The Masks of Hollow Men

Will Grigg's latest post is a powerful reminder of some truths set forth by Hannah Arendt after witnessing the trial of Adolph Eichmann.

The Ordinary Face of Everyday Evil

Hillary Clinton, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chinese President Hu Jintao: these are not the greatest threats to "Liberty Under God" in our world today. The real danger comes from millions of ordinary but hollow men:

The Masks of Hollow Men

These are people who are created in the Image of God, and show the work of the Law of God written on their hearts, even when they violate that law. Because the State is their savior, and they look to the State for social salvation, they do not have the moral strength to resist its lawless commands. When the State commands them or entices them to murder the "enemy," steal the property of others, or kidnap children, they will obey.

Deep down, they know that what they are doing is wrong. When they confront the voice of the Law written on their hearts ("conscience"), they may lash out in violence against those who do not worship the State. They will make resisters the scapegoats for social problems. On the other hand, they may lash out against themselves, punishing themselves in a vain attempt to atone for their statist violence. Depression and self-hatred may result. Sado-masochistic action characterizes the political order.

Because man is created in God's Image, he is geared to law, and he wants the moral order of the universe righted, and the moral order of his soul restored.
R.J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity.

Rushdoony has shown how the State exploits the politics of guilt.

Guilt is real. Justification can also be real, but only if pursued on God's terms. On March 6, 1799, President John Adams proclaimed a national day of prayer. He called upon the nation to

• 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;

This explicitly Trinitarian theology empowered America's Founding Fathers and thousands of "Minutemen" and their families to declare the government of their day to be an idolatrous tyranny. They were not hobbled by the self-torture of trying to justify their own acts of tyranny. They had a glorious inner freedom and peace. Rushdoony writes:

_ A society in which godly justification prevails will thus be marked by social energy and vitality. Instead of dissipating its strength on inner warfare and futile self-justifications, it will move forward to re-order all things in terms of God's Law-Word. Instead of being group-directed, inner-directed, or past-oriented, it will be future oriented and God directed.
_ The demand for change comes from all quarters in a time of crisis. The New Left of the 1960's and 1970's was most vocal in demanding "change," but the essence of their position has been aptly described by Ayn Rand as an Anti-Industrial Revolution towards pure destruction and chaos:
What are the activists after? Nothing. They are not pulled by a goal, but pushed by the panic of mindless terror. Hostility, hatred, destruction for the sake of destruction are their momentary forms of escape. They are a desperate herd looking for a Führer.
The characteristic of sado-masochism is rage and destruction, whether directed against others or against one's self.
_ The characteristic of the regenerate or "transformed" person is freedom from this rage and destruction. The un-regenerate mind is endlessly absorbed with evil and injustice: he can chronicle all the sins of others at great length and tally up the sorry tale of conspiracies against him. Action means destruction.
_ The redeemed man is restored into dominion under God, first over himself and then over the world around him. He is transformed.
_ The transformation begun in man is then developed in terms of the whole life of man: his family, vocation, society, state, and all things else. He now has a life-purpose which comes from God and His Word, and therefore the transformation of all things becomes a glorious hope for him in Christ. St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17 declared, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, there is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
_ Transformation means a new life-purpose, an end to self-defeat, and a directed and purposive life of reconstruction under God.
R.J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity

Are you a hollow man, or has your empty claim to be your own god been replaced by the full righteousness of Christ and the privilege of transforming society under God?

State Pension Fraud

In a previous post ("Update on Government Theft") I cited a speech given by Richard W. Fisher, CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas disclosing unfunded federal liabilities of $83.9 trillion.

Now the Washington Post is reporting that Growing Deficits Threaten Pensions of state and local employees as well. (HT)

While liabilities are not as large as federal liabilities, the bottom line is the same:

In Montgomery County [MD], for instance, pension and retiree health care costs are already higher than the combined budgets for the departments of transportation and health and human services. Eventually, officials responsible for the funds will have to choose whether to continue paying out or renege on benefits promised to retirees.

"Renege on promises" sums up government on all levels.

If you're depending on politicians to keep their promises, you're deluded. Your financial security is better left in your own hands, and in the hands of private experts competing with one another for your trust.

Slavery, Capital Punishment, and the Bible

Libertarian blogger Jonathan Rowe has suggested that slavery and capital punishment were not abolished in America as a result of Biblical Christianity as much as by liberal Christianity.

Never mind that liberalism is an entirely different non-Christian religion, it may be true as a matter of history that the unitarian terrorists had more to do with ending slavery than Biblical proof-texters did. They certainly had more to do with it than Bible-quoters like Robert L. Dabney.

But the silence of Bible-thumpers does not prove the silence of the Bible itself. James B. Jordan and Gary North have both written volumes on how the Bible expressly moved humanity away from slavery. Gary DeMar has summarized their work.

The abolition of capital punishment is yet future, but it too can rest squarely on Biblical texts, and not a post-Christian world-and-life view, as I argue here.

Mother's Day Town Hall

In a few minutes here in SW Missouri, the President's Saturday Morning Radio Address will be broadcast, and then we'll have a live "Town Hall" meeting to discuss his address.

It's the "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall," every Saturday morning at 10:30 Central time.

Call in or listen here.

Buy American? U.S. Concentration Camps

Many conservatives urge us to buy American. They criticize Wal-Mart for selling products made in China. They point out that China has slave-labor camps.

Gary North posts this:

Concentration Camp Research Project

He says:

It lists the numbers of certain Presidential executive orders, and it provides a brief summary of each of them.

Then it lists empty military bases, supposedly owned by FEMA, that could serve as concentration camps under a declared national emergency.

Here is the page:

Friends of Liberty - FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders

Looks like this page goes back to 2004 (cf. ref. to "Ashcroft").

Will Grigg tells the story of James L. Woodard, innocent man unjustly imprisoned for 27 years before DNA evidence freed him. Woodard was a trophy for the Dallas Prosecutor, who withheld from Woodard's defense attorney evidence that would have exonerated Woodard. Paul Craig Roberts has many such stories in The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Woodard's story was movingly chronicled on 60 Minutes.

Near the end of Grigg's post is this statistic (and an important link):

The U.S. Government and its various subsidiaries, as author Don Bacon recently pointed out, has in its custody 25 percent of the world's total prison population. The Prison-Industrial Complex is a huge and growing subsidized bonanza for government-funded contractors, as well as a surprising number of nominally private companies (from Microsoft to Toys 'R' Us) who profit from extremely low-cost prison labor.

That's right: The U.S., with a prison population that exceeds that of Communist China by 500,000, has its own "reform through labor" system that is the functional equivalent of China's much- and properly-condemned Laogai camps.

Roberts has a higher figure:

According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College in London, the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US.

Anne Applebaum has shown that the dreaded Soviet gulag system was not exclusively hidden in Siberia, but criss-crossed Russian society in a network of structures that were not dramatically distinguishable from other businesses. Applebaum writes of the gulag system [pdf]:

there were camps in central Moscow where prisoners built apartment blocks or designed airplanes, camps in Krasnoyarsk where prisoners ran nuclear power plants, fishing camps on the Pacific coast. From Aktyubinsk to Yakutsk, there was not a single major population center that did not have its own local camp or camps, and there was not a single industry that did not employ prisoners. Over the years, prisoners built roads, railroads, power plants, and chemical factories. They manufactured weapons, furniture, machine tools, and even children’s toys. In the Soviet Union of the 1940s, the decade the camps reached their zenith, it would have been very difficult in many places to go about your daily business and not run into prisoners. It is no longer possible to argue, as some Western historians have done, that the camps were a marginal phenomenon or that they were known only to a small proportion of the population. On the contrary, they were central to the entire Soviet system.

The pro-union left would liken the Gulag system to the Wal-Marts that dot the American landscape. Except that Wal-Mart has 2,100,000 employees, while the U.S. prison industry employs 2,258,983 prisoners. Probably every Russian knew where a gualg was, and every American knows where a jail or prison is.

In addition to those who are incarcerated,

At yearend 2006, over 5 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 4,237,000 on probation and 798,200 on parole.

That line is copied and pasted directly from the Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"Approximately."

Who knows?

They walk among us.

Conservatives have made two errors: first, they oppose free trade. Our Creator has endowed all human beings with the freedom to travel and the freedom to voluntarily sign a contract for work with anyone who will employ them. Laws that say I can't hire a human being from another country or buy the fruits of his labor violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Second, conservatives believe "our" government is better than any other government. This is like believing that "our" muggers are better than the muggers of other nations.

And, quite possibly, an expanded network of the American Gulag is being readied for the immediate warehousing of "socially dangerous persons."

Why buy American?

Who Owns the Holy Land?

I realize that by answering this question I run the risk of being labeled "anti-semitic." But this is one of the most important questions in the world today.

I believe the war in Iraq is largely in defense of Israel. An American-conquered Iraq serves as a buffer between Israel and Iran. The pro-Israel lobby is an indisputably powerful force among "neo-conservatives" who led us into this war.

A major force for support of Israel comes from Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the Holy Land always and forever belongs to those who call themselves Jews. Hal Lindsey, who authored the biggest-selling book -- fiction or non-fiction -- in the entire decade of the 1970's, has had a huge influence in promoting this interpretation of the Bible. It's probably safe to say that 100 million Americans accept Lindsey's view, and believe that the Jews have a right to own the Holy Land, whether or not they ever heard this idea from Lindsey, and whether they believe it passionately (fanatically), or just accept it as an example of secular common sense ("Sure, doesn't everyone know that?").

Now World Net Daily has published (May 1st) an article by Lindsey further promoting this idea. I have responded to this article here. The issues are huge, and require more study than most people give them. Two links on my response could potentially take days to digest. Please post your comments about that article on this blog.

Lindsey's article deals with the Bible, and my response is limited to Lindsey's focus, covering the time from Abraham to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans. But there is an entirely separate and additional issue which needs to be covered: how did the current ownership of the Holy Land take place.

Wholly apart from any Biblical promises, how do we assess the current claims of ownership of the Holy Land? One reader has sent me a link to the Jewish National Fund, which suggests that Jews simply bought up the Holy Land beginning about 100 years ago.

As a Libertarian, I am obviously going to be attracted to the idea of voluntary transactions. If non-Jewish Palestinians sold their land to Jews for a price deemed fair by the Palestinians, and the transaction was voluntary, that settles the ownership question for me. The question remains whether these parcels of real estate, once fairly acquired, are being protected by the initiation of force against others, or whether additional land is being conquered violently in order to serve as a buffer between the land that was purchased on the free market and land still held by anti-Israeli terrorists (or those deemed to be such by the Israeli government).

The utopian answer to the on-going, never-ending "Middle East Crisis" is for both sides to become Libertarians and sign the Libertarian Pledge.

Until then, the government of the United States must become Libertarian, and renounce one-sided military intervention in the Middle East. If Hal Lindsey and his followers want to send weapons to Jews in the Middle East and promote military aggression against non-Jewish Palestinians, that's one thing, but those Christians do not have the right to confiscate the property of others to fund their mercenary activities. All U.S. government aid to Israel should be cut (along with all U.S. government aid to all other nations). All U.S. government military intervention on Israel's behalf should be terminated.

Immigration: Where in the Constitution?

Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee for President, has released a column entitled, "If I Were President." On immigration, he says:

If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.

The Constitution Party claims to be both Christian and Constitutional. This position on immigration is neither.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for giving work to a citizen of another country?

It's not there.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for being a member of "a gang."

It's not there.

And what exactly is Baldwin's problem with "anchor babies?" Doesn't this concept go back to Blackstone?:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

Does Baldwin propose to take us back to the glorious days when the king of France could seize all the property of anchor babies upon their death?

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to issue visas and passports?

It's not in there.

Baldwin's nationalist position is contrary to a libertarian position of a global gold standard and free movement of people and capital.

Globalization and Monetary Policy (Southwest Economy, July/Aug 2005 - Federal Reserve Board Dallas) (see the quote at the bottom by John Maynard Keynes)

Unfortunately, Baldwin's perspective has been picked up to some extent by the Libertarian Party.

Immigration and the LP Platform

Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform

Above all, Baldwin's anti-immigrant position is unChristian.

If we're facing a judgment, it's because we have repudiated the original ideals of America, as well as clear Biblical principles.

America's laws were built on God's Laws: The Ten Commandments and "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" sum up the whole of America's foundation: the Bible. The immigration policies of all the major parties -- including third parties like the Constitution Party -- ignore America's Biblical foundation. Immigration is a huge theme in the Bible.. You may remember it from your Sunday School class: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," and Israel became in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. There was a great Exodus, after which God reminded Israel:

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

Many more passages could be cited throughout the Bible. Evangelical treatment of aliens is a major Biblical theme, and even the Constitution Party misses it! David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue. Baldwin probably should read that link.

America's Founding Fathers abolished the king. In principle, the "consent of the governed" abolished the nation-state. The ultimate in "consent" is a Free Market, "laissez-faire capitalism," where everyone votes with his wallet or his feet. The "New Order of the Ages" was a Christian world of international liberty; globalization in which every one dwells safely under his own vine & fig tree.

Isaac Watts, whose hymnal shaped America, understood this vision of Christian globalism, and set Psalm 72 to meter and paraphrased it as follows:

Jesus shall reign where'er the Sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till suns shall rise and set no more.

The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at his first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.

The saints shall flourish in his days,
Decked in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from his throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.

With power he vindicates the just,
And treads the oppressor in the dust:
His worship and his fear shall last
Till the full course of time be past.

Notice that this time of global Christianity is not in eternity, but in time, in history, as the sun still journeys. This is our goal now, not after we've been "raptured."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said a legislator should vote NO on any bill if

the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

Madison would say that The Constitution Party position on immigration reeks of an "unChristian timidity" where it should be bold, as well as a fascist boldness where it should be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution."

Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional

The Constitution Party is to be praised for not buckling under the pressure to secuarlize all things. I admire its desire to be explicitly Christian. But the Constitution Party is also hostile to globalism, and is willing to empower the federal government to stop it. I alluded to this here. The Libertarian Party does not claim to be Christian, but it empowers the State with fewer unconstitutional obstacles in the path of the global reign of Christ than the Constitution Party does. For this reason, I am a Libertarian.

Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - June 23, 2007

National Day of Prayer

Today is the National Day of Prayer. On April 17, 1952, President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming the National Day of Prayer into law. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill into law decreeing that the National Day of Prayer should be held on the first Thursday of May.

Many would say that there is something contradictory about having the words "national" and "prayer" in the same phrase. They say there should be a "separation" between God and government.

The men who signed the Constitution did not feel this way.

On April 6, 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, George Washington was selected president; he accepted the position on April 14, 1789, and his inauguration was scheduled in New York City (the nation's capitol) for April 30, 1789. A leading New York Daily newspaper reported on the planned inaugural:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o'clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the most high. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is designed wholly for prayer.
(New York Daily Advertiser, Thursday, April 23, 1789, p. 2)

The details of this report are in line with Congressional resolutions. On April 27, three days before the inauguration, the Senate:

Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service.
(Annals of Congress, Vol 1, p. 25, April 27, 1789; available online at Library of Congress.)

After being sworn in, George Washington delivered his "Inaugural Address" to a joint session of Congress. In it Washington declared:

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves . . . . In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and . . . can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.
[W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . . .
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Richardson, ed., vol. 1, p.44-45

Following his address, the Annals of Congress reported that:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where Divine service was performed by the chaplain of Congress.

Several months later, Congress contemplated whether it should request the President to declare a national day of Thanksgiving. The Annals of Congress for Sept 25, 1789 record these discussions:

Mr [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.

Mr. [Roger] Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution. Mr Boudinot quoted further precedents from the practice of the late Congress, [he was a member of the Continental Congress from 1778-79 and 1781-84 and President of the Continental Congress 1782-83] and hoped the motion would meet a ready acquiescence. [Boudinot was also founder and first president of the American Bible Society.] The question was now put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative.

On this very same day, Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment.

The Congressional resolution was delivered to President Washington who heartily concurred with its request. On Oct 3, 1789, he issued the following proclamation:

Whereas 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 favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also 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, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

---

America was once a "City upon a Hill." In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States declared in dramatic terms that America was and should be a Christian nation. America's Founders called it "an experiment in liberty."

During the 20th century, the western world abandoned Christianity in favor of "secularism." The "powers that be" declared that there was no Higher Power, that George Washington's "great Lord and Ruler of Nations" was dead, and the "experiment in liberty" was replaced with an experiment in central planning.

The experiment of America's Christian Founders made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history. The experiment in secular central planning has bought poverty and misery wherever it has been attempted. America is no longer prosperous and admired, but bankrupt and despised.

Today's politicians are leaving tomorrow's children with trillions of dollars of debt and billions of people who hate us.

We have much to pray about on this National Day of Prayer.

Thankfully, the Declaration of Independence really is true when it mentions certain "self-evident truths," among them, the existence of God Who has revealed His Law to us, showing us the path to blessings, and promising that if we conform our lives and institutions to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," we can have a firm reliance on "the Protection of Divine Providence."

True prayer is not presumption. It always involves repentance.

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14

Ruwart and Child Porn - Part 2

TIME Magazine offers some thoughts about the Libertarian Party and "last month's child-porn-gate." LP Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart, who opposes child pornography, says the government should not interfere with children who consent to participate in child porn. Nathan Thornburgh writes for TIME:

Ruwart's is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for "child performers") and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It's also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into "the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade."

The party's executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, "Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography." Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.

That rigidity has long been libertarianism's greatest asset. If the Democratic and Republican parties have any ideology, it's an ideology of power — their policies shift and twist in the wind according to what they think will appeal to the biggest slice of the electorate. Libertarians have no power, but they have consistency and principle. If they lose that — and, presumably, the general election as well — they may be left on November 5th with nothing at all.

Libertarians will lose in November -- unless Americans regain a commitment to the radical pursuit of happiness and liberty which animated America's Founding Fathers. What purpose does the Libertarian Party have if not to educate voters and shift public opinion from the lukewarm and moderate to the passionate extremism of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and Sam Adams, who said:

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say "what should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776)

Las Vegas gambling advocate Wayne Allyn Root was one Libertarian candidate who attacked Ruwart for her consistent libertarianism. "I'm trying to change mainstream libertarianism," Root told TIME's Thornburgh at Root's home in Las Vegas in early May. "I want to make us electable."

That's the choice Libertarians face:

• making their party fit the mold of voters who would embarrass the Founding Fathers,
• or raising Americans up to the high standards of 1776, who would then see the Libertarian Party as the only logical alternative.

Is Ruwart's position as nutty as her rivals allege?

All libertarians agree that unconsented sex is wrong.

America's Founding Fathers believed that all sex outside the sacred life-long commitment of heterosexual marriage is sinful. Today's legal system is founded on a belief that "anything goes."

Imagine you're on a jury, hearing a child porn case, and the 40-year-old defendant is arguing that the 6-year-old "consented." How easily will you be persuaded of this after hearing the testimony of the child and the child's parents?

On the other hand, suppose you are a 14-year-old who has consented to marry an older man you love and respect, and have already had a child by him, a child you love very much, and the government wants to take your child away to an institution, based on its claim that -- regardless of what you say -- you are deemed legally incapable of "consent," therefore your marriage is invalid, and your child belongs to the government. Should you be allowed to try to convince a jury that you knew what you were doing so you can keep your child?

Mary Ruwart says you should be able to do so. "Child Protection" authorities in Texas say otherwise.

In a more Christian nation, the 40 year-old would be quickly convicted because the sex was outside marriage, and marriages were usually contracted within an extended family, with ties to the community, sanctioned by an educated church. Easy decision.

Yesterday's crimes are today's "alternative lifestyles," but a "fanatic" religious belief in marriage can be criminal, as fundamentalist Mormons in Texas have found out. We're now living with the descendants of people who were educated in schools where it is illegal to teach "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to students. This not only produces polygamous cults, it produces "the cult of the omnipotent State."

I've been in the home of a couple who were married at age 14, and after more than 50 years of marriage, they have many children, grand-children and great-grandchildren who are glad the couple was not subjected to the wisdom of bureaucrats in our great nanny-state.

But What About the Children? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

See comments on Christine Smith's Open letter to Shane Cory (LP Exec. Dir.) & Andrew Davis (LP Media Coordinator)

Another "child abuse" angle:
The all-powerful, all-wise state

Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal"

Mary Ruwart's quest for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination seems to have been destroyed by a rival "libertarian" candidate. Here's the story from Politics1:

Research scientist, medical professor and Libertarian activist Mary Ruwart -- a frontrunner for the LP Presidential nomination -- is in hot water over statements she previously wrote in her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions on the issue of child pornography. Ruwart has been a frequent LP candidate for US Senate and other offices in the past, and has been a popular speaker at LP gatherings nationwide for many years. This is what Ruwart wrote In response to the question "How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?":

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."

One of Ruwart's rival LP candidates -- wealthy sports handicapper Wayne Root -- is calling on her to quit the race. Don't expect Ruwart to exit, however. The bottom line: Ruwart's stumble probably locks-up the LP nomination for former GOP Congressman Bob Barr at next month's nominating convention.

Here's Ruwart's original statement:

Short Answers to Tough Libertarian Questions: Should pornography be illegal?

Here's an audio response by Ruwart to the LP internal squabble:

EveryZing - Abdul - LPIN - Mary Ruwart

In the audio at about 7:00, she says:

"Certainly I am not for child pornography.
Anyone who forces a child into a sexual act needs to be prosecuted, obviously; because there's a violation of rights."

Down below are a few links indicating the scope of the controversy.

The first thing that should be noted is that Ruwart's candidacy was torpedoed by a "fellow libertarian," not a Democrat or Republican. I have agreed with those who have said that "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." Marketers say that consumers need to hear about a product seven times before they buy. It might be that the first four or five times they hear about a product they hear something bad about it, but most consumers don't remember what they heard, only that they heard about the product. If they hear good things on the sixth and seventh time, they think, "I've been hearing so much about this product, I think I'll buy it." If they never hear about it, they never buy it. I think this is why Republicans generally do not even mention Ron Paul, even to mention a view of his which might be considered an "aberration." Partisan attacks on Libertarians consist of ridiculing and distorting even the most essential libertarian positions, such as abolishing entire departments of the federal government: "Abolish the [blank] Department? Why, that's ridiculous and impractical!"

This is why Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal" is really the Libertarian Party's scandal. It shows there isn't enough party unity to prevent libertarians from shooting each other. It shows there are some "practical" Libertarians who do not respect "pure" Libertarians and do not want them running for office.

Or are willing to destroy their candidacy for purely selfish reasons.

I don't even know if Mary Ruwart is as "consistent" or "pure" a libertarian as I claim to be, but she's clearly more consistent than the libertarians who shot her candidacy down.

Here's the talk in the blogosphere:

Mary Ruwart attacked for comments on child porn

Jeff Wartman: The Mary Ruwart Controversy

Jeff Wartman: Libertarians Combat Child Pornography

Telecommunications company Qwest Takes about face on its stance regarding the privacy of its customers. See Readers' comments

Reason Magazine: Suffer the Little Children

Libertarian Intelligence: Why Ruwart Is In Trouble

Libertarian Intelligence: Ruwart on Child Pornography

ThePolitic.com » Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn

Free Citizen: Libertarians and Child Pornography

The LP responds to this in a strange way:
Press Release: Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography

LP Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution LewRockwell.com Blog


-----=====******O******=====-----
Here's an outline of my position on this issue.

If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could abolish all laws against possession of child pornography by pushing that button, I would push the button . . . PROVIDED that pushing the button would also eliminate the rest of the federal government, especially the federal Department of Education and the pressure it puts on local schools to legitimize sexual deviancy, and all federal court precedents removing God, the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments from public schools. In other words, I believe the adoption of the complete libertarian program would, on balance, eliminate more child abuse than retaining the present system with its child pornography laws and abusive school system.

And let's face the fact that the Signers of the Constitution would be horrified and angered at the government's atheistic and immoral education system, which pushes homosexuality and fornication on children in its captivity.

I agree with the Bible that all sexual contact outside marriage is sinful and should be socially condemned. I also agree with the Bible that some forms of sexual contact are sinful even if "the government" claims the parties are "legally" "married." I believe most parents want their children to wait until they are married to just the right person in a life-long commitment before they have sexual contacts. The complete libertarian program would give these parents their wishes, or at least remove all government-sponsored undercutting of parental desires.

Government schools are presently the largest and most systematic criminal child abuse ring in America. This is The Harsh Truth About Public Schools. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (Luke 17:2). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.

Homeschool pioneer John Holt was not a Christian, and I'm sure he would be appalled at some of the things I've said in this post; and I don't agree with many things he said, but I am in fundamental agreement with his book Escape from Childhood. No, I don't believe a child should jump into an airplane and start flying -- I admit to the need for "flight instructors" -- but if my 14-year-old daughter, physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature beyond her years, meets the moral and intellectual equivalent of John Hancock or Samuel Adams, and she wants to marry Mr. Hancock, I don't believe the federal government has any rightful (or constitutional) authority to say she cannot. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who would appreciate John Hancock and want to begin a family with him? Not many in the government's school system, I'm sure of that. The government wants all citizens to be perpetual adolescents and dependents. John Holt says children should be encouraged to be mature and treated with at least the same respect we are willing to give to immature and irresponsible adults.

As Mary Ruwart admits, some people will make bad decisions if given the freedom. Does that justify the entire institution of socialist education and coercive violence which is the essence of today's government? I say no.

The federal government is not the friend of children.

Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party

The Constitution Party has turned away Alan Keyes and nominated Chuck Baldwin for President.

Google video: Chuck Baldwin Accepts Nomination of the Constitution Party 2008

I have quoted or linked to Chuck Baldwin's columns, which I generally enjoy, but I think the Constitution Party has made a mistake. Alan Keyes would have made a better candidate in the year of Barack Obama than a white southern preacher will. The Constitution Party wan't going to win no matter who they nominated; this year it's all about media exposure. "Major political party nominates black former Ambassador for President" is news; "Constitution Party nominates white fundy preacher for President" is not news. True, Keyes lost to Obama in Illinois, and the media doesn't like Keyes' message any more than Baldwin's, but the CP is now going to be written off as "the good ol' boy party."

Here's a video of Alan Keyes produced by Mike Ferguson at Missouri Viewpoints just after he lost the nomination:




Keyes, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, apparently got dumped by the Constitution Party in part because he still supports the United Nations in some way. (I'm only reading between the lines in the video; haven't read any other accounts of the CP convention procedings.) I think Keyes makes a good point in this interview: that America cannot be "isolationist" -- something the CP probably tends to be.

I've criticized Alan Keyes for his egotism, and in the video above he starts off with a lot of me-centered whining about not getting the nomination. But he's a better orator than Chuck Baldwin, even though some people call him "rude."

Pledge for America's Revival :: AlanKeyes.com

I like a lot of things Chuck Baldwin says, but given a choice between Baldwin and Bob Barr, I think I might go with Barr even though Barr (so far as I know) makes no claim to be a Christian or a defender of America as a Christian nation. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party. But Baldwin's (and the CP's) position on immigration is unChristian and unConstitutional, with emphasis on the "unChristian" part. And because Baldwin explicitly campaigns as a Christian and a pastor, this makes his position on immigration more offensive to me -- I don't want non-Christians to conclude that Christians are anti-immigrant and pro-INS, and I would rather support a "secular" candidate like Bob Barr than a candidate who might give the wrong impression because he openly acknowledges his Christian commitments. But I'll have to think more about this decision between now and November.

(I'm sorry; the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service, aka "la migra"] is now part of Homeland Security, and is called the "USCIS.)

McCain's Murder of 1st Amendment

Great article from George Will: "The Messiness of Political Hygiene."

The First Amendment supposedly guarantees freedom of association, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Our system of government is supposedly based on the idea of "the consent of the governed."

Some Colorado residents are finding out, however, that voicing one's consent and associating or communicating with others of like mind can be dangerous.

Two residents of a cluster of about 300 homes proposed annexation of all the homes into a nearby town. Six other residents opposed the annexation, and

began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado's speech police.

The pro-annexation duo commenced legal action against opponents, following the prescription of McCain-Feingold. Not just against the original six opponents, but the legal action

said that anyone who had contacted them or received a lawn sign might be subjected to "investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for campaign finance violations."

Colorado's McCain-esque laws require that

when two or more people associate to advocate a political position, and spend more than $200 in doing so, they become an "issue committee."

As such, they probably should hire a lawyer because even Colorado's secretary of state says the requirements imposed on issue committees are "often complex and unclear." Committees must register with the government; they must fund their activities from a bank account opened solely for that purpose; they must report to the government the names and addresses of all persons who contribute more than $20; they must also report the employers of plutocrats who contribute more than $100; they must report non-cash contributions such as lemons used for lemonade, and magic markers and wooden dowels for yard signs.

Such laws clearly show the connection between property rights and "human rights." Freedom of the press means nothing if the government owns all the presses. Freedom of religion means nothing if the right can only be exercised in government-approved worship "compounds."

McCain-ites apparently believe that we not only have a "secret ballot," but that our voting intentions before election day must be kept secret from other voters, and a magic marker used to convey voting intent to other voters and change their voting intentions becomes an implement of anti-government terrorism.

John Samples of the Cato Institute accuses McCain of being a "Progressive," not a conservative, and certainly not Madisonian:

The First Amendment to the Constitution is not Progressive. It gives greater weight to the right of the individual to speak, to write, and to associate than to any collective purpose the government might have in suppressing speech. That right includes inevitably a right to spend money to speak, to write, and to associate. Without the right to spend, the other rights would have no concrete meaning.

For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

"Clean" here obviously means politicians free from the restrictions of the quote Bill of Rights.

Some will support McCain's restrictions on campaigning by saying we need to avoid the appearance of corruption so that the integrity of government is maintained. Never mind that any pretense to integrity has long since passed; how does the argument that candidates should be required to disclose contributors in the interest of exposing the candidates' true loyalties or conflicts of interest apply to the Colorado residents who are speaking out against a ballot initiative where there is no human candidate at all?

Yes, but surely McCain's restrictions are not that burdensome. Right. George Will points to

an experiment by a University of Missouri professor involving 255 participants, almost all of them college graduates, [in which] the average participant correctly completed only 41 percent of the reporting requirements on three states' political disclosure forms.

Burdensome disclosure requirements and other regulations are, in effect, taxes on political speech. They deter political activism by small groups that are discouraged by the costs -- in money, time, nuisance and potential liabilities -- imposed by regulations.

As a third-party candidate for Congress, I try to sever any allegiance to contributors that conflicts with the allegiance to the Constitution I must have as a Congressman by not accepting any campaign contributions -- not from PACs, not from corporations, not from unions, not from ordinary human beings.

But I feel a great pressure against asking any ordinary American to support my campaign, knowing that my well-funded opponents can hire lawyers and commence legal proceedings against anyone making an effort to promote "Liberty Under God" by brandishing butcher paper, duct tape and a magic marker.

For more, see: Campaign Finance, Corruption, and the Oath of Office

The Money Tree in Kinder's Garden

Peter Kinder, Republican candidate for Missouri's Lieutenant Governor, has released his first quarter campaign finance reports, revealing $1,326,843.52 in receipts this election.

A good deal of this money comes from organizations with names like the Republican 12th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 14th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 15th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 16th District Committee, the Republican 17th District Committee, the Republican 18th District Committee, the Republican 19th District Committee, the Republican 23rd Senatorial District Committee, and the Republican 89th District Committee.

My first thought was that these "committees" are made up of people like my mother, who, along with other "Republican Women," has spent many hours working for Republican candidates at meetings, presumably by folding campaign brochures, stuffing envelopes, and all the other things that make up modern political campaigns.

How naïve I am!

Funny thing is, all these organizations have the same address: The Laundry Mat at 320 Monroe Street, St. Charles Missouri. Not a literal "laundry mat," of course, but

a quiet, unassuming home at 320 Monroe Street in St. Charles [where] millions and millions of dollars of political contributions are being funneled into Republican political campaigns with no limits on how much can be contributed or on how the money can be spent. Some call it “Money Laundering” while others say it is “Smart Politics’.

So where did all this money really come from, and what laws or taxpayer subsidies did it buy?

Out of more than 4 million registered voters in Missouri, I would be surprised if more than a few hundred voters were asking these questions.

Jill Lepore's America

One of the viewers of my YouTube video interview has alerted me to a book review in The New Yorker magazine: "Prior Convictions" by Jill Lepore.

My reply is here:

http://lepore.KevinCraig.us

The subject is the myth of "the Separation of Church and State."