Who Creates Your Vote?

When I lived in California I drafted a lawsuit against the California Secretary of State asking the Court to require a voter-verifiable paper trail in all elections. A Press Release regarding that litigation is here:

http://KevinCraig.US/vote-pr.htm

If you're not familiar with the controversy over "touch-screen" voting, start with that press release.

As a result of pressure created by this lawsuit, touch-screen voting machines were de-certified by the Secretary of State. Then, after pressure let up, they were re-certified again. Over the last 5 years I've lost track of the progress (or regress) in California.

I confess I don't know what kind of voting machines will be used in November by those who will be choosing between me and the incumbent, Roy Blunt.

James Bovard, one of my favorite writers, has an article on voting that explains why Roy Blunt is not concerned about voting irregularities. Bovard starts off:

Politicians strive to make Americans view elections as sacrosanct. Challenges to election results are portrayed as heresies that threaten to destroy the entire republic. After the 2004 presidential election, many Democrats went on the warpath over alleged voter fraud and manipulation in Ohio and elsewhere. The Constitution requires Congress to certify the Electoral College voters for each state before a president is officially elected. A handful of Democratic members of Congress formally challenged the seating of the Ohio electors when Congress reconvened in early January 2005. Though the debate in the House of Representatives lasted barely two hours, many Republicans feared that raising the topic had derailed the nation and the march of history….

Bovard quotes a few Republicans who denounced the Democratic efforts to question Ohio's election results, on the grounds that merely asking questions subverts the entire process. Bovard says this about my opponent:

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the House majority whip, declared, “We also need to understand that every time we attack the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so important.” Blunt did not specify if the “fabric” was a cover sheet. He sought to put the entire government above questioning:

It is the greatest democracy in the history of the world and it is run by people who step forward and make a system work in ways that nobody would believe until they see it produce the result of what people want to have happen on Election Day.

And anyone who doubted the result was an enemy of democracy.

Such blather should not be dismissed as merely self-serving emissions. These comments go to the heart of how politicians think about government and their own power — and about citizens’ duty to accept unquestioningly whatever election results the politicians proclaim. Citizens are supposed to believe in that magical moment of uplift that occurs when election results are officially certified — expunging all the verbal flim-flams of the campaign itself. The Republicans’ comments sounded as if there is a grave danger in letting people even start to think about how the whole process works — as if Republicans were terrified of any questions or challenges that would decrease people’s submissiveness to the government.

The “debate” in Congress illustrated how elections are now about consecration, rather than representation. Elections have become something for rulers to shroud themselves in, rather than leashes used by the people. Politicians are obsessed with maintaining the imagined dignity of their class, not in resolving doubts about honest vote counting.

The Fraudulent Meaning of Elections

Congress gave special interests $3.5 billion to dress-up American voting, a nearly complete waste of money. Voting which is verified by the People -- rather than the politicians -- is certainly not the goal of the politicians. Perpetual re-election is their goal.

There are exceptions, of course. Congressman Ron Paul is one of them.

Since 1982 I have only voted twice, and never for myself. I don't believe voting changes much of anything (letters to elected representatives are far more effective), and now with computer voting, there's no way to know if your vote is even heard at all. As a candidate, I run into more people who don't vote than those who do. When I meet a non-voter, I'm almost embarrassed to admit "I'm a candidate." I sympathize with those who do not take the election process seriously. But deep-down I'm the "True Believer" type, and I respect those who are patriotic and believe their vote counts. That's the way they have been conditioned. Obviously I would like voters to vote for me, and non-voters to get registered and vote for me. But only if this represents a token, a symbol of commitment to do much, much more than just vote every four years.

In 2002 I did not vote -- even though I was the Libertarian Party Candidate for Congress in California's 41st District! They say "Bad Publicity is Better than No Publicity At All." My little protest got me some reasonably good publicity, which is, of course, even better than bad publicity. I don't know if I'll make a similar protest this year. Any comments?

Ron Paul: Racist?

The New Republic has written an article critical of Ron Paul, citing excerpts from a series of newsletters (mostly in the 1990's) bearing his name: Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter. TNR has concerns about Ron Paul's position on these subjects: "Race," "Gays," "Survivalism and Militias," "Conspiracies," and "Middle East" (by which they really mean, "Is Ron Paul a 'Holocaust-denier?'").

Although as a voter I'll probably vote for Ron Paul if I have a chance, as a candidate I don't have any desire to be seen as a Ron Paul wanna-be. So I'd like to take a few posts to respond to the allegations in The New Republic. Not to defend Ron Paul, but myself, in case anybody associates my campaign with Dr. Paul's newsletters.

There seems to be a consensus that Ron Paul himself probably did not write those articles. The ghostwriter has not yet been identified. Thomas L. Knapp has speculated that Christian Reconstructionist Gary North was the author. I've known Gary North for about 30 years. Not closely, but he has published a couple dozen of my articles. I was a "Chalcedon Scholar" at the think-tank formed by his father-in-law. I asked him for the "scoop" on his involvement with Ron Paul's newsletters. He told me this morning,

I worked for Ron Paul from June, 1976 to January 2, 1977, when his term expired. My salary was paid by the U. S. Congress. That was my last connection to him financially.

Gary North is a hard-core Christian Theocrat, and is busy churning out the blueprints for America (and the world) as a Christian Theocracy. You can see his output for the 1990's on this page at his freebooks.com website. In addition, he was spending way too much time in the 1990's listening to the "experts" on the y2k problem. And he spends a great deal of time formulating investment advice and Specific Answers to current economic issues in his $95/yr investment newsletter, Gary North's Remnant Review.

So why would anyone suspect that Gary North was also doing pro bono work for Ron Paul's investment newsletter?

Perhaps the fact that his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony has (and other "Christian Reconstructionists" have) written some racist-sounding lines, and has been accused of being a "holocaust denier" and a "racist." More. The "hard right" or Theocratic right is often accused of racism, and the hard right often responds in ways that seem to confirm the accusation.

Let's face it: blacks are in bad shape. They are disproportionately in jail or on probation, on drugs, illiterate, and diseased. I thought about linking each of those words to nifty webpages documenting the accusation, but we all know these demograhpics are true.

And when someone (usually a "conservative") points these sad facts out, and is then accused (usually by a "liberal") of being a "racist," the conservative often digs in his heels, solidifies his position, and comes out looking even more like a racist. I've seen people who are really not racist at heart sound like racists when arguing with Democrats, when what they're really arguing against is Democratic social policies. There can be no doubt that the New Republic and similar articles are dodging the social policy debate by slinging "racist!" and other scare words.

My definition of "racism" is the belief that sad demographic realities are inherent in all members of the race. A connection, perhaps, with the quantity of melanin in their skin. Who knows what genuine racists believe causes these things; I don't. I really doubt that Ron Paul or Rushdoony believe that blacks -- because of something inherent in their genetic make up -- will always be criminals or government welfare dependants rather than economists or guest-hosts for Rush Limbaugh.

Gary North has taken Rushdoony to task for some of the awkward things he has said about race: Rushdoony on "Hybridization." He has also confronted the belief often stated at LewRockwell.com that slavery was not the central issue in the Civil War (Appendix D in his commentary on First Timothy).

As I read the excerpts from Ron Paul's newsletters, I don't see much of anything that is not factually or demographically accurate. I can't vouch for the inner motivations of the ghostwriter, but "statistics don't lie."

In line with my basic campaign strategy, "Bad Publicity is Better than No Publicity At All," I'll go on record saying that blacks were better off on plantations than they are now. I like to look at it this way: when blacks were slaves to Christian slavemasters, they wrote music we now call "Negro Spirituals." Now that blacks are enslaved by the secular federal government instead of people like Philemon , and have been relocated from Southern plantations to Northern "projects," they write music called "gangsta rap." Are blacks better off now that they've been "freed?" Listen to the music.

I don't say this because I support slavery (I don't, and Gary North has also explained why from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective) or because I think any race is genetically inferior to any other. I say this because some political theories are genetically inferior. The political strategy of Democrats condemns blacks to perpetual slavery; slavery to sin and slavery to the feds. The "Saints" of the Democrat pantheon have not led blacks to the promised land.

My heartfelt desire would be for blacks to be free: free from federal education, free from the initiation of force, and free from myths that legitimize their own initiation of force or the initiation of force "on their behalf" by Democrats and other socialists. In short, I want to see all blacks become "classical liberals" and Christocrats.

Next: Ron Paul and "Gays"

Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal"

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

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

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

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

Here's Ruwart's original statement:

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

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

EveryZing - Abdul - LPIN - Mary Ruwart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the talk in the blogosphere:

Mary Ruwart attacked for comments on child porn

Jeff Wartman: The Mary Ruwart Controversy

Jeff Wartman: Libertarians Combat Child Pornography

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

Reason Magazine: Suffer the Little Children

Libertarian Intelligence: Why Ruwart Is In Trouble

Libertarian Intelligence: Ruwart on Child Pornography

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

Free Citizen: Libertarians and Child Pornography

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

LP Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution LewRockwell.com Blog


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The federal government is not the friend of children.

Choosing Slavemasters

As an opponent of the "War on Terror," I'm often asked if I prefer to become a Muslim. Or I'm asked if I'm learning to speak Arabic. (And I'm reminded of the line from the Nixon Administration, that if America had lost World War II, our Secretary of State would speak with a German accent and we would all be driving Japanese cars.)

I've said before, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." So it's time for me to announce that if I have to choose, I hope the Muslims enslave America.

Benjamin Rush once wrote in defense of teaching Christianity in public schools,
Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament.
Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.

If I have to choose between atheistic materialism and Islam, I guess I'd go with Islam. William Norman Grigg explains why "Dhimma" ("a kind of social contract between victorious Muslims and their conquered subjects") may be preferable to "Homeland Security" under the religion of Secular Humanism:

The "social contract" (no, not the Constitution of 1787 -- the Sixteenth Amendment and Federal Reserve Act) defining our current system permits far greater impositions on the governed than the poll and land taxes extracted from dhimmis, and confiscation of personal property on the whim of our rulers is standard federal practice today. In similar fashion, those who enforce the will of our ruling class enjoy broad discretion in the use of lethal force against civilians, who can't so much as touch or even speak brusquely to an enforcer without facing the prospect of immediate torture and summary imprisonment.

In his must-reading blog, Grigg goes on to point out the even greater irony: that we may already be under "dhimmitude." The Bible says, "The borrower is the slave of the lender." (Proverbs 22:7). Proverbs 12:24 warns, "The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Secular American materialists are facing tribute and servitude, as Grigg writes:

On November 27, an SWF controlled by the government of Abu Dhabi, an oil-rich member of the United Arab Emirates, spent $7.5 billion to buy a roughly five percent share in Citigroup, America's largest and most prestigious bank. Like most of the banking system, Citigroup is in potentially mortal peril from the collapse of the Federal Reserve's housing/mortgage/debt bubble. The willingness of Abu Dhabi to pump billions – the legal limit – into Citicorp prompted a brief but significant market rally, as the investor class prostrated itself with gratitude before its Arab benefactors.

Compare Psalm 72:9.

Gary North says “The great fire sale has begun.”

4th of July

For the next month I'll be blogging mostly about the 4th of July, or as a dwindling minority of Americans call it, "Independence Day." I recently obtained a domain where I have placed some web pages written years ago, which I hope to update:

http://July4th1776.org

For the most part, Americans have no idea what was achieved on July 4th, 1776, and if they did, most would probably oppose it. Only a small minority would sign the Declaration of Independence and publicly profess its philosophy if asked to do so today.

I'd like to begin with a quotation from Edmund Burke, the British statesman who was sympathetic to the colonists' grievances, and urged the rest of the British House of Commons to give serious attention to them.

It is not a hazarded assertion, it is a great truth, that once things are gone out of their ordinary course, it is by acts out of the ordinary course they can alone be re-established.
(Letter to William Elliot, 1795, quoted by Leonard Read, The Elements of Libertarian Leadership, 1962.)

I'm convinced that if America's Founding Fathers were to travel through time into our day, they would very quickly conclude that "things are gone out of their ordinary course," and they would invoke the right described in the Declaration of Independence as a "duty," and take steps to abolish the government they themselves created. Christopher S. Bentley has drawn the parallels here, and I added a few here.

As I make clear on my July4th1776.org website, I do not believe in the use of violence to overthrow a government. But I do believe that "absolute Despotism" must be denounced, and if the mild British government of 1776 was guilty of "the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," then the Bush administration, and all previous administrations going back at least to Lincoln, are guilty of much worse.

The Second Amendment, which was not written for hunters and gun-collectors, but which guarantees our right to take up arms and "to throw off such Government" as "becomes destructive of these ends," is today a myth. We could not fight a guerilla war with Washington D.C. and win. Washington D.C. has nukes, and we have safety-locked handguns.

So what are "the acts out of the ordinary course" that "can alone re-establish" things as they ought to be?

I've been thinking--and wrestling--with several ideas, and I'll toss them out in the pages of this blog for your consideration.

During my days in the Catholic Worker Movement, I had the privilege of meeting Daniel Berrigan, the Vietnam War protester who burned draft board files in Catonsville, MD, in 1969, and was for a time on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Berrigan, along with The Catonsville Nine, had concluded that "things are gone out of their ordinary course" (to use Burke's phrase). (An interview with Daniel Berrigan, celebrating his 85th birthday this weekend, is on Democracy Now, starting 35:00 into the program. I love the archival video footage of the Catonsville Nine in the Selective Service parking lot, burning the files with homemade napalm, all of them conservatively dressed in suits and ties. Those were the days when everyone always dressed up to fly on airplanes or go to a sit-down restaurant.)

Fire, bombs, and destruction of property, even government property, even government property used to commit acts of violence, is still beyond my fortitude. I'm more inclined to wash the flag rather than burn it. But I am moved by and I wrestle with the prophetic call to "beat Swords Into Plowshares."

I think America's Founding Fathers would agree that this is not a time to be concerned with our own reputation and social status. They were willing to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in defense of liberty. I'm not called at this time to give up my life. I'm not investing a lot of money in my campaign. The first hurdle I need to overcome is my "honor," the fear of being considered an "extremist" or losing some social standing in the public eye. I must be willing to incorporate "acts out of the ordinary course" in my campaign. I don't think this is a time to worry about being a "respectable" "mainstream" candidate.

Someone has said that "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." Consider an extra-ordinary campaign event which the press ridicules or which results in my arrest, but which wakes a few people up, gets them thinking, and causes them to apostatize from the religion of the Messianic State: is it worth it? Suppose 4 out of 5 people call me a fool, or "unpatriotic," but the fifth person becomes a libertarian. I would say that's progress, even if not all that great compared with batting averages. But if, at the end of the election campaign, all 5 people have not lost their "respect" for me, but have taken no steps closer to America's Libertarian Founding Fathers, what have I really accomplished?

Day 2: I'm Dreaming of a Large Christmas

On this second day of "The 12 Days of Liberty," we're going to look at one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christmas and Liberty: the meaning of the word "salvation."

When the angel announced the meaning of Christmas to Joseph, the angel said Jesus would save us from something. From what?

Most people give the answer: "From hell."

But this is what the angel said

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins
(Matthew 1:21)

This is actually a very different concept than being saved "from hell."

Imagine a man who needs to be saved from his sins. At one time he was viewed as a success by all who knew him. After college, he earned an MBA and got on the executive fast-track at a Fortune 500 company. He has a nice home, a Lexus and a Hummer. But recently he has developed a compulsion to shoplift. He also can’t control his desire to visit prostitutes. Because of his arrests for shoplifting and prostitution, he has recently lost his job. As a result of the widespread publicity of his compulsions and arrests, he is rapidly losing the respect of his friends, neighbors, and now even his family. His wife is ready to leave him. His children are embarrassed by him, and they have begun “acting out” in school, with grades plummeting and frequent suspensions for discipline problems. He is watching his entire life crumble in front of him. But he can’t stop the shoplifting and the prostitutes. He says “Wal-Mart is a huge multi-billion dollar corporation; what’s a few hundred dollars worth of junk from China?” He also says, “A man has natural desires, and my wife doesn’t respect me anymore.” But in spite of this talk, he’s miserable, and kicks himself whenever he shoplifts, even when he “gets away with it.”

The evangelist on TV tells him that if he accepts Jesus into his heart, he can be saved from hell, and when he dies he will go straight to heaven. “Yeah,” he says to himself, “after living the next 40 years in hell.”

He doesn’t just want to be saved from hell, he wants to be saved from his sins.

How many families experience “hell on earth” because of the drunkenness, infidelity, domestic abuse, and financial anguish caused by “addictions” to drugs, sex, shopping, gambling, and power, while their church pastor drones on about “salvation” and going to heaven?

Must this misery continue till we die?
Why keep on living? Let’s all go to heaven NOW!!

This is wrong. There is an answer to earthly misery. Christmas is the answer.

A previous generation knew these “addictions” were sinful and their painful consequences wrong. Today’s relativist generation is not even sure Adolph Hitler was wrong (“He was acting according to his own standards”), but previous generations knew these things were wrong, and a measure of consolation could be obtained by trusting in God to bring repentance in the life of the adulterer, abuser, or alcoholic, even if repentance never came. Moral standards give hope. But today we have lost touch with God’s standard of holiness, and “dysfunctional” behavior is assumed to be normal, and is sometimes protected by law as an “alternative life style.” Many people today live their entire lives engulfed in a sense of meaninglessness and moral confusion. This weakened state leaves them vulnerable prey for the politically powerful.

The Bible promises more than “heaven.” In fact the Bible says very little about heaven, and far more about being “saved from our sins” in this life. These promises are summed up in the term “sanctification.”

Webster (1828 edition) defined “salvation” as, “The redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness.”

The vast majority of verses in the Bible which talk about "salvation" are talking about a libertarian society, in which people are free from their addictions to sin, and as a result, free from the initiation of force by others -- especially "the government."

When the Angel announced that the Christ (the word means "Messiah") who was to be born on the first Christmas would save us from our sins, and be named JESUS, the angel was being redundant. “Jesus” means “God will save.” The name comes from the Hebrew word yasha. John E. Hartley, in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Vol 1, pp. 414-15, says this about “yasha,”

Yasha and its derivatives are used 353 times. The root meaning . . . is “make wide” or make sufficient: this root is in contrast to sarar, “narrow,” which means “be restricted” or “cause distress.” To move from distress to safety requires deliverance. [T]he majority of references to salvation speak of Yahweh granting deliverance from real enemies and out of real catastrophes. That which is wide connotes freedom from distress and the ability to pursue one’s own objectives. Thus salvation is not merely a momentary victory on the battlefield; it is also the safety and security necessary to maintain life unafraid of numerous dangers.

We will be studying this definition during "The 12 Days of Liberty." It is most important to get a truly Biblical definition of “salvation” -- and its connection with Liberty -- into our heads.

Let’s begin with the idea that the Hebrew word for “salvation” means “make wide” or “large.” There are many verses that say this, and yet most Christians are completely unaware of the idea that a fundamental meaning of “salvation” means “being put into a wide open space.”

But let’s not take Prof. Hartley’s word for it. Let’s be like the Bereans, who studied the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). You may want to look at some of these passages in their context in your own Bible.

(Psalm 118:5) I called upon the Lord in distress: the Lord answered me, and set me in a large place.

(2 Samuel 22:20) He brought me forth also into a large place: He delivered me, because He delighted in me.

(Genesis 26:22) He moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called it Rehoboth, saying, “Now the Lord has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.”

(Hosea 4:16) For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: can now the Lord feed them as a lamb in a large place?

(Psalm 31:8) and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; Thou hast set my feet in a broad place.

(Psalm 18:19) He brought me forth also into a large place; he delivered me, because he delighted in me.

(Psalm 66:12) Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water: but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place.

(Psalm 69:35) For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession.

In the Bible, people who truly understand the meaning of Christmas are shown to be concerned about living in a “large” land. Of course, in a more agrarian society, “large” is better, as far as land goes. But when God promises to save us by putting us into a “large land,” it’s clear that more is included than going to heaven after living for decades in a narrow land before we up and die. What is the modern equivalent of a “large land?” It varies from person to person, but it includes some form of economic and political prosperity. “Liberty” and “large” are Biblical concepts we are not familiar enough with. Let’s review them and put them in our brains, so that as we read the Bible we will be more aware of them.

Exodus 3:8 So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Leviticus 25:10 And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family.

Judges 18:10 When you go, you will come to a secure people and a large land. For God has given it into your hands, a place where there is no lack of anything that is on the earth.”

1 Chronicles 4:40 And they found rich, good pasture, and the land was broad, quiet, and peaceful; for some Hamites formerly lived there.

Nehemiah 7:4 Now the city was large and spacious, but the people in it were few, and the houses were not rebuilt.

Nehemiah 9:35 For they have not served You in their kingdom, Or in the many good things that You gave them, Or in the large and rich land which You set before them; Nor did they turn from their wicked works.

Psalm 119:45 And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.

Isaiah 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Jeremiah 34:8 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty to them:

Jeremiah 34:15-17 Then you recently turned and did what was right in My sight—every man proclaiming liberty to his neighbor; and you made a covenant before Me in the house which is called by My name. 16 Then you turned around and profaned My name, and every one of you brought back his male and female slaves, whom you had set at liberty, at their pleasure, and brought them back into subjection, to be your male and female slaves.’
17 “Therefore thus says the LORD: ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every one to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,’ says the LORD—’to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

James 1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

James 2:12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

For a people to enjoy liberty in a "large place," they must have been "saved from their sins." America's Founding Fathers understood this. In one of the most important addresses in the history of America, George Washington reminded the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.

In a very important sense, we no longer have to dream of a "large Christmas," a Christmas of liberty. Throughout the Christmas story, a decidedly un-libertarian government looms large, crushing the weak with an iron hand, compelling Joseph and the pregnant Mary to hike to Bethlehem from their home town for the imperial census (Luke 2:1-7;), and killing all the babies (Matthew 2:16-18) in an attempt to kill a rival king (Matthew 2:3). The corruption and violence of a government that claimed to be divine would shock us if we could visit that age. We have become accustomed to living under a government that at least professes the ideal of "Liberty Under God."

Adherents of the religion of Secular Humanism want us to believe that everything good about America came from the minds of the Caesars and their court philosophers. But Greece and Rome gave us little -- except bad examples. These ancient empires were dominated by irrationalism and occultism. Karl Popper devoted the first volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies to an analysis of Plato as a mystic and a totalitarian. As many as a third of the residents of Athens were slaves. Most of the rest, while legally "free," knew nothing of liberty as we know it. War was a way of life.

John Lofton has compiled some telling quotations from scholars in a previous -- more Christian -- century. What follows is from his essay:

And make no mistake about it. Regardless of what you’ve heard regarding the alleged greatness of the ancient, Greco-Roman, pre-Christian world, there was no real, true freedom and/or liberty during this era. None. In his book The Ancient City: A Study On The Religion, Laws And Institutions Of Greece And Rome (1889), Fustel de Coulanges spells out in detail the darkness of this Christless world:

The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The [pagan] religion which produced the State, and the State which supported [this] religion, sustained each other; these two powers formed a power almost superhuman, to which the body and soul were equally enslaved. There was nothing independent in man; his body belonged to the State and was devoted to its defense.

For example, Aristotle and Plato incorporated into their ideal codes the command that a deformed baby son was to be put to death. And in his “Laws,” Plato says (and this sounds very familiar today): “Parents ought not to be free to send or not to send their children to the masters to whom the city has chosen [for their education]; for the children belong less to their parents than to the city.” And in ancient Athens, a man could be put on trial and convicted for something called “incivism,” that is being insufficiently affectionate toward the State! Coulanges says (emphasis mine):

The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty. The human person counted for very little against that holy and almost divine authority called the country or the State…. It is a singular error, among all human errors, to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it.

Commenting on our Lord’s God/Caesar distinction, Coulanges says:

It is the first time that God and the state are so clearly distinguished. For Caesar at that period was still the pontifex maximus, the chief and the principal organ of the Roman religion; he was the guardian and the interpreter of beliefs. He held the worship and the dogmas in his hands. Even his person was sacred and divine, for it was a peculiarity of the policy of the emperors that, wishing to recover the attributes of ancient royalty, they were careful not to forget the divine character which antiquity had attached to the king-pontiffs and to the priest-founders. But now Christ breaks the alliance which paganism and the empire wished to renew. He proclaims that religion is no longer the State, and that to obey Caesar is no longer the same thing as to obey God.

Christianity … separates what all antiquity had confounded…. It was the source whence individual liberty flowed…. The first duty no longer consisted in giving one’s time, one’s strength, one’s life to the State … all the virtues were no longer comprised in patriotism, for the soul no longer had a country. Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity … placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.

Because of this hideous tyranny, it is no surprise that self-murder (suicide) was so rampant in the ancient world. As Dr. Gerhard Uhlhorn tells us in his The Conflict Of Christianity With Heathenism (1899):

Heathenism ended in barrenness and sheer despair, and at last the only comfort was that men are free to leave this miserable world by suicide. Patet exitus! The way out of this life stands open! That is the last consolation of expiring heathenism.

And he quotes Seneca, who said that “the aim of all philosophy is to despise life,” as saying, concerning the suicide option:

Seest thou yon steep height? Thence is the descent to freedom. Seest thou yon sea, yon river, yon well? Freedom sits there in the depths. Seest thou yon low, withered tree? There freedom hangs. Seest thou thy neck, thy throat, thy heart? They are ways of escape from bondage.

To which Dr. Uhihorn adds:

Can the bankruptcy of Heathenism be more plainly declared than in these words…? With what power then must have come the preaching of this word: "Christ is risen! The wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And in a little noticed and seldom quoted passage from Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville says:

The most profound and capacious minds of Rome and Greece ... tried to prove that slavery was in the order of nature and that it would always exist. Nay, more, everything shows that those of the ancients who had been slaves before they became free, many of whom have left us excellent writings, themselves regarded servitude in no other light.

All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and expanded before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.

The historian Arnold Toynbee saw, accurately, the great failing of the ancient Greeks, that they “saw in Man, ‘the Lord of Creation,’ and worshipped him as an idol instead of God.” And this rejection of the true God —- which similarly threatens modern Western civilization —- led to Hellenism’s breakdown and disintegration. Rejecting Gibbon, Toynbee says neither Christians nor barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire; they merely walked over a corpse.

And in his book Religious Origins of the American Revolution (Scholars Press, 1976), Page Smith points out:

The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. It received a substantial part its theological and philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin’s Institutes Of The Christian Religion and much of its social history from the Puritan Revolution of 1640- 1660, and, perhaps, less obviously, from the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Put another way, the American Revolution is inconceivable in the absence of that context of ideas which have constituted radical Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith.

Indeed, he adds, in early America, the Reformation

left its mark on every aspect of the personal and social life of the faithful. In the family, in education, in business activity, in work, in community and, ultimately, in politics, the consequences of the Reformation were determinative for American history.

As remote or repugnant as Puritanism may be to some, Smith says “it is essential that we understand that the Reformation in its full power was one of the great emancipations of history.” He says the passage in the book of Micah about “every man…under his vine and under his fig tree” was “the most potent expression of the colonist’s determination to be independent whatever the cost,…having substantial control over his own affairs. No theme was more constantly reiterated by writers and speakers in the era of the Revolution.”

* * *

Tomorrow we'll begin looking at this idea of salvation-as-liberty in the prophecy of John the Baptist's father Zacharias.

"Media Bias"

Both Republicans and Democrats believe the media is biased. Democrats complain that on an hour of "Hannity & Colmes," Alan Colmes gets only 12 minutes of air time while Sean Hannity gets 19. (A few complain that corporations get the rest.) Pro-lifers complain that a protest involving 150 pro-abortion advocates gets front-page coverage, while an anti-abortion rally of 100,000 is covered on B-12.

From a libertarian perspective, "media bias" is far more widespread and more profound.

"Media bias" is not measured in minutes of air time or column inches of newsprint. Media bias is about the creation of an alternative reality. An extra-terrestrial anthropologist, travelling from planet to planet studying various civilizations, could look at a libertarian report on an event, then look at a report from the "mainstream media," and conclude that these two reports describe events on entirely different planets.

And the difference is not just "the facts." The difference is a deeply moral difference.

The difference can be seen by comparing this and this.

But this issue has me too anxious to trust you to click the links. I want to make sure you experience this exercise for yourself. So please keep reading. This is a long post.

The first of those links, by Lew Rockwell, was re-published in the free newsletter of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, "The Free Market." You can (and should) get a free subscription here. The title of the essay is "The Mass Murderer of the Century." Pretty opinionated, right? The first paragraph sets the stage for our consideration of "media bias":

A student searching for the conventional wisdom on Mao Zedong will find that he was a controversial figure who modernized China but at some cost, and thus does his legacy remain undecided. And so books reciting his "wisdom" can be found in most bookstores, and shirts with his image still sell in countercultural bookstores. Every department of modern history hosts at least one faculty member who will defend Mao and attack his accusers. And the debate rages.

Fortunately we have some "debate" at all. But the first sentence is critical: a student searching for reality will not find it in the establishment media.

I take that back; perhaps the pieces of the puzzle can be found and put together by a diligent and dedicated student, but 99.99% of students will not get the big picture. Most students will only read the first two paragraphs of the mainstream media report. Most students may even be unaware of the "debate." They live in an alternative reality. They will be used to help perpetuate the alternative reality of the Establishment and its Media. They will willingly don the uniform of the government to bring it about.

Now, I want you to read the rest of Rockwell's essay. For some reason, the Mises Institute hasn't put any issues of "The Free Market" online since 2006. So here's the rest of the article:

This is exceedingly strange, given the indisputable facts about this man and the extreme communism he tried to establish in China. How many died as a result of persecutions and the policies of Mao? It could be as low as 40 million. It could be as high as 100 million or more. In the Great Leap Forward from 1959 to 1961 alone, figures range between 20 million to 75 million. In the period before, 20 million. In the period after, tens of millions more.

As scholars in the area of mass death point out, most of us can't imagine 100 dead or 1,000. Above that, we are just talking about statistics: they have no conceptual meaning for us. And there is only so much ghastly information that our brains can absorb, only so much blood we can imagine. And yet there is more to why China's communist experiment remains a hidden fact: it makes a decisive case against government power, one even more compelling than the cases of Russia or Germany in the twentieth century.

The horror was foreshadowed in a bloody civil war following the Second World War. After some 9 million people died, the communists emerged victorious in 1949, with Mao as the ruler. The land of Lao-Tzu (rhyme, rhythm, peace), Taoism (compassion, moderation, humility), and Confucianism (piety, social harmony, individual development) was seized by the strangest import to China ever: Marxism from Germany via Russia.

It was an ideology that denied all logic, experience, economic law, property rights, and limits on the power of the state on grounds that these notions were merely bourgeois prejudices, and what we needed to transform society was a cadre with all power to transform all things.

The communization of China took place in the usual three stages: purge, plan, and scapegoat. First there was the purge to bring about communism. There were guerrillas to kill and land to nationalize. The churches had to be destroyed. The counterrevolutionaries had to be put down. The violence began in the country and spread later to the cities. All peasants were first divided into four classes that were considered politically acceptable: poor, semi-poor, average, and rich. Everyone else was considered a landowner and targeted for elimination. If no landowners could be found, the "rich" were often included in this group. The demonized class was ferreted out in a country-wide series of "bitterness meetings" in which people turned in their neighbors for owning property and being politically disloyal. Those who were so deemed were immediately executed along with those who sympathized with them.

The idea was that there had to be at least one person killed per village. The number killed is estimated to be between one and five million. In addition, another four to six million landowners were slaughtered for the crime of being capital owners. If anyone was suspected of hiding wealth, he or she was tortured with hot irons to confess. The families of the killed were then tortured and the graves of their ancestors looted and pillaged. What happened to the land? It was divided into tiny plots and distributed among the remaining peasants.

Then the campaign moved to the cities. The political motivations here were at the forefront, but there were also behavioral controls. Anyone who was suspected of involvement in prostitution, gambling, tax evasion, lying, fraud, opium dealing, or telling state secrets was executed as a "bandit." Official estimates put the number of dead at two million with another two million going to prison to die. Resident committees of political loyalists watched every move. A nighttime visit to another person was immediately reported and the parties involved jailed or killed. The cells in the prisons themselves grew ever smaller, with one person living in a space of about 14 inches. Some prisoners were worked to death, and anyone involved in a revolt was herded with collaborators and they were all burned.

There was industry in the cities, but those who owned and managed the firms were subjected to ever tighter restric­tions: forced transparency, constant scrutiny, crippling taxes, and pressure to offer up their businesses for collectivization. There were many suicides among the small- and medium-sized business owners who saw the writing on the wall. Joining the party provided only temporary respite, since 1955 began the campaign against hidden counterrevolution­aries in the party itself. A principle here was that one in ten party members was a secret traitor.

As the rivers of blood rose ever higher, Mao instigated the Hundred Flowers Campaign for two months in 1957, the legacy of which is the phrase we often hear: "Let a hundred flowers bloom." People were encouraged to speak freely and give their point of view, an opportunity that was very tempting for intellectuals. The liberalization was a trick. All those who spoke out against what was happening to China were rounded up and imprisoned, perhaps between 400,000 and 700,000 people, including 10 percent of the well-educated classes. Others were branded as right-wingers and subjected to interrogation, reeducation, then kicked out of their homes, and shunned.

But this was nothing compared with phase two, which was one of history's great central planning catastrophes. Following collectivization of land, Mao decided to go further to dictate to the peasants what they would grow, how they would grow it, and where they would ship it, or whether they would grow anything at all as versus plunge into industry. This would become the Great Leap Forward that would generate history's most deadly famine. Peasants were grouped into groups of thousands and forced to share all things. All groups were to be economically self-sufficient. Production goals were raised ever higher.

People were moved by the hundreds of thousands from where production was high to where it was low, as a means of boosting production. They were moved too from agriculture to industry. There was a massive campaign to collect tools and transform them into industrial skill.

Mao had the idea that he knew how to grow grain. He proclaimed that "seeds are happiest when growing together" and so seeds were sown at five to ten times their usual density. Plants died, the soil dried out, and the salt rose to the surface. To keep birds from eating grain, sparrows were wiped out, which vastly increased the number of parasites. Erosion and flooding became endemic.

Tea plantations were turned to rice fields, on grounds that tea was decadent and capitalistic. Hydraulic equipment built to service the new collective farms didn't work and lacked any replacement parts. This led Mao to put new emphasis on industry, which was forced to appear in the same areas as agriculture, leading to ever more chaos. Workers were drafted from one sector to another, and mandatory cuts in some sectors were balanced by mandatory high quotas in another.

In 1957, the disaster was everywhere. Workers were growing too weak even to harvest their meager crops, so they died watching the rice rot. Industry churned and churned but produced nothing of any use. The government responded by telling people that fat and proteins were unnecessary. But the famine couldn't be denied. The black-market price of rice rose 20 to 30 times. Because trade had been forbidden between collectives (self-sufficiency, you know), millions were left to starve. By 1960, the death rate soared from 15 percent to 68 percent, and the birth rate plummeted. Anyone caught hoarding grain was shot. Peasants found with the smallest amount were imprisoned. Fires were banned. Funerals were prohibited as wasteful.

Villagers who tried to flee the countryside to the city were shot at the gates. Deaths from hunger reached 50 percent in some villages. Survivors boiled grass and bark to make soup and wandered the roads looking for food. Sometimes they banded together and raided houses looking for ground maize. Women were unable to conceive because of malnutrition. People in work camps were used for food experiments that led to sickness and death.

How bad did it get? There are first­hand reports of parents swapping children in order to eat them. How many people died in the famine of 1959-61? The low range is 20 million. The high range is 43 million. Finally in 1961, the government gave in and permitted food imports, but it was too little and too late. Some peasants were again allowed to grow crops on their own land. A few private workshops were opened. Some markets were permitted. Finally, the famine began to abate and production grew.

But then the third phase came: scapegoating. What had caused the calamity? The official reason was anything but communism, anything but Mao. And so the politically motivated roundup began again, and here we get the very heart of the Cultural Revolution. Thousands of camps and detention centers were opened. People sent there died there. In prison, the slightest excuse was used to dispense with people—all to the good, since the prisoners were a drain on the system, so far as those in charge were concerned. The largest penal system ever built was organized in a military fashion, with some camps holding as many as 50,000 people.

There was some sense in which everyone was in prison. Arrests were sweeping and indiscriminate. Everyone had to carry around a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. To question the reason for arrest was itself evidence of disloyalty, since the state was infallible. Once arrested, the safest path was instant and frequent confession. Guards were forbidden from using overt violence, so interrogations would go on for hundreds of hours, and often the prisoner would die during this process. Those named in the confession were then hunted down and rounded up. Once you got through this process, you were sent to a labor camp, where you were graded according to how many hours you could work with little food. You were fed no meat nor given any sugar or oil. Labor prisoners were further controlled by the rationing of the little food they had.

The final phase of this incredible litany of criminality lasted from 1966 to 1976, during which the number killed fell dramatically to "only" one to three million. The government, now tired and in the first stages of demoralization, began to lose control, first within the labor camps and then in the countryside. And it was this weakening that led to the final, and in some ways the most vicious, of the communist periods in China's history: the period of the Red Guard. They roamed the country in an attempt to purge the Four Old-Fashioned Things: ideas, culture, customs, and habits. The remaining temples were barricaded. Traditional opera was banned, with all costumes and sets in the Beijing Opera burned. Monks were expelled. The calendar was changed. All Christianity was banned. There were to be no pets such as cats and birds. Humiliation was the order of the day.

A massive party purge began, with hundreds of thousands arrested and many murdered. Artists, writers, teachers, scientists, technicians: all were targets. Pogroms were visited on community after community, with Mao approving every step as a means of eliminating every possible political rival. But underneath, the government was splintering and cracking, even as it became ever more brutal and totalitarian in its outlook.

Finally in 1976, Mao died. Within a few months, his closest advisers were all imprisoned. The reform began slowly at first and then at breakneck speed. Civil liberties were restored (comparatively) and the rehabilitations began. Torturers were prosecuted. Economic controls were gradually relaxed. The economy, by virtue of human and private economic initiative, was transformed.

Today China is one of the greatest economic success stories ever recorded. In three decades, the society went from domination by communist poverty, prisons, and killing fields to a thriving font of production, all due to a change in ideology that freed people from socialist tyranny. Socialists today would like us not to notice this transformation, but anyone concerned about human freedom cannot afford to forget it.

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

At a Press Conference on May 2nd, 1945, President Truman was asked,

Mr. President, would you care to comment on the death of Adolf Hitler reported, or Mussolini?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, the two principal war criminals will not have to come to trial; and I am very happy they are out of the way.

On April 27th, Truman had said,

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN armies under the command of General Eisenhower have met the Soviet forces where they intended to meet -- in the heart of Nazi Germany. The enemy has been cut in two.

This is not the hour of final victory in Europe, but the hour draws near, the hour for which all the American people, all the British peoples and all the Soviet people have toiled and prayed so long.

The union of our arms in the heart of Germany has a meaning for the world which the world will not miss. It means, first, that the last faint, desperate hope of Hitler and his gangster government has been extinguished. The common front and the common cause of the powers allied in this war against tyranny and inhumanity have been demonstrated in fact as they have long been demonstrated in determination.

In announcing the death of FDR, Truman said that the purpose of WWII, "the United Nation's war," was succeeding:

The armies of liberation today are bringing to an end Hitler's ghastly threat to dominate the world. Tokyo rocks under the weight of our bombs.

The grand strategy of the United Nations' war has been determined -- due in no small measure to the vision of our departed Commander in Chief.

If FDR had not died the same month as Hitler, we can well imagine more attention paid to Hitler's death and a more forceful anti-eulogy against this "ghastly" "gangster."

It's hard to find Mao described as a "gangster."

Here are President Gerald R. Ford's Remarks on the Death of Mao Tse-tung on September 9th, 1976:

THE PEOPLE'S Republic of China announced today the passing away of Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

Chairman Mao was a giant figure in modern Chinese history. He was a leader whose actions profoundly affected the development of his own country. His influence on history will extend far beyond the borders of China.

Americans will remember that it was under Chairman Mao that China moved together with the United States to end a generation of hostility and to launch a new and more positive era in relations between our two countries.

I am confident that the trend of improved relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States, which Chairman Mao helped to create, will continue to contribute to world peace and stability. On behalf of the United States Government and the American people, I offer condolences to the people of the People's Republic of China.

Thank you very much.

Before Mao died, Bishop James Walsh, in Rome, praised the Chinese regime for three great advances it is supposed to have made: equality of women, equality of races, and, in particular, "an absolute ban and prohibition on all manifestations of immorality and indecency in regard to theatrical displays, or publicity, or action." (New York Times, August 27). The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 2, No. 21, November 1, 1970

TIME magazine lists Mao in "The TIME 100," "The Most Important People of the Century," and appropriately so. But he is not portrayed as a truly horrific and evil dictator. Here is the first page of TIME's biography of a mass murderer:

Mao Zedong loved to swim. In his youth, he advocated swimming as a way of strengthening the bodies of Chinese citizens, and one of his earliest poems celebrated the joys of beating a wake through the waves. As a young man, he and his close friends would often swim in local streams before they debated together the myriad challenges that faced their nation. But especially after 1955, when he was in his early 60s and at the height of his political power as leader of the Chinese People's Republic, swimming became a central part of his life. He swam so often in the large pool constructed for the top party leaders in their closely guarded compound that the others eventually left him as the pool's sole user. He swam in the often stormy ocean off the north China coast, when the Communist Party leadership gathered there for its annual conferences. And, despite the pleadings of his security guards and his physician, he swam in the heavily polluted rivers of south China, drifting miles downstream with the current, head back, stomach in the air, hands and legs barely moving, unfazed by the globs of human waste gliding gently past. "Maybe you're afraid of sinking," he would chide his companions if they began to panic in the water. "Don't think about it. If you don't think about it, you won't sink. If you do, you will."

Mao was a genius at not sinking. His enemies were legion: militarists, who resented his journalistic barbs at their incompetence; party rivals, who found him too zealous a supporter of the united front with the Kuomintang nationalists; landlords, who hated his pro-peasant rhetoric and activism; Chiang Kai-shek, who attacked his rural strongholds with relentless tenacity; the Japanese, who tried to smash his northern base; the U.S., after the Chinese entered the Korean War; the Soviet Union, when he attack ed Khrushchev's anti-Stalinist policies. Mao was equally unsinkable in the turmoil — much of which he personally instigated — that marked the last 20 years of his rule in China.

There are two more pages in TIME's entry. There are vague clues that Mao was the most evil man in the 20th century. He is not described as a "mass murderer" or even a "gangster." Millions of students will live their lives in the alternative reality created by TIME magazine.

Here's the entry in Wikipedia:

Mao Zedong pronunciation (help·info) (Simplified Chinese: 毛泽东; Traditional Chinese: 毛澤東; Pinyin: Máo Zédōng; Wade-giles: Mao Tse-tung; December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976) was a Chinese military and political leader, who led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War, and was the leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Regarded as one of the most important figures in modern world history, Mao is still a controversial figure today, over thirty years after his death. He is held in high regard in China where he is often portrayed as a great revolutionary and strategist who eventually defeated Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and transformed the country into a major power through his Maoist policies. However, many of Mao's socio-political programs such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are blamed by critics from both within and outside China for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy and foreign relations of China, as well as enormous and unnecessary loss of lives, a peacetime death toll in the tens of millions. Although still officially venerated in China, his influence has been largely overshadowed by the political and economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping and other leaders since his death. Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher.

Some evidence of "the debate" is here, but imagine Harry Truman lamenting the death of Hitler as "a recognized artist and painter."

The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press was designed to protect the freedom to criticize the government. The Press should not be neutral. It should denounce evil. The Establishment's media uses their power to protect the Establishment, not denounce it.

Perhaps the most grizzly evidence of "media bias" -- of creating an alternative reality -- is the New York Times' obituary of Mao: Mao Tse-Tung: Father of Chinese Revolution. If you read Lew Rockwell's report, you should now read the New York Times.

In this obituary, Mao is not a "gangster," and certainly not a "mass murderer." The word "murder" is not found. Nor is the word "evil." The word "guerrilla" is used 11 times. The word "peasant" is found 33 times. If there is such a thing as good and evil (a big "if" for the New York Times), Mao is probably closer to "good," because he was surely on the side of the "peasants," a "guerrilla" fighting those nasty powerful capitalists.

Here's a classic line:

It was at this time that he made his second trip to Moscow in November 1957, and created a sensation by declaring that there was no need to fear nuclear war. "I said that if the worse came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground, and the whole world would become socialist: in a number of years there would be 2.7 billion people again and definitely more."

This accorded with his deeply held belief that men, not machines or weapons, were the decisive factor. In 1947, in an interview, he had declared: "The atom bomb is a paper tiger used by the U.S. reactionaries to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't. Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by people, not by one or two new types of weapon." It was a guerrilla's view.

Well that explains everything. We certainly should understand Mao's willingness to obliterate a billion people in a nuclear exchange. "It was a guerrilla's view."

An average of 10,000 human beings were murdered every single day during the 20th century by politicians like Mao. People who write about these mass-murderers in the New York Times are eager to see an additional 15,000 human beings exterminated every hour in the 21st century.

Anyone who really wants to understand the world around us should place Rockwell's essay next to the New York Times obituary and ask if these two journalists are from the same planet. Then ask if the next generation will keep the 21st from becoming an even more horrific blood bath.

Another example of alternative reality, less grotesque, but still illustrative: The British Empire placed a tax of 3 pence per pound on tea. Ben Franklin reports that the colonists consumed ten pounds of tea a year. Sam Adams and John Hancock threw the tea in the Boston Harbor rather than pay the tax. Today's empire taxes gasoline at 40 cents per gallon. Nobody says a thing. The politicians who levied these taxes all took an oath to "support the Constitution" that was supposed to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, and most Americans believe that we live under the Constitution. America's Founding Fathers would say we live in an alternative reality.