More Lies from Bob Enyart

Fred Phelps

I kinda like Fred Phelps and his crew at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Their videos are edgy and provocative, and I agree with their opposition to the war.

I take second place to no one in opposition to socialism, but when Eugene Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for making an anti-war speech that a jury determined was designed to encourage illegal resistance to the draft, I would have been on Debs' side.

A jury recently determined that the Westboro picketers were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," "extreme or outrageous," and "intentional or reckless," and awarded the "brave" and "courageous" Americans who didn't like hearing Westboro free speech $10.9 million in "compensatory" and punitive damages. Whether the same jury would have awarded $10.9 million to the family of a racist bigot whose funeral had been picketed by the local chapter of the NAACP is doubtful. Too many people hear the Westboro "God hates fags" message and say "There oughta be a law!" I disagree.

Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart is a Denver talk-show host who appears to be a publicity addict like Fred Phelps. He supports U.S. mass murder of women and children in Iraq. He wants to abolish the U.S. Constitution and set up a monarchy. His talk-show is punchy, controversial, and every bit as entertaining as a Fred Phelps video. I'm a regular listener.

I'm concluding that Enyart may also be a pathological liar.

Most Americans won't listen to a single minute of either of these men's rantings. Most Americans are "lukewarm." I am an extremist. Of course, I don't agree with everything Phelps and Enyart say, and even when I agree, I may not like their style of communication.

Nor do I disagree with everything that Enyart and Phelps have to say. Even Adolph Hitler believed and said some true things. All three are above-average in intelligence, and way above average in intellectual consistency. Consistency is what I like best about these figures. They are willing to stand against the mainstream. They are willing to pursue their beliefs to their logical conclusions. I truly like that. (And it saves me a lot of time constructing an argument based on a reductio ad absurdum.)

Lies about Ron Paul

Enyart is now in the process of reducing himself to absurdity over Ron Paul. What I thought might be an aberration looks like it's becoming a full-blown crusade. Enyart has embarked on a campaign to destroy Ron Paul. "God hates Ron Paul" is a sign we soon expect to see in Denver.

Enyart has created a group to rival the National Right to Life organization, on the grounds that NRL is not as consistently opposed to abortion as Enyart would like. As usual, Enyart has some good arguments to make against his opponent. But his own new group, American Right to Life, has developed a pathological hostility to Ron Paul. A couple of months ago ARL was on the war path against Mitt Romney. With Romey out of the race, they have recently announced:

"American RTL ... is planning a surprise for libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul in his 14th congressional district of Texas!"

Like Phelps, Enyart travels the country engaging in street theatre against the enemy du jour. Enyart spent thousands of dollars on O.J. Simpson memorabilia and publicly burned it all on the courthouse steps. Enyart brought his team to Little Rock Arkansas to protest the opening of the Clinton Library. Apparently they are now headed to the 14th Congressional District in Texas.

Enyart says he "provides overwhelming evidence that Ron Paul ... promote[s] pro-abortion policies and that pro-life Christians should expose [Ron Paul] for being pro-choice."

This is bizaare, since Ron Paul has been one of the most courageous Congressional opponents of abortion, offering legislation to annul Roe v. Wade and declare the unborn to be legal "persons" protected by law, making Ron Paul a member of what Enyart glowingly calls "the personhood wing" of the right-to-life movement, that is to say, the most rigorous and fringe part of the movement.

I too agree that the unborn, the comatose, and handicapped, and other human beings, are "persons" under the law, but when Enyart invited me to appear on his talk show, it was for the same reason Sean Hannity invites someone with whom he disagrees: ambush. Interrupt the guest and eventually cut him off entirely. Alan Keyes has also mastered this tactic.

Ron Paul is clearly pro-life. Why does Enyart say that Ron Paul is pro-choice?

Enyart wants everyone to be intellectually consistent with Enyart's presuppositions. Enyart believes in monarchy, therefore he wants candidates for President to promise to exercise monarchical powers if elected. Ron Paul refuses to do this, so Enyart is on the war path against Ron Paul.

For months, Enyart had this in the banner at the top of his website:

Ron Paul: is pro-choice state by state: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06.

Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade is invalid because the constitution does not give the federal government authority over state abortion laws, either to strike them down, as the Roe Court did, or to impose them, as Enyart would. The federal government does not have the authority to amend state criminal codes on shoplifting, larceny, or kidnapping either. Obviously we agree that these things are immoral, but the states never gave jurisdiction over these sins to the federal government. Since Ron Paul does not believe that the President is a monarch, or that the states are colonies of Parliament, Enyart voices his frustration by claiming that Ron Paul is "pro-abortion."

There's a certain logic here, but Enyart could just as logically have said that Ron Paul was "pro-life state by state" (which he clearly is).

On a recent show, Enyart's co-host quotes the LewRockwell.com line from the banner above (on Roe v Wade being just as "invalid" as a federal anti-abortion statute) and then Enyart ostensibly quotes Ron Paul saying,

If we outlawed abortion nationwide that's invalid because of my view that the States should have the right to kill kids, kill blacks, kill Jews, and rape women.

This isn't just a cute "reductio," issued with a smile. Enyart is dead serious, and passionate in his "Ron Paul is pro-abortion" tirade. He calls Ron Paul an "ungodly," "immoral" "godless" "moral relativist." This is a truly pathological depiction of Ron Paul's views.

The purpose of Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" is:

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

In the bill,

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

The bill then removes the power claimed by the Roe v. Wade Court to strike down any state law that protects the lives of unborn children.

And for all this, making Ron Paul one of the most courageous pro-life Congressmen on Capitol Hill, Enyart calls him "pro-abortion."

Unbelievable.

But it all makes sense in Enyart's mind, because Ron Paul does not believe the President is a monarch.

If Ron Paul is "pro-choice state by state," is Bob Enyart "pro-choice, nation by nation?" What about China and its forced abortion policy? Shouldn't the President re-write China's pro-abortion laws? I asked Enyart this question when I was interviewed on his show, and he ducked the question, but on a more recent show, Enyart criticizes Ron Paul for being unwilling to "send the marines" to Canada if Canada allows abortions!

Apparently Enyart supports a global one-world monarchy.

I guess I'm somewhat attracted to such intellectual curiosities and the consistency from which they spring. But when they mutate into slander and lies which will mislead many people, and destroy a good man's reputation, I'm more than crestfallen. I have to admit I get pretty discouraged when Christians treat one another so disgracefully.

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

My opening paragraphs were plagiarized from The (Baltimore) Daily Record, Nov 5, 2007, Commentary: On Constitutional Law: "There ought to be a law" by Mark A Graber, just to show that I can be a good political candidate.

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

I have to confess that whatever affection I might have for Phelps and Enyart results from the fact that I dislike many of the same people they dislike (e.g., inconsistent Christians, atheists, anti-family advocates, abortionists, soldiers, etc.). I may not like their style, but I dislike their enemies more, and as long as they attack ideas I dislike, I don't pay close attention to their offensive style. That may be a fault of mine; I am repulsed at Enyart when he attacks me and Ron Paul. But I wanted to add (for those who might quote the above remarks out of context) that I have so few enemies in common with Hitler, and he opposes so many ideas and people that I support, that I am thoroughly repulsed by Hitler, and while I like a few things that Enyart and Phelps say, I believe their net contribution to society is negative.

The Cult of the Omnipotent State

New webpage added today:

The Cult of the Omnipotent State

The basic political philosophy of the Libertarian Party is stated in its Statement of Principles:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

This is a very important statement.

• The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from God. The modern State now claims to be the giver and protector of our rights.
• America used to be a nation "Under God." The modern State now claims it is God.
• Americans used to say, "In God We Trust." In practice, Americans now trust the State rather than God to provide salvation and national security.
• In short, belief in the State has become an idolatrous cult.

Details have already been posted on this blog:
• Is the Republican Party a Cult?
• The Cult of Social Security
• The Cult of "National Security"
• The Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Bush

Candidate Filing and Interview

I traveled up to Jefferson City, Missouri's capital, with Libertarian Candidate for Lt. Governor Teddy Fleck, to file candidacy papers for Missouri's 7th U.S. Congressional District. So now it's official for 2008.

Afterwards, he interviewed me on his BlogTalkRadio.com radio show. A player should appear below. Otherwise go to http://blogtalkradio.com/ShowMeLibertarians and find the interview on the list.

I've often wondered myself

Fellow libertarian blogger Tom Martz says, "I've often wondered myself" (Deaths of 58 in tornadoes is baffling if a God exists):

I'm sure many of you that read this blog will chastise me either publicly or privately but hey this is designed to make you think. I have often wondered why it is that many praise GOD if someone survives a tragedy such as a flood, tornado, hurricane, wildfire, or earthquake, and yet they don't fault GOD for creating the disaster in the first place. I used to think I was the only one who thought in that manner until I was able to read the following in today's Springfield News-Leader.

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

All of the greatest and most revered theologians in the history of Christianity have wondered about the justice of God in these tragedies. There's even a science of the study of this issue: "theodicy." It's a "baffling" question all right, and lots of varied answers have been offered over the centuries, so it won't be inappropriate for me to offer mine.

The first reason I do not fault God for tragedies is that tragedy was brought into the world by human beings, and shouldn't be blamed on God. The Apostle Paul writes, "Therefore, through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." (KJV) God placed human beings in the beautiful Garden of Eden, telling Man that tilling the earth and exercising dominion over the creation was "good," and warning Man that disobedience was "evil," but Satan told Man that God was not good and trustworthy, and that Man should decide for himself what constitutes good and evil (Genesis 3:5,22). One of the first examples of this autonomy was the murder of Abel by Cain. Was the death of Abel a "tragedy?" Not according to Cain. Was it "evil?" Not in Cain's mind. Once God is out of the picture, who's to say?

(Another result of human autonomy is the substitution of the gold in Eden for the paper in the Federal Reserve. Are you calling the government's "revenue enhancement program" "evil?" Why, you must be with the terrorists.)

It's trendy to believe that evil capitalists and industrialists cause "acid rain" and "global warming," but the MainstreamMedia gets all bent out of shape when Jerry Falwell suggests that homosexuals and the ACLU caused 9-11 or hurricanes. The Bible clearly declares that man's evil is the cause of climatological disturbances (Deuteronomy 28) or as the lawyers call it, "acts of God."

Yet the Bible also says that we can't draw any crystal-clear line of cause-and-effect from man's sin to God's tragedies. The case of Job is a good example of this, a man who is described by God Himself as "a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil," yet terrible tragedies befell the man. The best example is Jesus Christ Himself, who was without sin, yet was executed by the church-state oligarchy, "the powers that be," said by the Bible to be "ordained of God."

So although I don't "find fault" with God for tragedies, I still wonder about it. But I don't conclude that belief in God is logically contradictory.

The Bible says that although it was a tragedy that Jesus of Nazereth was assassinated, yet God had a greater and morally sufficient reason for allowing this injustice, namely, atonement, redemption, justification, and salvation. While God's purpose for allowing the death of an innocent person (Jesus) is spelled out for us, not every tragedy has God's purposes neatly disclosed for us. But I cannot conclude that the death of a human being outweighs the birth and life of that human being. God gave us life; it is not evil for Him to take it back. So I "walk by faith," believing that the story in the Bible is better than the alternative.

What is the alternative?

There are two alternatives to the Bible.
One is that there is a god, but god is evil.
The second is that no good and powerful God exists.

Nobody professes to believe in a god who is twisted, perverse and malevolent; the only God anyone believes in is good and trustworthy. But atheists claim that the idea that such a God really exists is logically contradicted by the fact that evil exists. George Smith states the problem this way in his book, The Case Against God: "Briefly, the problem of evil is this: ...If God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent [and therefore the God of the Bible, who is described as omnipotent, must not exist]. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnibenevolent [and therefore the God of the Bible, who is described as all-good and all-compassionate, must not exist]."

Believing that a good and trustworthy God does not exist certainly solves "the problem of evil." As Dostoyevsky wrote, if there is no God, there is no evil. Examples:

A cat stalks and kills a rat. Is this "evil?"
A pig is slaughtered and eaten as bacon. Is this "evil?"
A tiny chihuahua leaves the safety of its owner's home and is snatched by an eagle and brought back to the nest. Is this "evil?"
Your ten year-old son is killed in a tornado. Why is this a tragedy? Why is this "evil?"

A Christian can say this is a tragedy. The boy was created in the Image of God, and therefore has cosmic significance. Parents love their children because they are created in the Image of God. Our emotions have meaning. But how can an atheist say the death of the boy is a tragedy?

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

More than 50 million people die every year. Does this not "prove" that God is either a genocidal maniac or simply does not exist?

But if God does not exist, what is man?
The impersonal product of meaningless, random, purposeless forces: "Nature." And your child is just as "natural" as a cockroach. No "tragedy" here. Just a "natural" occurrence.

Did you choose to be born through an exercise of your free will? Or were you put here on earth by a force or forces greater than yourself? What is the character of the force that created you? If the forces that brought you into existence are impersonal and meaningless, then there is no objective meaning to the words "tragedy" or "evil." It "just is." Death is as meaningless as life.

But if the Bible is true, then we can take comfort in the fact that our lives have meaning, and that the universe is ultimately a meaningful place. Without understanding the Bible and its story of man and the universe, "we see through a glass darkly." But as we understand God more, we understand the purposes behind tragedies. It's good to know that tragedies really are tragic, that evil is objectively evil, and not just a matter of someone's personal taste. If the God of the Bible does not exist, then the deaths of 58 chemical conglomerations in a tornado is just a random and meaningless event. The God of the Bible, who describes these things as “evil,” has given us more than enough reason to trust Him and "repent," that is, undo the decision that Adam and Eve made in Eden, and the tragic effects of that decision.

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

I was personally tutored for ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by a brilliant theologian named Greg Bahnsen. His answer to Tom's wonderment is here.

More on Presidents' Day

"Presidents' Day" is over, but the need to be informed is not.

Here is a response to an article published in a California newspaper, to which I responded when I was running for Congress in California's 41st District. The article is entitled, "FOUNDING PRESIDENTS NOT CHRISTIAN," and contains numerous errors that are frequently found floating around the Internet.

Rationing Ferraris

In a previous post I neglected to draw out the analogy between rationed health care and Ferraris.

If the government tries to keep its promise of "an affordable Ferrari" for every American by giving out a Ferrari voucher, embodying every American's "right" to a Ferrari, the result will be long lines around the block from the Ferrari dealer. Unless the government wants to raise taxes or inflate the money supply, there won't be enough money to cover everyone's Ferrari voucher, which means there won't be enough Ferraris. Which means rationing.

If the government says everyone has a "right" to health care coverage, there must be immense increases in taxes to give previously-uncovered Americans free health care. Everyone will have a "right" to the X test, the Y surgery, and the Z treatment, but there will only be one such surgery per month; others will be put on a waiting list. Here are some accounts -- in human terms -- of HillaryCare and Obamedicine:

Federal Reserve Video

I have added the new Mises Institute video, "Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve," to my own page on Money and Banking. An excellent history of money in the U.S., featuring Ron Paul, Joseph Salerno, Hans Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell.

An Affordable Ferrari

The most recent Democrat Party Platform said this:

We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege.
We will attack the health care crisis with a comprehensive approach. Our goal is straightforward: quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans to keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong.
John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democratic Party believe in a better, stronger, healthier America. Our resolve to fix the health crisis is stronger than ever. In the wealthiest country in the world, every expectant mother should get quality prenatal care; every child should get regular check-ups; every senior should be able to get safe, affordable prescription drugs; and no hard-working family should ever lose everything because illness strikes a loved one.
We believe in an America where health care is available and affordable.

The rhetoric coming from Hillary and Obama is even stronger:

“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

In the healthcare world of Democrats, everybody gets more and pays less.

In fact, the world of Democrat campaign promises is a virtual utopia:

Our plan begins with commonsense investments to harness the natural world around us—the sun, wind, water, geothermal and biomass sources, and a rich array of crops—to create a new generation of affordable energy for the 21st century.

We will also work to make sure that our people have access to an affordable, secure, and reliable supply of electricity at all times.

We will expand efforts to help manufacturers, workers, the long-term unemployed, and communities hurt by imports, including extending trade adjustment assistance to workers in the service sectors and making health insurance more affordable for workers who lose their jobs due to trade. Through our jobs plan, we will bring hope and jobs back to the cities and small towns devastated by the shuttering of factories.

We will make college affordable for every qualified student with a tax credit for four years of college.

In President George Bush's America, drug company and HMO profits count for more than family and small business health costs. The few small proposals he has offered would further divide our health system between one that is affordable for the healthy and wealthy, and one that is unaffordable for the elderly, the sick, and increasingly, for America's broad middle class.

Under the leadership of John Kerry and John Edwards, we will offer individuals and businesses tax credits to make quality, reliable health coverage more affordable. We will provide tax credits to Americans who are approaching retirement age and those who are between jobs so they can afford quality, reliable coverage. We will expand coverage for low income adults through existing federal-state health care programs. And we will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

We will push the boundaries of science in search of new medical therapies and cures. We will secure more funding for aggressive biomedical research seeking affordable and effective therapies based on real science.

Making college affordable. With the leadership of John Kerry and John Edwards, we will make college more affordable, so that more young people get higher education, and more of those who graduate get relief from the crushing burden of debt.

Obviously I just searched the Democrat Party Platform for the word "affordable." More examples could be given. If only the Democrats could rule the world; everybody would have everything they want.

Imagine a wacko-fringe political candidate who offers the following campaign promise:

America is the greatest nation on earth. Americans deserve the best. Ferrari is the best car, but at $100,000 or more, it is priced beyond the grasp of most hard-working, flag-waving Americans. (We should also note that Italy has not always cooperated to the fullest with the U.S. in the War on Terror.) This is unacceptable. If elected, I promise to make an affordable Ferrari available to every American. "Change you can believe in."

Most Americans would vaguely sense that this promise cannot be kept. What most Americans can't do is explain why it cannot be kept, and what would happen in the real world if government actually tried to keep this promise, using the only powers government has available: compulsion and fraud.

The government's best strategy for providing everything that everyone wants has been seen repeatedly in the 20th century: rationing.

And perhaps more important, most Americans fail to realize that we already have the Ferrari of healthcare systems, and it's affordable to nearly every American, not just the extremely wealthy.

If America's Founding Fathers could travel through time, they would be stunned at how many Americans can afford healthcare that even the most powerful kings and richest aristocrats could not afford two centuries ago. Even the most routine visit to the most ordinary doctor's office reveals technology and science that would have been considered unattainable luxuries only a few generations ago. Virtually every doctor in America today could have saved the life of America's first President, George Washington, from the heroic measures that actually accelerated his death. Modern dentistry could have changed the face of our one-dollar bill, which shows the painful effects of George Washington's "Wooden" Teeth. Antibiotics, vaccinations, anesthesia, and stethoscopes, otoscopes and blood pressure measurement instruments from Stethoscope.com are considered ordinary fixtures of modern medicine, yet they would have been the Ferrari of health care when the "Bill of Rights" was written.

Does your neighborhood doctor have all these incredible advances in medicine thanks to Democrats in Congress a century ago?

No.

Thanks goes to those who were raised in a Christian civilization, where the human body has value, treating the sick and injured is considered virtuous, "greedy" capitalists can sell the latest health technologies, and the sick can shop around for the lowest price.

In short, the thanks goes to "Liberty Under God," not government planning.

We have MRI's, catscans, reconstructive surgery, transplants, and cures from stem cell research, not because these things were mandated by Democrats in Congress or the White House, but because voluntary charitable donations funded research, and capitalists created the supply to meet demand.

We have so much to be thankful for, but 73% of all Americans have fallen for the lies and empty promises of politicians, and are convinced that our ability to deal with sickness and injury is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems" (Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-14, 2007). This is tragic, because that same poll, when asking about "The quality of health care you [personally] receive," revealed that 83% of Americans recognize that they do in fact get "excellent" or "good" healthcare, with only 12% describing it as "fair," and 3% saying it's "poor."

This schizophrenic thinking is all too common among Americans. Deep down we know that the Free Market has been amazingly generous to us, yet we believe the demogogues in Washington D.C. and are willing to trust them to plan our economy, rather than trust "the Invisible Hand" of Liberty Under God.

A Quinnipiac University Poll, Oct. 23-29, 2007, asked "Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care, or don't you think so," and reported that 57% of Americans think it is. Among Republicans, only 32% said it was, while an astounding 84% of Democrats believe it is. But Republican politicians in Washington D.C. have placed more of American medicine under control of the government during the Bush Administration than Democrats did under Clinton; Bush has created literally trillions of dollars of unfunded government healthcare liabilities.

Capitalism, not socialism, raises the standard of living of all Americans. Today's poor benefit from medical advances which were available only to the ultra-rich a few decades ago. This is true in every area of life, including air conditioning, automobiles, communication (phone, TV, etc.), agriculture, and the transportation of goods from all over the world into the homes of ordinary Americans. When a nation "under God" enjoys liberty, the result is prosperity for all, especially for the poorest and weakest members of society. The "poor" under capitalism are better off than the "middle class" under socialism.

Health care is not a right, it is a privilege.
A high-tech prostate screening or a mammogram are not "rights" which are presently being "denied" to three billion human beings around the world by some nefarious conspiracy of pharmaceutical corporations and rich doctors. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Warren Harding were not guilty of denying anybody's "rights" just because only a few in their day had access to the level of healthcare we today take for granted. Nobody's "rights" are being denied today, except by socialist dictators and superstitious people. The Constitution speaks of "the blessings of liberty," that is, the privileges of a capitalist society. Such blessings come about when the people as a whole recognize their duties under "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Duties to "work six days," "exercise dominion over the earth," and meet the physical and material needs of "the least of these," are duties that Americans for the last 200 years have recognized, and their obedience to these duties has laid the foundation for the greatest levels of health and medical advancement in human history. We live off the interest of the spiritual capital they accumulated.

Atheistic communism in the 20th century Soviet Union has given us an example of where the Democrats are taking us.

And the Republicans can't wait to join them.

1,000 Words on Global Warming

This picture is worth more than a thousand words. If you want words, here's the source: Analyzing Global-Warming Science. Here's the Petition to ignore GlobalWarmingphobic environmentalists, signed by over 20,000 scientists:

Global Warming Petition Project

Compare the picture above with the one here -- which ignores the big picture -- and especially consider their conclusion:

Scientists believe that an immediate 70–80 percent reduction in current carbon emissions is necessary to mitigate further climate change.

What would be the effect on your life if you and the rest of the world could
• heat your house only on Sundays,
• receive hospital care for an injury or disease only on Mondays,
• drive your car or operate farm equipment only on Tuesdays,
• operate your refrigerator only on Wednesday,
• heat your water only on Thursdays, and
• use electric lights only on Friday?
Answer: you would commit suicide on Saturday.
Either that or after a few years, you and probably 2 billion other human beings would die from our inability to grow enough food and provide safety, shelter, and medical care for billions of people.

But this is what environmentalists want: the death of billions of human beings, whom they see as a "cancer" on the planet.

Energy is the key to human survival. That is to say, consumption of energy -- large amounts of energy, increasing amounts of energy -- is the key to human survival and the flourishing of human civilization.

There is no evidence that during times of medieval warming, or warming over the last few millennia, where rates of warming were ten times greater than they are today, that plants and animals and human beings suffered. Agriculture -- trees and plants -- thrive in high levels of carbon dioxide.

And obviously, automobiles, nuclear power plants, and refrigeration of food and indoor air were not causes of the Medieval Warm Period or any other global warming over the last 3,000 years.

Environmentalists want the political power to kill you or control you or profit off your consumption of energy.

HillaryCare and Abortion

On this post I report a couple of accounts of children taken from their parents because the parents refuse to use government-approved "cures," preferring instead some other form of "alternative medicine." And not just the child who is sick and not receiving the government-prescribe "cure," but all the other children in the home can be "nationalized" as the property of Dr. State.

Many advocates of "universal health care" (socialized medicine) believe a 14-year-old girl should be able to get an abortion without the consent of her parents, and without any Government interference of the mother's "right" to kill her baby. But under HillaryCare, or ObamaCare, a nursing mother could not get a mammogram or any other test to ensure that she will be able to feed her baby -- without government approval.


Hillary and Obama believe I should not be permitted to get a prostate exam without government approval. But my wife should be permitted to kill our baby without government interference.

Is health the real objective of "government healthcare?"

Obama's "Economic Plan"

The Big News on Wednesday was Barack Obama's "Economic Plan." Before looking at the details of the plan, let's take a refresher course in fundamentals.

The Powers of the President

Article II of the Constitution defines the office of the Presdient, the Chief Executive. (Article I lays out the powers of the Legislative Branch, before the Executive, because the Legislature is Constitutionally designed to be more powerful than the Executive.)(The Legislature is also superior to the Judicial Branch [Article III].)

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Until this clause of the Constitution is amended, Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger cannot become President.

If Barack Obama is elected President, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 requires:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

With his "economic plan" being presented before auto workers in Janesville Wisconsin, it doesn't look like Obama understands the oath he must take, and the Constitutional powers of the President.

Section 2 of Article II gives the powers of the President. Here is the entire section, listing all the powers given by "We the People" to the President in the Constitution:

Section. 2.
Clause 1:
• The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
• he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,
• and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2:
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
• and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
• but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

That's it. That's the extent of the President's power. No power to establish an "Economic Plan." No power to preserve the jobs of autoworkers in Janesville Wisconsin, Detriot Michigan, or anywhere else, or any other jobs in any other industry. Such "economic plans" belong to Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, not an American President.

Remember, the American colonies Declared their Independence from King George III. As shocking as it was in their day, they set up a government without a king. Physician Benjamin Rush was shocked by this proposal:

Never before had I heard the authority of kings called in question. I had been taught to consider them nearly as essential to political order as the sun is to the order of our solar system.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rush eventually came around and signed the Declaration of Independence.

The American Revolution truly was a revolution of ideas, including the idea of "the consent of the governed." Under the "divine right of kings," everything the king did had a presumption of divine approval. Under the "consent of the governed," nothing the king did had a presumption of legitimacy unless the governed gave their consent to the king's act.

Radical.

And in America, there was no king at all.

So the American colonists, in their revolution against the King of England, did not create another king in the Constitution of 1789. They did not give the President the power to do all the things for which George III was indicted in the Declaration of Independence (1776)

Presidents’ Day: A time to reflect on what is the proper role of a U.S. President The New American

1776 also saw the publication of Adam Smith's treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. America became the most prosperous nation in the history of the human race because we allowed the economy to be regulated by an "invisible hand," not the iron fist or the clumsy visible foot of the Chief Executive.

The very short Article II of the Constitution was echoed in the doctrine of

Enumerated Powers

The theory of the Constitution is that "We the People" delegated certain rights and powers to the new federal government. The new government possessed only those powers which "We the People" delegated to it. The question posed during the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification process was "What form of government best secures the Blessings of Liberty and promotes the general Welfare?" The answer given was not "a huge centralized federal government and a powerful king-like President with unlimited powers," but rather, a limited federal government that has only a few powers enumerated in the constitution, with the rest of government remaining with the states.

The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights summarizes the philosophy of the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In Federalist 45, Madison described the relationship between the federal government and the states in these famous words:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [emphasis added]

That means the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but not autoworkers. And nobody believed that the state governments had the authority to nationalize production of automobiles, computers, medical care, and groceries. Government on all levels was on a short leash, and vast unbounded liberty extended to The People and their businesses.

When Obama delivered his "Economic Plan" to the auto workers, he wanted them to believe that they should vote for him because he could use the powers of the President to save their jobs or create new, better jobs for them.

There are two problems with this claim. First, Obama doesn't have the power under the Constitution to save autoworkers' jobs. Second, he doesn't have the knowledge. Nobody does. Not even Ron Paul.

The reasons why autoworkers are losing their jobs in Detroit have to do with the decisions of millions -- no, billions -- of people around the world.
• The decisions of those who buy cars,
• the decisions of those who are willing to build cars at wages lower than workers in Detroit,
• and the decisions of all the people who create the steel, aluminum, rubber and plastic that goes into making cars.
Trillions of decisions go into making a car, each decision based on the knowledge each individual entrepreneur and worker brings to bear on the decisions he or she must make in order to keep in business, and keep their families fed, decisions which make up the long global chain of creating an automobile -- knowledge which Barack Obama, in all his infinitude and omniscience, does not have. There is not a single human being on the face of the earth who can build a car from scratch. I said, from scratch. I include smelting the iron, synthesizing the rubber, fabricating the plastic, and programming the computer chips. The only One Who knows how to build a car, orchestrating billions of individual decision-makers, is the "Invisible Hand."

Obama is un-American to announce such an "economic plan."

He is also an idolater, as are those who believe his promises of salvation.

Obama, Hillary, and McCain all promise to do two things:
(1) violate their oath of office
(2) the impossible

Repetition of such unconstitutional promises only deceives voters and perpetuates their abysmal ignorance.

Terrorist Anniversaries

This week commemorates three great anniversaries of terrorism.

Yesterday (Feb. 12) was the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Birthday. At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. William Wilberforce abolished slavery in Great Britain without killing anyone. But then, Lincoln's primary goal was not ending slavery.

Today (Feb. 13 -- actually, Feb. 12-14) is the anniversary of the Allied (U.S. and Great Britain) bombing of the capital of Saxony, an art city, “the Florence of the Elbe,” Dresden.

Doug Wilson draws the parallels and makes an interesting point about Ahmadinejad and Terrorism:

Yesterday (9/24/2007) I saw a talking head on television waxing indignant over Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. One of the things he was angry about was the fact this man, a terrorist, engaged in killing American soldiers, was able to come over here and say his bit.

We have to be careful not to let the passions of war run away with careful definitions. Admadinejad waging war on our soldiers is not terrorism. That is what enemy combatants do, they fight. To blow up an American armored vehicle is not terrorism. To shoot down an American heliocopter is not terrorism. It is war.

Now Admadinejad is a terrorist -- say a bunch of Iraqi civilians at a bus stop are blown up, civilians deliberately targeted in order to demoralize the opposition -- that is terrorism. If that is why he is being called a terrorist, then that is accurate, and be my guest. But this fellow on television was calling him a terrorist, it appeared, for no other reason than that he was fighting us.

But the problem with defining terrorism carefully this way is that it sometimes includes people we don't want included. When Lincoln let Sherman conduct his infamous march to the sea, what was that? When the Allies firebombed Dresden in the Second World War, what was that? According to Paul Johnson, in his magnificent book Modern Times, the bombing of Dresden was pointless carnage. Unless the point was to wage war directly on civilians in order to demoralize all of Germany -- but that makes it terrorism.

Finally, tomorrow (Feb. 14) is "Valentine's Day," which commemorates another act of state-sponsored terrorism: the execution of St. Valentine. Here is The Hidden History of VALENTINE'S DAY -- Murder and Empire.

The greatest terrorist organizations on the planet are those we call "governments."

The good news this week is that many conservatives are thinking seriously about not voting for anybody for President this November. The Right's leading lights are urging conservatives to reject McCain. Republican turnout in several primaries was only half that of Democrats. It's a good thing to vote for Nobody. Perhaps they'll come to the same conclusion in other races besides President:

http://NobodyForCongress.com

Charles Thornton: American Archetype

Charles "Cookie" Thornton was apparently a victim of an arrogant city government, and he took his gun to the Kirkwood, Missouri City Hall and murdered two policemen and three city council members, in a suicidal act that evidences his belief that death would bring liberty from enslavement on the Kirkwood plantation. With somewhat less eloquence, Thornton left a suicide note which said in effect, "An appeal to arms and to the God of sharpshooters is all that is left us! Is life so dear, or peace 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!"

There seems to be universal consensus that no matter how unjustly Thornton was treated by the city government, taking up arms against the city govenrment was unjustified. Yet this same path, pursued 200 years ago, is still applauded.

Suppose Thornton had the patience of Job, and endured disrespect and injustice by the government year after year, until some of his fellow citizens -- either in Kirkwood or neighboring St.Louis suburbs -- were appalled by the city's mistreatment beyond the limits of endurance, and engaged in a program of "regime change" in the Kirkwood city government in defense of the oppressed, killing members of the city council and intimidating the living into leaving the Charles Thorntons of the city alone (if the oppressed were still alive after the "smart bombs" or had not become refugees in neighboring counties).

Again, there would probably be widespread agreement that this was not the proper way to handle grievances against the government. Yet this same strategy, employed on the other side of the globe, is supported by both John McCain and Hillary Clinton against Saddam Hussein's plantation-government.

Americans are deeply schizophrenic on the issue of violence and revolution. Citizens are expected to exhibit restraint, deference and submission to the government when their own rights are violated, but are called "patriotic" when they applaud violence directed at others.

An example of this can be found in Larry McMurtry's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Lonesome Dove, which became an Emmy Award-winning TV miniseries. William Norman Grigg, my favorite blogger, describes a scene in which government troops attempt to confiscate a horse from Charles Thornton-like cowboys. A courageous teenager tells the G-man that the horse is not for sale, but the government was not offering to buy the horse: this was an act of eminent domain -- government seizure of private property by force.

For his act of "treason" and defiance, the G-man begins whipping the teenager. His father sees the abuse, and physically intervenes, and would have killed the G-man had he not been restrained by the other cowboys. I strongly urge you to go to this link and read the full description, and become emotionally involved in this issue. It is not just an academic debate.

What the government was doing was unethical, unjust, unconstitutional, loathesome and disgusting. What the Lonesome Dove protagonist did in response is profoundly American. It was the response of the colonists to the British. It was the response of the abolitionists to the slaveholders. Neoconservatives want us to believe this was the all-American response to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and it was in many respects the response of Charles Thornton to the Kirkwood City Government.

It is unquestionably and quentessentially American. My question here is: is it Christian?





Will Grigg writes:

In creating this moment – which was a pivotal, character-defining moment for Newt, and nearly as crucial for Woodrow Call -- McMurtry offered a vivid illustration of the omnivorous corruption of government in general, and militarism in particular. He also underscored the primacy of private property and portrayed the courageous defense of one's rights in the face of government aggression, as well as the righteous use of violence in defending one's family and fellows. Gus's intervention vivified the Just War principle of proportionality (yes, Dixon deserved to have the hell beaten out of him, but straight-up killing him would have been disproportionate). And Dixon's threat to murder Dish and his friends for the supposed crime of protecting their property lays bare the true nature of all government everywhere at all times.

"An eye for an eye" is considered "primitive" by critics of the Bible, but Biblical Law has elevated humanity. If Tribe A kills a member of Tribe B, Tribe B is prohibited from following "the Lamech Principle" and killing seven times as many members of Tribe A. The Bible favors just compensation: if I put out your eye, I should pay medical experts to restore your eyesight, or compensate you for the loss of productivity you will suffer (for more see Gary North, Victim's Rights, p. 106 [pdf p. 116], and James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, p. 115ff. [pdf p. 131ff), but I should not be killed or have both my eyes put out.

McMurtry's teenaged character Newt was whipped by the tyrannical agent of the government in an attempt to nationalize private property (steal a horse), and Newt suffered a couple of welts, and a bruise or two. In response, Newt's father Woodrow Call imposed a hundred thousand dollars in medical costs on the low-level government tyrant.

This fails to meet even the "primitive" standard of the Old Testament.

But under the New Covenant, Jesus pushes us to higher standards.

The Romans of Jesus' day had a law that required Jews to carry the supplies of Roman soldiers for up to one mile when their services were requisitioned by agents of the military occupation. The law was deeply resented by Israelites, though the Romans doubtless boasted of their magnanimity in requiring only one mile of service, strictly limiting this conscription by "the rule of law," and holding themselves out as beacons of democracy around the world. It was, clearly, a tyrannical military occupation of Israel by the Romans. If Russia pulled the same trick on Israel today, America's pro-Israel evangelicals would call out for the nuking of millions of people in Moscow. Not only did Jesus not urge Isralites to emulate Charles Thornton against these Roman pigs, He told us to go with the Romans for a second mile.

I have even criticized Rosa Parks for not following Jesus' command.

What would you do with a Roman soldier during the walk on that second mile? Shoot him when he's not looking? That might be the all-American answer. What is the Biblical answer? Exhort him to repent and resign.

This is the blueprint for true Christian Revolution. We must persuade our neighbors to apostatize from statism. Violence is not an option. Persuasion is our only tool. But the power behind this non-violent revolution is regeneration. Our sword is the message of the Bible that slices through flimsy excuses and academic defenses of our statism and unethical conduct.

Charles Thornton was not an anarchist. He was an archist. Despite the fact that he initiated a violent revolution against the Kirkwood city government, he apparently believed in the system, even running for City Council himself.

The only way the human race can eliminate tyranny is to stop believing in the system, and by putting our faith in the Prince of Peace as the only legitimate Archist, renouncing the belief that somehow, if the "right" people use it, violence can solve humanity's problems. Violence is the problem, not the answer; an expression of the root desire to be as gods (Genesis 3:5).

Grigg draws the all-American conclusion, albeit falling short of Patrick Henry's urgent exhortation:

But this is hardly the only example. The arrogant sadism and official lawlessness displayed by Weaver and Dixon are rapidly becoming the norm.

In the mid-1800s as depicted in Lonesome Dove, an Army scout would use his quirt to punish a civilian who wasn't adequately broken to the saddle of the state; today, the paramilitary goons we call police quickly resort to the Taser in such situations, giving non-violent -- and often non-resisting -- civilians a brief taste of electrocution torture.

The odds are steadily growing shorter that sometime in the life of each of us we'll run into some state functionary as arrogant, violent, and despicable as Dixon. When assaulted by such a specimen -- or, more importantly, when someone we love comes under such an attack -- we would be morally entitled, if not morally required, to go "Woodrow Call" on his a**.

The key question is: Would we be ready -- mentally, emotionally, and physically -- to do so, knowing the possible consequences?

Grigg is more consistent than most. Many Americans use the terminology of America's Founding Fathers, and most Americans can be seen lighting up fireworks on the 4th of July, but they aren't even close to being on the same page as the Founders, who not only opposed government at levels that would be considered "libertarian" today, but were willing to kill and die to fight it.

I'm glad Americans seem not to resort to violence and duels like America's Founding Fathers, but saddened that they silently condone tyranny.

We are not morally entitled to escalate state violence, or even to meet it "eye-for-eye." We are to leave vengeance to God. We must be willing to suffer violence, even as we preach a non-violent gospel and pray for regeneration and repentance in the lives of tyrants. Most Americans are unwilling to even make the most basic identification of today's government as a "tyranny." They should purchase Will Grigg's new book, ready to be alarmed and transformed by Grigg's diagnosis, but rejecting his prescription of violence.

"Cookie" and America's Founding Fathers

On February 7, 2008, in Kirkwood, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis), Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton went on a shooting rampage at a meeting in the city hall, that left six people dead and two others injured.

My first thought was that he must have been an insane madman.

Having read more about the case, I am tentatively concluding that he was very rational, and very much like America's Founding Fathers.

That's not meant to praise Charles "Cookie" Thornton, who is a murderer; it's meant to apply a light of scrutiny and criticism on America's Founding Fathers and many Americans who think the same way.

For background, here is the Wikipedia entry. Another Wiki, created by St. Louis residents, is WikiLou: Opinion: Kirkwood racism boils over into violence. Finally, one of my favorite commentators, Will Grigg: Makers vs. Takers: A Firebell in the Night?

Thornton seems to have been a victim of arrogant city government that does not consider itself a "public servant" in the older sense of that word, but distrustful of and superior to the masses. As WikiLou reports:

So what pushed him so far? It started when Charles Thornton left town for three days. Owning his own construction business, he had 7 vehicles which he parked in the area around his home. He received no complaints about the vehicles in the past, but when he returned from his three day trip, he found 21 parking tickets (one on each vehicle for each day he was gone). He felt he was being targeted for no real reason. He'd caused no harm to anyone. If his vehicles caused a problem, couldn't they have simply mentioned it to him without hundreds of dollars worth of tickets? Well, the Kirkwood Police had found an easy target to bring in some revenue, and they took advantage of the situation. Following this, the Kirkwood police found reasons to give Thornton over 150 citations, which cost him thousands in fines.

A true "public servant" isn't going to put one ticket after another on a car that has already been ticketed. One can imagine a city government that works with residents to reach mutually agreed upon results (though it's difficult to find real-life examples of this imagined scenario). Thornton's appeals to the City Council were not successful.

Acting as his own attorney, Thornton filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the city had denied him his "rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" by removing him from those two [council] meetings. (LATimes)

George Washington is reported to have said: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Every action of government destroys (in some degree) the life, liberty, or property of others. George Washington and the other Founding Fathers recognized this inescapable tendency toward evil, and they sold the Constitution to The American People not on the basis of what wonderful things government would do for us ("stimulate the economy," "universal health care," "retirement security," education, etc.), but on the basis of the evil things the Constitution would prevent the government from doing to us.

America's Founding Fathers believed that government was evil, but "a necessary evil." I've come to the conclusion that government is unnecessary. But the better "public servants" recognize the fine line between "effective government" and tyranny. They know they're walking on thin ice. They use their force and deprive people of their life, liberty or property only as a last resort. They try to use eloquence and reason first, rather than starting off with force. They treat the public like neighbors and equals.

It would be a difficult assignment to describe the differences between the way "Cookie" Thornton was treated by his government, and the way the American colonies were treated by Britain. Britain treated the colonists like slaves, not free Englishmen: taxes, fines, arbitrary regulations, an attitude on the government's part that "we have the right to govern you," and wanton acts of drive-by governings committed almost daily.

America's Founding Fathers reacted like Thornton did. They were probably more educated and more eloquent, but they risked "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend their life, liberty and property. They loaded their muskets and searched out the Red Coats. They fired upon them. The Red Coats fired back. Many Americans lost their lives, but they were prepared for that. They felt they had come to the end of the line. It was a last resort.

"Cookie" Thornton was prepared to die. He left his own Declaration of Independence: Columbia Missourian - Kirkwood gunman left suicide note, brother says:

"The truth will come out in the end" (Boston Herald)
"The truth will win in the end." (Los Angeles Times)

We can draw contrasts between the erudition and philosophical sophistication of Thornton's declaration and the more famous Declaration of July 4, 1776, but ethically they seem to me to be identical: A desperate response to an unresponsive government.

Every report I've read on the Kirkwood murders notes Thornton's frustration with government, but reminds us that these killings cannot be "excused" or "condoned."

Then we should not excuse or condone the American Revolution:

http://www.july4th1776.org/

More in the next post.

The Rogue Co-President

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, which Bill will be more dangerous to humanity: Bill Gates or Bill Clinton?

Here are a couple of resources to help answer this difficult and perplexing question:

An Ex-President, a Big Donor and a Lucrative Uranium Deal - International Herald Tribune

Bill Clinton: Rogue Co-President In Waiting - Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Let's step back and ask a bigger question about the concept of "Market Discipline."

By "market discipline" I mean this: a man who has to earn his living by serving customers turns out to be a better human being -- a more ethical human being -- may I even say a more Christ-like human being -- than a man who appeals to ignorant and covetous "voters" and uses threats of force to extort his paycheck from productive taxpayers.

A free market produces better people, and does not provide as many opportunities for evil people to inflict harm on others. A free market encourages service and persuasion. A world where "governments" take priority over markets is a world immersed in domination and violence.

By the time Bill Gates became wealthy enough to afford to buy nuclear weapons, he had already become the kind of person who is more likely to start a philanthropic foundation than drop nukes on millions of innocent non-combatant civilians (getting married also helped). The market made him that kind of person, because he had to persuade people to buy his products, serving their interests, rather than threatening them with imprisonment or fines or death, as governments do. (Getting married also helped.)

If the U.S. federal government did not exist (or existed only in proportions permitted by the U.S. Constitution) would we have nuclear weapons today? If the U.S. federal government had not gotten involved in World War I, giving rise to Hitler, or subsidized the Soviet Union before World War II and after, giving rise to "the Cold War," would the U.S. have needed to develop nuclear weapons?

Could the great scientific minds needed to develop nuclear weapons have been recruited for the works of death if they had not been seduced by the false religion of "patriotism?"

Would the Rosenbergs have given atomic bomb technology to Moscow in a world guided by markets rather than by statism (the worship of the State)? Did Bill Clinton give nuclear technology to the Chinese Communists because of Market rewards, or because of political rewards? Will Bill and Hillary Clinton increase their personal assets by enabling dictators in the "former" Soviet Union to arm their weapons of mass destruction? (It's not enough for a dictator to have uranium buried in his back yard. He needs to sell some of it to someone who is wealthy enough to buy it, and also unprincipled enough to buy it from a corrupt dictator, and a middleman like Bill Clinton to pull strings to make the deal happen. Then the dictator will have the funds to be able to turn "natural resources" into weapons and still more political power.)

Who are these people? Who is Frank Giustra? Who is Nursultan Nazarbayev? Who are the Clintons? Who is John McCain? Why are these people powerful? Why do they have the power to murder millions of people with the push of a button?

It won't matter who is elected President in November if the religion of statism is not replaced in the hearts of millions of people by what America's founders called "true religion."

The world of "Vine & Fig Tree" -- of "Liberty Under God" -- is a world where a "rogue co-President" is less likely to emerge.

Garfield and Gore

No, not that Garfield.

James A. Garfield (1831-1881), 20th President of the U.S.

He was elected after 35 ballots at an exciting Republican convention, then assassinated 4 months after taking office. His story provides an interesting model for what could happen this summer at the conventions of both parties, as well as what could happen next year.

Phyllis Schlafly has written this account of the Convention of 1880:

A relatively new book (2003) of political history called Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield may provide the model. Kenneth D. Ackerman tells the fascinating story of how the 1880 Republican National Convention in Chicago deadlocked, with three sets of delegates unwilling to abandon their first choice, and a totally unexpected non-candidate dark horse named James A. Garfield was nominated on the 36th ballot and then elected President.

Senator James G. Blaine of Maine was the first major name placed in nomination, soon followed by New York powerhouse Senator Roscoe Conkling's nomination of war hero General U.S. Grant for a third term. The third major contender was Treasury Secretary John Sherman, nominated by his friend and campaign manager Senator-elect James A. Garfield.

The first ballot on Monday, June 7 produced Grant, 304; Blaine, 284; Sherman, 93; and a handful of votes for minor candidates. All were well short of the 379 votes needed to win.

Over the next four hours, delegates cast 18 ballots, every one with a full roll call of states. They broke for dinner and then came back to cast 10 more ballots, despite the heat, the tedium and the hard benches on which they sat.

All three blocs seemed equally determined to stand by their man. After those 28 ballots, Grant's total of 304 votes had grown to 307, Blaine's 284 had shrunk to 279, and Sherman's 93 to 91.

When the convention resumed on Tuesday morning to cast the 29th ballot, Sherman's total jumped to 116, but that boomlet faded on the next ballot.

The break came on the 34th ballot, late in the alphabetic roll call of states, when Wisconsin suddenly announced "Sixteen votes for James A. Garfield." Sitting in the Ohio delegation, Garfield jumped to his feet and tried to make a point of order that he had not consented to have his name placed in nomination, but the convention chairman gaveled him down and refused to let him speak.

The 34th ballot totaled 312 for Grant, 275 for Blaine, 107 for Sherman, and 17 for Garfield. On the 35th ballot, Indiana and Maryland switched to Garfield, giving him a new total of 50 votes.

The roll call for the 36th ballot became high drama. State after state switched to Garfield. Then Maine announced that all its votes had moved from Blaine to Garfield.

When the balloting reached Ohio, Sherman ceded his support to Garfield, who then won the Republican nomination with 395 votes.

Could Republicans be so divided going into the 2008 Convention that a dark horse could win the nomination?

Schlafly's question could also be used for the Democrats. Obama's loyalty to the Establishment has not been proven. He cannot be the nominee. Hillary will drive Republicans to the polls to vote for the less evil of two evil lessers. Will Al Gore be the Democrats' James Garfield?

If Ron Paul should implausibly be the Republican dark horse, in a convention taken over by patriotic free marketers and public opinion fed by internet buzz, Dr. Paul may well meet the same fate as Garfield. Garfield was assassinated by Charles J. Guiteau, who didn't get the government job he wanted. A lot of people will be out of a government job if Ron Paul is elected.