Friday, May 21, 2010

Barack Obama vs. Rand Paul

I received an email from "Organizing for America" at BarackObama.com asking me to send this letter to Rand Paul:

Dr. Rand Paul --

There's nothing to debate about the Civil Rights Act -- this is 2010.

If you're asked about whether businesses have a right to segregate lunch counters, there's only one correct answer -- and that is, "No."

Signed,

Jim Glenn
OFA State Director
Kentucky

In the context of this discussion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to say that businesses do not have a right to segregate is to say that if Prof. Walter Williams chooses to open up a restaurant that caters to black libertarians, and Prof. Williams chooses not to serve white fascists in his own restaurant, the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to send armed jack-booted thugs to Prof. Williams' restaurant and lock him in a federal prison with a psychopath to be sodomized. As George Washington is reported to have said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force." I believe racism must be overcome by reason, not force. This is the first reason I would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

The second reason is that I don't want to take the Lord's Name in vain, which I would do if I voted for the Civil Rights Act after taking a solemn oath to support the Constitution "so help me, God," when the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to dictate seating arrangements to restaurant owners.

Anyone who forms a judgment about the value of people based on the quantity of melanin in their epidermis should have all estimates of his I.Q. lowered a dozen points. Anyone who thinks government threats of violence make people more moral or intelligent should have all estimates of his I.Q. lowered two dozen points.

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

Update: "Civil Rights" and Total War - Pro Libertate: William Norman Grigg

In Defense of Bigots

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Maurice Strong

Glenn Beck is asking his viewers to find information on Maurice Strong. Here is a list of Maurice Strong links I compiled a decade ago. I'll try to update it.

Suppose we assassinated Maurice Strong, George Soros, and all the other New World Order environmentalist financiers. Would the world be safe? Would the Constitution be restored?

Not hardly.

There are lots of Strong/Soros wanna-be's waiting to move up. There are millions of Americans willing (if not eager) to carry out the orders of Bush, Obama, or any other puppet that the Soros/Strong crowd gets elected.

It is the masses, the millions, that are the real enemy, not Strong/Soros. Some will say ignorance is the enemy. Close, but no cigar. The real enemy is sin. The real enemy is the desire "to be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). The real enemy is the desire to be an "archist"; the desire to rule over others, imposing your will on the ignorant sheep using force or threats of violence.

Millions of Americans who get government jobs will never be as rich or as influential as Maurice Strong or George Soros. But they will feel better about themselves when they put on that new government uniform. And their self-esteem will get a shot in the arm when they exercise jurisdiction over you if you don't toe the environmentalist line charted by Strong/Soros.

Archism is the enemy.

Are you ready to be a coach or mentor to your archist neighbors or co-workers? Can you show them why archism leads to death? Or maybe you yourself are still an archist.

Find out here.

"Don't Tread On Me" - Insanity?

I haven't seen Don't Tread On Me - The Movie. All the great Biblical prophets had a message for the empires of the ancient world: "Thou shalt not tread."

But when Caesar treads, the Bible counsels "submission," not vengeance and vandalism. Don't like the government tax on tea? Don't vandalize tea merchants who disagree. "Resist not evil."

Albert Einstein is usually credited with saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

We tried the Tea Party and the American Revolution already. What results are we expecting this time? We got out our muskets and shot the Red Coats, but now we have a much greater tyranny.

Imagine this example of insanity: the "Christian" "Hutaree" "Militia" staging an armed invasion of the Pentagon. Do they really expect success, or is this suicide mission just a publicity stunt?

"Futility" is thus a necessary component of "insanity."

What makes talk about a "Second American Revolution" so futile and insane?

James Ostrowski answers that question with another example of insanity:

History — Pickett’s Charge; The Charge of the Light Brigade – shows what happens when a smaller army attacks a larger army in a heavily fortified position. They lose!

The sad truth is, though we want to restore the spirit of the American Revolution, we are outnumbered by Red Coats!

The vast majority of Americans now support Red Coat government: an arrogant King in a big castle, with a large court, ruling by edict from a distant capital, endless wars across the ocean for a global empire, and heavy taxes to pay for those wars. And we are now embroiled in two land wars in Asia in countries that previously expelled the British! That’s why Rudyard Kipling wrote:

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that about ten percent of Americans are fed up and ready for radical change. That means that 90% are not. That’s a huge problem. Remember that at Lexington, when the government gun controllers and tax collectors came up the road, the men of the town greeted them with muskets ready to fire. Today, if we did that, most of the men of the town would side with the federales.

[Heck, in some towns most men (and women) are the federales, or have jobs working for the federales, or get welfare checks from the federales.]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in 1770 again, when there was a small number of radicals who wanted independence but most people wanted to stay with England.

So the question is, how do we convince people to stop being Red Coats? Not: How do we load our muskets so we can shoot the Red Coats. Rather: How do we convince Americans not to become Red Coats -- to reject the tempting government job with a cushy civil service pension, getting paid to violate the privacy and confiscate the property of others -- and how do we convince Americans not to support Red Coats, whether here or in Afghanistan?

I believe this requires conversion: a new mind, and a new heart. Regeneration, not revolution.

But how will people adopt an ideal if they never hear the ideal presented (Romans 10:14)?

What is the ideal? What was the original "American Dream?"

The ideal is every American dwelling safely under his own Vine & Fig Tree.

The ideal is not "limited government." The ideal is not "a constitutional Republic." Those are simply suggested strategies for achieving or protecting the ideal, the Vine & Fig Tree society. History has now shown those political strategies to be failures.

It is insanity to keep trying them over and over.

Ultimately, these strategies are inconsistent with the ideal. "Limited government" means "limited confiscation of private property." It's like saying that every healthy body needs just a few malignant cancer cells. "Limited cancer."

If America's Founding Fathers were here today, they would show themselves to be true radicals and take immediate steps to repeal the Constitution and abolish the Red Coat government it ultimately created. The Revolution was fought for the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I believe America's Founders, who believed that God ordained civil government, could today be persuaded otherwise. True patriots -- radical patriots -- will have this same goal: Liberty Under God, not limited liberty under a Republican empire.

James Ostrowski has A 12-Point Plan for Direct Citizen Action which points in the right direction: true patriots must be mentors. True patriots must be educated, and then must take their education to their neighbors, and especially to those who work for the empire.

Are you preparing to be a Vine & Fig Tree mentor?

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Child Abuse

Which has a more detrimental effect on a child:

1) Knowing his father smokes certain plant leaves

2) Knowing the police kill pets



From the description at YouTube.com:

This video shows a search warrant served by the Columbia Mo. police department. The cops bust in this guys house in the middle of the night and shoot his two dogs (one a pit bull that was caged in the kitchen and the other a Corgi) with children in the home. it turns out that rather than a big time drug dealer, this guy had a small pipe with some resin in it, a grinder, and what the cops here call "a small amount of marijuana" (meaning less than a few grams).

The War on Drugs is a war on children.

You reply, "Drugs hurt children."

Drug use is a symptom of prior child abuse by a hopeless, meaningless, impersonal, dehumanizing system of atheistic government schooling.

Monday, May 03, 2010

Avoiding Violence

Thomas Jefferson said,

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795.

I agree that we must abolish tyranny. It is not just our right, it is our duty. We must pray for a libertarian world, and take action to bring it about.


Government Siege Against Church in Waco, TX



But when some "anti-government" types fly planes into an IRS building, we must do more than "weep." We must denounce this violence as a species of the very same violence we oppose in "the State." The State uses planes to drop bombs on the buildings of its opponents. The State drives its tanks into buildings it doesn't like. We are called to a higher moral standard than that of the State and its vengeance. We must win the hearts and minds of bureaucrats and politicians with sound arguments and irreproachable behavior, not threaten them or hurt them. They must repent of violence and follow the paths of peace.

"We the People" must do the same.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Conspiracy Theory and the Day of Prayer

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
--Thomas Jefferson: "On The Instructions Given To The First Delegation Of Virginia To Congress, In August, 1774." In his Memoirs.

Jefferson recounts how the Congress began:

The Legislature of Virginia happened to be in session, in Williamsburg, when news was received of the passage, by the British Parliament, of the Boston Port Bill, which was to take effect on the first day of June then ensuing. The House of Burgesses, thereupon, passed a resolution, recommending to their fellow citizens, that that day should be set apart for fasting and prayer to the Supreme Being, imploring him to avert the calamities then threatening us, and to give us one heart and one mind to oppose every invasion of our liberties. The next day, May the 20th, 1774, the Governor dissolved us. We immediately repaired to a room in the Raleigh tavern, about one hundred paces distant from the Capitol, formed ourselves into a meeting, Peyton Randolph in the chair, and came to resolutions, declaring, that an attack on one colony, to enforce arbitrary acts, ought to be considered as an attack on all, and to be opposed by the united wisdom of all. We, therefore, appointed a Committee of Correspondence, to address letters to the Speakers of the several Houses of Representatives of the colonies, proposing the appointment of deputies from each, to meet annually in a General Congress, to deliberate on their common interests, and on the measures to be pursued in common.

Would Jefferson recognize today's Congress as anything less tyrannical than the British Parliament?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Immigration Hypocrisy

Most of those who support Arizona's recent and controversial law regarding immigrants would consider themselves supporters of the Tenth Amendment. They oppose, for example, the federal mandates of "Obamacare." They say the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to build a health-care industry.

Ironic, then, that these same people want the federal government to build a fence between Arizona and Mexico. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to build such a fence. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to prevent Mexicans from entering Arizona. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to "secure the border."

The only authority "We the People" gave to the federal government was to make sure that someone from Mexico who wanted to become a naturalized U.S. citizen would have the same requirements in Arizona that he would have in California. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," not to build fences, not to prevent immigration.

Becoming a resident of the United States means moving your body across the border and living here. Becoming a citizen of the United States is a very different thing. (Something that should be highly-prized.)

If Arizona wanted more immigrants from Mexico, a federal fence would be a federal offence. In 1776, The Declaration of Independence complained that King George III "has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

All human beings are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence. These rights do not come from Congress. All human beings have these rights because they are created in the Image of God, not because of their citizenship. You have the God-given right to hire a Mexican who is hard-working and willing to work for a competitive wage. I do not have the right to maintain my uncompetitive wage by using the federal government to prevent you from hiring an immigrant at a lower wage and forcing you to hire me at an uncompetitively high wage. The Mexican has a God-given right to work for you so he can feed his family. "We the People" gave Congress no authority to meddle in the exercise of these rights under contractual arrangements like this. Congress has no Constitutional authority to prevent any Mexican from traveling into Arizona, getting a job, buying a house, and living in Arizona. Even if she does not become a U.S. citizen.

The current policy of the federal government is to ensure that only those willing to break a law will enter the U.S. A more sensible policy would be to allow those who don't like to break laws to enter the U.S. These law-abiding immigrants certainly outnumber law-breaking immigrants, and would, like "salt" and "light," have a healthy effect on the Mexican-American community, especially in our cities.

Immigration expands the beneficial effects of the division of labor. There should be no federal laws restricting immigration of Mexicans into the U.S.

In 1776, there were no federal welfare programs which rewarded (and attracted) immigrants who did not work, or wanted something for nothing. In 1776, the federal government did not claim ownership of nearly half the land in America. An immigrant to America had two choices: live on land that was not owned by anyone, or live on someone's private property, with the consent of the owner. As a Libertarian I defend the liberty of any human being to move to America and take up residence on unowned property. (Good luck.) As a Libertarian, I defend the property rights of those who own land in America. If an immigrant and an American can strike up a deal, so that the immigrant can live and work in America without trespassing on anyone's private property, the federal government has been given no authority in the Constitution to prevent the exercise of these God-given rights.

Last time I checked, the federal government claimed to own 56.8% of all land in Arizona.

The Federal Government is a far, far greater threat to my rights and my economic well-being than hard-working immigrants. The federal government takes my money and gives it to immigrants who don't work, through federal welfare programs. The federal government allows me to sell a mind-altering leafy plant called tobacco, but prohibits law-abiding people like me from selling a leafy plant called marijuana, forcing buyers of marijuana to buy from criminals, increasing the profits of organized crime. Most of the crimes in Arizona connected to immigrants are the result of unconstitutional federal laws.

But today's immigrant-bashers bash the tired, the poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free," "the homeless, tempest-tost," and those willing to work -- rather than Washington bureaucrats who ought to get a real job.


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

Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19

So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:21-22

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

The Borders Are Closing In - Pro Libertate

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

Gulags American-Style: Where People Disappear - John W. Whitehead

"Unfortunately, in our zeal to halt the estimated 800,000 plus illegal aliens flooding across our borders annually--an undeniable problem that needs to be resolved, we risk undermining our own rule of law and rendering our Constitution null and void. After all, if government agents can detain citizens like Mark Lyttle and Hector Veloz, what's to stop them from snatching you up and locking you away, without the ability to contact your loved ones or your lawyer?

"Moreover, national ID cards aren't a solution, either. They're a monstrosity, according to FOX commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. Especially since the Bush presidency, there has been an intense push for a national ID card, and as Napolitano points out, the Arizona immigration law may be the slippery slope toward requiring these invasive tracking devices not merely of immigrants but all Americans."

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Political Polytheism

Gary North describes his book Political Polytheism:

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

Long Description

Who Is Lord Over The United States?

      A Christian citizen knows the answer: Jesus Christ. But if this really is the true answer, grounded firmly on the Bible, then why is it that so few Christians are willing to proclaim this fact publicly, and why is it that no Christian political candidate dare mention it?

      There is a reason: the theology of political pluralism, the dominant public theology in our day.

      Political pluralism is not simply a political philosophy: it is a theology. It is America's civil religion. This theology teaches that there must never be a nation that identifies itself with any religion. Well, not quite. The nation of Israel is grudgingly allowed to do so, as are the Islamic nations. But no nation is ever supposed to identify itself as Christian. "A Christian nation is self-contradictory!"

      So we are told. But who tells us?

• Secular humanists who are dedicated to wiping out all political opposition.
• Also, Christian teachers who teach in tax-supported schools.
• Also, professors in Christian colleges who attended either state universities or secular humanist private universities, which are the only accredited universities in the United States that grant the Ph.D. degree.

      Also, the U.S. Constitution.

      This is the problem. God-fearing Christian Americans have been told that the Constitution teaches the absolute separation of Church and State. They have been told correctly. But what they have not been told is precisely where it says this. It does not say this in the First amendment. The First amendment says only that Congress shall make no law regarding religion or the free exercise thereof. So, where does the Constitution prohibit a Christian America? In a section that has been ignored by scholars for so long that it is virtually never discussed—the key provision that transformed American into a secular humanist nation. But it took 173 years to do this: from 1788 until 1961.

      Political Polytheism discusses this crucial provision in detail—the first Christian book to do so in over two centuries.

      But if Christ is Lord over the United States, yet the citizens of the United States either publicly deny this or are afraid to affirm it publicly, and if the elected politicians and appointed officers of the nation are legally prohibited from pursuing the implications of this fact, then what does this mean for the nation? It means that God intends to bring American under judgment. Why? Because this nation was originally founded as a Christian nation, covenanted with God, and then it broke the covenant. The results are predictable:

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish, As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.
(Deuteronomy 8:19-20)

      This book presents a new vision of politics and a new vision of America, a vision of self-consciously tied to the Bible. It challenges the political myth of humanism: many laws, many gods.

Inside Flap

In 1787, every nation on earth was openly religious. Rulers and citizens around the world affirmed the existence of a particular god, and they called upon their god publicly to defend the nation, bless it, and bring his will to pass in history. Even in those religions that affirm no god, such as Buddhism, the people affirmed their faith in a particular religion. Nations were explicitly religious.

      There was only one exception to this rule in all the earth, one isolated political experiment that had affirmed the possibility—even the moral necessity—of avoiding all public references to religion in its covenantal charter. Its founder believed that no city, not state, and no nation should ever publicly affirm the existence of any particular god or religion. This was the first public experiment in secular humanism. In 1787, it had been in operation for a century and a half. That experiment was called Rhode Island.

      Three and a half centuries after its founding, Rhode Island's vision of political order has conquered the Western world.

      Forty miles north of Providence, Rhode Island, another experiment was in progress in 1640. In Boston dwelled the Puritans, the most self-consciously biblical people in history. They had turned to the Bible in search of moral and political order. Their Body of Liberties (1641) served as their political charter, and that charter was biblical to the core, even citing specific Bible verses to justify its laws.

      It was against the Puritans' vision of a New Israel in the New England wilderness that the citizens of Rhode Island rebelled, and in doing so, they led the world, step by step, into a politically conspiracy against God.

      Governor John Winthrop in 1630 had hoped that Massachusetts would serve the whole world as a city on a hill, a bright beacon of biblical Christianity that would persuade men to construct a biblical civil order in their lands. But it was not Winthrop's beacon that illuminated the future; it was Roger Williams' beacon, a blinding light that promised autonomy from God for humanist political man.

      That light has blinded Winthrop's Christian heirs. The thought that a nation can and should be explicitly, publicly Christian is unacceptable to men and women who openly affirm the need for Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian everything else.

      "There is no neutrality," they proclaim, until someone mentions civil government. Then they back off. Here, apparently, there has to be neutrality. Somewhere. Somehow.

      Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union takes another small town into court for putting up a manger scene at Christmas on public property. Meanwhile, another high school coach is threatened with dismissal for praying with his team before a game. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as a fact in just about every public school biology textbook.

      Neutrality, you understand. Just good, old fashioned neutrality.

      Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

      Boston vs. Providence, Winthrop vs. Williams: in this classic confrontation we can see the beginning of a war that has lasted for three and a half centuries, a war not just for American civilization but for world civilization. For the most part, American Christians have applauded Williams. Also for the most part, they are in political and cultural bondage.

      In Political Polytheism Dr. Gary North sets forth a challenge to the reigning political philosophy of our day, a philosophy which says that God's people must remain politically silent, that neutrality is a valid religion, and that the King of history must confine Himself to the home, the church, and the funeral parlor. Everything else belongs to autonomous man, this religion asserts.

      Not so, says Dr. North. Everything belongs to the God of the Bible, and the only way that mankind can build a free society and maintain it is to honor this principle in every area of life.

      Political Polytheism pulls no punches. It takes on all comers: humanists, Christian philosophers, and historians. Especially historians. Dr. North, himself a trained historian, shows how a conspiracy of silence has joined with another conspiracy—first, to capture the government, and then to rewrite American history.

      Political Polytheism challenges the myth of neutrality, they myth of political pluralism, and the myth of the Constitutional Convention. There has never been a book like it. The book is designed to launch the hottest political debate since 1787. It asks the most controversial political question that can be asked today: If there is no such thing as neutrality, then whose law should rule supreme, God's or man's? For two centuries, American Christians have refused even to ask the question, let alone answer it.

Catalog Description

No political order can be religiously neutral, and the modern political order in the United States and other Western nations, called "pluralism," is in reality polytheism. As in the ancient world, polytheists are offended at those who claim that there is only one God, and this is why orthodox Christianity is increasingly under assault in the United States and throughout the Western world. In this book, Gary North brings his many years of theological and historical research to bear on the question of how this polytheistic state of affairs came about, and what must be done about it. In a powerful argument, sure to be controversial, North points a finger at the framers of the Constitution of the United States, who self-consciously broke with 1000 + years of Western heritage by not referring to the Trinity and to Christ as King. This was the hole in the dike, North contends, through which modern secularism has poured. No one concerned about the state of the American nations can afford to ignore this book.

Created By: debbie on 05/13/96 at 02:05 PM Some typos corrected by kc on 04/24/10

My book on the Constitution (free, on-line) goes into the right-wing Enlightenment and Freemasonry: Conspiracy in Philadelphia: Origins of the United States Constitution (2004). This is an update of Part 3 of my book, Political Polytheism (1989). [History: European -- The Two Wings of the Enlightenment]

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

My doubts about North's thesis are here.


Thursday, April 01, 2010

Why God Wiped Out San Francisco

I've never seen so much jay-walking and illegal lane changing in my life.

The "lost" 1906 San Francisco Street Film - The Hollywood Interview

KY3 Coverage



That's not the way my photo -- lame as it is -- looks on my website. Someone in the graphics department must not like me.