in the streets. Without "the State," those who are commanded to be "subject" to it will break out into crime waves and labor strikes.

Romans 13 does not command patriotic allegiance and flag-waving loyalty to Caesar, but only a pacifistic non-resistance to evil. "The powers that be" are evil. We eventually will overcome evil with good, as imperialists see our good works, and repent of the evil of being occupation troops and collectors of tribute.

Washington D.C. is an occupation government, just as Rome was in Israel.

In order to save America the Christian nation, we must abolish Washington D.C., the atheistic empire. We will overcome this evil regime with good, not with the Second Amendment.

Ozarks Virtual Town Hall, July 30th

2011-07-30T02:48:00.003-05:00

10:30 AM Central Time

Abortion, Kissinger, and The World Bank

2011-07-23T12:41:00.002-05:00

BBC News - Sex selection: The forgotten story - Did the West stoke the scourge of sex selection in Asia?

But the story of sex selection in Asia is not as simple as it looks from the outside, writes award-winning science journalist Mara Hvistendahl in her startling new book Unnatural Selection.

Hvistendahl points a finger at the West for encouraging the epidemic of sex selection which has gripped Asia since the early 1970s.

Amniocentesis tests and ultrasound scans have led to more than 160 million girls being aborted in Asia alone since then, according to one widely quoted 2005 estimate.

It had to do, Hvistendahl writes, with the West's paranoid population control movement during the Cold War - a growing fear that more hungry babies would grow up and turn to communism. The "monster of sex determination in Asia" lead to vastly skewed ratios in countries like India, China and South Korea.

Western money, she writes, was used to set up an extensive network of family planning advisers and doctors that encouraged women to opt for amniocentesis.

In 1969, sex determination was included as one of the 12 new strategies for global birth control at a US workshop. Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state under Richard Nixon, signed a classified memo stating that "abortion is vital to the solution" of population growth in the world.

So in India, Hvistendahl says, advisers from the World Bank and other organisations pressured the government to "adapt a paradigm" where population was the problem. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation poured money into "research into reproductive biology".

THE NSSM 200 DIRECTIVE AND THE STUDY REQUESTED - The Life and Death of NSSM 200 - Chapter 3

National Security Study Memorandum 200 Blueprint for world de-population and western domination

How Eugenics and Population Control Led to Abortion

The Fed Audit: Taxation Without Representation

2011-07-23T12:01:00.005-05:00

Really, now; what's so bad about "taxation without representation?"

Taxation is theft, at least without some color of legal authority.

Suppose Congress passed a law giving the Chinese government authority to take as much money as it wanted out of our paychecks. Would that be "representation?" Most people would say no.

What if Congress passed a law giving bankers the authority to print all the money they wanted, even if that meant that the dollars in our savings accounts would lose purchasing power?

It's called "The Federal Reserve," and since the latter part of 2007, has printed over $16 Trillion out of thin air and given it to other banks, even banks overseas, robbing our dollars of the power to purchase things we had planned to purchase, or create jobs we had planned to create.

The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Fed Audit: Trillions For Foreign Banks, Conflicts of Interest

Inflation is a tax, a transfer of purchasing power. The Fed is taxation without representation. The Declaration of Independence says this is tyranny, and it says we have a duty to abolish tyranny.

July 23 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall

2011-07-22T11:30:00.002-05:00

We'll get started at 10:30am Central Time, this coming Saturday Morning, after the President posts his Radio Address to the Nation, and the Republicans post their response. Congressional Candidate Kevin Craig will give a libertarian response, then we hope you will share your comments or questions.

To listen to replay:

Town Hall Archives

Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers...

2011-07-17T15:24:00.005-05:00

As a compulsive debater, I'm glad I have a blog to answer hate mail. There's nothing positive or edifying about the letter below, but it gives me a chance to make a few comments.

Subject:	Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers...
From:	telesia55@gmail.com
Date:	Sun, July 17, 2011 3:08 pm
To:	KevinCraig@KevinCraig.US

Please, do NOT call our Founding Fathers "Libertarian". They were not and never will be. By any of today's measures, even the liberals of THEIR day would be considered "ultra-conservative".

You Liberaltarians are little more than re-branded liberals trying to get over on an unsuspecting public, and your ilk are truly sick and out in left field - as Rep. Ron Paul exemplifies so handily.

Do not bother replying. This e-mail is sent from a "junk" spam account where all incoming mail is automatically deleted. I have no desire to hear your liberal nonsense.

For the record, I'm a Constitutionalist... if it isn't in our Constitution, it has no place in American life.

To the extent that the Founding Fathers opposed tyranny and British monarchy, they were libertarian. But the "liberals" of their day were also libertarians, so I don't know what the letter-writer is trying to say. Lew Rockwell writes:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.

I agree, however, that both the Founders and "liberals" would have been shocked at federally-funded abortion and homosexual "marriages." They were, on "social issues," ultra-conservatives.

"Liberaltarians" -- a term that came into vogue in late 2006 and went out of vogue a few months later -- refers to libertarians who think there are more points of common ground with left-leaning folks than with right-leaning folks. I disagree; both sides are hopeless. Or, both sides are equally fertile.

I am completely unaware of the late-breaking news that Ron Paul is a former liberal, that is, a former advocate of bigger government.

For those who haven't already read my "liberal nonsense," try here.

For my views on why anything that's not in the Constitution has no place in American life, see here, here, here, here, here, and maybe here.

Security Without Weapons

2011-07-10T17:34:00.002-05:00

For the weapons of our warfare are not those of the world. Instead, they have the power of God to demolish fortresses. We tear down arguments and every proud obstacle that is raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive in order to obey Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:4-15

Peggy Noonan gives us reasons to be confident that we can have peace and national security without a trillion-dollar defense budget:

A veteran diplomat in the area, an American, said later that everything he'd heard in the speeches left him thinking how the great progress of the past quarter-century had been made not through warfare but through diplomacy, tough decisions, aid, encouragement and rhetorical clarity and candor.

In short, by being a "City upon a Hill," not a military-industrial complex.

Listen to the article and comments by Richard Land.

New York's Expansion of State Power

2011-07-10T03:27:00.003-05:00

'Gay Marriage,' Libertarians, and Civil Rights
Untangling Several Confusions
George Weigel
National Review Online
June 27, 2011

"Gay marriage" in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition.

There is a curious rhetorical fact that has usually gone unremarked in these debates, but which is worth pointing out. That what the New York state legislature approved has to be described, not as marriage, but as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is itself a verbal indicator that what is being done here is counterintuitive. We all know, or thought we knew, what marriage is, and to add the qualifier "gay" or "same-sex" is a tacit admission by the proponents of the practice that it requires an appeal to authority to enforce what seems strange, odd, not right. The verbal tic of "gay marriage" or "same-sex" marriage is thus itself a rhetorical warning sign that what was done in Albany was an exercise in raw state power, the state's asserting that it can do X simply because it claims that it has the power to do so.

And that is an exercise of power that libertarians ought, in theory, to resist, not support.

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4503/pub_detail.asp

The Treaty of Tripoli

2011-07-08T15:51:00.002-05:00

I agree with Lew Rockwell on The Proper US Attitude Towards Muslims.

I disagree with his use of The Treaty of Tripoli to criticize "the Bachmannite myth" of America as a Christian nation.

Independence Day Reading, 2011

2011-07-04T13:50:00.004-05:00

Lots of goodies, some repeats from previous years.

Independence from Britain;
Independence from God?

Most of us don't declare our independence from God
even when we are doing things that move us away from God.

America's Founding Fathers all claimed to be Christian, but didn't always act consistently Christian. Don't read anything unless you read Gary North's essay, and consider the implications:

Tricked on the Fourth of July by Gary North

This Is News - July 4, 2011
from WORLD Magazine Podcasts
Original audio source (episode911.mp3)

The American Creed
from BreakPoint Commentaries by Chuck Colson
Today is the great American holiday: The Fourth of July. But do we Americans truly understand what we are celebrating, and why it so important?
Download

Character Counts
from Character Counts
Independence Day and Courage
Original audio source (Y4DA_3.MP3)

America's Birthday, Part 1
David Barton / Wallbuilders
Listen

America's Birthday, part 2
from WallBuilders - LIVE!
"With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This final statement in the Declaration of Independence marked the beginning of a new nation. Observe God's sovereignty as you hear exciting stories surrounding the birth of the United States.
Original audio source (WBLive2011-07-05.mp3)

America's Birthday, part 3
from WallBuilders - LIVE!
"With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This final statement in the Declaration of Independence marked the beginning of a new nation. Observe God's sovereignty as you hear exciting stories surrounding the birth of the United States.
Original audio source (WBLive2011-07-06.mp3)

Episode 193 – Philosophy of Freedom: The Declaration of Independence
Posted by Corbett
Podcast: Play
In June of 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafted one of the most important political documents in the history of the world. The Declaration of Independence was a breathtakingly revolutionary document for its time, but what does it tell us about our situation today? If we are faced by a train of abuses and usurpations, will we respond in kind? Would we sign the declaration ourselves?

Podcast: We Need A New Declaration of Independence
July 6, 2010 |
Yep, this one’ll get the lib’s panties all in a twist. “He’s calling for Revolution,” they’ll whine.
I even added some nice fife and drum Yankee Doodle music to this.
Enjoy!

The United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 read by John F Kennedy.
Authored by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. The primary author is Thomas Jefferson, however, all the members of the 5 man drafting committee had a hand in editing the document.
Download

Previous blogs:

From Independence to Dependence - July 7, 2008
Independence Day Reading - July 4, 2009
To Save America, We Must Abolish the United States - July 3, 2009
Land of the Slaves, Home of the Fearful - July 15, 2009
The 4th of July - June 6, 2006 [I never have updated that website. Groan.]
4th of July - June 8, 2006
A Libertarian Manifesto: July 4th, 1776 - Jun 17, 2006
30 Days to Independence Day - June 4, 2008
Risking One's Sacred Honor - June 24, 2008
John Quincy Adams on Independence - July 2008
Independence Day 2008

26 Percent Of Americans Don’t Know U.S. Declared Independence From Great Britain | ThinkProgress

Independence Day 2011 | End the War on Freedom

Your Independence Day Musical Extravaganza - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Independence Day: Celebrating America’s Enduring Principles

Anniversaries in China and the United States | Britannica Blog

Down with the Fourth of July by Stephan Kinsella

For reasons why, see my post Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!.

Einstein on Socialism

2011-06-30T12:46:00.002-05:00

A friend emailed me a link to an article by the famous physicist Albert Einstein, advocating socialism.

An extraordinarily fuzzy, mushy-headed article for Mr. E=mc².

My response is here:

http://KevinCraig.us/einstein-socialism.htm

Neo-Conservatives Hate God

2011-06-30T00:35:00.004-05:00

Given yesterday's post, "Liberals Hate God," I thought I should appear "fair and balanced."

Many conservatives want to conserve true religion. I won't say they hate God. The aspects of true religion which conservatives want to conserve are precisely what liberals want to exterminate.

But too many conservatives are neo-conservatives, and are therefore like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, who wanted to conserve their traditions but hated God when He walked among them.

The link to "neoconservatives" above gives evidence that many conservatives also hate God, in that they hate "the least of these" -- which is to hate Jesus Himself -- and do not extend hospitality toward them. Hatred of foreigners is a hatred of the God who created them all, and a denial of pure religion (James 1:27).

Conservatives err when they seek to conserve a past which was based on the traditions of men, instead of advancing forward in the direction charted by the commandments of God:

But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
Jeremiah 7:24

Too many Conservatives also seem to be united in their support of the wars of the U.S. federal government, whereas God wants us to beat our swords into plowshares.

Overall, the differences between "conservative" and "liberal," and "left" and "right" are smoke and mirrors, designed to keep people divided and unable to resist the federal leviathan.

Deuteronomy 5:32
Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

Deuteronomy 17:11
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.

Deuteronomy 17:20
That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Deuteronomy 28:14
And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Joshua 1:7
Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.

Joshua 23:6
Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;

2 Kings 22:2
And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.

Proverbs 4:27
Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Mankind has certainly made progress toward "liberty under God," and then at times rebelled against that progress. It is not inappropriate during times of cultural rebellion to look back with fondness on that prior progress. But our goal should not be to conserve the past, or return to the past, but to advance ever boldly against evil and toward the City of God.

Liberals Hate God

2011-06-29T18:04:00.003-05:00

I just tried to send the following letter to Congressman Todd Aiken:

-----=====******O******=====-----

I just heard that you apologized for saying that "liberals hate God."

In 1923, Princeton Seminary Professor J. Gresham Machen wrote a book entitled Christianity and Liberalism, in which he presented a very scholarly proof that liberals hate God.

Liberals may love a god they created, or they may be their own god and love themselves, but liberals hate the God of the Bible.

Machen was de-frocked by the liberal Presbyterian Church. You can expect to be treated with greater intolerance by the "tolerant" liberals.

Don't back down.

I am not one of your constituents. I have been the Libertarian Party nominee for Congress in the last 4 elections, running against Roy Blunt and Billy Long. I plan to run again in 2012. Maybe I'll meet you on Capitol Hill in 2013!

www.KevinCraig.us/liberalism.htm

Would be honored to hear back from you, but it's not necessary.

-----=====******O******=====-----

When I clicked "submit," I received this response:

Your zip code indicates that you are outside of the 2nd District of Missouri.
Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 2nd District of Missouri.
Click Here to return to my home page.

I can't tell if the letter was destroyed by the Congressman's website and won't be read, or if it will be read but not replied to. I had clicked the box that indicated I did not need a reply.

John Hospers | 1918 - 2011

2011-06-13T17:30:00.002-05:00

Richard Boddie forwarded me a link to an obituary in Reason Magazine for John Hospers, who died yesterday, three days after his 93rd birthday.

I took a class in Political Philosophy from Hospers at USC -- just about the only glimmer of light in that 4-year sentence. The class text was his book, Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow. I think he also introduced me to Rothbard's For a New Liberty. His goal was to impart ideas, not flunk anyone. He passed out a list of questions for his own book which was a checklist of the important ideas every student should take away. I have always liked that way of teaching. George Reisman uses the same technique.

The Reason obit says Hospers was "openly gay." This is the first I have ever heard that.

The New Pledge of Allegiance

2011-06-11T17:40:00.001-05:00

Why I Don't Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, and to the Republic for which it Stands

Religion and the Coming Depression

2011-06-03T07:32:00.002-05:00

Wayne Allyn Root has written a depressing article on his blog, "Why the Greatest Depression of All Time Has Begun." Go ahead and read it and then come back here.

Maybe we could call it a "sobering" article, except that nobody is going to get sober after reading it. An article detailing all the problems caused by getting drunk all the time won't cause an alcoholic to stay sober. Root's article will not bring economic sobriety.

Isn't that why Root went to the trouble to write this article? Doesn't he believe on some level that his article will spur action and prevent the next depression?

As a political candidate, I'm always looking for the "silver bullet" -- the sound bite that will cause voters to wake up and vote the right way.

Root's article is not the silver bullet.

First of all, the title of Root's article is wrong. He only proves THAT "the Greatest Depression of All Time Has Begun," but he does not explain WHY it has begun.

Perhaps this line is the first clue:

> America has always been a land of boom and bust.
> It's just part of business cycle.

Not true.
Boom-bust has been exacerbated by the Fed since it was founded in 1913. Before 1913, "cycles" were not "cyclical." They only happened as discrete and individual incidents when banks created money out of thin air, inevitably in collusion with the government.

http://KevinCraig.us/money.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/fed.htm

But WHY did banks create money out of thin air?
Was it a technical accounting error?
An impersonal mistake?
An unavoidable, inevitable economic "cycle?"

No, it was a moral problem.
People wanted "something for nothing."
Borrowers wanted free money.
Banks wanted the interest.
Nobody wanted to work and save, earning wealth the old fashioned way.

In an introduction to his notes on the Constitutional Convention's deliberations in Philadelphia, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," noted that one of the defects the Convention was assembled to remedy was that

In the internal administration of the States, a violation of contracts had become familiar, in the form of depreciated paper made a legal tender.

Most Americans could not explain this statement.
They could not explain why paper money helps violate contracts.

Art. 1, § 10, ¶ 1 of the Constitution was written to remedy this problem:

No State shall ... make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts;

In Federalist Paper No. 44, possibly the most authoritative source for constitutional interpretation, Madison explained the provision:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. ... No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

Madison says paper money has "pestilent effects" on "the industry and morals of the people." This means people have come to want "something for nothing."

All of the problems listed by Root are fundamentally MORAL problems. They are not the effects of impersonal economic cycles. They are not imposed on a God-fearing, moral America by devious atheistic socialist conspirators.

I guess I'm more pessimistic and depressing than Wayne Allyn Root. He must assume that Americans are educated enough to read and understand his article. I don't.

http://KevinCraig.us/literacy.htm

But WHY are Americans largely illiterate?

Because being educated takes work, and Americans want something for nothing. They want degrees and certificates that LABEL them as being educated, but they don't want to WORK at actually being educated.

Government-run schools no longer teach students that there is a God. "Public" schools no longer teach the duty to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every student is taught that he is his own god. He does not have to obey teachers. He does not have to respect the learning environment of other students. He does not have to work at being informed. He will get his diploma no matter how stupid he is. He is entitled to it. All gods are entitled to everything they want. These students will grow up to be "voters," voting to get "something for nothing." They will destroy the economy.

All of these "impersonal economic problems" are actually personal immoral actions committed by people who reject God and His Commandments.

Morality is religion externalized.

The only solution to Big Government is religious revival.

http://KevinCraig.us/religion/morality.htm

Voters must confess, "God is God; I am not."

The State must confess, "God is God; I am not."

This is "conversion" from the idolatry of the false religion of statism to the true religion of Christianity.

This is the silver bullet.

Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?

2011-05-29T15:26:00.003-05:00

www.Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day.com

America is Ugly: Medicare

2011-05-26T12:38:00.005-05:00

It's been 10 days since I last posted, and I really don't have time to post anything today, but I wanted to correlate an anti-GOP commercial I saw on FoxNews the other day and a recent podcast by Chuck Colson.

The commercial shows a Republican dumping an elderly woman over a cliff, symbolizing the alleged GOP plan to eliminate Medicare, which would be a good thing, even if the GOP never proposed any such thing, and would never have the political wisdom and courage to do so. The closing line is: "Is America Beautiful Without Medicare?"

I would like to begin a conversation on the proposition that Medicare makes America Ugly.

Start with this "BreakPoint" podcast by Chuck Colson:

Caring for the Elderly

Update - June 4th
We should also consider the idea of "caring for the kids."
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle writes:

To the senior citizen who says "I paid into Medicare, and you can't cut me off!", I would refer you to this comment from the Cato Institute:

Medicare is less a "sacred bond between the generations" than a pyramid scheme allowing each generation to take advantage of the next. Since the elderly are a politically powerful group, each generation has been able to secure larger Medicare subsidies at the expense of young working-age Americans. Medicare has spawned an average of one tax increase every three years for the past 45 years.

Rather than perpetuating this system, and throwing enormous debt and taxes onto the backs of our children and grandchildren, and frankly ruining their hopes for good medical care, instead let's suffer the pain now, and end this system now, so that their lives can be brighter, and their health can be stronger.
Libertarians say Paul Ryan's Medicare plan fails

Government Workers are Cowards

2011-05-16T13:00:00.004-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoSiPII1QLI&feature=player_embedded#t=343s

And those who stand by silently -- or even cheer confidently -- are also full of fear.

Some of the "government workers" in the video above do not get paid by the government to do the work they do. They do govenrment work for money only indirectly, but also out of fear.

1 John 4:18

h/t: Tim Challies

McCain: Torture Did Not Lead to Osama

2011-05-15T10:48:00.002-05:00

Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post

Windfall Profits

2011-05-01T21:51:00.001-05:00

Gasoline Taxes Vs. Exxon Profit, Per Gallon

How to Abolish Washington D.C.

2011-04-18T17:54:00.003-05:00

It's been a great Tax Day Weekend, I'm sure you'll agree. And as this exuberant day winds to a close, let's think about how we can avoid any more Tax Days.

It can't be denied that Washington D.C. provides several necessary functions. Education, highways, the poor, etc. If we abolished the government tomorrow, we would need to continue educating chidren, building roads, and helping the needy.

Here's an interesting website:

Third Way -- Your Federal Tax Receipt

Type in the amount you paid this weekend, and you'll be able to see where your paycheck went.

In addition to this money, the government also borrows some money, about 25% more. That's about equal to a minimum estimate of how much more it costs for the feds to build and staff a classroom, build a road, deliver a postcard, or provide a meal for the elderly than voluntary networks and businesses in a Free Market would do the same job or better. So if we abolished the government, you might do well to plan on spending the same amount of money (or perhaps less) as is being taken from your paycheck now.

Thus, if you paid $10,000 in taxes this year, that means you paid

$2,044.94 for Social Security benefits for rich New Yorkers who have retired in Miami and Scottsdale, AZ;
$2,017.15 for soldiers and predator drones to kill innocent people in foreign nations
$1,306.74 for Medicare,
$789.22 for Medicaid including all the fraudulent claims
$928.48 for foodstamps, SSI, Sec. 8 housing, school lunches, etc.
$661.32 in interest for those who loaned the government money -- you would save that amount if we abolished the government and started donating to charities for the needy and elderly.
$289.65 for Education

and so on.

If we abolished Washington D.C., there would be people at your door and mail in your UPS or FedEx box inviting you to contribute that same amount for those same (or better) services, and you would have to make a decision to purchase these goods and services from one or more providers -- or none at all.

Are Americans smart enough to handle this task? If not, why are they smart enough to be entrusted with buying their own food, clothing, housing, computers, appliances, cars, and so forth?

Are Americans charitable enough to give voluntarily to the needy? If not, how can they be entrusted with voting for compassionate, omni-benevolent politicians who will give our money to the poor?

No News in the U.S.

2011-04-11T13:21:00.006-05:00

Charlie Sheen!

Lady Gaga!

Dramatic Showdown to Government Shutdown!
(Never mind that Debt Jumped $54.1 Billion in 8 Days Preceding Boehner-Obama Deal to Cut $38.5 Billion for Rest of Year - CNSnews.com )

That's the news in the U.S.

And This Is What News Looks Like in Mexico

Heads Up, Mexico: You May be Next

Rethinking Abortion?

2011-04-10T07:14:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul's soon-to-be-released book is called, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. Of the importance of the book, Lew Rockwell announces, "It’s Time To Rethink Everything."

I certainly agree. It's time to rethink everything about the State. There are, however, certain things we don't have to rethink: "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal."

Of Ron Paul's position on abortion, Rockwell says this:

The book is arranged alphabetically, which makes the subject of abortion the very first entry. Where do you suppose Ron Paul stands on this issue? Let's just say that if you think you have followed the conventional debate, you are in for something completely different.

I'm always in favor of something "completely different." And no issue needs something "completely different" more than abortion. Small-Government Conservatives won't cross the bridge to libertarianism as long as they believe murder will be condoned. Jefferson is quoted by conservatives as saying,

"The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all."

"The care of human life, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Why have a government if it doesn't protect life?

Rockwell continues:

Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has delivered thousands of babies). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on this subject runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized pro-life policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory-legalization policy. He wants a repeal of Roe. He doesn't want state funding. But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.
His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, abortion clinics compete with alternative women's clinics to provide for those in need of pregnancy services. In fact, if you want to look where the pro-life movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to abortion. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

I don't think this is going to make converts. I don't think pro-lifers are going to feel like the "core disagreement" has been worked out. How does this reasoning work if we substitute "slavery" for "abortion?"

Ron is a vehement opponent of slavery, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has emancipated thousands of slaves). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on slavery runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized abolitionist policy is as wrong as a centralized national enslavement policy. He wants a repeal of court decisions which outlaw state abolitionist laws. He doesn't want state funded slavery. But if a community wants to permit slavery, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.
His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, slavery auctions compete with underground railroads to provide for those in need of human services. In fact, if you want to look where the abolitionist movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to slavery. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

This is not "something completely different." Ron Paul's son Rand was scrutinized by the media for not genuflecting before the centralized Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What if cannibalism becomes trendy?

Ron is a vehement opponent of cannibalism, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has rescued thousands of people who were about to be killed and eaten). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on cannibalism runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized anti-cannibalism policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory cannibalism policy. He wants a repeal of federal court decisions which outlaw state laws against cannibalism. He doesn't want state funded cannibalism. But if a community wants to permit cannibalism, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.
His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, cannibalism diners compete with vegan diners to provide for those in need of food. In fact, if you want to look where the anti-cannibalism movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to cannibalism. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

What's "shocking" to the small-government conservative is elevating the political issue of "federalism" to the same level as the issue of human life itself. The "core disagreement" here has not really been worked out. The core disagreement is whether it is moral to kill another human being.

I am not shocked by Ron Paul's argument. I agree that the federal government of the United States has no constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states that they either must or cannot legalize/criminalize murder, rape, or theft. The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, according to Madison, "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." But "federalism" is not the core disagreement. People will not be sold on libertarianism if it appears to approve murder.

Imagine that you're working intensely on some project at home, when in back of you, or around the corner, you hear your 4 year-old son ask, "Daddy, can I kill this?" Do you let this question interrupt your concentration, or do you just say, "Whatever." It may just be an insect, but it may be the cherished family pet. Or it may be the lad's newly-arrived baby sister. "Daddy, can I kill this?" The first thing a father should do is ask, "What is it?" That's the only proper way to answer the question, "Can I kill this?"

One hour after delivery, a baby is a human being. "Thou shalt not murder." All government laws agree. One hour before delivery, however, the laws disagree, because we haven't answered the core question: "What is it?"

Babies are not bugs. Babies are human beings. Abortion is murder.

Once there is agreement on the core issue of murder, we can confront a secondary issue. If a woman conspires with a doctor to murder her baby, how should we respond? That is, how should you respond? How should I respond? Should we stone the woman and her doctor? Should we lock them up in my basement with a psychopath? Should you and I create a government to do this?

As a Christian, I believe these questions lead to a libertarian ("anarcho-capitalist") society. But the questions presuppose a prior working out of the core disagreement on "What is it?" and what we are permitted by "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to do with "it."

Happy Birthday Franz Oppenheimer

2011-03-30T01:26:00.007-05:00

Franz Oppenheimer was born on March 30, 1864 in Berlin; he died September 30 1943 in Los Angeles. This is not the Oppenheimer associated with the Atomic Bomb. Our Oppenheimer exposed the mythology of the "social contract" theory of the State, by showing its roots in conquest and violence.

Oppenheimer started out as a physician. Then he studied economics and wrote his PhD dissertation on David Ricardo. After accepting a call to serve as Chair for Sociology and Theoretical Political Economy at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt/Main (the first chair dedicated to Sociology in Germany) a cooperative agricultural community of individual farms (called a "Moshav") was founded by Jews using Oppenheimer's blueprint. Oppenheimer later taught in Palestine. He fled Nazi persecution to Los Angeles, and became a founding member of The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.

Oppenheimer's book The State looks at the origins of this political entity:

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

Economic Man and Political Man

Oppenheimer made the compelling observation:

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior's trade - which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery - constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means." (pp. 24-25)

Albert Jay Nock introduced these concepts to American readers in his own book Our Enemy, the State.

h/t Wikipedia

Defense of Marriage

2011-03-10T09:46:00.002-06:00

President Obama has decided not to execute the law known as "Defense of Marriage Act," even though, as Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of government, his job is to execute laws legislated by the Legislative Branch. Obama has judged the law to be "unconstitutional," even though judging laws is arguably the job of the Judicial Branch of government.

Wayne Allyn Root makes a good point:

What would the media's reaction have been if President Bush had decided he would no longer defend the Civil Rights Voting Act on constitutional grounds?

They would have been outraged, of course.

The Constitution is dead meat. Nobody in Washington D.C. really cares what it says or what it was intended to do.

"In God We Trust"

2011-03-08T18:48:00.002-06:00

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday chose not to hear an appeal by atheist Michael Newdow from a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the national motto, "In God We Trust," as found on currency and elsewhere, violates Newdow's Constitutional rights.

Religion Clause: Cert. Denied In Challenge To "In God We Trust" Motto

The Appeals Court decision was rendered by a different panel of 9th Circuit judges than the one that ruled in favor of Newdow's attack on the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, only to have it denounced by Congress and thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 on a technicality.

Long before these 21st-century cases, the 9th Circuit ruled back in 1970 that words like "God" in the Pledge and judicial oaths has no "theological" meaning, that is, does not refer to "the Supreme Judge of the World," or "The Great Lord and Ruler of Nations," or the God of the Bible, but is a secular term, "ceremonial" and "patriotic," designed to inculcate obedience to the State.

History shows, however, that America's Founding Fathers placed their trust in the God of the Bible, not a secular State.

Courts today, imposing the religion of Secular Humanism on our nation, are afraid to say that "In God We Trust" does not refer to God, or that it does and it's "unconstitutional," so they usually resort to technicalities to avoid hearing the case.

Those courts which have been brave enough to take the case, but hypocritical enough to uphold such references to the God of the Bible by calling them instances of "ceremonial deism," forget earlier cases in which "deism" was held to be inconsistent with the founding ideals of this "Christian nation" (e.g., Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 127 (1844)).

Balanced Budget and Fair Tax vs. the Constitution

2011-03-04T08:52:00.002-06:00

Lawrence Vance has a nice essay explaining why those who invest time or money promoting a "Balanced Budget Amendment" and/or a "Fair Tax" are part of the problem, not part of the solution:

Lessons from a Bloated Budget

If Washington D.C. "balanced" its spending on the Department of Education with increased revenue from a "Fair Tax," America's Founding Fathers would say we still have "tyranny."

More votes in Congress are required to amend the Constitution than are required to annually balance a budget. Who really believes that an unbalanced Congress would vote for a balanced budget amendment that really required them to do what they already refuse to do?

Such an amendment would only be for show. At best. The only Amendment such politicians would vote for is one that actually buttresses their tyrannical powers.

Politicians who take the Lord's Name in vain by violating their oath of office through their support for spending which exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress are not "fiscally responsible" if they spend trillions of unconstitutional dollars. An attempt to "balance" an unconstitutionally tyrannical budget is the mark of a sociopath who cares more about the empty slogans that will lead to re-election than he cares about millions of Americans who will suffer.

"Sociopath."
"Cause Suffering."
Those are harsh words to apply to good conservatives who promote "the Fair Tax" and a "Balanced Budget Amendment."
America's Founding Fathers would have even harsher words.

Soldiers Protect Us?

2011-03-04T05:38:00.001-06:00

We're often told that The Troops Defend Our Freedoms.

Of course, the Generals don't protect the freedoms of anti-war groups like the Westboro Baptist Church:

Retired AF generals target Westboro lawyers - Air Force News News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Robert Nisbet pointed out that the military destroys decent, civil culture:

How the Military Encourages Immorality

Here's an example from the Westboro Baptist Church voicemail:

[[ WARNING: Soldier Speaking -- Violent Language Alert ]]

http://www.twitvid.com/0UODF

Don't worry: your First Amendment Freedoms are safe in the hands of soldiers like these.

What Friends of Freedom Can Learn from the Socialists

2011-03-02T11:41:00.003-06:00

Optimism.
Evangelism.

Richard M. Ebeling writes:

On March 14, 1883, a German philosopher living in exile in London passed away. When he was buried three days later in a modest grave where his wife had been laid to rest two years earlier, fewer than ten people were present, half of them family members. His closest friend spoke at the grave-site and said, “Soon the world will feel the void left by the passing of this Titan.” But there was, in fact, little reason to think that the deceased man or his long, turgid, and often obscure writings would leave any lasting impression on the world of ideas or on the course of human events.

That man was Karl Marx.

Advocates of liberty often suffer bouts of despair. How can the cause of freedom ever triumph in a world so dominated by interventionist and welfare-statist ideas?

What friends of freedom need to remember is that trends can change, that they have in the past and will again in the future. If this seems far-fetched, place yourself in the position of a socialist at the time that Marx died in 1883, and imagine that you are an honest and sincere advocate of socialism. As a socialist, you live in a world that is predominately classical liberal and free market, with governments in general only intervening in minimal ways in commercial affairs. Most people—including those in the “working class”—believe that it is not the responsibility of the state to redistribute wealth or nationalize industry and agriculture, and are suspicious of government paternalism.

How could socialism ever be victorious in such a world so fully dominated by the “capitalist” mindset?

Yet within 30 years the socialist idea came to dominate the world. By World War I the notion of paternalistic government had captured the minds of intellectuals and was gaining increasing support among the general population. Welfare-statist interventionism was replacing the earlier relatively free-market environment.

continue reading:
What Friends of Freedom Can Learn from the Socialists

Heterosexual Parents Unfit?

2011-03-01T22:59:00.002-06:00

Are Christians who oppose homosexuality fit to be foster parents?

U.K. Court suggests not. The State's right to impose pro-homosexual thinking trumps religious freedom.

Excommunicate TSAers

2011-02-25T03:11:00.002-06:00

I'd rather speak of duties than rights. But a government agent who violates the "rights" of the People violates his duty. If nothing else, his duty to keep his oath of office. He takes the Lord's Name in vain. TSA agents violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and make themselves liars.

"Public Servants" who strike for higher wages are thieves. "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Ephesians 4:28)

If today's churches had been following in the steps of churches in the American Revolution, they would have already excommunicated any of their members who had jobs with TSA or any other unconstitutional bureaucracy (Matthew 18:17). "Let him be unto you as a tax collector." Today, wimpy churches allow tax collectors to dictate what gets preached from the pulpit.

The British called America's pastors "The Black Robed Regiment."

Here's news that a Seattle-Area Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents.

Excommunicated.

Mubarak's government in Egypt fell when the enforcers stopped enforcing. Restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and churches need to put pressure on today's Red Coats among us to repent, resign, and seek productive employment.

No guns or riots are necessary to bring down the tyranny in Washington D.C.

Previously:

The Excommunication of George W. Bush

Shunning Government Down

Anonymous Hacks Westboro

2011-02-25T02:11:00.001-06:00

Jael Phelps, granddaughter of America's most hated preacher, Fred Phelps, has posted a screen shot of Westboro Baptist Church's infamous website, GodHatesFags.com. The website was vandalized by a group of hackers calling themselves "Anonymous," or at least by one hacker calling itself "th3j35t3r" ["the jester"].

From a libertarian perspective, "Anonymous" has initiated force, engaged in aggression, and perpetrated an act of violence against the GodHatesFags.com website. Even libertarians who reject "intellectual property" concepts can distinguish between copying someone's property and destroying it.

But this act of desperation should come as no surprise. "Anonymous," like the vast majority of Americans, are victims of educational malpractice at the hands of government-run or government-accredited schools. Americans are unable to engage in critical thinking. Therefore Americans are unable to engage in original thinking. Americans simply parrot politically correct slogans ["God loves everybody"]. Americans are all unthinking anonymous conformists.

Zombies who cannot refute an idea with reason and truth throw a temper-tantrum. Unable to understand a proposition, analyze it, and demonstrate its falsity, they must resort to aggression.

As a result of hacking the Westboro website, perhaps millions of people have typed in the words "God-Hates-Fags-dot-com" just to see the "triumph" of "Anonymous." The seeds of thought are planted in many minds that cannot refute them. "th3j35t3r" has spread Westboro's message far and wide. And this is why Jael Phelps can sincerely believe that

Previously:

Who are the Haters?

"Lawsuits" and "Marriages"

2011-02-21T09:16:00.003-06:00

Smith comes up to me and says he's really angry at Jones. Smith asks me if he can sue him. I prefer working out conflicts peacefully, without asking for the State to initiate force against anyone, but it appears Smith does have a case against Jones.

The next day Smith says he's filed his lawsuit against Jones. Curious as to whether Smith made "a federal case out of it," I ask Smith where he filed his lawsuit.

"WalMart," he says.

I knew that WalMart SuperStores also had a Pharmacy, Banking, Optometry, and other services, but I hadn't heard about courts.

Smith says he wrote up his lawsuit and gave it to the woman at the "Customer Service" desk. As Smith related the ensuing conversation, I can imagine that the Customer Service Representative was quite confused.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully, I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called a "lawsuit," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith hadn't actually initiated a "lawsuit" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact filed a lawsuit, and that he was going to win his case.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his grievance against Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that really, technically, a genuine "lawsuit" doesn't exist at this point. Smith didn't have a "lawsuit" going yet.

I tried to help Smith overcome his anger against Jones in other ways, and he was thankful for my time.

The next day Smith told me that he and Jones had reconciled, and in fact the two men had gotten married!

I didn't even want to know if they had gone to WalMart.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called "marriage," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith and Jones weren't "married" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact gotten married, and that he was going to live happily ever after in matrimony with Jones.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his admiration for Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that he really, technically, wasn't married to Jones, and never could be.

I went back to an early decision on marriage by the Texas Supreme Court, which said:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

I explained to Jones that God prohibits incest, homosexuality, and other sins, and that these relationships cannot be labeled "marriage." Jones reminded me that many governments were calling these things "marriages." I explained that decades ago, there were some who were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment. Courts didn't buy their arguments back then, and shouldn't today:

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859)

Smith insisted that government is now "secular," and many government agencies more recently have officially recognized same-sex couples as "married." I reminded Smith that just because a government entity says something is true does not make it true. "Marriage" was invented by God before conquerors and looters invented "the State." "Governments" have occasionally been more respectful of the Bible, but their shift in allegiance does not change reality. Reality is determined by God and revealed to us in the Bible. "Governments" and other organizations should acknowledge God's Word.

I tried to help Smith see that nobody is forced to engage in homosexual activities (except, ironically, those imprisoned for committing sodomy by conservatives in "the government"). It's a voluntary choice that should be changed. I pointed Smith to resources that show repentance is possible, and that many have experienced victory over sin.

Smith and Jones are now good friends.

Call this "The Parable of 'Smith' and 'Jones.'"
Everything else is factual.

Deism vs. Providence

2011-02-15T21:23:00.002-06:00

FWIW, an answer to An Open Deist Challenge to Christians.

America's Founding Fathers generally believed in Providence, not "deism."

Ronald Reagan on Abortion

2011-02-04T13:27:00.002-06:00

Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago on February 6, 1911. He was definitely one of my least unfavorite U.S. Presidents. I still enjoy many of his speeches. His spoken ideals were not always embodied in the policies of his administration, as they were often opposed by powerful people with whom he had close contacts, such as members of the Bush and Hinckley families.

Lincoln served Reagan well for rhetorical flourishes, contrary to the facts of history.

Who Are the Haters?

2011-01-31T00:12:00.004-06:00

Just listened to an interview with Shirley Phelps-Roper of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church:

http://bit.ly/ShirleyPhelps-Roper

The interview was conducted by an atheist Jew and an atheist Catholic.

Some people say the Westboro Church needs to be "more loving, like Jesus was." They say Jesus "hung out with prostitutes."

But Jesus also spit fire out at religious hypocrites, and the people who hate the Phelpses the most have a religious exterior. Those who hate the Phelpses claim to be more like Jesus than the Phelpses.

Meanwhile, Shirley Phelps is clearly enjoying herself hanging out with those who make no pretense at being religious.

Just like Jesus.

As much as I enjoy the Westboro folks and their videos, they would never let me join their church. I was once denied membership in a church because I didn't believe in the imminent Second Coming of Christ, and I'd bet I'd meet a similar fate at Westboro.

(Besides that, the Westboro folks are just too "worldly" for me. Even though I can agree with nearly everything Shirley said in the interview, the interview reveals that the folks at Westboro Baptist watch a whole lot more TV and play more video games than I ever will. They are way too normal for me.)

It is interesting how Westboro premillennialism has mutated into a kind of Hyper-Calvinism (though, contrary to some, they are still Calvinists). "Hate" is not their problem. Their real problem is their belief that Jesus is going to return before sundown, and there's just no time to reason with people and persuade them to repent. I believe the Westboro folks are wrong on this, the source of their deep pessimism, and not that for which most people criticize them.

Those who hate the Phelpses don't seem to have time to reason with or persuade them either. What's their excuse?

Who are the real "Hatemongers?"

Suggested:

• Harrisonville Stops Speech

• Tea Party Threatens Violence

• Conversation from Facebook

• I can relate.

Second-Class Citizens

2011-01-23T20:34:00.005-06:00

Elton John, whose many fans have purchased over 250 million copies of his records, and whose personal net worth is hundreds of millions of dollars, says he feels like a "second class citizen."

My heart bleeds.

His despondency, he says, is a result of Californians voting to amend the state constitution to retain the definition of "marriage" that conforms to God's definition -- one that has existed for thousands of years -- a relationship between a man and a woman.

This critic of California law is actually a British citizen.

His fellow Brits, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, are Christians who own a bed and breakfast hotel in the U.K. They have a few fans, but not quite as many as Sir Elton.

A homosexual couple recently asked to share a bed in Peter and Hazelmary's B&B. Believing this to be a violation of Leviticus 18:22, they refused to serve the homosexuals. According to the Daily Mail, "They operate a strict policy which only allows married heterosexual couples to share rooms at their B&B in Cornwall."

Naturally, the homosexual couple sought to use the institutionalized violence of the state to enslave the Bulls (by forcing them to serve the homosexuals against their will), or to confiscate their property.

Naturally, the judge ruled in favor of the homosexuals and against the Christians.

Their attorney said, "This guesthouse is Mr. and Mrs. Bull's own home."

"My heart bleeds," the judge said in effect.

The judge explicitly acknowledged the fact that the Bulls would be forced to act against conscience in order to comply with the ruling.

So who, exactly, is a "second class citizen?"

U.K. Commentary: Yes, gays have often been the victims of prejudice. But they now risk becoming the new McCarthyites - Mail Online

Iowa Law Review

2011-01-16T23:32:00.002-06:00

I just discovered that one of my web pages was cited in an article in the Iowa Law Review.

Footnote 15

I guess I should feel more honored than ridiculed, though I always say, "Bad press is better than no press at all."

(My response to the claim in Footnote 14 is here.)

Religious Freedom Day

2011-01-16T01:19:00.000-06:00

The Washington-based Freedom House has announced that Freedom is in decline worldwide.

Nevertheless, President Obama has declared today "Religious Freedom Day."

The day chosen is the anniversary of the enactment of the Statute for Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1786. That statute begins:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

Did Allah create the mind free? Not according to the Taliban. Nobody in Virginia, 1786, would have agreed that Muhammad or Krishna was "the holy author of our religion."

"The HOLY author of OUR religion?" Oops! The ACLU would have us say, "the Secular author of our agnostic tolerance."

In his official proclamation, Obama says,

Though our Nation has sometimes fallen short of the weighty task of ensuring freedom of religious expression and practice, we have remained a Nation in which people of different faiths coexist with mutual respect and equality under the law. America's unshakeable [sic] commitment to religious freedom binds us together as a people, and the strength of our values underpins a country that is tolerant, just, and strong.

In a Christian nation, no religion that requires human sacrifice exists "with mutual respect and equality under the law." No religion that prescribes terrorism should be respected.

Freedom is in decline around the world because too many people tolerate false religions. The condemnation of tyranny and oppression is fundamentally a religious and moral act. Only Christianity provides the worldview which can consistently oppose coercion of mind and body.

Samuel Adams called himself "The Last Puritan." He was a radical Puritan, going back to the roots. Our alternatives are the pursuit of purity, maturity, and consistency in Christianity, or the opposite: impurity, immaturity, the breakdown of logic and moral standards as everything is tolerated. Including tyranny.

Consistently Christian Puritanism is self-imposed intolerance of immorality and irrationality, but does not include coercion of mind and body of others.

Tea Party Threatens Violence

2011-01-13T15:07:00.002-06:00

Here, especially the comments:

The Fred Phelps Freak Show - Tea Party Nation

See my previous post: Harrisonville Stops Speech

If Fred Phelps were a black liberal, the Tea Party folks would never, ever say these things in public, because they want to maintain their image against the Lamestream Media who would jump at these words and say "See!?! We told you!!"

But the media won't jump on threats of violence directed toward those the media already hates, so these ugly threats will be ignored. Or "tolerated."

Some violence is politically correct, and the media will turn its collective head when bullies pounce on a politically incorrect figure.

Shame on the Tea Party Nation.

They reveal themselves to be cowardly bullies.

In case some comments get pulled from the website, here's a few:

Permalink Reply by Ken B 21 minutes ago
Rolling Thunder, a group of bikers, meets him in my state. The cops say he wants someone to assault him and his inbred group so he can sue them and pay his bills. The bikers get between the inbreds and the mourners and if the inbreds make noise by shouting, they are drowned out by motorcycle engines.

Permalink Reply by Pat Chadwell 21 minutes ago
As long as Berry was in AZ Fred Phelps would not show up... Also the local AZ bikers said if he showed up they would step in to help take control of them....In other words push them all out of town.....

Permalink Reply by Rocky Venti 21 minutes ago
Send him up here to northern California. We will be glad to "welcome" him to the area...

Permalink Reply by Pat Chadwell 16 minutes ago
Yep right in the middle of Shasta Lake would be a great place for them all...

Permalink Reply by Daniel Tabib 17 minutes ago
It can't just be about drowning out the noise. It needs to be about making the noise go away. These people have no respect for human life and there needs to be something that can be done outside of violence to make this stop.

Permalink Reply by Deborah Sue Porter 13 minutes ago
I am a Christian, and by denomination, a Baptist, and it horrifies me every time I hear the press refer to this family as a "Baptist" "church". From what I understand this so-called "church" consists of only one family who continue to dishonor the name of Christ with their despicable behavior. Too bad a lot of people only hear the word Baptist and associate it with one denomination. True Christians love and pray for unbelievers. They do not add emotional distress to grieving families at funerals.

Permalink Reply by raymond bober 12 minutes ago
let him come to New Jersey...We can arrange for Nicky, Guido, Tony and a few more of the boys to meet him here

Permalink Reply by John S 10 minutes ago
Fred Phelps band of clowns was given quite a welcome in both Harrisonville and Weston Missouri recently. I think they might see the writing on the wall.

Permalink Reply by Gary 6 minutes ago
Check this out! Right after Mohamed OBAMA tells all the children that we must all get along, this guy calls him out!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/13/coach-leave-obama-comments/

Permalink Reply by J. Sparks 6 minutes ago
Bullies only understand one language --- violence. Bloody their nose and they'll leave you alone. Being a Harley-riding man of many, many years all I can say about Rolling Thunder is -- God Bless them and I pray they continue to block this idiot and his freak show.

Permalink Reply by martha _arizona 4 minutes ago
The Baptists kicked him out of the affiliation. Phelps has been at this since the 50s. He was also an atty., but was disbarred. He and his family have quite a history of disruption at gay and military funerals and attacks against various individuals. They have lost cases against them and still they don't stop. Nothing stops them from spewing their satanic hatred.

Permalink Reply by Bob Bowser 2 minutes ago
Interestingly this band of inbreds are actually lawyers... In Topeka there are several buildings on them with the Phelps name on them... and I have been told they are all related.

If foresters could ever clone the Phelps' genetic code, they'd make millions growing powerpoles that don't need to be trimmed... you see, there are no branches on the Phelps family tree.

The prophets in the Bible were masters at inflicting "emotional distress" on unjust, oppressive emperors and lazy, idolatrous citizens who preferred statist security rather than personal responsibility. If you don't like what the prophets say, refute the message, don't physically suppress the messenger.

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act

2011-01-11T15:19:00.003-06:00

I received a constituent form letter from Sen. Claire McCaskill regarding the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353). I know there are people out there who know more than I do about this issue, and can save me some research time by pointing me to resources that might answer these questions more accurately (vigilantly) than Sen.McCaskill has. Please leave a comment if you can help me.

Dear Mr. Craig,

Thank you for contacting me regarding food safety legislation. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Recently, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353). This bipartisan legislation, which I supported, provides important new protections for American consumers while also ensuring that family farmers, small producers, farmers' markets, and local gardeners are not subject to new federal requirements.

Federal, state and local agencies share responsibility with the food industry for ensuring the safety of the food supply in the U.S. Unfortunately, a number of recent incidents have highlighted some gaps in our food safety system. Our food safety laws, which were enacted in the early 20th century, have not kept pace with the major changes in production, processing and marketing that have taken place in recent years. Each year, thousands of Americans are made seriously ill from foodborne illnesses and many result in death.

The Food Safety Modernization Act will improve the safety of our food supply in a number of ways. This legislation authorizes the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to issue mandatory recalls in the event that businesses do not voluntarily recall harmful foods. Previously, the FDA possessed authority to order food recalls only for infant formula. This legislation will also subject imported foods to increased scrutiny. Under the new law, the FDA will be able to require certification for high-risk foods, and deny entry to foods that lacks certification or that are from a foreign facility that has refused U.S. inspectors. The Food Safety Modernization Act will also require grocery stores and other food retailers to notify consumers if they have sold foods that have been recalled.

I know that many Missourians have concerns about this legislation. For instance, many have raised questions about how this legislation will affect local organic farmers, their neighborhood farmer's market, or the garden in their back yard. As a lifelong Missourian whose family worked at a feed mill, I understand that agriculture is more than a primary driver of Missouri's economy; it is a part of our state's cultural fabric. I would not have supported any legislation that jeopardized this culture and this legislation does not.

In order to ensure this, I supported an important amendment provisions to the Food Safety Modernization Act, offered by Senator Tester of Montana (himself a small producer), which will ensure that family farmers and other local producers are exempt from new federal requirements. To be clear, food sold through farmers' markets, bake sales, road side stands, public events, community supported agriculture, and organizational fundraisers is exempt from new regulations.

For your information, I have included with this letter a document providing answers to frequently asked questions regarding the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

I am pleased that a broad, bipartisan coalition of senators joined together to support this important legislation. It ensures that American families can be confident that the food their families enjoy is the safest in the world, while safeguarding the ability of family farms and small producers to continue doing what they do best.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.L. 111-353: Frequently Asked Questions

Will P.L. 111-353 outlaw home gardens and family farms? NO.
P.L. 111-353 does not outlaw home gardens or family farms. In fact, the bill explicitly states that the produce standards “shall not apply to produce that is produced by an individual for personal consumption.” In addition, the bill also contains an exemption from regulations for small facilities and small farms, which was purposefully included to protect America’s family farms. This includes food sold through farmers‟ markets, bake sales, road side stands, public events, community supported agriculture, and organizational fundraisers.

Will P.L. 111-353 criminalize seed savings? NO.
P.L. 111-353 does not create any new rules in regard to the practice of saving seeds for use from year to year, and does not outlaw, criminalize, or require any specific agricultural or growing practice.

Will P.L. 111-353 outlaw traditional organic growing methods? NO.
Section 105 of S.510 explicitly states that new produce safety standards cannot “include any requirements that conflict with or duplicate the requirements of the national organic program.”

Will P.L. 111-353 bring everyone who grows any food under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security? NO.
P.L. 111-353 maintains the same food safety jurisdiction that exists under current law.

Will P.L. 111-353 include new recordkeeping requirements for farms? NO.
P.L. 111-353 does not require that farms keep any new food safety-related records.

Will P.L. 111-353 charge farms and small businesses new registration fees? NO.
P.L. 111-353 does not charge registration fees of any kind.

Will P.L. 111-353 imprison people who sell raw milk? NO.
P.L. 111-353 does not establish any restrictions on the sale of raw milk. The bill merely directs the FDA to review existing regulatory hazard analysis and preventive control programs in existence, such as the Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, before creating any new hazard analysis and preventive control rules.

Will P.L. 111-353 require American food producers or farmers to be subject to WHO rules, UN food safety standards, or Codex Alimentarius? NO.
P.L. 111-353 requires the FDA to come up with a plan to work with foreign countries that import food into the United States to ensure that Americans who purchase imported products can be assured of their safety, but does not require the adoption of any international standards. The bill also explicitly clarifies that dietary supplements remain subject to U.S. jurisdiction, not the Codex Alimenatrius.

Will P.L. 111-353 require farms and more facilities to register with the FDA? NO.
Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, certain food businesses were considered “facilities” and had to register with FDA. Farms and restaurants were exempted. This definition is not changed in P.L. 111-353. If an entity does not need to register now, it will not need to register under P.L. 111-353.

Will P.L. 111-353 give the FDA new authority to inspect farms? NO.
P.L. 111-353 increases inspections for registered food facilities but does not hange FDA‟s jurisdiction over farms.

10th Amendment Radio Marathon

2011-01-10T00:35:00.002-06:00

The Tenth Amendment Center is holding a radio marathon in celebration of the publication of Common Sense by Thomas Paine on this day, January 10, 1776.

SPECIAL ONLINE EVENT: JANUARY 10, 2011

The event features Charles Goyette, Anthony Gregory, David Theroux, and Tom Woods, among others.

In Common Sense, Paine appealed to the Christian heart of the emerging nation, quoting the Bible to attack monarchy. But in Age of Reason, Paine attacked Christianity, and all of America's Founding Fathers abandoned him.

Politics and Religion

2011-01-09T12:45:00.003-06:00

I received an email today from someone telling me I shouldn't mix politics and religion. My response:

Politics is religion externalized.
Politics is how religion is implemented.
All politics is religious.
It always has been, and it always will be.
You cannot separate religion and politics.

Christianity is the only religion that is
anti-politics. All other religions favor
politics.

"Politics" comes from the Greek word "polis."
It was all about religion in the Greek world,
and it's all about religion today.

http://VFTonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/polis.htm

Today politics is about the religion of Secular Humanism:

http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/humanism.htm

In the Garden of Eden, Adam was told to
"exercise dominion over the earth."

http://KevinCraig.us/dominion.htm

This meant tilling the garden (Genesis 2:15) and
engaging in peaceful, voluntary trade with others.

Some people don't want to work. They don't
want to till the garden. They want to TAX
those who till the garden.

Other people who don't want to exercise dominion
over the earth by tilling the garden aren't
willing to steal from others, but they want to
escape personal responsibility and are content
to become the slaves of those who do the taxing,
and receive "security" in return.

So there are three kinds of religion, and
three kinds of politics:

• Dominion Religion
• Power Religion
• Escape Religion

http://www.garynorth.com/public/473.cfm

Religions like Buddhism are escape religions,
and are always taken captive by power religions.

Islam is a power religion.
Keynesianism is a power religion.

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnma/chapter01.htm

Politics is the path to salvation in
non-Christian religions:

http://KevinCraig.us/salvation.htm

Sometimes members of escape religions
complain about being taxed by believers
in power religions, but in reality,
they like being taxed, because they like
being fed. They like "security."

http://KevinCraig.us/tempsec.htm

God wanted Israel to live in peace and
abundance by exercising dominion in the
promised land. But a whole generation
of Israelites wanted to return to the
security of Pharaoh. God destroyed
them in the wilderness. When the
new generation entered the promised land,
they said they wanted a king like all
the other nations around them.

http://www.vftonline.org/XianAnarch/1sam8.htm

The desire for politics (power religion)
is a rejection of God. (1 Samuel 8)

Christianity is the only religion which
is against humanistic politics.

http://www.vftonline.org/VFTfiles/Directory/5a_state.htm

If you reject Christianity, then you condemn yourself
to politics.

Kevin Craig
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.AnarchistBibleBet.com

"Hello Parent One? This is Child Two."

2011-01-08T08:39:00.002-06:00

Obama State Department deletes 'Mother, 'Father' from forms for more correct 'Parent One, 'Parent Two'

That's the headline from the Los Angeles Times.

"More correct."

Certainly more politically correct.

The Times reports,

Deleting the customary "mother" and "father" terminology, says Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, "allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family.” Chrisler's group has long lobbied for the changes.

So does the government recognize traditional families?

No longer.

There is no neutrality. If the government does not promote Biblical values, then the government is at war with them.

Abolish passports.

Abolish the State Department.

Keep abolishing.

New Year's Resolutions

2010-12-30T17:19:00.002-06:00

A Libertarian's New Year's resolutions - Harry Browne, 1998

70 Resolutions - Jonathan Edwards, 1722-23

New Year's Substitutions - Gary North, 2004

A Resolution of Heart - D. James Kennedy

Nazis in America

2010-12-28T11:00:00.002-06:00

John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute is warning us about Nazis in America.

If you've never heard of "Project Paperclip" or the importation of high-ranking Nazis into the United States at the end of WWII, Whitehead's article is a good place to start. (If you really want to get into anti-Nazi conspiracy theories, Dave Emory is your man.)

Without disagreeing with any facts Whitehead presents, I'd like to go a little deeper.

Whitehead paints a picture of Nazis being brought into the U.S. for their weapons expertise to be used by the U.S. in the Cold War and for U.S. imperialism in general, and U.S. intelligence agencies covering-up their Nazi backgrounds to make it easier for them to work for the U.S. government, particularly in the military-industrial complex. Whitehead quotes one writer who describes them as "ardent Nazis" who had carried out war crimes -- "crimes against humanity."

I'm wondering if anyone in a position of power is really an "ardent Nazi" in a way that an "ardent American" in a position of power is not.

I'm not talking about trailer-park losers on the fringes of society who move from one part-time job to another to finance the purchase of Nazi memorabilia. (But I think my theory also applies to them.)

I think someone who exercises political power for one regime will easily and smoothly make the transition to a rival regime if the first regime appears to be the loser, the rival regime appears to be the winner, and the power-holder is promised a position of equal power, with an equal number of ribbons on his chest, in the winning regime.

For scientists, the carrot is a nice lab and a hefty government grant, or the promise of publication in the leading scientific journals of the winning regime.

Ideologies on the left and the right are cosmetic. They are propaganda for the benefit of the trailer-park losers who buy the memorabilia and pay their taxes.

I remember hearing a story about Hans F. Sennholz, an admired figure in Free Market Economics. Born in Germany in 1922, he became a fighter pilot for the Nazis. Presumably, he killed people in France, Russia, and North Africa. He was shot down by New Zealand while killing Allies in Egypt, and became a POW in South Africa, New Zealand, and ultimately in U.S. prisoner of camps in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas. As I heard the story, his "conversion" from patriotic German to patriotic American was instantaneous, logical, dispassionate, and pragmatic. "Germany lost. The U.S. won. I'm with the winner." That kind of thing. His political loyalty was not based on ideology. (I can't remember if I heard this from Sennholz himself, whom I met at a summer seminar at the Foundation for Economic Education, or from someone like Rushdoony or Gary North.)

I'm not sure when Sennholz became an "ardent Austrian economist." His story doesn't appear to parallel that of Ludwig von Mises, who was an "Austrian economist" before the war and had to flee the Nazis. It appears that Sennholz began his studies in economics after he made the pragmatic decision to become a U.S. citizen, and at some point became more "capitalist" than "socialist" (though again, I'm not using those terms in a purely ideological sense). Sennholz' was not brought into the U.S. for his expertise in the field of Austrian economics (which is arguably more valuable to our society than weapons expertise anyway).

[Sidebar: I had a somewhat disagreeable conversation with Sennholz at FEE. I had brought all my Sennholz books with me for him to autograph. (He was impressed that I had a copy of his How Can Europe Survive?) While he was autographing, I asked him a question about inflation. I argued that inflation was an ethical and moral problem, not a purely political one; that the real blame for inflation lies with covetous borrowers, who were the root of the problem, and the Federal Reserve was just the branches. If ordinary people had a stronger moral compass and would underconsume, save for the future, and eschew debt, like our great-grandparents did, they wouldn't have to ask the government to create money for them through the fractional reserve banking system. There would be no inflation without borrowers.

Sennholz quickly went from flattered to angry. I think I had one more book to autograph, but he stopped autographing. He vehemently insisted the problem was all on the part of the government. The change in Sennholz' demeanor was palpable. As Sennholz walked away, David Chilton, who was with me at the time, was bug-eyed to see the abrupt turn-about. (I believe Chilton was writing Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators at that time, and we had been talking about the primacy of morality and ethics over politics.) End Sidebar.]

Did the CIA do something remarkably evil by removing all traces of Nazi loyalty from the files of German scientists in order to employ them in the U.S. military machine? I don't think so. I don't think German weapons experts were clandestinely reserving their ultimate loyalty to Germany or a future Fourth Reich. I doubt that they were Aryan blood-worshipping White Supremacists. Their ultimate loyalty was to power, regardless of the flag or the uniform. The personnel files are just a formality. Even the Germans themselves did this, after the war, if I correctly understand one recollection.

The problem is not ex-Nazis in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, as though that Complex would be morally pure without the ex-Nazis. We are no longer that "City upon a Hill" because we put our faith in military imperialism and refuse to beat our swords into plowshares.

Birth of a Ruler

2010-12-25T12:10:00.004-06:00

If Christmas were taken seriously, today's secular government would make it illegal.

Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament and compiled it into a book he called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English." He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”

Internet infidel Ed Darrell says this about "the Jefferson Bible":

“Jefferson removed all supernatural events, all miracles, all claims that Jesus was divine.
Jefferson treated Jesus as a philosophical teacher, perhaps along the lines of Socrates or Aristotle.”

I wonder how many people who believe this about Jefferson and his "Bible" have actually read the "Jefferson Bible." On Pages 67-68 of Jefferson's original hand-pasted version of the New Testament, with parallel columns of Greek, Latin, French, and English, Jefferson has Matthew 25:31ff., presumably because it reflects Jefferson's views of the authentic Christ:

Matthew 25:31
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

If Jesus is a mere man, and Ed Darrell is a mere man, then Ed Darrell, after his death, ought to be able to come again in glory, with all the holy angels, and sit on the throne of his glory.

"Angels?" Aren't those "supernatural" beings?
Ed says Jefferson removed them all from "the Jefferson Bible."
Nice try, Ed.

Jefferson's basic Christian doctrines were set out in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in 1822:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man:
1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.…But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of . . . the false shepherds foretold [in the New Testament] as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed Author himself with the horrors so falsely imputed to Him.
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.

Who is it that hands out these "rewards and punishments?"

Anyone who did not join with Jefferson in believing in God and in future rewards and punishments could not take an oath in nearly every jurisdiction in America for decades after the Constitution was ratified.

http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#infidel
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/21atheists.htm

That means only Christians could hold public office.

Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations:
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

The "Devil?" "His angels?"
These are usually considered "supernatural" beings.
Ed says they were "all removed."

Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So Jefferson believed that Jesus was the Judge of the entire world, who comes in glory and sits on his throne of glory. Jefferson believed Jesus was the Great Shepherd who sends all the goats off to everlasting punishment. That's quite a feat for a "philosophical teacher, perhaps along the lines of Socrates or Aristotle."

Jefferson compiled "the Jefferson Bible" as a means of teaching the Indians the life and morals of Jesus, as a way of civilizing them.

What would Ed and the ACLU say if Christians started taking over school boards and making "the Jefferson Bible" a required school text?

What would the anti-federalist Jefferson say if he could return to America in the year 2011 and find out that Ed and the ACLU have given the federal judiciary the power to force municipal schools to remove "The doctrines of Jesus, which are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man" from their classrooms?

Isaiah 33:22 says:

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.

Too many Americans today believe that the State is our Judge, the State is our Lawgiver, the State is our King, The State will save us.

http://KevinCraig.us/salvation.htm

On Christmas, true Christians celebrate the birth of the true King, the true Lawgiver, and the Judge of all mankind. The Herods and EdDarrells of the world seek to kill this Christ, or at least strip Him from public schools. They want to protect their own political power to rule, legislate, and judge.

In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, George Washington said

it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour . . . that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions....

This is our national duty every day, but especially on Christmas Day, the day we celebrate the birth of the great Lord and Ruler of nations.

“ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
Micah 5:2 (c. 720 B.C.)

For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle,
And garments rolled in blood,
Will be used for burning and fuel of fire.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:5-7

He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Micah 4:3-4

Healing Our World

2010-12-21T12:20:00.004-06:00

Healing Our World
by Mary Ruwart

Missionary to the Tea Party

2010-12-20T13:18:00.003-06:00

The gut reaction of the missionary is to say, "You're doomed! Repent!"

The pagan marketer tries to sell you what you need by promising what you want.

Is there anything I can learn from the marketers? Leave your advice in the comments section.

http://MissionarytotheTeaParty.com

Amazon is Un-American

2010-12-18T13:43:00.002-06:00

Gene Healy says "the campaign against WikiLeaks Is lawless." Healy writes (and I add the links):

Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., demanded that Assange be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. After all, she wrote, the First Amendment isn't "a license to jeopardize national security," any more than it's a license to "yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." A poor choice of metaphor: It comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 opinion in Schenck v. United States, when the Supreme Court allowed the Wilson administration to imprison a man for the crime of publicly arguing that the draft was unconstitutional.
We've since done a much better job protecting the First Amendment. In 1971's New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Nixon administration's attempt to stop the paper from publishing classified documents showing that the government had lied America into the Vietnam War.
WikiLeaks stands in the same position as the "gray lady" in New York Times v. United States, and since that case, the Congressional Research Service reports, no "publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it." "First Amendment implications" would likely "make such a prosecution difficult."
Even so, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has suggested that U.S. newspapers could still be punished for publishing WikiLeaks' leaks. Unsatisfied with mere threats, Lieberman has also gone outside the law, throwing his weight around to get Amazon.com to boot the site off its servers.
As new-media analyst Clay Shirky puts it, Myanmar and Russia "can now rightly say to us, 'You went after WikiLeaks' domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations,' all without the slightest legal authority. 'If that's the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.' "

Healy is too optimistic. The law is too vague. Nobody can depend on courts to defend freedom.

I have many links to Amazon.com on my websites, and I stand to make some money when people click my links and buy books from Amazon.com. I hope I don't lose my status as an Amazon affiliate by denouncing Amazon's cowardly unwillingness to stand up against government tyranny.

Please Don't Feed the Amazon - KN@PPSTER

A Day that Does Not Live in Infamy

2010-12-07T21:27:00.003-06:00

Local blogger Randy Turner had the most interesting reflection on The "Day That Will Live in Infamy." Turner, a public school teacher, recalls the Q&A session following a talk by Dick Ferguson, retired President at Financial Federal Savings and Loan, to a middle school classroom. Ferguson was stationed at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Turner recalls:

After he spoke to one of my eighth grade classes, he asked if the students had any questions. A girl in the back row, raised her hand and said, "Mr. Ferguson, your stories are so interesting. Who won that war?"

My horror grew as another student chipped in and said, "I'd like to know, too, Mr. Ferguson. Who won the war?"

Obviously the day does not live in infamy any more.

Perhaps government schools don't cover World War II until after the eighth grade.

But even then, students will not be told the truth about Pearl Harbor: that FDR knowingly permitted the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place. Not only that, but inciting Japan to attack was a crucial part of Roosevelt's foreign policy.

As we noted before, on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his diary:

"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

Like FDR, Bush not only permitted 9/11 to take place, but making sure it took place was the linchpin of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.

And government school students will not be told the infamous truth about World War II as a whole: the communists won the war.

Other notable articles du jour on Pearl Harbor:

It’s Pearl Harbor Day — Trot Out the Official Fable - The Beacon

Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie

Antiwar Radio: David Swanson - ScottHortonShow.com

Tuesday's Pearl Harbor Anniversary Spurs Reflection - Stanley Kober - Cato Institute: Commentary

Review:

2006: Pearl Harbor and 9-11

2007: Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001

2008: FDR and the Communists Won WWII

Swords into Plowshares

Pearl Harbor Archive - The Independent Institute

Missouri Boy on Jobs

2010-12-03T11:35:00.002-06:00

Benjamin McAlester Anderson, Jr. was a well-known Chase economist during the New Deal.

Anderson (1886-1949) was born in Columbia, Missouri, and entered the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1902 and was awarded the A.B. degree in 1906. He was appointed professor of political economy and sociology at Missouri Valley College in Marshall in 1906 and was named as the head of the department of history and political economy at the State Normal School at Springfield the following year.

He went on to earn his A.M. degree in 1910 from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1911. The prestigious Hart, Schaffner & Marx prize in economics was awarded to him in 1910 for part of his dissertation that was subsequently published in 1911 as Social Value: a Study in Economic Theory, Critical and Constructive.

Anderson served on the faculty of Columbia University for two years and then at Harvard for five.

In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. His book, Effects of the War on Money, Credit and Banking in France and the United States, was published in 1919. Chase National Bank hired Anderson in 1920 as economist and editor of the influential Chase Economic Bulletin. There he wrote a stream of learned articles critical of progressive policy in such diverse areas as money, credit, international economic policy, agriculture, taxation, war, government debt, and economic planning. He was a leading opponent of the New Deal and an enthusiastic supporter of a free market gold standard. He served as president of the Economists National Committee on Monetary Policy and often testified before Congress on matters of monetary and economic policy.

In 1939 he became professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles and was named the Connell professor of banking in 1946. He died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, California just prior to the publication of his magnum opus, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946, in which he draws the following conclusions on the ability of the government to create jobs:

"Prior to 1924 we had not regarded it as a federal government function to make employment. Employment was a matter for the people themselves to work out."
"When the federal government took over and undertook to solve the problem for them, grave disasters followed.
"President Roosevelt inherited a huge volume of unemployment. He did not cure it. The figures for 1933 are worse than the figures for 1932. The years 1933 to 1939, inclusive, show unemployment exceeding 10 million for three years, including 1938, and show unemployment exceeding 9 million for five years out of the seven"
"The historical record is damning. The New Deal, viewed as an economic policy designed to promote employment, is condemned by the historical and statistical record."
"The New Deal policy ... had made capital timid in the extreme and had greatly retarded the application of new technology." (pp. 477-478)
"... the Great Depression of 1930-1939 [arouse out of] the efforts of the governments, and very specially of the government of the United States, to play God." (p. 483)

Polyarchy Documents : Statism economy

Libertarians Balance Budget by 2020

2010-11-30T11:38:00.002-06:00

Libertarian Plan Balances the Federal Budget by 2020 Without Raising Taxes CNSnews.com

Two reasons why this plan from the CATO Institute won't be passed by Congress:

First, everyone these days is a special interest. Everyone is willing to cut the other guy's pork, but not his own. Congress responds to special interests, not morality.

Second, Republicans won't pass a Democrat (or Libertarian) proposal. Democrats won't pass a Republican (or Libertarian) Proposal. There are no Libertarians (except Republican Ron Paul [who has been advocating these cuts for decades]) in Congress.

Finally, why wait until 2020?

The sane thing to do is to balance the very next budget, period.
The Constitutional thing to do is to abolish all programs which do not have enumerated Constitutional authorization.
The moral thing to do is to stop stealing and defrauding.

But then, we wouldn't have "the government" anymore.

Harrisonville Stops Speech

2010-11-28T12:24:00.001-06:00

In Harrisonville, thousands line street to keep Phelps clan away from soldier’s funeral - KansasCity.com

As I've said before, I don't disagree with what Fred Phelps and his family-church believes, I only cringe at the way they say it.

I do disagree with the patriotism and imperialism of Harrisonville, MO, and I also cringe at the way they express it.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from preventing speech, not the people of Harrisonville. But physically preventing speech is repugnant to the spirit of the First Amendment.

“This soldier died so (Phelps) could do what he does, as stupid as that is,” said Steve Nothnagel of Harrisonville as he looked at the turnout.

But Phelps was not allowed to "do what he does." So the soldier died in vain.

By 9 a.m., an hour before the funeral of Army Cpl. Jacob R. Carver, an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people, many of them waving American flags, lined nearly a half-mile of the street in front of the church, making sure Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church/family congregation were crowded out....

The seven protesters got out of their van and waved their signs and ranted their slogans that soldiers’ deaths were God’s punishment for America’s tolerance of homosexuality.

Opponents drowned them out with a rousing rendition of “God Bless America” and chants of “USA! USA!” and “Go home! Go home!”

If someone shows up at my funeral to shout bad things against me, I hope nobody else shows up just to shout louder and prevent the first group of shouters from being understood. As Justice Brandeis put it,

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Louis Brandeis, concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

The people of Harrisonville have chosen enforced silence rather than reasoned argument.

(To say that the Phelps church is not "reasonable" or open to rational argument is a claim I do not believe. I don't believe it of anybody, or of any church. But if you want to reason with them, you cannot approach them with the same tactics they use against others. This is the meaning of "love your enemies" in the First Amendment context.)

On the other hand, I don't object to supporters of a speaker filling up the seats in an auditorium before the hecklers can arrive. Cowardly, perhaps. But waving a flag and shouting "USA! USA!" is not a rational argument. (And yes, the Westboro signs and slogans are not a mature, robust exercise of the First Amendment either.)

Give Thanks for Slavery

2010-11-23T10:30:00.002-06:00

Jesus said His disciples must be slaves:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Mark 10:42-45

The word translated "rulers" comes from the Greek word from which we derive our word "anarchist." Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists." In fact, God hates "archists." But the true non-archist is a "servant." The Greek word in verse 44 is "slave."

These days it's popular in some Christian circles to glamorize the word "servant." In these same circles, however, it's also "Better Dead than Red," that is, better to "Kill a Commie for Christ" than to allow your nation to become enslaved by the Commies.

Or the Islamic Mullahs.

Better TSA regulations than Sharia law.

Jesus told the Jews of His day -- and us -- not to engage in violent revolution against pagan, statist invaders. We are to overcome evil with good.

Some would say that "overcoming evil with good" is simply allowing oneself to become the slave of evil. True enough. We must serve the archists.

To those who were waiting for the "zealots" to raise the flag of insurrection and overthrow the Roman occupation, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar." To those who resisted being put under tribute by a godless empire, Paul said, "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom..." (Romans 13:7).

"Pay up."

By paying tribute, we send the message that resistance through violence is not God's way. We send the message that archism is not God's way.

Unless we affirmatively endorse archism by pledging our allegiance to it, cheering its troops, and waving its banner.

U.S. foreign policy in the second half of the 20th century was dominated by support for armed resistance against communism: Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, The Reagan Doctrine in Latin America and Africa, and NATO. Trillions of dollars expended to prevent the commies from taking over various countries, and ultimately, America.

But the uniformed socialists have invaded us anyway, and they are now groping our daughters at the airport.

I said "anyway," but I should have said, "as a result."

If we seek to resist socialism by violence, we will be enslaved.

The federal government has frequently attempted to gain the upper-hand over communism and tyranny by means of a blockade or "sanctions" against the slaves of the offending dictator. The U.S. killed more children in Iraq by these sanctions than the U.S. killed by nuking Hiroshima. Why not continue selling and even donating goods to men, women and children in communist or muslim nations?

"Better dead than Red" is the answer. Better them dead than them Red.

Capitalism is Slavery

We should be thankful for Capitalism. We should express our thanks for capitalism by guarding it against socialism (which shows we haven't been very grateful).

If you have to be a slave (and you do), it's better to serve under capitalism than under socialism. The business owner may work twice as many hours per week as the business employee, but the owner enjoys the rewards of success: profit. Consumers enjoy the rewards of capitalism: a rising standard of living.

Capitalists can only make a profit if they serve the consumer. "The customer is king." Customers under capitalism are very benevolent dictators, much more so than socialist dictators. Consumers in capitalist nations should be grateful for their royal lifestyle. A middle class American enjoys a standard of living that no emperor of the ancient world could have even dreamed of. This is the fruit of capitalism, not military dictatorship.

More people are served under capitalism than under socialism. There are more slaves under socialism, and their conditions are more deplorable.

In every case where the U.S. supplied arms in an attempt to prevent a nation from becoming enslaved by communism, it would have been better if the U.S. had encouraged them to become slaves of Christ, voluntarily become slaves to the commies, and to encourage their fellow countrymen to resist the temptation to use violence and instead to become slaves.

Stalin and Hitler did not rule over millions. Millions ruled over millions in the name of Stalin and Hitler. "Government" is not the dictator, but the armies, the police, the airport security agents, and the snitches. People just like you and me.

“I did understand that it was totally wrong to do so. But if I didn’t do as I was told, I would be punished. I just followed the assignment.”
Getting to the Roots of Evil

"We must obey God rather than man."

World peace will come

when we all follow Christ to the Cross, submitting to evil commands but not obeying commands to evil,
when we are all willing to be slaves, to let our neighbor the consumer be king,
when we all resist the temptation to be an "archist" over our neighbor, and
when we all beat our swords into plowshares.

This Thanksgiving, be grateful that we live in a country where capitalist service is still admired more than socialist ruling. It's possible that the balance is now razor thin: that at any time the scales could be tipped, and a majority of Americans will seek entitlements more than service, rule more than service, and capitalist service will be replaced by "public 'service'" and "the armed 'services.'"

We have our choice:

serve the commies and the jihadists by working for them, selling or even donating our goods and services to them, overcoming evil with good, and enjoying the fruits of capitalism here at home, or
resist slavery by giving our property and our liberties to TSA and the Pentagon, who will indulge our illusion that we are free and prosperous, and use violence against our "enemies."

If we pursue this latter option, we are not following Christ, we are rejecting God, and we will soon be under a real, outward, and more cruel yoke of slavery.

More Thanksgiving Reading:

• Giving Thanks to God
• Government-Sponsored Prayer: Giving God Thanks for the Theocratic Constitution
• Thanksgiving 2007
• Give Thanks to Our Redeemer, says George Washington
• Celebrating Thanksgiving in America
• Give Thanks for Our Christian Theocracy
• Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - Should the Government Give Thanks to the God of the Bible? - November 29, 2008
• Sam Adams: Giving Thanks to Drones
• The Manhattan Declaration
• Two Parties on Thanksgiving
• Strozewski on "Separation of Church and State"

Veterans Day 2010

2010-11-11T11:34:00.005-06:00

"Pride," "honor," and "support" are not words that come to my mind when I think about Veterans Day.

There are two kinds of veterans.

• Some were conscripted -- enslaved;
• some volunteered.

It's easier for me to have some sympathy for those who were ordered -- that is, threatened with violence -- to fight in an unconstitutional, unChristian war by an empire at war with God, than for those who enlisted of their own free will.

But I would have even more pride, honor and support for those who were threatened with prison and fines and chose to absorb the violence of The State rather than kill other human beings in an unjust war -- or support those who were actually doing the killing.

Even Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was willing to go to prison rather than Vietnam, which he called a "Christian war."

No war the United States has fought has been a "Christian war."

I've re-packaged my "Memorial Day" essay as a "Veterans Day" essay (if you haven't already read it), and (if you have) you can share your comments on that essay here on this blog.

Costly Election

2010-11-03T00:33:00.003-05:00

If you take the dollars spent on this election:

Congressional Elections: Missouri District 07 Race: 2010 Cycle - OpenSecrets.org

and divide by the votes:

State Of Missouri - U.S. Representative - District 7 - Summary - MO Secretary of State

you get the cost paid per vote:

Billy Long      = $7.13 per vote
Scott Eckersley = $3.01 per vote
Kevin Craig     = $0.02 per vote

I went to a government-run school, so I admit I can't do math. My only campaign cost was gas to get to the debates.

I'm quite happy I passed the 10,000 vote mark. I didn't do as well as the KOLR poll suggested, but still did very well for a Libertarian in a hotly-contested three-way race.

If I could have convinced an additional 70,131 Republicans to abandon the GOP and vote Libertarian, I could have won this election. But that would have cost me around $2,000 dollars (at my present rate of campaign efficiency).

I feel sorry for Scott Eckersley, who seems like a nice guy, but raised possibly a quarter of a million dollars and got fewer votes than Jack Truman did in 2006. I never saw Truman during the entire campaign. I don't know if he campaigned at all. He didn't spend much, if anything. This is why the Democrat Party never spends any money in this district.

A Message for Democrats

2010-11-01T15:26:00.002-05:00

Here is the unheralded fact about the race for Congress in Missouri's 7th District: There is no Democrat in this race.

There is a candidate on the ballot with a "D" after his name, but until recently he worked in the office of Republican Governor Matt Blunt. He changed his registration to "Democrat" last year, probably just to be able to run for Congress in a smaller field of Democrats. (Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it's probably pretty shrewd, even if it won't be successful.)

So who should a Democrat vote for? Certainly not for Billy Long, the Republican candidate. And not even for the Republican-turned-Democrat, Scott Eckersley, whose platform echoes Billy Long's in nearly every respect.

Democrats should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Kevin Craig.

Phrased another way, liberals should be libertarian.

The words used to mean virtually the same thing.

Today they appear to mean the exact opposite.

But under the surface there are some shared goals which only liberals and Libertarians share, and not liberals and Republicans.

So click here and study the issues carefully and thoughtfully.

Please leave your comments or questions below. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why liberals believe what they believe.

Last Minute Radio Interviews

2010-11-01T10:44:00.005-05:00

This morning I was a guest on the morning show with Nick Reed on KSGF:

View webpage: What did Candidates for the 7th have to say

Click to listen

Yesterday I was interviewed by the local NPR affiliate, which will be broadcast on your local Missouri Public Radio station today at 4:30pm. The unedited recording is available here:

View webpage: KSMU - Missouri's 7th Congressional Seat: Libertarian Kevin Craig

Click to listen

Abortion is Murder

2010-10-30T13:11:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

Maybe this post will change that.

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

News-Leader Endorses Billy Long

2010-10-29T04:51:00.002-05:00

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

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

I offer a few comments on the endorsement here.

Missouri News Horizon Interview

2010-10-29T04:30:00.002-05:00

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

Kevin Craig, Libertarian : Missouri News Horizon

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