Day 1: Incarnation and Liberty

On this first day of Christmas and "The 12 Days of Liberty," let's consider the Incarnation of God as Man. It is the central meaning of Christmas. It is the foundation of Liberty in the Western world.

The story of Christmas and Liberty begins not 2,000 years ago, but much earlier than that. John's Gospel starts out with these words:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This is what makes Christmas the most important event in the history of the human race. The Creator of everything that exists became a human being.

This man was also a King. The Prophet Micah foretold this Divine King:

“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.”

The Prophet Isaiah also spoke of the King born a child on Christmas:

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.

The Creator who became a Child, the God who became our King, is the reason we should

give thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or "archists" or "the powers that be." All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the true Archist, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

We've translated the Greek word arche as "archist" to bring out an important point that's never brought out during "the holiday season": The Christmas Child is the True King, the Lord and Ruler of Nations; all others are usurpers.

At the first Christmas, the emperors of the ancient world all claimed to be gods. They were divine mediators between man and the heavens, linking the two in a chain of Being. In the story of the tribute money, in which Jesus uttered those famous words, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," Jesus exposed the archist idolatry of the religious leaders of His day, who would later shout, "We have no king but Caesar!" Rushdoony, following Ethelbert Stauffer, notes the idolatrous nature of the imperial tax coin, the denarius:

These men used the coins of Tiberius which carried a "bust of Tiberius in Olympian nakedness, adorned with the laurel wreath, the sign of divinity." The inscription read, "Emperor Tiberius August Son of the August God," on the one side, and "Pontifex Maximus" or "High Priest" on the other. The symbols also included the emperor's mother, Julia Augusta (Livia) sitting on the throne of the gods, holding the Olympian sceptre in her right hand, and, in her left, the olive branch to signify that "she was the earthly incarnation of the heavenly Pax." The Coins thus had a religious significance. Israel was in a certain sense serving other gods by being subject to Rome and to Roman currency. The point made by implication by His enemies, that tribute to Caesar had religious overtones, was almost confirmed by Jesus, even as He proved their own submission to Caesar.
quoting Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), p. 124f.

They were making the same error their forefathers had, when they asked for a king "like all the nations." God told Samuel, "they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."

The desire to be or to have "archists" is a rejection of God and of His Christ.

The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD and against His Christ.
Acts 4:26; Psalm 2

Jesus told His disciples, who were arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the coming Messianic Kingdom:

You know that those who are considered rulers (Greek: "archists") over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be servant of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

Those who understand the true meaning of Christmas reject the seductive call of the archists. The are servants, not archists; they are an-archists.

Only the Christmas Child gets to be King.

In A.D. 451, about the time the Roman Empire was collapsing, leaders of the church gathered to set forth the meaning of the first few verses of John's Gospel. The Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus was "perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." R. J. Rushdoony explains the significance of this Council:

Chalcedon established the Christian foundation of Western culture and made possible the development of liberty. Chalcedon handed statism its major defeat in man’s history.

The problem centered on the definition of the two natures of Christ and their union. Behind the problem stood the resurgence of Hellenic philosophy in Christian guise and the claims of the State to be the divine order on earth, to be the incarnation of divinity in history. The Hellenic faith held to a radically different concept of being than did Biblical faith. The Christian distinction between the uncreated being of God and he created being of man and the universe placed an infinite gulf between the two, a gulf unbridgeable by nature and bridged only by grace, by grace unto salvation and by grace permitting a union or community of life, not of substance. For the Greeks, as for non-Christian religions generally, all being is one undivided being; the differences in being are of degree, not of kind. In this great chain of being, it is a question of place on the scale or ladder of being, whereas for Christian faith the difference is one of divine and uncreated being as against created and mortal being.

In terms of this Greek perspective, salvation is not an act of grace but rather of self-deification. Moreover, the central institution in history becomes the State, because the State as the highest point of power in history manifests the nascent or incarnate divinity of being either in the body politic, the rulers, or in their offices. In various forms, this faith was the substructure of all pagan statism. Thus, the issue very literally was one between Christ and Caesar.

The problem was God or man, Christ or the State, who is man’s savior, and how is divinity incarnated?

The Council of Chalcedon met in 451 to deal with the issue as it came to focus at the critical point, in Christology. If the two natures of Christ were confused, it meant that the door was opened to the divinizing of human nature; man and the State were then potentially divine. If the human nature of Christ were reduced or denied, His role as man’s incarnate savior was reduced or denied, and man’s savior again became the State. If Christ’s deity were reduced, then His saving power was nullified. If His humanity and deity were not in true union, the incarnation was then not real, and the distance between God and man remained as great as ever.

Western culture has been largely a product of Chalcedon, and the continuing crises in both church and State reflect their departures from or rebellions against Chalcedon.

The attempt of statist theology to divinize nature was declared to be anathema, but so was the attempt of statist theology to diminish the reality of the incarnation. To the degree that the reality of the incarnation was diminished, to that degree the State again asserted its claim to total lordship over man and society as the savior and redeemer thereof.

Chalcedon, first of all, separated Christian faith sharply from the Greek and pagan concepts of nature and being. It made clear that Christianity and all other religions and philosophies could not be brought together. The natural does not ascend to the divine or to the supernatural. The bridge is gulfed only by revelation and by the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Salvation therefore is not of man nor by means of man’s politics, or by any other effort of man.

Second, Chalcedon prevented human institutions from professing to be incarnations of the deity and able to unite the two worlds in their existence. The State was reduced to a human order, under God, and it was denied its age-old claim to divinity for the body politic, the ruler, or the offices.

Chalcedon thus placed a double roadblock against man’s mystical pretensions.. By asserting the unique incarnation, without confusion or change of the two natures, first, personal mysticism was barred, and, second, collective mysticism was barred also. Neither the person nor the State could, by its works, experience, or upward growth or evolution unite with and become absorbed into the Godhead. The uniqueness of the incarnation was a preventative, and the insistence that there was neither change of the two natures, or confusion of them in Christ’s unique incarnation meant that no church or State could validly claim that, as Christ’s humanity, they had entered into His deity also. Had Chalcedon’s definition not been made the test of orthodoxy, then humanism could have validly utilized the incarnation, with theological sanction, to introduce Christ’s people, whether as church, State, school, or individuals, into this change of nature from humanity into divinity. To be a Christian in the fullest sense would have meant deification; participation in the sacrament of communion would have meant participation in more than the new humanity of Jesus Christ, together with the blessing of access in Him to God the Father. Instead, the sacrament would become participation in Christ’s deity. Man would eat God to become God. Humanism and paganism would then triumph over Biblical Christianity.

As long as the old pagan view of being prevailed, the State could be the divine-human order. Divinity then became so greatly immanent or incarnate in the State that there was no appeal beyond the State. The State was, at least for its day, the final order. In this scheme of things, man was simply a political animal, a social animal: he was definable in terms of the group, the body politic. Man had no true transcendence nor any ground of appeal against the State. In this condition, liberty was non-existent. Permission from the State to exercise certain areas of activities could exist, but not a liberty apart from and beyond the State grounded in man’s creation by God.

The Declaration of Independence is Chalcedonian in this respect, denying that our rights come from the State, and affirming that they come from God. Tomorrow we will see that this concept of "liberty" did not exist among the ancient empires of the world.

The prophet Daniel had revealed to the king of Babylon the future of four great empires: the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. Daniel said that in the days of the Roman Empire, a Rock would crush it to powder, "and the Stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth," meaning, "in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." The Kingdom of Christ was exercised by His followers who challenged the divinity of the emperor, "saying that there is another king, one Jesus."

Those who carry the true meaning of Christmas in our day are "libertarians." Not necessarily every member of any political party, but those who reject the idolatry of human empires.

The relationship between the incarnation and liberty, and the conflict between Christmas and imperialism, is often lost in the tinsel and glitter of the season. If I haven't explained the relationship very well, please use the comment section to force me to clarify. Your comments and questions greatly aid the communication of these important principles.

The 12 Days of Liberty

I've never met anyone who celebrated The Twelve Days of Christmas, or at least they didn't tell me about it. I'm going to celebrate it by reflecting on how Christmas has brought liberty to the "Western" world.

• Day 1: Incarnation and Liberty
• Day 2: I'm Dreaming of a Large Christmas
• Day 3: The Birth of the Anti-King
• Day 4: Defeating the Enemies
• Day 5: Peace on Earth
• Day 6: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Capitalists
• Day 7: Kingmas: Christ = King
• Day 8: Let's Keep Christmas Commercialized
• Day 9: A Christmas Nagocracy
• Day 10: Christmas for the Lowly
• Day 11: "All Flesh Will See the Salvation of God"
• Day 12: The Christmas Millennium

John McCain vs. Al Gore

My prediction for the General Election in Nov. 2008: John McCain vs. Al Gore.

Frankly, I admit I'm no "expert." Laugh at my prediction; see if I care.

I've had this feeling for some time, but I'm led to make this prediction public by recent events:

• McCain getting two major media endorsements (Boston Globe and the Des Moines Register).
• McCain endorsement by Lieberman

These two events make me remember that "the Establishment" really does exist, and really does "control" the media (they are essentially one and the same). Huckabee and Romney will not win CFR approval, based on events of the last few days:

• Mitt "Titanic" Romney hits Mormonism iceberg. Lawrence O'Donnell on "The McLaughlin Group" was right about Mormonism, slavery and polygamy. The religious base of the Republican Party is not going to nominate someone who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers. If Romney gets the nomination, the hard-core Religious Right will vote 3rd party, with Republicans losing a close race.
• Huckabee is another Jim Bakker. The Religious Right has enough brains to see this, and his current appeal will fade.
• McCain can appeal to the Religious Right, as I wrote in October, as well as to "the Establishment."

OK, with the Republican nomination securely in the bag, I move to the Democrats.

Hillary is unelectable. She is hated; Republicans who might otherwise stay at home will come out to vote against her, regardless of who the Republican nominee is.

Obama is not old enough, nor white enough. Blacks cannot be depended upon to vote, or to have their votes counted, so no matter how many blacks are "Oprahized," Obama is too weak against McCain.

Draft Gore? Even though the Draft Gore.com website is quitting, along with the Draft Gore 2008 PAC, and Gore himself recognizes the legal impossibility of campaigning in the primaries, other websites remain active. Following his Nobel Prize, The Los Angeles Times finds "No Gore Groundswell Detected," but their Gore numbers still beat Hillary's, as well as Bill Clinton's support at this time in 1991. Gore himself has not ruled out seeking or accepting the nomination in a brokered convention (Daily Kos, Dec 11).

Because of early primaries, it may seem that everything will be made inevitable after "Super Tuesday," but the absence of traditional primary campaigning will leave six months before the Convention for the conservative talkers and bloggers to start drumming up scandals against Hillary, the likely winner in the primaries, setting the stage for Gore the white knight.

As I said, I don't know what I'm talking about, and I really don't care who the two major parties nominate. They're all saying the same thing. The only candidate who is saying anything different is Ron Paul, and "We the People" will not be allowed to nominate or elect him.

Sound as a Dollar

This video has Ron Paul disclosing that there are some members of the House Banking Committee who still believe the dollar is backed by gold. Unbelievable.

Advertising Milestone

Remember "Mrs. Olson" who saved so many marriages in the Folger's Coffee Commercials? Back in the days when America let her "fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages." Americans were flying overseas and troubling a certain Koala bear, who moaned, "I hate Qantas." The Qantas icon has been called one of the 100 Greatest Commercials of All Time. There were more:
• "Jaguar: A different breed of cat"
• "Nexxus: Where did you get that hair?" (a strategic creative campaign that doubled Nexxus Hair Products distribution and generated a $100 million retail sales increase in two years.)

The creative genius behind these campaigns has been honored with major awards, including the International CLIO (Qantas Airways); Outdoor Advertising Association "Obie" (RPM Rent-a-Car); Cable TV Association "Telly" (Nexxus), and the Public Relations Society of America's "Silver Anvil" (Connecticut General Insurance).

But he uses both sides of the brain, writing over 100 successful marketing plans and getting every number right. If need be, he can take an existing plan and write the TV commercial that will pull products off the shelves. A bottom-line manager, he rescued the Los Angeles office of a major advertising agency from closure, turning a $1.4 million loss to profit in two years by cutting costs, increasing billings and winning new accounts with a junior staff.

His name is Chuck Slay. The marketing equivalent of a Swiss Army Knife -- multi-functional, field-tested and handy in a crisis -- with a 30-year track record of creating new products, carving out new markets, turning losses to profits and building under-rated brands into powerful industry leaders.

He was born on this day in 1846 (I lied about the year).

And he's my brother-in-law (no, really; would I lie?).

And he's way too intelligent to accept my offer to become my campaign manager.

Happy Birthday, Chuck!

Holiday Hypocrisy

The Bible says (James 1:27) true religion is not just a soundbite for public consumption, but sacrificial works of mercy on behalf of the weak and defenseless.

America's Founding Fathers consistently endorsed, recommended, and promoted "true religion." They sensed, but did not fully recognize, that "the State" is inherently inconsistent with "true religion." The State relies on violence, which is antithetical to the teachings of Christ. It promotes the interests of the powerful, not the weak, and manipulates voters with Messianic promises, which America's Founders recognized as "idolatry."

Therefore, the State always and inescapably exploits religion. It uses religion in a "politically correct" way for purely partisan advantage.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted on an apparently benign resolution, H.R. 847, "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." Not surprisingly, the initiative, sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), passed overwhelmingly--despite nine Democrats who voted against it and ten members (nine Democrats and one Republican) who voted "present." Rep. Ron Paul, on the campaign trail, did not vote at all.

Congress is an accessory to what Ron Paul calls a "War on Religion." Congress has the power to reign in federal courts which violate the First Amendment by imposing the religion of Secular Humanism on states which were promised freedom from federal interference in religious issues. But Congress lacks the courage to do so. So Congress passes plastic tinsel and glitter resolutions which do nothing except fool Christians into voting for them once again.

Interestingly, the 17 Democrats who voted either "nay" or "present" weren't motivated by the myth of "separation of church and state," since they had been seen formally recognizing Islam back in October. H.R. 635, sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), recognized the "commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commended Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith." But a similar resolution regarding Christians and Christmas was unacceptable to them.

Conservatives appeal to Christians with Holiday Hypocrisy, while liberal Democrats appeal to "secular progressives" by snubbing "true religion."

Perhaps these congressional scrooges took issue with the wording of the Christmas resolution. Or did they have a bigger problem rejecting "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide"? Maybe they disagreed with the expression of their "deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."

Whatever their reasoning, these 17 Democrats have some explaining to do. How can they possibly promote Islam in the same breath that they attack Christianity, the very faith that buoyed our nation at its founding?

The following voted "no" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635: Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Co.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Fortney Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

Those who voted "present" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635 include: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).

Source: Family Research Council
Additional Resources:
• House vote Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith
• House vote Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan

Heisman Career Nearly Ended

According to his mom, football sensation Tim Tebow came very close to missing his run at the Heisman Trophy. Pam Tebow says it wasn't because of his performance, but because her doctors had advised the couple to abort him. Back in the '80s, when she and her husband Bob were in the mission field, Pam was diagnosed with a medical condition that could only be treated with drugs that risked harming her unborn child. To avoid "irreparable damage" to her baby, doctors suggested that she abort the future Heisman winner. She refused. Today, Pam, Bob, and the entire University of Florida football team are glad she didn't. Despite the doctor's prediction, Tim was born completely healthy--and remains so. In his acceptance speech for the Heisman, Tim said, "I just (want) to first start off by thanking my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave me the ability to play football, gave me a great family and support group..." Sadly, not every unborn child is as fortunate as Tim. For every baby like him, whose parents embrace the gift of life, there are countless others whose lives are ended before they begin, all in the name of "choice." Of the 49 million who never lived to realize their potential, imagine the number of future leaders, inventors, doctors--and, yes, even Heisman trophy winners--among them. We are grateful to the Tebow family for sharing their testimony and pray that it helps persuade other women of the inherent value of their unborn children and the great promise that lies within.
Source: Family Research Council

Additional Resources:
• Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Could Have Been a Victim of Abortion [LifeNews.com]
• How to End Abortion Without Government Coercion [CraigforCongress.us]

Spitting in the Wilderness

John the Baptist was a "voice crying in the wilderness," telling soldiers to "do violence to no man" (Luke 3:14).

Doug Newman quotes a veteran who came home from Vietnam and was greeted by spitting and obscenities. Newman says,

If any opponents of the War on Terror are greeting returning troops in such a detestable fashion, I hereby issue the following demand, for whatever it might be worth: CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY! I am a retired Naval Reservist and I steadfastly maintain that the majority of those in uniform genuinely believe that they are doing a good work on our behalf.

"Genuinely believe" is an important issue. There is massive self-deception happening here. They know it's wrong to steal and kill, but they have deceived themselves into believing that it's OK because they're with "the government."

Certainly it is true that spitting on them will not likely be persuasive. But at least the spitters are trying to convince soldiers that their actions are not appreciated. We should repudiate such unpersuasive tactics, but we must adopt the spitters' strategy. We must convince soldiers that they are not admired and respected for fighting an unconstitutional and counterproductive "War on Terror" -- a war that threatens "Liberty Under God" rather than protecting it.

In fact, we need to adopt this strategy for all government employees. We must open their eyes to the fact that using extortion is not a morally legitimate way to get a paycheck. We must get them to see that violence is not the way to solve social problems.

Spitting and shouting obscenities is a counterproductive tactic. It only makes government workers feel like they are protecting the nation from "anarchists." Taking up arms against tyrants is also an illegitimate tactic (even though this was the tactic advocated and employed by America's Founding Fathers).

There are many legitimate tactics that can be used in the overall strategy of reducing the size government by convincing politicians and soldiers that they are not appreciated, respected, or admired for their actions, and should resign immediately. Politicians and soldiers should not feel that they will be admired or rewarded by their peers -- just like someone who joins an organized crime syndicate should know he will lose the respect of all decent Americans.

Write a letter to a politician and tell him that he is not admired, and should work to abolish the very office he holds. Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be persuasive. It's not about him as much as his office. Write to media as well.

Speaking out like this may get you condemned to the social "wilderness." Better to be in the wilderness because you're speaking the truth, than to be ostracized because your tactics are inherently offensive, obnoxious, and unpersuasive.

Winter of Our Discontent

Who loves his country more:

• the man who says "My Country: Right or Wrong!" or
• the man who weeps when he realizes that his country is wrong.

John Steinbeck described the moral degeneration of American culture in the 1960s in his novel, The Winter of Our Discontent. I'm no literary critic, but I understand the book is about is about a New Englander named Ethan Allen Hawley who is discontent with his lack of success in life, so he turns to the government to make things go a little more his way. The Government has no problem with this kind of discontent.

But what of those who are not content with the direction and deeds of the government?

They are clearly "terrorists," and Guidelines published by the Department of Homeland Security instruct firefighters to be alert for anyone “who is hostile, uncooperative, or expressing hate or discontent with the United States.” This information is then shared with the feds, according to William Norman Grigg.

The Raw Story
Firefighters asked to report people who express discontent with the government

Let it hereby be known that I am discontent with the government. If that makes me a "terrorist," I'm ready for waterboarding.

For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social rights.
B. R. Ambedkar

Resolved, that the women of this nation in 1876, have greater cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution than the men of 1776.
Susan B. Anthony

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while maintaining privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.
Noam Chomsky

Religion promotes the divine discontent within oneself, so that one tries to make oneself a better person and draw oneself closer to God.
Cyril Cusack

Restlessness is discontent and discontent is the first necessity of progress. Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure.
Thomas A. Edison (1847-1931)

Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress.
Mohandas Gandhi (disciple of Edison?)

If necessity is the mother of invention, discontent is the father of progress.
David Rockefeller (disciple of Gandhi?)

The splendid discontent of God
With chaos made the world.
And from the discontent of man
The world's best progress springs.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919)

The essence of man is, discontent, divine discontent; a sort of love without a beloved, the ache we feel in a member we no longer have.
Jose Ortega y Gasset

There are many ways of showing your protest and discontent without the actions of Kremlin.
Garry Kasparov

On the other hand, those who are discontent with "the blessings of liberty" are often content to use the machinery of the State to show God how it should have been done. Libertarians should avoid this discontent.

As might be supposed, my parents were quite poor, but we somehow never seemed to lack anything we needed, and I never saw a trace of discontent or a failure in cheerfulness over their lot in life, as indeed over anything. I have always been singularly free of envy, jealousy, covetousness; I but vaguely understand them. Having no ambition, I have always preferred the success of others to my own, and had more pleasure in it. I never had the least desire for place or prominence, least of all for power; and this was fortunate for me because the true individualist must regard power over others as preeminently something to be loathed and shunned.
Albert J. Nock, author of Our Enemy the State.

When I go to farms or little towns, I am always surprised at the discontent I find. And New York, too often, has looked across the sea toward Europe. And all of us who turn our eyes away from what we have are missing life.
Norman Rockwell

Content makes poor men rich; discontent makes rich men poor.
Benjamin Franklin

We are, perhaps, uniquely among the earth's creatures, the worrying animal. We worry away our lives, fearing the future, discontent with the present, unable to take in the idea of dying, unable to sit still.
Lewis Thomas

Nought nobler is, than to be free:
The stars of heaven are free because
In amplitude of liberty
Their joy is to obey the laws.
From servitude to freedom's name
Free thou thy mind in bondage pent;
Depose the fetich, and proclaim
The things that are more excellent.

The grace of friendship--mind and heart
Linked with their fellow heart and mind;
The gains of science, gifts of art;
The sense of oneness with our kind;
The thirst to know and understand--
A large and liberal discontent:
These are the goods in life's rich hand,
The things that are more excellent.
William Watson

Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001

If you haven't already done so, please read last-year's Pearl Harbor Day blog post.



Like his father, Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations, undoubtedly knowing that his words would inevitably be made public. On September 11, 2001, he dictated:

"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

His younger brother Jeb had served with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and James Bolton, and other architects of the Bush Administration's global military policy in drafting a blueprint for the 21st century: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” according to the plan created by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”

After 9-11, Congress appropriated $40 billion toward PNAC's goal of "full-spectrum dominance." This is not just "a temporary, wartime buildup to fight terrorism," but "a permanent policy of maintaining U.S. military hegemony." The new Bush strategy proclaims: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

This is the doctrine of imperialism. It will secure the resources the U.S. needs in coming decades.

But, of course, the war in Iraq isn't about oil. It's about "justice." The untold thousands of deaths and millions displaced are vengeance for 9-11.

Chuck Colson asks, "Doesn’t the Bible say something about loving our enemies?" He begins today's radio broadcast with these words:

Jesus said many radical things. But none more radical than the commandment to forgive your enemy, even in time of war.

The Bush Administration has committed America to being a nation dedicated to perpetual war.

Pearl Harbor was FDR's excuse to get the U.S. into a war that cost 60 million lives. How many lives will Bush's Pearl Harbor cost?

What is the cost of forgiveness? What is the cost of war? Which is costlier?

Go back to last year's blogpost. The evidence suggests that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in retaliation for FDR's economic blockades. Does anyone seriously believe that Japan had plans to invade the United States, take over our government, and replace the stars and stripes in front of every post office with the rising sun? If Japan had conquered China, would the Emperor have killed as many people as Mao? Why did America "the Christian nation" drop nukes on the innocent and defeat Japan so that the Communists could take over Asia?

Does anybody seriously believe that Osama bin Laden threatened to take over the United States? Wasn't binLaden's fatwa (declaration of holy war) against the U.S. in retaliation for U.S. mideast policies, which were reminiscent of FDR's pressure on Japan?

If America's Founding Fathers would not have recognized the U.S. government after World War II, the destruction of the Constitution by the "war on terror" has been nearly total. If our foreign policy had been more Christian than imperialist, would we be more free and more secure than we are today?

Zogby: "Voters in a nasty frame of mind"

Both Democrats and Republicans say they are angry with the political system in America.

---------------------------

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1395

Democrats are more incensed than Republicans, the Zogby poll shows. Nearly four in five (78%) of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and 81% of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire said they were angry with the political system.

These same Democrats are mostly animated by President Bush, the survey shows, as 66% of Iowa Democrats and 75% of New Hampshire Democrats said they are “very angry” with Bush. Just 3% of New Hampshire Democrats said they were “not at all angry” with the President.

Even the Democratic–controlled Congress is a trigger for anger among Democrats – 75% of Iowa Democrats and 79% of New Hampshire Democrats said they were angry at Congress.

Among Republicans, 67% of likely Iowa caucus–goers and 68% of likely New Hampshire primary voters said they are angry with the political system. More than one in five in Iowa (21%) and more than one in four New Hampshire Republicans (26%) said they are “very angry” with the political system. Most of their anger appears to be directed at Congress, where 79% said they were angry at the national legislature. Nearly half – 43% – of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire said they were angry at President Bush.

-------------------------------

Thus saith Zogby.

But voters, it is to be feared, are going to vote for the same kind of candidates as those with whom they are angry.

What kind of Republican would be angry at Bush? Only a conservative Republican. Will those Republicans vote for the clearest alternative to Bush (viz., Ron Paul)? Probably not.

What kind of Democrat would be angry at Bush? Not a Democrat who likes big spenders: Bush has outspent many recent Democrats. Probably a Democrat who is anti-war. Will the angry anti-war Democrats vote for an anti-war candidate (viz., Kucinich, or Paul)? Nope. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama, both of whom have said the war in Iraq will continue in their Administration, will get their votes.

Why do people vote for candidates they don't like?

Because they want to be accepted by the MainstreamMedia -- and by all their friends and neighbors (who want to be accepted by the MainstreamMedia).

Veterans' Day Weekend 2007

This is Veterans' Day Weekend. Today is the anniversary of the founding of the Marines:

Send the Marines?

Tomorrow is Veterans' Day, and Monday is the federal holiday.

Today's "Ozarks Virtual Townhall" will be an opportunity to talk about these issues -- if you're not outside enjoying a beautiful Fall day.

townhall.KevinCraig.us

Wilberforce: Role Model for Anarchists

William Wilberforce worked to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain. His accomplishment was lionized in a movie earlier this year, Amazing Grace.

Eric Metaxas has written an excellent article on Wilberforce for Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship: "How William Wilberforce Changed the World."

Wilberforce is an excellent role model for radical libertarians, as I explain here:

http://KevinCraig.us/wilberforce.htm

Conservative Christians Reject Huckabee

Former Arkansas Governor and Rev. Mike Huckabee is said to do a knock-out impersonation of Bill Clinton. Both are great communicators, able to connect with "the folks at home."

When he first entered the race for President, many assumed that Huckabee's background as a Baptist preacher made him a shoe-in for the Christian conservative vote.

But the Religious Right is turning against Huckabee, as they learn more about his record in Arkansas. It appears that Huckabee is a liberal wolf in conservative sheep's clothing.

Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, says Hucabee Is A Liberal In Many Ways.

Christian talk-show host Chuck Baldwin warns: Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee. But Baldwin notes that there are a few notable Christians who are rallying to Huckabee's cause (whatever it is).

The Club For Growth has issued an alarming white paper on Mike Huckabee's Record on Economic Issues, and reminds us that Mike Huckabee is a Tax Hiker .

Backwater Report » Dissin’ Huck