We have previously mentioned the extraordinary debt of the U.S. federal government. Should we blame it all on those nasty bankers?
From The Conspiracy Made Us Do It! by Gary North:
The United States is so far down the road of debt that there is no turning back without default. How did we get here? We got here because the voters approved of the politics of plunder. They were not hoodwinked. They voted for people who self-consciously appealed to the worst influence of the voters, and promised that the government would steal from the rich and give to the poor. We did this to ourselves. So did our parents. So did our grandparents. This did not happen overnight. This level of debt, matched by the depreciation of the dollar since 1914 of 95%, did not happen in a corner; it happened in full public view.
The voters love it. Make no mistake about this. The voters are absolutely committed to a government which will continue to plunder one group of citizens on behalf of another. American politics is about plunder; it is not about rolling back the size of government.
The voters do not want to roll back the level of American government. They want to use the American government to roll over their political opponents. So, the conspiracy which is behind both political parties uses the government's steamroller to roll over one group of voters and then, one or two elections later, roll over the other group of voters. This is what the voters want. They believe in the steamroller. They do not believe that the steamroller should be disassembled on a permanent basis.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is slave to the lender.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Worldview
I have received some more internet website-generated letters (which presumably were sent to all the candidates in this race) on the subject of "worldview." Here's how they go:
> [name]
> [address]
> [City], MO [zip]
>
>
> August 20, 2008
>
> Kevin Craig
> PO Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731
>
>
> Dear Mr. Craig:
>
> Recently, the presumptive presidential nominees of
> both major political parties participated in a
> nationally televised forum at which they discussed
> not only their positions on a number of important issues,
> but also answered questions that revealed their worldview.
>
> As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national
> Christian grassroots organization, I am convinced that
> a leader's worldview is the most important thing a
> follower can know about him or her. To that end, I
> want to ask you some of the same questions that were
> asked at the recent presidential forum:
>
> • At what point does a baby get human rights?
> • How do you define marriage?
> • Does evil exist? And if it does, what should we
> do to counter it?
> • Should all citizens have the right to publicly
> profess and observe their religious faith?
>
> I look forward to learning your responses to these questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [name]
Here's my answer:
Dear [name],
Thanks very much for asking about my worldview. I agree with you that this is a very important question. I'm confident I'm the only candidate for U.S. Congress who has an entire page on their campaign website specifically directed to this question:
http://KevinCraig.us/worldview.htm
You asked me four questions that came from the Saddleback Forum.
> • At what point does a baby get human rights?
At conception -- but I am more pro-life than John McCain. I oppose all embryonic stem-cell research. I would not have voted in favor of appropriations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that carry out abortions, as McCain did:
http://tinyurl.com/6mjlg2
I believe abortion is always murder.
No exceptions.
A child should not be put to death because her father committed a crime when she was conceived.
http://KevinCraig.us/abortion.htm#murder
I have been called "pro-choice" because I do not believe a woman who murders her child should be executed or locked up with a car-jacker and bank robber:
http://KevinCraig.us/abortion_sanctions.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/capital_punishment.htm
But I believe schools should teach children in age-appropriate ways that abortion is murder. Your current Congressman promised in 1996 (when he was first elected) to abolish the federal Department of Education because it prohibits teaching children that God says "Thou shalt not kill." But not only does that unconstitutional and wasteful bureaucracy still exist, your current Congressman has repeatedly voted to increase its budget, and it is now DOUBLE what it was under Bill Clinton:
http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm
> • How do you define marriage?
God defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.
http://KevinCraig.us/marriage.htm
Again, parents should be free to send their children to schools which teach God's view of marriage. Your current Congressman has given secular bureaucrats in Washington increased control over your local schools.
> • Does evil exist? And if it does,
> what should we do to counter it?
I think Obama and McCain both agree that evil exists. McCain said "DEFEAT IT." He added:
"if I’m president of the United States, my
friends, if I have to follow him to the
gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and
bring him to justice."
Obama certainly agrees, I think, that terrorists are evil. But I liked Obama's answer better:
WARREN: OK, we’ve got one last time — I’ve
got a bunch more, but let me ask you one
about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does,
do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it?
Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we
see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur.
We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our
cities. We see evil in parents who viciously
abuse their children. I think it has to be
confronted. It has to be confronted squarely,
and one of the things that I strongly believe
is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals,
be able to erase evil from the world. That is
God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process,
and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important
is for to us have some humility in how we approach
the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of
evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that
we were trying to confront evil.
REV. RICK WARREN, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: In the name
of good.
OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know,
one thing that’s very important is having some
humility in recognizing that just because
we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t
always mean that we’re going to be doing good.
Especially when it comes to Islamic terrorism, I believe we need to remember that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
America's Founding Fathers faced terrorists, every bit as evil as Islamic terrorists. They were called "Indians." But America's strategy (back when America was a Christian nation) was not to "bomb them back to the stone age." They sent missionaries and Bibles to "civilize the heathen."
http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm
The U.S. federal government is responsible for the deaths of nearly two million innocent non-combatant men, women and children in Iraq -- people who probably didn't like Saddam Hussein much more than you and I do. The U.S. federal government gave financial aid to Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran in the 1980's. The total cost of violent armed force in Iraq is (so far) nearly a trillion dollars. That money could have converted the entire nation of Iraq to Christianity if America's Founders had spent it.
We must not be willing to destroy entire neighborhoods just because a politician shouts "EVIL!" I think this is what Obama was saying, and I think he had a good point.
> • Should all citizens have the right to
> publicly profess and observe their
> religious faith?
No.
Does that surprise you?
Imagine that the man across the street from you is a member of the Aztec faith, and he has built a stone altar in his front yard, and as you look out the window, you see that he is about to rip the beating heart out of his 14-yr old daughter and offer it to the sun-god. Will you allow him to practice his faith, or will you grab his daughter off the altar to protect her life? Who should the police arrest: you, for "infringing on his religious freedom," or the father for attempted murder?
"Pluralism" is a myth.
"Multiculturalism" is a myth.
All laws are based on one religion or another.
"Pluralism" simply means that a society is in transition from one religion to a new one.
A century ago, the United States Supreme Court said that in a Christian nation like America, people can BELIEVE whatever they want, but their ACTIONS must conform to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which is a Christian concept with Christian meaning:
http://KevinCraig.us/religion/nature.htm
http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/mormons.htm
Just today I received a copy of IMPRIMIS, the monthly publication of Hillsdale College, with an article by Mark Steyn entitled "Lights out on Liberty." He describes Britain's on-going transition from a Christian nation that does not tolerate Islamic terrorism to an Islamic nation under Sharia law that will not tolerate Christians. You can read it here:
http://tinyurl.com/6cvc6j
Again, I don't believe in killing all the Aztecs, or locking them in prison with psychopaths. But I do believe in evangelism and promoting a Christian worldview, because that's what gave us "the blessings of liberty." Promoting a Christian worldview is really the whole reason I'm running for Congress. (Promoting the Christian worldview used to be a requirement for every politician.)
If you want to promote a Christian worldview, I'd like to suggest that you forward this letter to all your friends. Encourage them to vote for Kevin Craig in November, and to write to their friends as well.
And thanks again for asking the important question about worldviews.
Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US
I would like to add a P.S. to this blog post:
The letter uses the word "follower."
That word sends shivvers up my spine.
"Voter" is bad enough.
> [name]
> [address]
> [City], MO [zip]
>
>
> August 20, 2008
>
> Kevin Craig
> PO Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731
>
>
> Dear Mr. Craig:
>
> Recently, the presumptive presidential nominees of
> both major political parties participated in a
> nationally televised forum at which they discussed
> not only their positions on a number of important issues,
> but also answered questions that revealed their worldview.
>
> As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national
> Christian grassroots organization, I am convinced that
> a leader's worldview is the most important thing a
> follower can know about him or her. To that end, I
> want to ask you some of the same questions that were
> asked at the recent presidential forum:
>
> • At what point does a baby get human rights?
> • How do you define marriage?
> • Does evil exist? And if it does, what should we
> do to counter it?
> • Should all citizens have the right to publicly
> profess and observe their religious faith?
>
> I look forward to learning your responses to these questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [name]
Here's my answer:
Dear [name],
Thanks very much for asking about my worldview. I agree with you that this is a very important question. I'm confident I'm the only candidate for U.S. Congress who has an entire page on their campaign website specifically directed to this question:
http://KevinCraig.us/worldview.htm
You asked me four questions that came from the Saddleback Forum.
> • At what point does a baby get human rights?
At conception -- but I am more pro-life than John McCain. I oppose all embryonic stem-cell research. I would not have voted in favor of appropriations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that carry out abortions, as McCain did:
http://tinyurl.com/6mjlg2
I believe abortion is always murder.
No exceptions.
A child should not be put to death because her father committed a crime when she was conceived.
http://KevinCraig.us/abortion.htm#murder
I have been called "pro-choice" because I do not believe a woman who murders her child should be executed or locked up with a car-jacker and bank robber:
http://KevinCraig.us/abortion_sanctions.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/capital_punishment.htm
But I believe schools should teach children in age-appropriate ways that abortion is murder. Your current Congressman promised in 1996 (when he was first elected) to abolish the federal Department of Education because it prohibits teaching children that God says "Thou shalt not kill." But not only does that unconstitutional and wasteful bureaucracy still exist, your current Congressman has repeatedly voted to increase its budget, and it is now DOUBLE what it was under Bill Clinton:
http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm
> • How do you define marriage?
God defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.
http://KevinCraig.us/marriage.htm
Again, parents should be free to send their children to schools which teach God's view of marriage. Your current Congressman has given secular bureaucrats in Washington increased control over your local schools.
> • Does evil exist? And if it does,
> what should we do to counter it?
I think Obama and McCain both agree that evil exists. McCain said "DEFEAT IT." He added:
"if I’m president of the United States, my
friends, if I have to follow him to the
gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and
bring him to justice."
Obama certainly agrees, I think, that terrorists are evil. But I liked Obama's answer better:
WARREN: OK, we’ve got one last time — I’ve
got a bunch more, but let me ask you one
about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does,
do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it?
Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we
see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur.
We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our
cities. We see evil in parents who viciously
abuse their children. I think it has to be
confronted. It has to be confronted squarely,
and one of the things that I strongly believe
is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals,
be able to erase evil from the world. That is
God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process,
and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important
is for to us have some humility in how we approach
the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of
evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that
we were trying to confront evil.
REV. RICK WARREN, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: In the name
of good.
OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know,
one thing that’s very important is having some
humility in recognizing that just because
we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t
always mean that we’re going to be doing good.
Especially when it comes to Islamic terrorism, I believe we need to remember that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
America's Founding Fathers faced terrorists, every bit as evil as Islamic terrorists. They were called "Indians." But America's strategy (back when America was a Christian nation) was not to "bomb them back to the stone age." They sent missionaries and Bibles to "civilize the heathen."
http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm
The U.S. federal government is responsible for the deaths of nearly two million innocent non-combatant men, women and children in Iraq -- people who probably didn't like Saddam Hussein much more than you and I do. The U.S. federal government gave financial aid to Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran in the 1980's. The total cost of violent armed force in Iraq is (so far) nearly a trillion dollars. That money could have converted the entire nation of Iraq to Christianity if America's Founders had spent it.
We must not be willing to destroy entire neighborhoods just because a politician shouts "EVIL!" I think this is what Obama was saying, and I think he had a good point.
> • Should all citizens have the right to
> publicly profess and observe their
> religious faith?
No.
Does that surprise you?
Imagine that the man across the street from you is a member of the Aztec faith, and he has built a stone altar in his front yard, and as you look out the window, you see that he is about to rip the beating heart out of his 14-yr old daughter and offer it to the sun-god. Will you allow him to practice his faith, or will you grab his daughter off the altar to protect her life? Who should the police arrest: you, for "infringing on his religious freedom," or the father for attempted murder?
"Pluralism" is a myth.
"Multiculturalism" is a myth.
All laws are based on one religion or another.
"Pluralism" simply means that a society is in transition from one religion to a new one.
A century ago, the United States Supreme Court said that in a Christian nation like America, people can BELIEVE whatever they want, but their ACTIONS must conform to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which is a Christian concept with Christian meaning:
http://KevinCraig.us/religion/nature.htm
http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/mormons.htm
Just today I received a copy of IMPRIMIS, the monthly publication of Hillsdale College, with an article by Mark Steyn entitled "Lights out on Liberty." He describes Britain's on-going transition from a Christian nation that does not tolerate Islamic terrorism to an Islamic nation under Sharia law that will not tolerate Christians. You can read it here:
http://tinyurl.com/6cvc6j
Again, I don't believe in killing all the Aztecs, or locking them in prison with psychopaths. But I do believe in evangelism and promoting a Christian worldview, because that's what gave us "the blessings of liberty." Promoting a Christian worldview is really the whole reason I'm running for Congress. (Promoting the Christian worldview used to be a requirement for every politician.)
If you want to promote a Christian worldview, I'd like to suggest that you forward this letter to all your friends. Encourage them to vote for Kevin Craig in November, and to write to their friends as well.
And thanks again for asking the important question about worldviews.
Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US
I would like to add a P.S. to this blog post:
The letter uses the word "follower."
That word sends shivvers up my spine.
"Voter" is bad enough.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Federalism and Medical Marijuana
Why is it that pharmacists can dispense amphetamines without getting arrested, but legal operators who dispense medical marijuana under California state law face federal prison time? Why do armed federal agents persist in raiding California?
I have updated my Medical Marijuana page with links to a video from Reason Magazine and an article by Jacob Sullum on the case of Owen Beck, seventeen-year-old high school football and soccer player who developed bone cancer and began agressive chemotherapy.
Doctors chose to amputate his leg to try to keep the cancer from spreading. Chemotherapy attacked Owen's cancer and his body, leaving him bald, gaunt, and vomiting the food he needed to recover. The amputation introduced Owen to a bizarre, new agony called phantom limb pain, and although doctors gave him powerful medication, nothing helped.
Reason.TV describes what happened next:
But might a new kind of pharmacy offer new hope? A medical marijuana dispensary had recently opened in the nearby city of Morro Bay. More than a decade earlier, California voters legalized medical marijuana and Morro Bay's mayor and Chamber of Commerce held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the dispensary, and its owner Charlie Lynch.
Owen's parents knew the idea of giving medical marijuana to a 17-year-old strikes many people as scandalous. Local Sheriff Pat Hedges even asserts that allowing medical marijuana is "not in the best interest of a community that prides itself on providing a healthy, family environment."
But the Becks weren't concerned about what other people thought; they were focused on helping their son. So with a written doctor recommendation in hand, they purchased medical marijuana for their teenage son. The new medication eased Owen's pain and nausea like nothing else had, and the Becks grew fond of Charlie Lynch, who would sometimes refuse payment because, says Steve Beck, "He was just a compassionate kind of a guy."
But one day, Owen's life took another abrupt turn. Federal agents and local sheriff deputies raided Charlie Lynch's dispensary, and seized nearly everything inside, including Owen's medicine. "He had a prescription from a doctor at Stanford, and they took his stuff!" says Debbie Beck. Federal agents cuffed Lynch, and put him behind bars. Even though state and local laws allow for it, medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And because he had clients like Owen who were under age 21, Charlie Lynch faces heightened penalties. In California the average first-degree murder serves 20 years behind bars; Charlie Lynch could face a sentence as long as 100 years in prison.
On August 5, 2008 Charlie Lynch was found guilty on all five counts. Sentencing is scheduled for October 20, 2008
Sullum describes the "trial":
Called to testify as a character witness in Lynch's federal marijuana trial, Beck did not get far. When he mentioned his cancer, U.S. District Judge George Wu cut him off and sent him packing. Wu decreed there would be no talk of the symptoms marijuana relieves, no references to California's recognition of marijuana as a medicine, no mention even of the phrase medical marijuana in front of the jury.
In short, there would be no explanation of how Lynch came to operate what prosecutors called a "marijuana store" in downtown Morro Bay for a year, openly serving more than 2,000 customers. Under federal law, which forbids marijuana use for any purpose, all that was irrelevant. So it's hardly surprising that Lynch was convicted last week of five marijuana-related offenses that carry penalties of five to 85 years in prison.
For reason.tv's coverage of the trial (including an on-camera interview with the jury foreperson), go here, here, and here.
I have updated my Medical Marijuana page with links to a video from Reason Magazine and an article by Jacob Sullum on the case of Owen Beck, seventeen-year-old high school football and soccer player who developed bone cancer and began agressive chemotherapy.
Doctors chose to amputate his leg to try to keep the cancer from spreading. Chemotherapy attacked Owen's cancer and his body, leaving him bald, gaunt, and vomiting the food he needed to recover. The amputation introduced Owen to a bizarre, new agony called phantom limb pain, and although doctors gave him powerful medication, nothing helped.
Reason.TV describes what happened next:
But might a new kind of pharmacy offer new hope? A medical marijuana dispensary had recently opened in the nearby city of Morro Bay. More than a decade earlier, California voters legalized medical marijuana and Morro Bay's mayor and Chamber of Commerce held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the dispensary, and its owner Charlie Lynch.
Owen's parents knew the idea of giving medical marijuana to a 17-year-old strikes many people as scandalous. Local Sheriff Pat Hedges even asserts that allowing medical marijuana is "not in the best interest of a community that prides itself on providing a healthy, family environment."
But the Becks weren't concerned about what other people thought; they were focused on helping their son. So with a written doctor recommendation in hand, they purchased medical marijuana for their teenage son. The new medication eased Owen's pain and nausea like nothing else had, and the Becks grew fond of Charlie Lynch, who would sometimes refuse payment because, says Steve Beck, "He was just a compassionate kind of a guy."
But one day, Owen's life took another abrupt turn. Federal agents and local sheriff deputies raided Charlie Lynch's dispensary, and seized nearly everything inside, including Owen's medicine. "He had a prescription from a doctor at Stanford, and they took his stuff!" says Debbie Beck. Federal agents cuffed Lynch, and put him behind bars. Even though state and local laws allow for it, medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And because he had clients like Owen who were under age 21, Charlie Lynch faces heightened penalties. In California the average first-degree murder serves 20 years behind bars; Charlie Lynch could face a sentence as long as 100 years in prison.
On August 5, 2008 Charlie Lynch was found guilty on all five counts. Sentencing is scheduled for October 20, 2008
Sullum describes the "trial":
Called to testify as a character witness in Lynch's federal marijuana trial, Beck did not get far. When he mentioned his cancer, U.S. District Judge George Wu cut him off and sent him packing. Wu decreed there would be no talk of the symptoms marijuana relieves, no references to California's recognition of marijuana as a medicine, no mention even of the phrase medical marijuana in front of the jury.
In short, there would be no explanation of how Lynch came to operate what prosecutors called a "marijuana store" in downtown Morro Bay for a year, openly serving more than 2,000 customers. Under federal law, which forbids marijuana use for any purpose, all that was irrelevant. So it's hardly surprising that Lynch was convicted last week of five marijuana-related offenses that carry penalties of five to 85 years in prison.
For reason.tv's coverage of the trial (including an on-camera interview with the jury foreperson), go here, here, and here.
For more information, visit Friends of Charles C. Lynch.
For information on how to contact your elected officials, please go here or here
When Samuel Adams formed the "Committees of Correspondence," one of the stated purposes of that revolutionary political movement was
the preparation of a statement of the rights of the colonists,
• as men,
• as Christians, and
• as subjects.*
Today we might speak of our rights
• as human beings,
• as Christians, and
• as Americans; as Constitutionalists.
Sheriff Pat Hedges and Judge George Wu are bad Americans, bad Christians, and bad human beings. If that isn't obvious already, learn more here:
America's Worst Sheriffs, Part I
*James K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams
Thursday, August 14, 2008
U.S.A.: The New China
Americans who watch the Olympics are being treated to scenes of China's rapid accumulation of wealth.
Even if the Communist government blocks certain websites, the average Chinese worker has a whole lot more Internet freedom than 40 years ago, when tens of millions were being murdered by the Chinese Communists, and nobody had rice, much less a computer. A little Internet is better than none at all, right? That's why 85% of the Chinese favor government censorship of the Internet.
By allowing a little liberty, and a little wealth, Communist governments gain the adulation of those accustomed to brute force and savage oppression. The Chinese people love the Communists, as do the Russians, because their standard of living is increasing from dirt-poor to not-nearly-as-bad.
What most people in atheistic dictatorships lack is what Samuel Adams called "the spirit of liberty." Americans lack this spirit. But that's no surprise; Americans live under an atheistic dictatorship.
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
What is the opposite of "LIBERTY?" The answer is: SLAVERY.
What is the opposite of "SAFETY?" Some might answer: DANGER. But that's not the correct answer in this context. In the context of Ben Franklin and the American Revolution, the opposite of "SAFETY" is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Personal Responsibility is the freedom to own property and make a profit from it, and keep the profit. There's risk involved, and no "sure bets," but those who are successful in the use of liberty and responsibility will profit. Note these well-known (in some circles) words of Samuel Adams, from a speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, “to a very numerous audience,” on August 1, 1776 (and remember that "Tranquility" is what Franklin described as "temporary safety"):
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms,* is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go 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 ye were our countrymen!
* Note that Adams and the Founding Fathers believed they were engaged in a defensive war against tyranny.
Samuel Adams said the opposite of SAFETY is "the animating contest of freedom." This can refer to the entrepreneur in the Free Market, or to a citizen fighting city hall. America's Founders often said that the price of liberty is "eternal vigilance." We must always be fighting for liberty, or we show ourselves to be slaves.
Notice that in the context of his day, Sam Adams said the opposite of LIBERTY is WEALTH. That will surprise many Americans.
Most people think that if you have wealth, you have Liberty. This is probably the most dangerous myth of the century in which we live.
Americans have been "bought off."
If you cannot stand competition, if you are afraid to compete in "the animating contest of freedom," if you're willing to kill, steal, or in any way initiate force against another human being in order to obtain "tranquillity, wealth, and luxury," you are a SLAVE.
America's Founders would also say you are an idolater, a believer in the false religion of statism.
But there is hope. Really! We'll describe this in a future post.
Even if the Communist government blocks certain websites, the average Chinese worker has a whole lot more Internet freedom than 40 years ago, when tens of millions were being murdered by the Chinese Communists, and nobody had rice, much less a computer. A little Internet is better than none at all, right? That's why 85% of the Chinese favor government censorship of the Internet.
By allowing a little liberty, and a little wealth, Communist governments gain the adulation of those accustomed to brute force and savage oppression. The Chinese people love the Communists, as do the Russians, because their standard of living is increasing from dirt-poor to not-nearly-as-bad.
What most people in atheistic dictatorships lack is what Samuel Adams called "the spirit of liberty." Americans lack this spirit. But that's no surprise; Americans live under an atheistic dictatorship.
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
What is the opposite of "LIBERTY?" The answer is: SLAVERY.
What is the opposite of "SAFETY?" Some might answer: DANGER. But that's not the correct answer in this context. In the context of Ben Franklin and the American Revolution, the opposite of "SAFETY" is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Personal Responsibility is the freedom to own property and make a profit from it, and keep the profit. There's risk involved, and no "sure bets," but those who are successful in the use of liberty and responsibility will profit. Note these well-known (in some circles) words of Samuel Adams, from a speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, “to a very numerous audience,” on August 1, 1776 (and remember that "Tranquility" is what Franklin described as "temporary safety"):
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms,* is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go 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 ye were our countrymen!
* Note that Adams and the Founding Fathers believed they were engaged in a defensive war against tyranny.
Samuel Adams said the opposite of SAFETY is "the animating contest of freedom." This can refer to the entrepreneur in the Free Market, or to a citizen fighting city hall. America's Founders often said that the price of liberty is "eternal vigilance." We must always be fighting for liberty, or we show ourselves to be slaves.
Notice that in the context of his day, Sam Adams said the opposite of LIBERTY is WEALTH. That will surprise many Americans.
Most people think that if you have wealth, you have Liberty. This is probably the most dangerous myth of the century in which we live.
Americans have been "bought off."
And billions of people around the world are about to be "bought off."
America's Founding Fathers would say that Americans today are slaves. Wealthy slaves, but still slaves. Slaves that enjoy luxury and tranquility, but still slaves.
Sam Adams tossed tea into the Boston Harbor rather than be subjected to a tax of 3 pence per pound. How much tax do you pay on each gallon of gas you buy?
Why do you pay 20 times more in taxes than America's Founding Fathers? Because you think the government guarantees you "the good life." You have your own computer, central air conditioning, a DVD player in your SUV, and you think the government made all of this possible.
China is experiencing phenomenal economic growth. Many are becoming wealthy. The poor are becoming middle-class. In a few years, China may be more powerful and wealthier than the U.S.A. In what way would America's Founding Fathers say that secular America with its 60% tax rate is better than Communist China with its flourishing capitalism?
There is no longer any fundamental distinction between the U.S.A. and Communist China. Americans and the Chinese are both slaves in an atheistic dictatorship. The difference is quantity, not quality. China may be a bit more enthusiastic about its atheism, and a little bolder in its dictatorship, but from the perspective of Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry, America is an atheistic dictatorship, and you are a slave.
Governments want you to believe they can give you wealth and safety. All you have to do is give up your liberty, and especially "the spirit of liberty," to quote Sam Adams.
But you don't really want "liberty" anyway, because that means personal responsibility. That means risk and uncertainty. Better to be a pampered slave.
Sacrificing Morality
Sacrificing "the spirit of liberty" and personal responsibility is un-American enough. But the price of "safety," "security," and a government-guarantee is the death of virtue and morality. To obtain a government guarantee of security, you have to give up your moral standards.
You would never use force or threats of violence to compel a customer to shop at your place of business. You would never steal, kill, kidnap or defraud others in order to get your HDTV. But if you're willing to have the government steal, kill, kidnap, or defraud others in order for you to get what you want -- "tranquillity, wealth, and luxury" -- then you are a slave. But the government calls it "security."
If you believe it's too "risky" to compete in a Free Market, you're a slave.
If you believe a secure, government-guaranteed life is better than the risk and responsibility of competition in a Free Market, and if you believe the government is capable of guaranteeing your tranquility, your wealth, and your luxury, then you are a slave.
To paraphrase Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" Speech,
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Is security so dear, or wealth so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
If you cannot stand competition, if you are afraid to compete in "the animating contest of freedom," if you're willing to kill, steal, or in any way initiate force against another human being in order to obtain "tranquillity, wealth, and luxury," you are a SLAVE.
America's Founders would also say you are an idolater, a believer in the false religion of statism.
But there is hope. Really! We'll describe this in a future post.
The U.S. is an Atheistic Dictatorship
The Chinese Communists block access to certain Internet sites which they do not want the Chinese people to see. It’s still difficult to challenge the party-state directly. Organizing even a study group, much less a tiny political party, can land you in jail. The Chinese government is clearly a worse dictatorship than the one complained of in the Declaration of Independence.
But so is the U.S. federal government of today. Everyone who signed the Declaration would agree: the U.S. is a tyranny worse than that of King George III.
Here's an interesting item from the Washington Post:
China demanded Thursday that the United States do more to prevent Taiwan from holding a controversial pro-independence referendum . . .
China is a dictatorship that doesn't even want Taiwan to have a VOTE on the issue of liberty. Voting is bad? Only a dictatorship would think so. Ah, but here's the rest of the sentence:
. . . but a senior U.S. official said Washington has already done all it can to get the vote called off
Yup. Voting is bad. That's the mark of a dictatorship.
Another mark of a dictatorship is state control of property. The U.S. government takes about 60% of everything you earn. Your home can be seized if the government believes someone else will pay more taxes for it. These are marks of a dictatorship.
The United States is not just a dictatorship, but it is an atheistic dictatorship. The government demands more tithes than God Himself, and then uses the money they steal to remove God from public schools and other public places. America's Founding Fathers said the government not only has a duty to be "neutral" with respect to religion, but has a duty to promote the true religion. The Supreme Court repeatedly declared that America was officially and legally "a Christian nation," but more recently the atheistic Court has been at war with Christianity.
When you look at America through the lens of those who threw tea into the Boston Harbor over a tax of 3 pence per pound, and bathed the creation of the Constitution in prayer, starting a tradition of government-sponsored prayer that still haunts atheists in Washington D.C. -- looked at through their eyes, America today is an atheistic dictatorship.
Here are some contemporary issues facing America. If America's Founding Fathers could read any one of these, they would probably declare it to be an independent justification for another American Revolution. They show the U.S. to be an atheistic dictatorship.
• The Court has rejected the most fundamental rules of interpreting the Constitution.
• The Court has completely forgotten that the Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers."
• The 2 party system is a monopoly of restricted ballot access and rigged elections against third parties.
• The government legalizes the killing of 4,000 babies every day.
• A "republican form of government" has been replaced with a system that James Madison would have called "the essence of tyranny": an "administrative state."
• The government takes two-thirds of everything you earn. You never even see one-third.
• The government prohibits teachers in our local neighborhood public schools from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence really is true.
• The government seizes private property at will.
• The government is an oligarchy.
• It carries out imperialism.
• It has killed two million innocent non-combatant men, women, and children in Iraq.
• It has destroyed the Bill of Rights.
• The government denies "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and imposes disobedience of those laws.
• The government debases the currency, stealing billions of dollars from citizens.
• The government is choking off liberty around the world through untold thousands of tentacles of atheism and immorality.
• The government has officially repudiated its duty to Christ.
• The government has repudiated "True Religion".
• The government repudiates The National Duty to God.
• The government has turned this nation into an idolatrous Cult of statism.
Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if they could compare the United States with the Soviet Union and Communist China, would say all three are atheistic dictatorships.
But so is the U.S. federal government of today. Everyone who signed the Declaration would agree: the U.S. is a tyranny worse than that of King George III.
Here's an interesting item from the Washington Post:
China demanded Thursday that the United States do more to prevent Taiwan from holding a controversial pro-independence referendum . . .
China is a dictatorship that doesn't even want Taiwan to have a VOTE on the issue of liberty. Voting is bad? Only a dictatorship would think so. Ah, but here's the rest of the sentence:
. . . but a senior U.S. official said Washington has already done all it can to get the vote called off
Yup. Voting is bad. That's the mark of a dictatorship.
Another mark of a dictatorship is state control of property. The U.S. government takes about 60% of everything you earn. Your home can be seized if the government believes someone else will pay more taxes for it. These are marks of a dictatorship.
The United States is not just a dictatorship, but it is an atheistic dictatorship. The government demands more tithes than God Himself, and then uses the money they steal to remove God from public schools and other public places. America's Founding Fathers said the government not only has a duty to be "neutral" with respect to religion, but has a duty to promote the true religion. The Supreme Court repeatedly declared that America was officially and legally "a Christian nation," but more recently the atheistic Court has been at war with Christianity.
When you look at America through the lens of those who threw tea into the Boston Harbor over a tax of 3 pence per pound, and bathed the creation of the Constitution in prayer, starting a tradition of government-sponsored prayer that still haunts atheists in Washington D.C. -- looked at through their eyes, America today is an atheistic dictatorship.
Here are some contemporary issues facing America. If America's Founding Fathers could read any one of these, they would probably declare it to be an independent justification for another American Revolution. They show the U.S. to be an atheistic dictatorship.
• The Court has rejected the most fundamental rules of interpreting the Constitution.
• The Court has completely forgotten that the Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers."
• The 2 party system is a monopoly of restricted ballot access and rigged elections against third parties.
• The government legalizes the killing of 4,000 babies every day.
• A "republican form of government" has been replaced with a system that James Madison would have called "the essence of tyranny": an "administrative state."
• The government takes two-thirds of everything you earn. You never even see one-third.
• The government prohibits teachers in our local neighborhood public schools from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence really is true.
• The government seizes private property at will.
• The government is an oligarchy.
• It carries out imperialism.
• It has killed two million innocent non-combatant men, women, and children in Iraq.
• It has destroyed the Bill of Rights.
• The government denies "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and imposes disobedience of those laws.
• The government debases the currency, stealing billions of dollars from citizens.
• The government is choking off liberty around the world through untold thousands of tentacles of atheism and immorality.
• The government has officially repudiated its duty to Christ.
• The government has repudiated "True Religion".
• The government repudiates The National Duty to God.
• The government has turned this nation into an idolatrous Cult of statism.
Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if they could compare the United States with the Soviet Union and Communist China, would say all three are atheistic dictatorships.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
China: The New U.S.A.
There is an anti-China mentality that is hypocritical and unhealthy. Congressman Ron Paul recently spoke about it in Congress:
Against Jingoism and Hypocrisy
Many Americans -- like Phyllis Schlafly, who warns about Patents, Poisons, Prescription Drugs and denounces Free Trade in Dangerous Drugs -- want more government regulation to protect Americans from "poisonous petfood, seafood, toothpaste, and toys that come from Communist China,"
None of these things were being sold to Americans by the Chinese 40 years ago -- primarily because tens of millions of Chinese were being murdered by the Communist government, whose socialist policies had created one of the most deadly famines in the history of the world:
China: From Death Camp to Civilization by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Pat Buchanan has pointed out an interesting survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project:
Democracy -- A Flickering Star? Patrick J. Buchanan - HUMAN EVENTS
China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.
Yet,
In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.
The New York Times reported:
Eighty-six percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the country's direction, up from 48 percent in 2002. ... And 82 percent of Chinese were satisfied with their national economy, up from 52 percent
The Chinese people are apparently happy with the movement from the brutality of Communism to some underdeveloped and ugly form of Capitalism.
Some, like the Heritage Foundation, want to remind us that a Chinese General threatened to nuke Los Angeles if the U.S. interfered with any attempt by the Chinese Communists to take over Taiwan:
As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens - New York Times
Why Caution Is Needed in Military Contacts with China - Heritage
NewsMax is still reporting on Chinese Military Expansion.
But China Is Right: the U.S. is every bit as imperialistic as the Soviet Union or China. Russia's invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's or its invasion of Georgia in the news this week are not morally distinguishable from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
And Americans are happy with the federal government, even if they have questions about the War in Iraq. And if China lobbed a nuke onto L.A., most Americans would support the nuking of millions of Chinese in Beijing in return.
America's Founding Fathers -- the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- would not be able to see any fundamental difference between Communist China and the United States. The U.S. Federal Government demands six times more in taxes than God does. The U.S. Federal Government removes copies of the Ten Commandments from public places in a secular philosophy indistinguishable in quality from the Chinese Communists. But most Americans believe that the federal government is our Savior.
No matter how many nations the federal government invades, no matter how many Constitutional rights are suspended, Americans will not complain because they have an SUV in the garage and a remote control in the living room. And the Chinese are happy to sell the Americans their trinkets.
And if Americans can't afford their toys, and go into debt for them, the Chinese are happy to buy the debt as well.
If the Chinese Communists nuke L.A., the Chinese people will not complain because they too have been "bought off" -- their standard of living is higher than it has been in several generations.
We live in the century of extraordinarily wealthy slaves.
Against Jingoism and Hypocrisy
Many Americans -- like Phyllis Schlafly, who warns about Patents, Poisons, Prescription Drugs and denounces Free Trade in Dangerous Drugs -- want more government regulation to protect Americans from "poisonous petfood, seafood, toothpaste, and toys that come from Communist China,"
None of these things were being sold to Americans by the Chinese 40 years ago -- primarily because tens of millions of Chinese were being murdered by the Communist government, whose socialist policies had created one of the most deadly famines in the history of the world:
China: From Death Camp to Civilization by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Pat Buchanan has pointed out an interesting survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project:
Democracy -- A Flickering Star? Patrick J. Buchanan - HUMAN EVENTS
China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.
Yet,
In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.
The New York Times reported:
Eighty-six percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the country's direction, up from 48 percent in 2002. ... And 82 percent of Chinese were satisfied with their national economy, up from 52 percent
The Chinese people are apparently happy with the movement from the brutality of Communism to some underdeveloped and ugly form of Capitalism.
Some, like the Heritage Foundation, want to remind us that a Chinese General threatened to nuke Los Angeles if the U.S. interfered with any attempt by the Chinese Communists to take over Taiwan:
As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens - New York Times
Why Caution Is Needed in Military Contacts with China - Heritage
NewsMax is still reporting on Chinese Military Expansion.
But China Is Right: the U.S. is every bit as imperialistic as the Soviet Union or China. Russia's invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's or its invasion of Georgia in the news this week are not morally distinguishable from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
And Americans are happy with the federal government, even if they have questions about the War in Iraq. And if China lobbed a nuke onto L.A., most Americans would support the nuking of millions of Chinese in Beijing in return.
America's Founding Fathers -- the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- would not be able to see any fundamental difference between Communist China and the United States. The U.S. Federal Government demands six times more in taxes than God does. The U.S. Federal Government removes copies of the Ten Commandments from public places in a secular philosophy indistinguishable in quality from the Chinese Communists. But most Americans believe that the federal government is our Savior.
No matter how many nations the federal government invades, no matter how many Constitutional rights are suspended, Americans will not complain because they have an SUV in the garage and a remote control in the living room. And the Chinese are happy to sell the Americans their trinkets.
And if Americans can't afford their toys, and go into debt for them, the Chinese are happy to buy the debt as well.
If the Chinese Communists nuke L.A., the Chinese people will not complain because they too have been "bought off" -- their standard of living is higher than it has been in several generations.
We live in the century of extraordinarily wealthy slaves.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama's Investment Advice
I recently posted the horrifying statistics on government indebtedness: Washington D.C. has promised and is now legally obligated to provide $330,000 worth of benefits to every man, woman and child in America, benefits that at present it has no hope of being able to pay.
To simplify, the U.S. has income of $3 trillion a year, has racked up $500 billion in credit card debt each year for a total of nearly $10 trillion, and has made legally binding promises to spend 30 times its annual income, with no hope of getting a raise in the future.
Let's bring that down to scale.
Imagine your neighbor makes $50,000/yr, which just barely covers his mortgage payments, food, and medical care for the five members of his family, and has also charged up $8,350 per year on credit, for an outstanding total of about $150,000. He comes to you and says he wants to donate money to charity, and would like a $1.5 million loan to do so.
You chuckle and tell him to call Bill Gates.
Would Bill Gates loan him the money?
Suppose he uses the internet to con 1,500 people to loan him $1000 each, in loans which are legally collectable, and gets the $1.5 million he wanted. Now he comes to you -- with his $50k/yr job, wife and three kids, $150,000 in credit card debt, and $1.5 million in unsecured obligations, and wants a few thousand dollars from you to invest in "Green technology" -- unproven energy systems which he says will be great for the environment, and will provide jobs.
You should not lend this person any of your money.
I'm no investment expert, and you may want to check with your Certified Financial Planner, but my amateur investment advice to you is not to lend that fellow any of your hard-earned money for his "green technology" investment plans.
I hate to be so negative and unforgiving. You may know someone who has $20-50,000 in credit card debt, but they seem to have a stable income, and if they just tighten up their belt, you think they might be able to pay off their debts. You might even consider loaning them some money for their "green technology" scheme, provided they also take substantial steps to paying off their current debts.
But I'm talking about someone who has pretty recklessly racked up $2,000,000 in debt, with no prospects of being able to pay it off.
In my opinion (and I'm not a trained therapist), that person has a mental illness -- an obsessive spending/borrowing compulsion -- unless he is truly sociopathic (no sense of morals, ethics, or concern for others). This man's family is inevitably going to go through hard times.
Do you agree with me that you should not loan this man your money to "invest?"
This man is President Barack Obama.
And he doesn't just want your money. He's hitting up on 300 million other Americans.
Surely Obama knows that if he becomes President, he will inherit a Congress that has an income of less than $3 trillion, and spends $500 billion more than it takes in every year. It has also already made legally obligatory promises to pay every man, woman and child in America $330,000.
Nevertheless, Obama says he wants to "invest" $150 billion in energy.
• He also wants to "invest" in "foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence" for the military,
• as well as "greater investment in advanced technology . . . like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities."
• For the Navy, he wants to "invest" in "smaller, more capable ships."
• He wants to "invest" $10 billion in "the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program,"
• as well as "invest" in "the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs."
• He says he will "create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies."
• Obama will "invest in low emissions coal plants."
• He will "invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."
• "Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth."
• He will create "New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment" "by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments."
• Obama will "Invest in the Sciences" by "doubling federal funding for basic research."
• "Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce."
• "Obama will invest $250 million per year" in "a national network of public-private business incubators."
• Obama will "Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems."
• "Barack Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems...."
• He wants to "Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment."
• He wants to "Invest in the development of the next generation of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol."
• He wants to "Create a Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund," which he wants you to fund with "an annual $10 billion investment for five years."
• He wants to "Invest in a digital smart energy grid."
• "An Obama administration will invest in human capital to ensure that our young people have the skills to fill the growing number of information technology jobs being created globally."
This man tells you that "As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970," and urges you to step up to the plate.
• "Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce and technology infrastructure to be supported here in America so that American workers and communities will benefit."
• "Barack Obama is committed to investing in communities and people who have not had an opportunity to work and participate in the Internet economy."
• Obama wants to follow the model of FDR "in confronting capitalism's gravest crisis, when he forged the social safety net, built the Hoover Dam, created the Tennessee Valley Authority, and invested in an Arsenal of Democracy."
• He regrets he didn't come to you sooner, asking for money to invest: "We could have invested in innovation and rebuilt our crumbling roads and bridges."
But it's not too late:
• "We can start by investing $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America."
• "And while John McCain deserves credit for speaking out against the threat of climate change, his rhetoric is undercut by a record of voting time and again against important investments in renewable energy."
• "When I'm President, we will invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe."
Remember, this man has $150,000 in credit card debt, $1.5 million in personal loans, and he wants more money from you. Most of his past investments have floundered, and have been riddled with corruption, but he promises "too-good-to-be-true" results from his next investment.
Would you not agree that this is a madman?
But so is your current congressman, who repeatedly loans your money to one madman after another. Hundreds of times a year, knowing of the reckless and dangerous debts that have already been accumulated, he says, in effect:
By voting for this legislation I hereby affirm my belief that the information and knowledge possessed by me and 434 other Congressman-"investors" is greater than the collective knowledge and information possessed by a Free Market of 150 million individual investors, pension fund managers, insurance company executives, mutual fund administrators, and brokers, all of whom do not have the luxury of obtaining investment funds by passing a law, but must earn their investment dollars.
To simplify, the U.S. has income of $3 trillion a year, has racked up $500 billion in credit card debt each year for a total of nearly $10 trillion, and has made legally binding promises to spend 30 times its annual income, with no hope of getting a raise in the future.
Let's bring that down to scale.
Imagine your neighbor makes $50,000/yr, which just barely covers his mortgage payments, food, and medical care for the five members of his family, and has also charged up $8,350 per year on credit, for an outstanding total of about $150,000. He comes to you and says he wants to donate money to charity, and would like a $1.5 million loan to do so.
You chuckle and tell him to call Bill Gates.
Would Bill Gates loan him the money?
Suppose he uses the internet to con 1,500 people to loan him $1000 each, in loans which are legally collectable, and gets the $1.5 million he wanted. Now he comes to you -- with his $50k/yr job, wife and three kids, $150,000 in credit card debt, and $1.5 million in unsecured obligations, and wants a few thousand dollars from you to invest in "Green technology" -- unproven energy systems which he says will be great for the environment, and will provide jobs.
You should not lend this person any of your money.
I'm no investment expert, and you may want to check with your Certified Financial Planner, but my amateur investment advice to you is not to lend that fellow any of your hard-earned money for his "green technology" investment plans.
I hate to be so negative and unforgiving. You may know someone who has $20-50,000 in credit card debt, but they seem to have a stable income, and if they just tighten up their belt, you think they might be able to pay off their debts. You might even consider loaning them some money for their "green technology" scheme, provided they also take substantial steps to paying off their current debts.
But I'm talking about someone who has pretty recklessly racked up $2,000,000 in debt, with no prospects of being able to pay it off.
In my opinion (and I'm not a trained therapist), that person has a mental illness -- an obsessive spending/borrowing compulsion -- unless he is truly sociopathic (no sense of morals, ethics, or concern for others). This man's family is inevitably going to go through hard times.
Do you agree with me that you should not loan this man your money to "invest?"
This man is President Barack Obama.
And he doesn't just want your money. He's hitting up on 300 million other Americans.
Surely Obama knows that if he becomes President, he will inherit a Congress that has an income of less than $3 trillion, and spends $500 billion more than it takes in every year. It has also already made legally obligatory promises to pay every man, woman and child in America $330,000.
Nevertheless, Obama says he wants to "invest" $150 billion in energy.
• He also wants to "invest" in "foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence" for the military,
• as well as "greater investment in advanced technology . . . like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities."
• For the Navy, he wants to "invest" in "smaller, more capable ships."
• He wants to "invest" $10 billion in "the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program,"
• as well as "invest" in "the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs."
• He says he will "create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies."
• Obama will "invest in low emissions coal plants."
• He will "invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."
• "Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth."
• He will create "New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment" "by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments."
• Obama will "Invest in the Sciences" by "doubling federal funding for basic research."
• "Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce."
• "Obama will invest $250 million per year" in "a national network of public-private business incubators."
• Obama will "Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems."
• "Barack Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems...."
• He wants to "Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment."
• He wants to "Invest in the development of the next generation of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol."
• He wants to "Create a Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund," which he wants you to fund with "an annual $10 billion investment for five years."
• He wants to "Invest in a digital smart energy grid."
• "An Obama administration will invest in human capital to ensure that our young people have the skills to fill the growing number of information technology jobs being created globally."
This man tells you that "As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970," and urges you to step up to the plate.
• "Barack Obama wants investments in a skilled research and development workforce and technology infrastructure to be supported here in America so that American workers and communities will benefit."
• "Barack Obama is committed to investing in communities and people who have not had an opportunity to work and participate in the Internet economy."
• Obama wants to follow the model of FDR "in confronting capitalism's gravest crisis, when he forged the social safety net, built the Hoover Dam, created the Tennessee Valley Authority, and invested in an Arsenal of Democracy."
• He regrets he didn't come to you sooner, asking for money to invest: "We could have invested in innovation and rebuilt our crumbling roads and bridges."
But it's not too late:
• "We can start by investing $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America."
• "And while John McCain deserves credit for speaking out against the threat of climate change, his rhetoric is undercut by a record of voting time and again against important investments in renewable energy."
• "When I'm President, we will invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe."
Remember, this man has $150,000 in credit card debt, $1.5 million in personal loans, and he wants more money from you. Most of his past investments have floundered, and have been riddled with corruption, but he promises "too-good-to-be-true" results from his next investment.
Would you not agree that this is a madman?
But so is your current congressman, who repeatedly loans your money to one madman after another. Hundreds of times a year, knowing of the reckless and dangerous debts that have already been accumulated, he says, in effect:
By voting for this legislation I hereby affirm my belief that the information and knowledge possessed by me and 434 other Congressman-"investors" is greater than the collective knowledge and information possessed by a Free Market of 150 million individual investors, pension fund managers, insurance company executives, mutual fund administrators, and brokers, all of whom do not have the luxury of obtaining investment funds by passing a law, but must earn their investment dollars.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Update on Government Theft, 2008
Last year I posted an "Update on Government Theft." It was about a speech called "From Here to Eternity" by Richard Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. He said:
According to official government trustee reports, the infinite-horizon discounted present value of our unfunded liability from Social Security and Medicare—in common language, the gap between what we will take in and what we have promised to pay—now stands at $83.9 trillion.
This staggering deficit portends conflict, chaos, and a Great Depression.
But now it's time to update the figures.
In a more recent speech (May 28, 2008), Fisher speaks of "Storms on the Horizon." I probably don't have to quote him; you know what he's going to say. But here it is anyway. A little context before we get to the new number:
Franklin Roosevelt originally conceived a social security system in which individuals would fund their own retirements through payroll-tax contributions. But Congress quickly realized that such a system could not put much money into the pockets of indigent elderly citizens ravaged by the Great Depression. Instead, a pay-as-you-go funding system was embraced, making each generation’s retirement the responsibility of its children.
Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.
Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.
Why is the Medicare figure so large? There is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due to the same birthrate and life-expectancy issues that affect Social Security. In part, it is due to ever-costlier advances in medical technology and the willingness of Medicare to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program’s unfunded liability is by itself one-third greater than all of Social Security’s.
Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion . . . . Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.
I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.
Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.
There are only two words that adequately describe Congressmen who vote for this kind of scheme. Pick one:
Evil.
Insane.
Now, how do you describe voters who keep voting for these promises? A guy promises to give you $330,000 for each and every member of your family, and every one of 300 million other Americans. Do you really believe him? Did you take math in your government-run school?
How will millions of people react when they find out that the money the government promised them isn't coming? "Oops! We don't have the money to cut your Social Security check. Sorry!" Will those people say, "Hey, that Wal-Mart has lots of food that should have been ours! Let's take it!" Will they say, "Hey, that house (pointing to your house) looks like it might have some food. Let's go in there!"
Or will government try to prevent riots and strikes by simply printing up lots of money, like Germany did, 1914-1923, when wheelbarrows full of Deutsch marks couldn't buy a loaf of bread, but eventually led to Adolph Hitler. Let's recall what the Social Security Commissioner said in Senate Hearings:
Senator William Proxmire: "...there are 37 million people, is that right, that get Social Security benefits?"
Social Security Commissioner James Cardwell: "Today between 32 and 34 million."
Proxmire: "I am a little high; 32 to 34 million people.
Almost all of them, or many of them, are voters. In my state, I figure there are 600,000 voters that receive Social Security. Can you imagine a senator or congressman under those circumstances saying, 'We are going to repudiate that high a proportion of the electorate?' No.
"Furthermore, we have the capacity under the Constitution, the Congress does, to coin money, as well as to regulate the value thereof. And therefore we have the power to provide that money. And we are going to do it. It may not be worth anything when the recipient gets it, but he is going to get his benefits paid."
Cardwell: "I tend to agree."
(The Social Security System, Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 94th Cong., 2nd Session, May 26 and 27, 1976, pp. 27-28. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977.)
Do you really feel more secure after voting for these people and these ponzi-scheme promises?
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Social Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.”
According to official government trustee reports, the infinite-horizon discounted present value of our unfunded liability from Social Security and Medicare—in common language, the gap between what we will take in and what we have promised to pay—now stands at $83.9 trillion.
This staggering deficit portends conflict, chaos, and a Great Depression.
But now it's time to update the figures.
In a more recent speech (May 28, 2008), Fisher speaks of "Storms on the Horizon." I probably don't have to quote him; you know what he's going to say. But here it is anyway. A little context before we get to the new number:
Franklin Roosevelt originally conceived a social security system in which individuals would fund their own retirements through payroll-tax contributions. But Congress quickly realized that such a system could not put much money into the pockets of indigent elderly citizens ravaged by the Great Depression. Instead, a pay-as-you-go funding system was embraced, making each generation’s retirement the responsibility of its children.
Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.
Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.
Why is the Medicare figure so large? There is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due to the same birthrate and life-expectancy issues that affect Social Security. In part, it is due to ever-costlier advances in medical technology and the willingness of Medicare to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program’s unfunded liability is by itself one-third greater than all of Social Security’s.
Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion . . . . Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.
I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.
Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.
There are only two words that adequately describe Congressmen who vote for this kind of scheme. Pick one:
Evil.
Insane.
Now, how do you describe voters who keep voting for these promises? A guy promises to give you $330,000 for each and every member of your family, and every one of 300 million other Americans. Do you really believe him? Did you take math in your government-run school?
How will millions of people react when they find out that the money the government promised them isn't coming? "Oops! We don't have the money to cut your Social Security check. Sorry!" Will those people say, "Hey, that Wal-Mart has lots of food that should have been ours! Let's take it!" Will they say, "Hey, that house (pointing to your house) looks like it might have some food. Let's go in there!"
Or will government try to prevent riots and strikes by simply printing up lots of money, like Germany did, 1914-1923, when wheelbarrows full of Deutsch marks couldn't buy a loaf of bread, but eventually led to Adolph Hitler. Let's recall what the Social Security Commissioner said in Senate Hearings:Senator William Proxmire: "...there are 37 million people, is that right, that get Social Security benefits?"
Social Security Commissioner James Cardwell: "Today between 32 and 34 million."
Proxmire: "I am a little high; 32 to 34 million people.
Almost all of them, or many of them, are voters. In my state, I figure there are 600,000 voters that receive Social Security. Can you imagine a senator or congressman under those circumstances saying, 'We are going to repudiate that high a proportion of the electorate?' No.
"Furthermore, we have the capacity under the Constitution, the Congress does, to coin money, as well as to regulate the value thereof. And therefore we have the power to provide that money. And we are going to do it. It may not be worth anything when the recipient gets it, but he is going to get his benefits paid."
Cardwell: "I tend to agree."
(The Social Security System, Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 94th Cong., 2nd Session, May 26 and 27, 1976, pp. 27-28. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977.)
Do you really feel more secure after voting for these people and these ponzi-scheme promises?
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Social Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.”
Friday, August 08, 2008
Americans for the Arts Action Fund Survey
Today I received a survey from Americans for the Arts.I probably should have been more encouraging. I do like the arts. I play now and then with a local bluegrass band, and some of my favorite experiences (back in California) were getting student discounts at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. I like the "Dutch Masters." I helped draft incorporation papers for a museum of architecture (pro bono).
But I have to admit, a lot of today's "art" annoys me. Much of it seems like an attempt to slap God in the face. And the fact that it may have been tax-funded heaps insult on injury.
Here are their questions with my answers:
1. Question: What arts activities have you attended, participated in, or supported in the last year?X-Music Theater X-Visual Arts Dance X-Literary Arts Other None
Additional Comments (optional):
I am an amateur musician, but I think it would be wrong for the government to confiscate your property and give it to me. http://KevinCraig.us/arts.htm
[Additional comment. This question is designed to see if the candidate has a personal interest in the arts. Truth be told, I don't get much art in the Ozarks. Certainly not as much or as many opportunities as I had in Los Angeles. Fewer museums, fewer concerts, etc. But we all make choices, and it's wrong to expect the government to equalize everything. It's also pretty much impossible: I gave up the Hollywood Bowl and the Mark Taper Forum, but now I get to watch the leaves change color.]
2. Background: The budget of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was cut in half during the 1990s. With its current funding of $144.7 million, the NEA spends just 48 cents per American—about the cost of a pack of gum.
Question: Do you support a significant funding increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, so that arts organizations in your district can present more high quality arts programs for all of its citizens?
Strongly Agree Agree X-Disagree Undecided
Additional Comments (optional):
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to take money from Farmer Jones and give it to Artist Smith. http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm
[I would now add an additional comment about the insidiousness of these figures. Artists have a tremendous incentive to lobby the government to get millions of dollars. A small investment in time and travel can bring huge rewards. But no individual citizen can afford to go to Washington D.C. and lobby against appropriations for the arts, because each individual is only paying 48 cents for the lobbyists' largesse. And every other industry is busy lobbying for their millions, or billions, and their billions are only going to be a few bucks out of my pay check and yours. But at the end of the day, the lobbyist is walking away with a billion dollars in theft. The entire system is immoral.]
[An additional note: The NEA was cut during the 1990's? Weren't those the Clinton years? Wouldn't this support the idea that if a Democrat is elected President, Republicans in Congress work harder to cut wasteful programs, whereas when a Republican is elected, Congress expands big government? Go Obama!]
3. Background: Prior to the budget cuts of the 1990s, the NEA partnered with local arts agencies to re-grant funds in their communities, ensuring strong local input and control over artistic programming, especially in rural and underserved areas. After the cuts, however, the re-granting partnership ended because of insufficient funds.Question: Do you support dedicated funding for an NEA re-granting program for local arts agencies?
Strongly Agree Agree X-Disagree Undecided
Additional Comments (optional):
Art must come from the heart, not a government edict. http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
4. Background: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) defines the arts as a core academic subject, allowing school districts to use federal funding for arts education instruction. However, implementation of NCLB has dramatically reduced the time spent teaching the arts around the country and increased the need for federal-level research measuring the status and condition of the arts.Question: Do you support strengthening arts education and research through the reauthorization of NCLB?
Strongly Agree Agree X-Disagree Undecided
Additional Comments (optional):
Government schools are a travesty. Competitive, private schools give twice the art at half the price.
5. Background: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has been level-funded at about $400 million for several years, is a major provider of arts programming on public television and radio.Question: Do you support increased funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Strongly Agree Agree X-Disagree Undecided
Additional Comments (optional):
Some people see government media as the cultural equivalent of Tokyo Rose. They should not be forced to support it. I'm pro-choice on radio and TV.
6. Background: Currently, art collectors can claim a fair market value tax deduction for works that they donate to cultural organizations, but artists can claim only the cost of materials when they donate work that they have created.Question: Do you support bipartisan legislation to correct this inequity and to ensure that museums, libraries, and other cultural organizations receive donations?
X-Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Undecided
Additional Comments (optional):
I favor maximizing all deductions until the Income Tax is completely abolished. http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm I am, however, skeptical that such a deduction as you describe is rationally and legally possible. One man's "art" is another man's trash. A collector can formulate a more objective and rational estimate of the "fair market value" of a work of art than an artist can. Every artist will subjectively value her own work higher than the market might. I would be interested in reviewing such proposed legislation.
[I have since discovered the details here. It isn't just a matter of the artist claiming a "fair market value" off the top of his head. It has to be accepted by a tax-exempt organization (e.g., a museum). The museum declares the value, the artist writes it off.]
For more detailed information on these arts policy issues, please visit: www.ArtsActionFund.org/sc/LegislativePriorities
Completed By: Kevin Craig
Date: 08/08/08
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Hiroshima, August 6, 1945
The Communists won World War II.
The fascists in Italy lost.
The fascists in Japan lost. (Maybe.)
The fascists in Germany lost. (Maybe.)
But the Communists in Russia conquered Europe.
And the Communists in China conquered Asia.
And the Communists in Washington D.C. had a feeling of satisfaction unsurpassed since the days of the Sovietization of America during the "New Deal."
Sen. Joe McCarthy was right about Communists in the U.S. State Department, as M. Stanton Evans has shown, and even liberals are now admitting:
“Since then [the Rosenberg trial,] Soviet cables released as part of the Venona Project show that Communist espionage in the United States, long dismissed by the Rosenbergs’ defenders, actually occurred, and that Julius was an atomic spy.”
The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians in Hiroshima on this day in 1945 was preceeded by the mass murder of millions in the Soviet Union, and followed by the mass murder of millions in China.
Some still believe that the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to prevent the loss of an equal number of U.S. troops who would have "had to" invade Asia to eliminate the Japanese obstacle to Communist domination there. And of course we "had to" be at war with Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor, which could not have possibly been avoided, and had absolutely nothing to do with Roosevelt's policies toward Japan. (NOT!)
The Big Picture
The original "American Dream" was that of every American dwelling safely under his own "Vine and Fig Tree." But this can only be the result of our beating our "swords into plowshares."
The United States is increasingly perceived around the world as a heavily-armed bully. Nothing could be clearer from the Old Testament prophets than that God judges bullies. God takes down empires that think they're gods.
Even now, the United States is committing new Hiroshimas around the world. U.S. use of depleted uranium weapons will kill an amount in the Middle East equal to Hiroshima's toll.
Can "We the People" beat U.S. swords into plowshares?
There are doubts that the United States government responds to the democratic voice of "the People" any more.
But there are also doubts that a lethargic and apathetic population wants to endanger their SUV's and video games by speaking out loud enough for the IRS to hear.
And there can be no doubt that if we want the government to hear "the People," each of us as individuals must first beat our own swords into plowshares, before we can speak to the government. Each of us must be willing to work rather than vote for the plundering of others. Each of us must be willing to forgive rather than seek vengeance. Only then can we effectively demand that the government beat its swords into plowshares.
Of course, one of the most effective ways to purge ourselves of violence is to cut the patriotic ties we have had with government violence and vengeance. Perhaps our own personal disarmament begins with publicly affirming that we disassociate ourselves from U.S. imperialism and genocide.
Perhaps this Hiroshima Day will begin your own personal transformation, which will fuel the restoration of America to a land of "Liberty Under God."
Here are a few resources for further study:
Dropping the Bomb « The New American « cover
On the Atomic Bombings of Japan I « Vox Nova
Chris Floyd Online - Living Death: The Eternal Now of Hiroshima
John Pilger: The lessons that should be learnt from Hiroshima The Guardian
Scaring Us Toward Global Government « The New American
For more than five decades, foreboding fear of death and destruction has been exploited to further the drive for world government. The principle is simple enough: Individuals become more inclined, sometimes even eager, to surrender freedom, resources, and national sovereignty once they have been persuaded that the alternative is suffering or annihilation.
From the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II through the end of the "Cold War" -- during which the "free" West and the communist East were portrayed as nuclear-armed antagonists prepared to unleash an apocalyptic nuclear conflict -- the false alternatives offered by internationalists were world government or nuclear destruction. Unless the United States and other nations divested themselves of nuclear weapons and submitted to a centralized "peacekeeping" authority, the nuclear "arms race" would inevitably lead to the destruction of humanity.
Laray Polk: Tongues of Fire, Plains of Grace
Iron Ink - McAtee on Hanson on Buchanan
Warring as Lying Throughout American History
Radioactive Ammunition Fired in Middle East May Claim More Lives Than Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Conservative Revisionists and Hiroshima - by Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan
Empire and Nuclear Weapons - by Joseph Gerson
Remembering Hiroshima - by David R. Henderson
Hiroshima, the Top News Story That Wasn't - by Humberto Márquez
Hiroshima or Wheat Smut? - by Gordon Prather
Hiroshima Under the Shadow of 9/11 - by Praful Bidwai
Lessons from Hiroshima, 60 Years Later - by Walter Cronkite
Remembering Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Dark Cloud Over Civilization - by Douglas Mattern
Hillary, Hiroshima, and Hubris - by Justin Raimondo
HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR « Why Americans are Barbarians
William Norman Grigg writes:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has on occasion displayed a gift for anti-social truth-telling. His notorious and much-misrepresented post-9/11 sermon did not minimize the horror inflicted on our nation that day, or the blood guilt of those responsible for the atrocities.
Speaking with commendable courage and mesmerizing passion, Wright described the long train of abuses and outrages committed by the government that rules us -- from the Trail of Tears through Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from Wounded Knee to the first Gulf War -- and asserted that the criminal violence of our rulers did much to sow and nourish what we harvested on that terrible Tuesday morning.
These were unwelcome but indispensable truths spoken in a timely fashion.
Pro Libertate: The Rights and Wrongs of Reverend Wright
Not Everyone Wanted To Bomb Hiroshima by Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan
The Truth Spoken by Osama Bin Laden Philaahzophy
Pilot Who Dropped the A-Bomb Didn’t Know Japan Wanted To Surrender « The New American
The Man Who Bombed Hiroshima 11/10/2007
Not Everyone Wanted to Bomb Hiroshima 11/7/2007
Fatal Deliverance From an 'Iron Storm' 11/2/2007
When Reel Tales Rewrite Real History 10/30/2007
The fascists in Italy lost.
The fascists in Japan lost. (Maybe.)
The fascists in Germany lost. (Maybe.)
But the Communists in Russia conquered Europe
.And the Communists in China conquered Asia.
And the Communists in Washington D.C. had a feeling of satisfaction unsurpassed since the days of the Sovietization of America during the "New Deal."
Sen. Joe McCarthy was right about Communists in the U.S. State Department, as M. Stanton Evans
has shown, and even liberals are now admitting:“Since then [the Rosenberg trial,] Soviet cables released as part of the Venona Project show that Communist espionage in the United States, long dismissed by the Rosenbergs’ defenders, actually occurred, and that Julius was an atomic spy.”
The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians in Hiroshima on this day in 1945 was preceeded by the mass murder of millions in the Soviet Union, and followed by the mass murder of millions in China.
Some still believe that the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to prevent the loss of an equal number of U.S. troops who would have "had to" invade Asia to eliminate the Japanese obstacle to Communist domination there. And of course we "had to" be at war with Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor, which could not have possibly been avoided, and had absolutely nothing to do with Roosevelt's policies toward Japan. (NOT!)
The Big Picture
The original "American Dream" was that of every American dwelling safely under his own "Vine and Fig Tree." But this can only be the result of our beating our "swords into plowshares."
The United States is increasingly perceived around the world as a heavily-armed bully. Nothing could be clearer from the Old Testament prophets than that God judges bullies. God takes down empires that think they're gods.
Even now, the United States is committing new Hiroshimas around the world. U.S. use of depleted uranium weapons will kill an amount in the Middle East equal to Hiroshima's toll.
Can "We the People" beat U.S. swords into plowshares?
There are doubts that the United States government responds to the democratic voice of "the People" any more.
But there are also doubts that a lethargic and apathetic population wants to endanger their SUV's and video games by speaking out loud enough for the IRS to hear.
And there can be no doubt that if we want the government to hear "the People," each of us as individuals must first beat our own swords into plowshares, before we can speak to the government. Each of us must be willing to work rather than vote for the plundering of others. Each of us must be willing to forgive rather than seek vengeance. Only then can we effectively demand that the government beat its swords into plowshares.
Of course, one of the most effective ways to purge ourselves of violence is to cut the patriotic ties we have had with government violence and vengeance. Perhaps our own personal disarmament begins with publicly affirming that we disassociate ourselves from U.S. imperialism and genocide.
Perhaps this Hiroshima Day will begin your own personal transformation, which will fuel the restoration of America to a land of "Liberty Under God."
Here are a few resources for further study:
Dropping the Bomb « The New American « cover
On the Atomic Bombings of Japan I « Vox Nova
Chris Floyd Online - Living Death: The Eternal Now of Hiroshima
John Pilger: The lessons that should be learnt from Hiroshima The Guardian
Scaring Us Toward Global Government « The New American
For more than five decades, foreboding fear of death and destruction has been exploited to further the drive for world government. The principle is simple enough: Individuals become more inclined, sometimes even eager, to surrender freedom, resources, and national sovereignty once they have been persuaded that the alternative is suffering or annihilation.
From the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II through the end of the "Cold War" -- during which the "free" West and the communist East were portrayed as nuclear-armed antagonists prepared to unleash an apocalyptic nuclear conflict -- the false alternatives offered by internationalists were world government or nuclear destruction. Unless the United States and other nations divested themselves of nuclear weapons and submitted to a centralized "peacekeeping" authority, the nuclear "arms race" would inevitably lead to the destruction of humanity.
Laray Polk: Tongues of Fire, Plains of Grace
Iron Ink - McAtee on Hanson on Buchanan
Warring as Lying Throughout American History
Radioactive Ammunition Fired in Middle East May Claim More Lives Than Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Conservative Revisionists and Hiroshima - by Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan
Empire and Nuclear Weapons - by Joseph Gerson
Remembering Hiroshima - by David R. Henderson
Hiroshima, the Top News Story That Wasn't - by Humberto Márquez
Hiroshima or Wheat Smut? - by Gordon Prather
Hiroshima Under the Shadow of 9/11 - by Praful Bidwai
Lessons from Hiroshima, 60 Years Later - by Walter Cronkite
Remembering Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Dark Cloud Over Civilization - by Douglas Mattern
Hillary, Hiroshima, and Hubris - by Justin Raimondo
HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR « Why Americans are Barbarians
William Norman Grigg writes:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has on occasion displayed a gift for anti-social truth-telling. His notorious and much-misrepresented post-9/11 sermon did not minimize the horror inflicted on our nation that day, or the blood guilt of those responsible for the atrocities.
Speaking with commendable courage and mesmerizing passion, Wright described the long train of abuses and outrages committed by the government that rules us -- from the Trail of Tears through Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from Wounded Knee to the first Gulf War -- and asserted that the criminal violence of our rulers did much to sow and nourish what we harvested on that terrible Tuesday morning.
These were unwelcome but indispensable truths spoken in a timely fashion.
Pro Libertate: The Rights and Wrongs of Reverend Wright
Not Everyone Wanted To Bomb Hiroshima by Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan
The Truth Spoken by Osama Bin Laden Philaahzophy
Pilot Who Dropped the A-Bomb Didn’t Know Japan Wanted To Surrender « The New American
The Man Who Bombed Hiroshima 11/10/2007
Not Everyone Wanted to Bomb Hiroshima 11/7/2007
Fatal Deliverance From an 'Iron Storm' 11/2/2007
When Reel Tales Rewrite Real History 10/30/2007
Japan's Self-Defense Forces: Living With a Lie 9/24/2007
US Film on A-Bomb Witnesses Debuts 8/17/2007
Instant Death 8/11/2007
Remembering Hiroshima 8/6/2007
The Bombing of Nagasaki Aug. 9, 1945: The Untold Story 8/5/2007
White Light Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 8/5/2007
Keeping the Horror of Hiroshima Alive 8/4/2007
A New Era in Asia: Japan Rising 7/6/2007
Letters to the Past: Iwo Jima and Japanese Memory 3/6/2007
Cheney: Thanks for Cutting and Running 2/22/2007
New Book Reveals Long-Suppressed First Dispatches From A-Bombed Nagasaki 12/28/2006
Outstanding Films Show Savagery of War in Pacific 12/26/2006
Waterboarding, Then and Now 11/8/2006
Feature Films in Works on Life of 'Tokyo Rose' 10/26/2006
We Sentenced Japanese for This 10/22/2006
Normalizing Relations With Japan 9/29/2006
Truman Haunts Us 8/10/2006
Bunker-Busting the Nuclear Taboo 8/7/2006
Whitewashing Hiroshima 8/2/2006
The Hiroshima Myth 8/1/2006
Remembering Hiroshima 7/31/2006
Atrocities in the 'Good War': A Tract for Today 6/18/2006
Japan's Neo-Militarists 2/23/2006
I Don't Have to Fight You 2/20/2006
War Crimes and Commanders in Chief 2/9/2006
Reviving the China Threat 2/1/2006
Against the Tide 11/21/2005
Dropping the Bomb 10/20/2005
Iran and "the Bomb" « The New American
Clinton, Chinese Nukes, and Kosovo « The New American
Destroying America’s Defenses « The New American
Democracy Now! Headlines for September 06, 2007 - Air Force Flies B-52 Bomber Loaded With Nukes Across U.S.
AFA37 -- How the United States Lost the Second World War - David Emory - Anti-Fascist Archives - www.spitfirelist.com
Adolph Hitler Did Not Kill Six Million Jews
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Ban Nuclear Weapons
I received the following email, probably generated by an automatic letter-writing webpage on the Internet. Below it is my response:
On Tue, August 5, 2008 1:45 pm, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx wrote:
> [name]
> [address]
> [city], MO [zip]
>
>
> August 5, 2008
>
> Kevin Craig
> PO Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731
>
>
> Mr. Craig:
>
> Sixty-three years ago this week, the United States
> dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States still
> has an arsenal of more than 6,000 nuclear weapons
> that could produce this kind of destruction and horror
> again.
>
> More and more people, including former Secretaries
> of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former
> Sen. Sam Nunn (GA), and former Defense Secretary
> William Perry, are calling on the United States
> to work toward total nuclear disarmament.
>
> I hope that you support this call and would,
> if elected, advocate cutting the size of the U.S.
> nuclear arsenal by at least 50 percent. I look
> forward to hearing from you how you would advance
> a world free of nuclear weapons in Congress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [name]
Dear [name],
I agree 100%, and I'm confident I will be the only candidate on the ballot in November who agrees with you 100%.
I am a Christian and you can call me a "pacifist" if you want to:
http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm
One of my goals in running for Congress is to persuade millions of Christians who support the war-agenda of the Bush-Clinton regime to re-study their beliefs and give their highest allegiance to Christ and to support His mandate for peace in the Bible:
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifism.htm
Although I studied law and passed the California Bar Exam, I was denied a license to practice law because as a Christian I put the Prince of Peace ahead of the Military-Industrial Complex:
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifist.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/nolawyer.htm
I believe in Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament:
http://KevinCraig.us/disarm.htm
I believe every U.S. war in the 20th century fails the "Just War" criteria:
http://KevinCraig.us/justwar.htm
This link will bring up comments about Hiroshima from my blog:
http://KevinforCongress.blogspot.com/search?q=hiroshima
One of the unique aspects of my campaign is that I believe the principles of peace, non-violence, and non-initiation of force can and should be applied to every area of social and public policy.
http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
This is why I became a Libertarian.
To become a member of the Libertarian Party, one must sign a pledge that affirms:
http://KevinCraig.us/what_is_the_libertarian_party.htm
This is the reason I joined the Libertarian Party rather than any other political party. Other parties support the initiation of force to achieve their goals.
If you would like to support an intelligent, well-researched campaign for U.S. Congress and for peace, please forward this email to your friends and urge them not to waste their vote on any of the other candidates for Congress who accept
corporate militarism and mass death.
P.S. There is one part of your letter that I may not support 100%. I do not trust people like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. I suspect they want the U.S. to disarm, but they would transfer U.S. weapons to a global government that will still use violence to protect its power. Please feel free to correct me if you know me to be mistaken.
In any case, I am against global government:
http://KevinCraig.us/SPP.htm
Thanks very much for taking time to write.
Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US
On Tue, August 5, 2008 1:45 pm, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx wrote:
> [name]
> [address]
> [city], MO [zip]
>
>
> August 5, 2008
>
> Kevin Craig
> PO Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731
>
>
> Mr. Craig:
>
> Sixty-three years ago this week, the United States
> dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States still
> has an arsenal of more than 6,000 nuclear weapons
> that could produce this kind of destruction and horror
> again.
>
> More and more people, including former Secretaries
> of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former
> Sen. Sam Nunn (GA), and former Defense Secretary
> William Perry, are calling on the United States
> to work toward total nuclear disarmament.
>
> I hope that you support this call and would,
> if elected, advocate cutting the size of the U.S.
> nuclear arsenal by at least 50 percent. I look
> forward to hearing from you how you would advance
> a world free of nuclear weapons in Congress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [name]
Dear [name],
I agree 100%, and I'm confident I will be the only candidate on the ballot in November who agrees with you 100%.
I am a Christian and you can call me a "pacifist" if you want to:
http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm
One of my goals in running for Congress is to persuade millions of Christians who support the war-agenda of the Bush-Clinton regime to re-study their beliefs and give their highest allegiance to Christ and to support His mandate for peace in the Bible:
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifism.htm
Although I studied law and passed the California Bar Exam, I was denied a license to practice law because as a Christian I put the Prince of Peace ahead of the Military-Industrial Complex:
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifist.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/nolawyer.htm
I believe in Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament:
http://KevinCraig.us/disarm.htm
I believe every U.S. war in the 20th century fails the "Just War" criteria:
http://KevinCraig.us/justwar.htm
This link will bring up comments about Hiroshima from my blog:
http://KevinforCongress.blogspot.com/search?q=hiroshima
One of the unique aspects of my campaign is that I believe the principles of peace, non-violence, and non-initiation of force can and should be applied to every area of social and public policy.
http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
This is why I became a Libertarian.
To become a member of the Libertarian Party, one must sign a pledge that affirms:
I do not believe in or advocate the
initiation of force as a means of
achieving political or social goals.
http://KevinCraig.us/what_is_the_libertarian_party.htm
This is the reason I joined the Libertarian Party rather than any other political party. Other parties support the initiation of force to achieve their goals.
If you would like to support an intelligent, well-researched campaign for U.S. Congress and for peace, please forward this email to your friends and urge them not to waste their vote on any of the other candidates for Congress who accept
corporate militarism and mass death.
P.S. There is one part of your letter that I may not support 100%. I do not trust people like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. I suspect they want the U.S. to disarm, but they would transfer U.S. weapons to a global government that will still use violence to protect its power. Please feel free to correct me if you know me to be mistaken.
In any case, I am against global government:
http://KevinCraig.us/SPP.htm
Thanks very much for taking time to write.
Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US
Monday, August 04, 2008
Gay-Bashing and Christian-Bashing
Pro-homosexual "libertarians" are denouncing me again. Here are three links from yesterday's GoogleNews:
1. Classically Liberal: Welcome to the Twilight Zone
Check his "answers" to some questions I raised. [That's a mandatory link.] This blogger is unquestionably cut from the same psychological cloth as Fred Phelps, but turned inside out. Same emotions, same unethical, unChristian demonization and de-personalization of "the bad guys," just reversed "bad guys."
2. Delaware Libertarian: More of the Sonny Landham wing of the Libertarian Party checks in
I confess I had never heard of "Sonny Landham."
3. KNaPPSTER: About Kevin Craig
I greatly appreciate Tom Knapp's moderating influence ("fair and balanced"!), at least insofar as he strives to accurately represent the totality of my views (even though he still works to keep me off the ballot because of some of them). I respect that 100% (because I respect walking the talk), even if I disagree with Tom (obviously I think I'm an asset to the Libertarian Party, assuming the LP wants to connect with tens of millions of church-going Christians -- or non church-going Christians):
-----=====******O******=====-----
OK, let's see if we can sort this out.
Any rational person who reads my webpages with an unbiased mind can see that I believe that violence is sinful, and therefore "gay-bashing" is sinful -- unless "gay-bashing" is defined as the belief or the public articulation of the belief that God has revealed the standard of sin and righteousness (what the Declaration of Independence calls "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"), and that by this standard homosexuality is sinful. If believing that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is "gay-bashing," then not only am I a "gay-basher," but so is every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I suspect that a majority of people in the years before the Kinsey Report who could be called "libertarian" or "classical liberals" would also be called "gay-bashers" under this definition. Would anybody be surprised to find that Hayek and Mises thought homosexuality was "deviant," even if they opposed criminal sanctions against it? (I don't know what they thought about homosexuality per se. But I think I can say what Friedrich Hayek can teach us about state-mandated homosexual "marriages." )
To say that every one of America's Founding Fathers was a "gay-basher" simply because he believed homosexuality was sinful is, in principle, "Christian-bashing." It leads to statism, as I argued here, and it leads to violence, as the "Classically Liberal" blogger leads us to suspect.
The "Classically Liberal" blogger is vicious and hate-filled. He loves quoting my line about "hating" homosexuals -- to my surprise, leaving the word "hate" in quotation marks as I originally put it, indicating "not to be taken literally or seriously," as when John McCain speaks of "quote first amendment rights." If the quotation marks were not enough, there's this, never quoted by "Classically Liberal," from the same page as quote-hate:
-----=====******O******=====-----
There is an egregious "gay-bashing" which is obnoxious and unChristian even if it is not overtly violent. But belief in the Christian account of the creation of male and female, the Christian ordinance of marriage, and the immorality of homosexuality is not "homophobia."
Some of My Best Friends are Gay
Stand to Reason Commentaries -- Homosexuality
Christians should go out of their way to be gracious, inviting, charitable, and hospitable to homosexuals. I have extended hospitality to homosexuals in my home. Even those diagnosed with AIDS. One died while a guest in my home. I spent hours with him in the hospital before his own family could be notified of his condition and come to his side. Christianity teaches love for enemies, not hatred (where "hatred" takes the form of making sinners suffer, violence, vengeance, or "vigilante justice").
But we must take up "sides," and not be on the "side" of those who are dedicated to rebelling against God's commandments.
We are commanded to be at their side, even if we are not "on their side."
-----=====******O******=====-----
My position represents the thinking of every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- unless my position is more libertarian than theirs.
But too many libertarian bloggers cannot analyze or comment on my position (to wit, homosexuality is sinful, but should not be met with the inherently violent criminal sanctions of the State) with cool, rational, level-headed thinking. I'm not sure why the traditional view of homosexuality -- completely apart from state-imposed sanctions -- brings on paroxysms of venom, hatred, and the urge to censor and abridge liberties.
Are these Fred Phelps-like emotions the foundation of liberty, or the root of violence and tyranny?
The universal charge of these bloggers is that someone who believes in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and other "religious theories" of America's Founding Fathers is "bad" for the Libertarian Party. I suggest rather that a "libertarian" who does not believe in liberty for Christians and publicly and profanely slanders them is the one doing damage to the Libertarian Party.
Unless the Libertarian Party rejects the support of Christians and only wants the support of homosexuals.
1. Classically Liberal: Welcome to the Twilight Zone
Check his "answers" to some questions I raised. [That's a mandatory link.] This blogger is unquestionably cut from the same psychological cloth as Fred Phelps, but turned inside out. Same emotions, same unethical, unChristian demonization and de-personalization of "the bad guys," just reversed "bad guys."
2. Delaware Libertarian: More of the Sonny Landham wing of the Libertarian Party checks in
I confess I had never heard of "Sonny Landham."
3. KNaPPSTER: About Kevin Craig
I greatly appreciate Tom Knapp's moderating influence ("fair and balanced"!), at least insofar as he strives to accurately represent the totality of my views (even though he still works to keep me off the ballot because of some of them). I respect that 100% (because I respect walking the talk), even if I disagree with Tom (obviously I think I'm an asset to the Libertarian Party, assuming the LP wants to connect with tens of millions of church-going Christians -- or non church-going Christians):
OK, let's see if we can sort this out.
Any rational person who reads my webpages with an unbiased mind can see that I believe that violence is sinful, and therefore "gay-bashing" is sinful -- unless "gay-bashing" is defined as the belief or the public articulation of the belief that God has revealed the standard of sin and righteousness (what the Declaration of Independence calls "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"), and that by this standard homosexuality is sinful. If believing that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is "gay-bashing," then not only am I a "gay-basher," but so is every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I suspect that a majority of people in the years before the Kinsey Report who could be called "libertarian" or "classical liberals" would also be called "gay-bashers" under this definition. Would anybody be surprised to find that Hayek and Mises thought homosexuality was "deviant," even if they opposed criminal sanctions against it? (I don't know what they thought about homosexuality per se. But I think I can say what Friedrich Hayek can teach us about state-mandated homosexual "marriages." )
To say that every one of America's Founding Fathers was a "gay-basher" simply because he believed homosexuality was sinful is, in principle, "Christian-bashing." It leads to statism, as I argued here, and it leads to violence, as the "Classically Liberal" blogger leads us to suspect.
The "Classically Liberal" blogger is vicious and hate-filled. He loves quoting my line about "hating" homosexuals -- to my surprise, leaving the word "hate" in quotation marks as I originally put it, indicating "not to be taken literally or seriously," as when John McCain speaks of "quote first amendment rights." If the quotation marks were not enough, there's this, never quoted by "Classically Liberal," from the same page as quote-hate:
There is an egregious "gay-bashing" which is obnoxious and unChristian even if it is not overtly violent. But belief in the Christian account of the creation of male and female, the Christian ordinance of marriage, and the immorality of homosexuality is not "homophobia."
Some of My Best Friends are Gay
Stand to Reason Commentaries -- Homosexuality
Christians should go out of their way to be gracious, inviting, charitable, and hospitable to homosexuals. I have extended hospitality to homosexuals in my home. Even those diagnosed with AIDS. One died while a guest in my home. I spent hours with him in the hospital before his own family could be notified of his condition and come to his side. Christianity teaches love for enemies, not hatred (where "hatred" takes the form of making sinners suffer, violence, vengeance, or "vigilante justice").
But we must take up "sides," and not be on the "side" of those who are dedicated to rebelling against God's commandments.
We are commanded to be at their side, even if we are not "on their side."
My position represents the thinking of every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- unless my position is more libertarian than theirs.
But too many libertarian bloggers cannot analyze or comment on my position (to wit, homosexuality is sinful, but should not be met with the inherently violent criminal sanctions of the State) with cool, rational, level-headed thinking. I'm not sure why the traditional view of homosexuality -- completely apart from state-imposed sanctions -- brings on paroxysms of venom, hatred, and the urge to censor and abridge liberties.
Are these Fred Phelps-like emotions the foundation of liberty, or the root of violence and tyranny?
The universal charge of these bloggers is that someone who believes in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and other "religious theories" of America's Founding Fathers is "bad" for the Libertarian Party. I suggest rather that a "libertarian" who does not believe in liberty for Christians and publicly and profanely slanders them is the one doing damage to the Libertarian Party.
Unless the Libertarian Party rejects the support of Christians and only wants the support of homosexuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)