TIME Magazine offers some thoughts about the Libertarian Party and "last month's child-porn-gate." LP Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart, who opposes child pornography, says the government should not interfere with children who consent to participate in child porn. Nathan Thornburgh writes for TIME:
Ruwart's is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for "child performers") and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It's also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into "the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade."
The party's executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, "Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography." Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.
That rigidity has long been libertarianism's greatest asset. If the Democratic and Republican parties have any ideology, it's an ideology of power — their policies shift and twist in the wind according to what they think will appeal to the biggest slice of the electorate. Libertarians have no power, but they have consistency and principle. If they lose that — and, presumably, the general election as well — they may be left on November 5th with nothing at all.
Libertarians will lose in November -- unless Americans regain a commitment to the radical pursuit of happiness and liberty which animated America's Founding Fathers. What purpose does the Libertarian Party have if not to educate voters and shift public opinion from the lukewarm and moderate to the passionate extremism of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and Sam Adams, who said:
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say "what should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776)
Las Vegas gambling advocate Wayne Allyn Root was one Libertarian candidate who attacked Ruwart for her consistent libertarianism. "I'm trying to change mainstream libertarianism," Root told TIME's Thornburgh at Root's home in Las Vegas in early May. "I want to make us electable."
That's the choice Libertarians face:
• making their party fit the mold of voters who would embarrass the Founding Fathers,
• or raising Americans up to the high standards of 1776, who would then see the Libertarian Party as the only logical alternative.
Is Ruwart's position as nutty as her rivals allege?
All libertarians agree that unconsented sex is wrong.
America's Founding Fathers believed that all sex outside the sacred life-long commitment of heterosexual marriage is sinful. Today's legal system is founded on a belief that "anything goes."
Imagine you're on a jury, hearing a child porn case, and the 40-year-old defendant is arguing that the 6-year-old "consented." How easily will you be persuaded of this after hearing the testimony of the child and the child's parents?
On the other hand, suppose you are a 14-year-old who has consented to marry an older man you love and respect, and have already had a child by him, a child you love very much, and the government wants to take your child away to an institution, based on its claim that -- regardless of what you say -- you are deemed legally incapable of "consent," therefore your marriage is invalid, and your child belongs to the government. Should you be allowed to try to convince a jury that you knew what you were doing so you can keep your child?
Mary Ruwart says you should be able to do so. "Child Protection" authorities in Texas say otherwise.
In a more Christian nation, the 40 year-old would be quickly convicted because the sex was outside marriage, and marriages were usually contracted within an extended family, with ties to the community, sanctioned by an educated church. Easy decision.
Yesterday's crimes are today's "alternative lifestyles," but a "fanatic" religious belief in marriage can be criminal, as fundamentalist Mormons in Texas have found out. We're now living with the descendants of people who were educated in schools where it is illegal to teach "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to students. This not only produces polygamous cults, it produces "the cult of the omnipotent State."
I've been in the home of a couple who were married at age 14, and after more than 50 years of marriage, they have many children, grand-children and great-grandchildren who are glad the couple was not subjected to the wisdom of bureaucrats in our great nanny-state.
But What About the Children? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
See comments on Christine Smith's Open letter to Shane Cory (LP Exec. Dir.) & Andrew Davis (LP Media Coordinator)
Another "child abuse" angle:
The all-powerful, all-wise state
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
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.
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
Here's an outline of my position on this issue.If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could abolish all laws against possession of child pornography by pushing that button, I would push the button . . . PROVIDED that pushing the button would also eliminate the rest of the federal government, especially the federal Department of Education and the pressure it puts on local schools to legitimize sexual deviancy, and all federal court precedents removing God, the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments from public schools. In other words, I believe the adoption of the complete libertarian program would, on balance, eliminate more child abuse than retaining the present system with its child pornography laws and abusive school system.
And let's face the fact that the Signers of the Constitution would be horrified and angered at the government's atheistic and immoral education system, which pushes homosexuality and fornication on children in its captivity.
I agree with the Bible that all sexual contact outside marriage is sinful and should be socially condemned. I also agree with the Bible that some forms of sexual contact are sinful even if "the government" claims the parties are "legally" "married." I believe most parents want their children to wait until they are married to just the right person in a life-long commitment before they have sexual contacts. The complete libertarian program would give these parents their wishes, or at least remove all government-sponsored undercutting of parental desires.
Government schools are presently the largest and most systematic criminal child abuse ring in America. This is The Harsh Truth About Public Schools. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (Luke 17:2). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.
Homeschool pioneer John Holt was not a Christian, and I'm sure he would be appalled at some of the things I've said in this post; and I don't agree with many things he said, but I am in fundamental agreement with his book Escape from Childhood. No, I don't believe a child should jump into an airplane and start flying -- I admit to the need for "flight instructors" -- but if my 14-year-old daughter, physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature beyond her years, meets the moral and intellectual equivalent of John Hancock or Samuel Adams, and she wants to marry Mr. Hancock, I don't believe the federal government has any rightful (or constitutional) authority to say she cannot. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who would appreciate John Hancock and want to begin a family with him? Not many in the government's school system, I'm sure of that. The government wants all citizens to be perpetual adolescents and dependents. John Holt says children should be encouraged to be mature and treated with at least the same respect we are willing to give to immature and irresponsible adults.
As Mary Ruwart admits, some people will make bad decisions if given the freedom. Does that justify the entire institution of socialist education and coercive violence which is the essence of today's government? I say no.
The federal government is not the friend of children.
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
The Constitution Party has turned away Alan Keyes and nominated Chuck Baldwin for President.
Google video: Chuck Baldwin Accepts Nomination of the Constitution Party 2008
I have quoted or linked to Chuck Baldwin's columns, which I generally enjoy, but I think the Constitution Party has made a mistake. Alan Keyes would have made a better candidate in the year of Barack Obama than a white southern preacher will. The Constitution Party wan't going to win no matter who they nominated; this year it's all about media exposure. "Major political party nominates black former Ambassador for President" is news; "Constitution Party nominates white fundy preacher for President" is not news. True, Keyes lost to Obama in Illinois, and the media doesn't like Keyes' message any more than Baldwin's, but the CP is now going to be written off as "the good ol' boy party."
Here's a video of Alan Keyes produced by Mike Ferguson at Missouri Viewpoints just after he lost the nomination:
Keyes, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, apparently got dumped by the Constitution Party in part because he still supports the United Nations in some way. (I'm only reading between the lines in the video; haven't read any other accounts of the CP convention procedings.) I think Keyes makes a good point in this interview: that America cannot be "isolationist" -- something the CP probably tends to be.
I've criticized Alan Keyes for his egotism, and in the video above he starts off with a lot of me-centered whining about not getting the nomination. But he's a better orator than Chuck Baldwin, even though some people call him "rude."
Pledge for America's Revival :: AlanKeyes.com
I like a lot of things Chuck Baldwin says, but given a choice between Baldwin and Bob Barr, I think I might go with Barr even though Barr (so far as I know) makes no claim to be a Christian or a defender of America as a Christian nation. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party. But Baldwin's (and the CP's) position on immigration is unChristian and unConstitutional, with emphasis on the "unChristian" part. And because Baldwin explicitly campaigns as a Christian and a pastor, this makes his position on immigration more offensive to me -- I don't want non-Christians to conclude that Christians are anti-immigrant and pro-INS, and I would rather support a "secular" candidate like Bob Barr than a candidate who might give the wrong impression because he openly acknowledges his Christian commitments. But I'll have to think more about this decision between now and November.
(I'm sorry; the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service, aka "la migra"] is now part of Homeland Security, and is called the "USCIS.)
Google video: Chuck Baldwin Accepts Nomination of the Constitution Party 2008
I have quoted or linked to Chuck Baldwin's columns, which I generally enjoy, but I think the Constitution Party has made a mistake. Alan Keyes would have made a better candidate in the year of Barack Obama than a white southern preacher will. The Constitution Party wan't going to win no matter who they nominated; this year it's all about media exposure. "Major political party nominates black former Ambassador for President" is news; "Constitution Party nominates white fundy preacher for President" is not news. True, Keyes lost to Obama in Illinois, and the media doesn't like Keyes' message any more than Baldwin's, but the CP is now going to be written off as "the good ol' boy party."
Here's a video of Alan Keyes produced by Mike Ferguson at Missouri Viewpoints just after he lost the nomination:
Keyes, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, apparently got dumped by the Constitution Party in part because he still supports the United Nations in some way. (I'm only reading between the lines in the video; haven't read any other accounts of the CP convention procedings.) I think Keyes makes a good point in this interview: that America cannot be "isolationist" -- something the CP probably tends to be.
I've criticized Alan Keyes for his egotism, and in the video above he starts off with a lot of me-centered whining about not getting the nomination. But he's a better orator than Chuck Baldwin, even though some people call him "rude."
Pledge for America's Revival :: AlanKeyes.com
I like a lot of things Chuck Baldwin says, but given a choice between Baldwin and Bob Barr, I think I might go with Barr even though Barr (so far as I know) makes no claim to be a Christian or a defender of America as a Christian nation. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party. But Baldwin's (and the CP's) position on immigration is unChristian and unConstitutional, with emphasis on the "unChristian" part. And because Baldwin explicitly campaigns as a Christian and a pastor, this makes his position on immigration more offensive to me -- I don't want non-Christians to conclude that Christians are anti-immigrant and pro-INS, and I would rather support a "secular" candidate like Bob Barr than a candidate who might give the wrong impression because he openly acknowledges his Christian commitments. But I'll have to think more about this decision between now and November.
(I'm sorry; the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service, aka "la migra"] is now part of Homeland Security, and is called the "USCIS.)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
McCain's Murder of 1st Amendment
Great article from George Will: "The Messiness of Political Hygiene."
The First Amendment supposedly guarantees freedom of association, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Our system of government is supposedly based on the idea of "the consent of the governed."
Some Colorado residents are finding out, however, that voicing one's consent and associating or communicating with others of like mind can be dangerous.
Two residents of a cluster of about 300 homes proposed annexation of all the homes into a nearby town. Six other residents opposed the annexation, and
began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado's speech police.
The pro-annexation duo commenced legal action against opponents, following the prescription of McCain-Feingold. Not just against the original six opponents, but the legal action
said that anyone who had contacted them or received a lawn sign might be subjected to "investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for campaign finance violations."
Colorado's McCain-esque laws require that
when two or more people associate to advocate a political position, and spend more than $200 in doing so, they become an "issue committee."
As such, they probably should hire a lawyer because even Colorado's secretary of state says the requirements imposed on issue committees are "often complex and unclear." Committees must register with the government; they must fund their activities from a bank account opened solely for that purpose; they must report to the government the names and addresses of all persons who contribute more than $20; they must also report the employers of plutocrats who contribute more than $100; they must report non-cash contributions such as lemons used for lemonade, and magic markers and wooden dowels for yard signs.
Such laws clearly show the connection between property rights and "human rights." Freedom of the press means nothing if the government owns all the presses. Freedom of religion means nothing if the right can only be exercised in government-approved worship "compounds."
McCain-ites apparently believe that we not only have a "secret ballot," but that our voting intentions before election day must be kept secret from other voters, and a magic marker used to convey voting intent to other voters and change their voting intentions becomes an implement of anti-government terrorism.
John Samples of the Cato Institute accuses McCain of being a "Progressive," not a conservative, and certainly not Madisonian:
The First Amendment to the Constitution is not Progressive. It gives greater weight to the right of the individual to speak, to write, and to associate than to any collective purpose the government might have in suppressing speech. That right includes inevitably a right to spend money to speak, to write, and to associate. Without the right to spend, the other rights would have no concrete meaning.
For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
"Clean" here obviously means politicians free from the restrictions of the quote Bill of Rights.
Some will support McCain's restrictions on campaigning by saying we need to avoid the appearance of corruption so that the integrity of government is maintained. Never mind that any pretense to integrity has long since passed; how does the argument that candidates should be required to disclose contributors in the interest of exposing the candidates' true loyalties or conflicts of interest apply to the Colorado residents who are speaking out against a ballot initiative where there is no human candidate at all?
Yes, but surely McCain's restrictions are not that burdensome. Right. George Will points to
an experiment by a University of Missouri professor involving 255 participants, almost all of them college graduates, [in which] the average participant correctly completed only 41 percent of the reporting requirements on three states' political disclosure forms.
Burdensome disclosure requirements and other regulations are, in effect, taxes on political speech. They deter political activism by small groups that are discouraged by the costs -- in money, time, nuisance and potential liabilities -- imposed by regulations.
As a third-party candidate for Congress, I try to sever any allegiance to contributors that conflicts with the allegiance to the Constitution I must have as a Congressman by not accepting any campaign contributions -- not from PACs, not from corporations, not from unions, not from ordinary human beings.
But I feel a great pressure against asking any ordinary American to support my campaign, knowing that my well-funded opponents can hire lawyers and commence legal proceedings against anyone making an effort to promote "Liberty Under God" by brandishing butcher paper, duct tape and a magic marker.
For more, see: Campaign Finance, Corruption, and the Oath of Office
The First Amendment supposedly guarantees freedom of association, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Our system of government is supposedly based on the idea of "the consent of the governed."
Some Colorado residents are finding out, however, that voicing one's consent and associating or communicating with others of like mind can be dangerous.
Two residents of a cluster of about 300 homes proposed annexation of all the homes into a nearby town. Six other residents opposed the annexation, and
began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado's speech police.
The pro-annexation duo commenced legal action against opponents, following the prescription of McCain-Feingold. Not just against the original six opponents, but the legal action
said that anyone who had contacted them or received a lawn sign might be subjected to "investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for campaign finance violations."
Colorado's McCain-esque laws require that
when two or more people associate to advocate a political position, and spend more than $200 in doing so, they become an "issue committee."
As such, they probably should hire a lawyer because even Colorado's secretary of state says the requirements imposed on issue committees are "often complex and unclear." Committees must register with the government; they must fund their activities from a bank account opened solely for that purpose; they must report to the government the names and addresses of all persons who contribute more than $20; they must also report the employers of plutocrats who contribute more than $100; they must report non-cash contributions such as lemons used for lemonade, and magic markers and wooden dowels for yard signs.
Such laws clearly show the connection between property rights and "human rights." Freedom of the press means nothing if the government owns all the presses. Freedom of religion means nothing if the right can only be exercised in government-approved worship "compounds."
McCain-ites apparently believe that we not only have a "secret ballot," but that our voting intentions before election day must be kept secret from other voters, and a magic marker used to convey voting intent to other voters and change their voting intentions becomes an implement of anti-government terrorism.
John Samples of the Cato Institute accuses McCain of being a "Progressive," not a conservative, and certainly not Madisonian:
The First Amendment to the Constitution is not Progressive. It gives greater weight to the right of the individual to speak, to write, and to associate than to any collective purpose the government might have in suppressing speech. That right includes inevitably a right to spend money to speak, to write, and to associate. Without the right to spend, the other rights would have no concrete meaning.
For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
"Clean" here obviously means politicians free from the restrictions of the quote Bill of Rights.
Some will support McCain's restrictions on campaigning by saying we need to avoid the appearance of corruption so that the integrity of government is maintained. Never mind that any pretense to integrity has long since passed; how does the argument that candidates should be required to disclose contributors in the interest of exposing the candidates' true loyalties or conflicts of interest apply to the Colorado residents who are speaking out against a ballot initiative where there is no human candidate at all?
Yes, but surely McCain's restrictions are not that burdensome. Right. George Will points to
an experiment by a University of Missouri professor involving 255 participants, almost all of them college graduates, [in which] the average participant correctly completed only 41 percent of the reporting requirements on three states' political disclosure forms.
Burdensome disclosure requirements and other regulations are, in effect, taxes on political speech. They deter political activism by small groups that are discouraged by the costs -- in money, time, nuisance and potential liabilities -- imposed by regulations.
As a third-party candidate for Congress, I try to sever any allegiance to contributors that conflicts with the allegiance to the Constitution I must have as a Congressman by not accepting any campaign contributions -- not from PACs, not from corporations, not from unions, not from ordinary human beings.
But I feel a great pressure against asking any ordinary American to support my campaign, knowing that my well-funded opponents can hire lawyers and commence legal proceedings against anyone making an effort to promote "Liberty Under God" by brandishing butcher paper, duct tape and a magic marker.
For more, see: Campaign Finance, Corruption, and the Oath of Office
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Money Tree in Kinder's Garden
Peter Kinder, Republican candidate for Missouri's Lieutenant Governor, has released his first quarter campaign finance reports, revealing $1,326,843.52 in receipts this election.
A good deal of this money comes from organizations with names like the Republican 12th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 14th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 15th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 16th District Committee, the Republican 17th District Committee, the Republican 18th District Committee, the Republican 19th District Committee, the Republican 23rd Senatorial District Committee, and the Republican 89th District Committee.
My first thought was that these "committees" are made up of people like my mother, who, along with other "Republican Women," has spent many hours working for Republican candidates at meetings, presumably by folding campaign brochures, stuffing envelopes, and all the other things that make up modern political campaigns.
How naïve I am!
Funny thing is, all these organizations have the same address: The Laundry Mat at 320 Monroe Street, St. Charles Missouri. Not a literal "laundry mat," of course, but
a quiet, unassuming home at 320 Monroe Street in St. Charles [where] millions and millions of dollars of political contributions are being funneled into Republican political campaigns with no limits on how much can be contributed or on how the money can be spent. Some call it “Money Laundering” while others say it is “Smart Politics’.
So where did all this money really come from, and what laws or taxpayer subsidies did it buy?
Out of more than 4 million registered voters in Missouri, I would be surprised if more than a few hundred voters were asking these questions.
A good deal of this money comes from organizations with names like the Republican 12th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 14th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 15th Legislative District Committee, the Republican 16th District Committee, the Republican 17th District Committee, the Republican 18th District Committee, the Republican 19th District Committee, the Republican 23rd Senatorial District Committee, and the Republican 89th District Committee.
My first thought was that these "committees" are made up of people like my mother, who, along with other "Republican Women," has spent many hours working for Republican candidates at meetings, presumably by folding campaign brochures, stuffing envelopes, and all the other things that make up modern political campaigns.
How naïve I am!
Funny thing is, all these organizations have the same address: The Laundry Mat at 320 Monroe Street, St. Charles Missouri. Not a literal "laundry mat," of course, but
a quiet, unassuming home at 320 Monroe Street in St. Charles [where] millions and millions of dollars of political contributions are being funneled into Republican political campaigns with no limits on how much can be contributed or on how the money can be spent. Some call it “Money Laundering” while others say it is “Smart Politics’.
So where did all this money really come from, and what laws or taxpayer subsidies did it buy?
Out of more than 4 million registered voters in Missouri, I would be surprised if more than a few hundred voters were asking these questions.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Jill Lepore's America
One of the viewers of my YouTube video interview has alerted me to a book review in The New Yorker magazine: "Prior Convictions" by Jill Lepore.
My reply is here:
http://lepore.KevinCraig.us
The subject is the myth of "the Separation of Church and State."
My reply is here:
http://lepore.KevinCraig.us
The subject is the myth of "the Separation of Church and State."
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Video Interview
Go to YouTube.com and search for "Kevin Craig Missouri Libertarian" and you'll find my video interivew on "Missouri Viewpoints" with Mike Ferguson.
Please add a comment. If you make it critical and challenging, I can respond back, and we'll get an exciting debate going. If you just say "Golly, Kevin, you're my heeero," there won't be much I can say.
If you make a comment, come back here and comment on this blog to let me know. Thanks!
Please add a comment. If you make it critical and challenging, I can respond back, and we'll get an exciting debate going. If you just say "Golly, Kevin, you're my heeero," there won't be much I can say.
If you make a comment, come back here and comment on this blog to let me know. Thanks!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
April 19, 1775, 1993, 2008
As the sun rose on this day in 1775, shots were fired. British troops had been ordered to capture and destroy arms possessed by Massachusetts citizens. The armed colonists fought back, the American Revolution is said to have begun, culminating in the Second Amendment, guaranteeing what the British had attempted to destroy. The Battles of Lexington and Concord are commemorated on this day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as "Patriots' Day."
America is based on the right of the people to overthrow the government.
April 19, 1993 is An Anniversary That We Must Never Forget, says Anthony Gregory. But one can only forget what one was first conscious of, and America has never really been conscious of the real dimensions of the federal assault on the Branch Davidians, the lies and cover-ups of the incineration of nearly 100 men women and children, and the depth of statism (worship of The State) in a nation whose Declaration of Independence says we have a duty to abolish a tyrannical State.
Waco had something to do with the bombing in Oklahoma City two years later. More by Anthony Gregory:
Eleven Years Since Waco and Very Little Has Changed
Waco, Oklahoma City, and the Post-9/11 Left-Right Dynamic
Waco and the Bipartisan Police State
Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine and Virginia Tech
As these articles attest, April has a lot of violent holidays:
April Violence
Oklahoma City - April 19, 1995
Now we see Mass Hysteria in Eldorado Texas. The same people are arrayed against the Mormons as led the charge against the Branch Davidians.
Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.
But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.
Texas polygamist sect is accused of indoctrinating girls - Yahoo! News
"Teachings" = "abuse"
More specifically, "teachings" not approved by the government.
This is a repeat of Waco.
Angie Voss played a role at the Waco invasion. A low-level state bureaucrat has the right to destroy the institutions of church and family if they don't bow before the altar of the State.
In other contexts, teachings not approved by the government = "terrorism." And certainly "teachings" combined with the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights, as at Waco, will bring the full force of government upon you.
What would Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere have said about these government raids? Which children are more likely to know who these men were: the home-educated mormons or the average state-educated secularists?
America is based on the right of the people to overthrow the government.
April 19, 1993 is An Anniversary That We Must Never Forget, says Anthony Gregory. But one can only forget what one was first conscious of, and America has never really been conscious of the real dimensions of the federal assault on the Branch Davidians, the lies and cover-ups of the incineration of nearly 100 men women and children, and the depth of statism (worship of The State) in a nation whose Declaration of Independence says we have a duty to abolish a tyrannical State.
Waco had something to do with the bombing in Oklahoma City two years later. More by Anthony Gregory:
Eleven Years Since Waco and Very Little Has Changed
Waco, Oklahoma City, and the Post-9/11 Left-Right Dynamic
Waco and the Bipartisan Police State
Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine and Virginia Tech
As these articles attest, April has a lot of violent holidays:
April Violence
Oklahoma City - April 19, 1995
Now we see Mass Hysteria in Eldorado Texas. The same people are arrayed against the Mormons as led the charge against the Branch Davidians.
Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.
But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.
Texas polygamist sect is accused of indoctrinating girls - Yahoo! News
"Teachings" = "abuse"
More specifically, "teachings" not approved by the government.
This is a repeat of Waco.
Angie Voss played a role at the Waco invasion. A low-level state bureaucrat has the right to destroy the institutions of church and family if they don't bow before the altar of the State.
In other contexts, teachings not approved by the government = "terrorism." And certainly "teachings" combined with the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights, as at Waco, will bring the full force of government upon you.
What would Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere have said about these government raids? Which children are more likely to know who these men were: the home-educated mormons or the average state-educated secularists?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Mormons and Davidians
Tomorrow (April 19) is the anniversary of the 1993 annihilation of the Branch Davidian community at Mt. Carmel near Waco, Texas.
This week another Texas cult has been in the news. Fortunately, the State of Texas has decided to kidnap the children involved in the cult rather than incinerating them as they did to the women and children in Waco.
For more details on the kidnapping of the Mormon kids, see William Norman Grigg's important article, Collectivist Child Abuse. The conclusion seems inescapable: these children were better off with their mothers in a weirdo cult than they are in the clutches of "the government."
Again, I believe the Branch Davidians and the Mormons are false religions, and there is a need for society (that means people like you and me, not "the State") to rescue their neighbors from the "darkness" of false religions like these.
But "The State" is a cult far more abusive than the Mormons. Belief in the moral rectitude of polygamy is less destructive of the human spirit than belief in the moral legitimacy of child kidnapping, armed invasions and mass murder. Polygamy is less abusive to children than the military-pharmaceutical complex which kidnapped the Mormon children.
During the first century under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation, and polygamy was outlawed by all Christian nations. While I don't believe polygamists should be fined, jailed, or executed, I do believe polygamy is sub-Biblical, and as Christians and nations become more mature, polygamy disappears.
As America becomes more atheistic and adolescent, polygamy, fornication, divorce and other sexual deviancies become more commonplace. SWAT teams, paramilitary raids, and kidnapping of children are "the government's" answer, and as with all government "answers," the cure is worse than the disease.
(Actually, the government doesn't care about polygamy, homosexuality, fornication, etc. The government talks about these things in order to gain the support of the "Religious Right" for the government's actions. The real enemy of the State of Texas is marriage and authority outside the State.)
This week another Texas cult has been in the news. Fortunately, the State of Texas has decided to kidnap the children involved in the cult rather than incinerating them as they did to the women and children in Waco.For more details on the kidnapping of the Mormon kids, see William Norman Grigg's important article, Collectivist Child Abuse. The conclusion seems inescapable: these children were better off with their mothers in a weirdo cult than they are in the clutches of "the government."
Again, I believe the Branch Davidians and the Mormons are false religions, and there is a need for society (that means people like you and me, not "the State") to rescue their neighbors from the "darkness" of false religions like these.
But "The State" is a cult far more abusive than the Mormons. Belief in the moral rectitude of polygamy is less destructive of the human spirit than belief in the moral legitimacy of child kidnapping, armed invasions and mass murder. Polygamy is less abusive to children than the military-pharmaceutical complex which kidnapped the Mormon children.
During the first century under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation, and polygamy was outlawed by all Christian nations. While I don't believe polygamists should be fined, jailed, or executed, I do believe polygamy is sub-Biblical, and as Christians and nations become more mature, polygamy disappears.
As America becomes more atheistic and adolescent, polygamy, fornication, divorce and other sexual deviancies become more commonplace. SWAT teams, paramilitary raids, and kidnapping of children are "the government's" answer, and as with all government "answers," the cure is worse than the disease.
(Actually, the government doesn't care about polygamy, homosexuality, fornication, etc. The government talks about these things in order to gain the support of the "Religious Right" for the government's actions. The real enemy of the State of Texas is marriage and authority outside the State.)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Battle of the Cults
The news is filled with reports of children being taken from their parents from a mormon cult in Texas.
I've written before of America's largest and most dangerous cult; an authoritarian sect that is led by a man who calls himself "the Decider."
Will Grigg has written of this other cult, and his article (must-reading), entitled "Your Children Are Ours," describes the battle of the cults. The "Your" in the title refers to the children of the strange Mormon cult; the "Ours" refers to the Cult of the Decider (or more accurately, a denomination of the larger cult called "The State of Texas").
I haven't been a member of any church since about 1985. There is, I am confident, no church that would want me as a member. The last church I would want to be a member of is the fundamentalist mormon church in Texas. It is "repellent," to use Grigg's vast understatement.
Still, it looks to me as though the children of that cult are not very likely to conspire to murder their 3rd grade teacher. They probably wouldn't grow up to murder for the empire when ordered to by "The Decider." Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The State doesn't like 50-year-old men having sex with underaged girls. The State believes that it's better for 13 year old girls to have sex with 16 year old boys. Or experimenting with bisexuality. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
An "anonymous" tip suggested an older man was beating a younger girl. Better to have her beat by a boy her own age in a government-run school. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The photos in this article of sobbing mothers bereft of their children were probably staged, and the truth is much closer to the talking heads on FoxNews who describe the mormon women as "robots," all of whom had a "glazed look," undoubtedly caused by habitually obeying the cult leaders. Much better for the children of these mothers to be made children of the State, so that they too, like robots, can turn on the television for 8 hours and 14 minutes per day and stare at it with a glazed look. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The idea that the State makes a better parent than the parents in this wacked-out mormon cult only displays the brainwashing and trance-like thinking of most Americans.
The myth of "the Separation of Church and State" says anything is true if it's true "for you." Religion and the public are separated, and religion often evades public scrutiny and becomes like a petrie dish culture, mutating generation after generation. (By "public scrutiny" I don't mean "government scrutiny." I mean the scrutiny of ordinary neighbors. We've all been trained not to "judge" our neighbor's religion, because all religions are "equally true.")
Although government schools encourage us to believe that anything is true if it's true "for us," there comes a point when a cult becomes a threat to the State. At that point, the church is always called a "compound."
I used to write in favor of "Patriarchy." So did a fellow named Phil Lancaster. So does Doug Phillips. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with polygamous cults like this one in Texas.
I've written before of America's largest and most dangerous cult; an authoritarian sect that is led by a man who calls himself "the Decider."
Will Grigg has written of this other cult, and his article (must-reading), entitled "Your Children Are Ours," describes the battle of the cults. The "Your" in the title refers to the children of the strange Mormon cult; the "Ours" refers to the Cult of the Decider (or more accurately, a denomination of the larger cult called "The State of Texas").
I haven't been a member of any church since about 1985. There is, I am confident, no church that would want me as a member. The last church I would want to be a member of is the fundamentalist mormon church in Texas. It is "repellent," to use Grigg's vast understatement.
Still, it looks to me as though the children of that cult are not very likely to conspire to murder their 3rd grade teacher. They probably wouldn't grow up to murder for the empire when ordered to by "The Decider." Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The State doesn't like 50-year-old men having sex with underaged girls. The State believes that it's better for 13 year old girls to have sex with 16 year old boys. Or experimenting with bisexuality. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
An "anonymous" tip suggested an older man was beating a younger girl. Better to have her beat by a boy her own age in a government-run school. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The photos in this article of sobbing mothers bereft of their children were probably staged, and the truth is much closer to the talking heads on FoxNews who describe the mormon women as "robots," all of whom had a "glazed look," undoubtedly caused by habitually obeying the cult leaders. Much better for the children of these mothers to be made children of the State, so that they too, like robots, can turn on the television for 8 hours and 14 minutes per day and stare at it with a glazed look. Hence the change in parenting required by the State.
The idea that the State makes a better parent than the parents in this wacked-out mormon cult only displays the brainwashing and trance-like thinking of most Americans.
The myth of "the Separation of Church and State" says anything is true if it's true "for you." Religion and the public are separated, and religion often evades public scrutiny and becomes like a petrie dish culture, mutating generation after generation. (By "public scrutiny" I don't mean "government scrutiny." I mean the scrutiny of ordinary neighbors. We've all been trained not to "judge" our neighbor's religion, because all religions are "equally true.")
Although government schools encourage us to believe that anything is true if it's true "for us," there comes a point when a cult becomes a threat to the State. At that point, the church is always called a "compound."
---------=======*******O*******=======---------
I used to write in favor of "Patriarchy." So did a fellow named Phil Lancaster. So does Doug Phillips. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with polygamous cults like this one in Texas.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
War Tax Refusal
With "Tax Day" behind us, here are a few additional resources to think about.
First is a typical statement of the Christian duty to pay taxes:
The Bible and Taxes - What Does the Bible Say About Paying Taxes?
Without denying the duty to pay taxes, Rushdoony shows there's more involved in the classic passages:
Render Unto Caesar - The Tribute Money
Recently added:
The Chalcedon Foundation - Jesus and the Tax Revolt
The Roman Empire of Jesus' day was far worse than the American Empire. The Roman Empire was an Empire of perpetual war. Its economy was fueled by international conquest. Israel was a victim of barbaric Roman war, a chosen nation under military occupation by unclean pagans. The parallel between Israel and Rome on the one hand and Iraq and the U.S. on the other couldn't be more obvious. While we live in the invading country in the U.S. War on Iraq, Jesus and His fellow Jews lived in the invaded country in the Roman War on Israel.
And Roman governors like Herod did not think twice about mass slaughter of the innocents among the people he governed when it was deemed politically expedient, or just out of pure selfish vengeance for offenses real or imagined.
Clearly, but amazingly, the New Testament does not command or justify the refusal to pay taxes to the government that is not only waging war on the innocent (like the U.S.), but is waging war against those very people who are to pay the taxes to sustain that very same war.
This is why Christians who refuse to pay taxes, while more sensitive to the immorality of war than most tax-payers, are not following Christ and the Bible:
The Christian Radical: Tax Day Letter to the Editor from Don Timmerman - former Milwaukee CW
Democracy Now! War Tax Resistance: How a Portland Couple Have Refused to Pay Taxes for Over 30 Years to Protest Military Funding
Another story of the mounting tax burden:
DownsizeDC.org Blog: The Unknown Taxpayer
A non-Christian libertarian perspective:
Positive Liberty » Why I Have Not Participated In Any Tax Evader’s Project
First is a typical statement of the Christian duty to pay taxes:
The Bible and Taxes - What Does the Bible Say About Paying Taxes?
Without denying the duty to pay taxes, Rushdoony shows there's more involved in the classic passages:
Render Unto Caesar - The Tribute Money
Recently added:
The Chalcedon Foundation - Jesus and the Tax Revolt
The Roman Empire of Jesus' day was far worse than the American Empire. The Roman Empire was an Empire of perpetual war. Its economy was fueled by international conquest. Israel was a victim of barbaric Roman war, a chosen nation under military occupation by unclean pagans. The parallel between Israel and Rome on the one hand and Iraq and the U.S. on the other couldn't be more obvious. While we live in the invading country in the U.S. War on Iraq, Jesus and His fellow Jews lived in the invaded country in the Roman War on Israel.
And Roman governors like Herod did not think twice about mass slaughter of the innocents among the people he governed when it was deemed politically expedient, or just out of pure selfish vengeance for offenses real or imagined.
Clearly, but amazingly, the New Testament does not command or justify the refusal to pay taxes to the government that is not only waging war on the innocent (like the U.S.), but is waging war against those very people who are to pay the taxes to sustain that very same war.
This is why Christians who refuse to pay taxes, while more sensitive to the immorality of war than most tax-payers, are not following Christ and the Bible:
The Christian Radical: Tax Day Letter to the Editor from Don Timmerman - former Milwaukee CW
Democracy Now! War Tax Resistance: How a Portland Couple Have Refused to Pay Taxes for Over 30 Years to Protest Military Funding
Another story of the mounting tax burden:
DownsizeDC.org Blog: The Unknown Taxpayer
A non-Christian libertarian perspective:
Positive Liberty » Why I Have Not Participated In Any Tax Evader’s Project
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Pay Your Taxes!
Yesterday I tried to make clear my belief that all taxation is theft, and Americans are less than admirable Americans if they don't oppose today's taxes, which are ten times greater than the taxes America's Founding Fathers took up arms to fight.
Every 4th of July millions of Americans celebrate "Independence Day," without remembering for a second that the central message of that day is abolishing the government. Any government that seeks to "be as god" (Genesis 3:5) -- especially by taxing more than God demands (ten percent) -- is a "Tyranny" according to The Declaration of Independence. We have not just a right to abolish such an idolatrous government, but the duty.
The question is not whether we should abolish the government, but how.
I submit America's Founding Fathers gave the wrong answer to this question. They took up arms. They killed fellow Christians.
America's Founding Fathers were not perfect. They were products of their times. Although Christianity had been exercising its civilizing effects for 1700 years, there was still much maturing and growth to be done on issues such as slavery, war, and capital punishment.
The Bible could hardly be plainer: we are to pay our taxes and submit to Caesar.
This is not to say that Caesar has a right to do what he does. It simply means that we do not overcome Caesar's evil acts with greater evil.
Here are the key passages:
Matthew 5:38-48 (click the link to read the passage)
There was a law in Israel that permitted Roman soldiers to conscript Israelis and compel them to carry the soldiers' backpacks for up to one mile. Nobody in his right mind would concede that the Roman Empire had a moral right to conquer Israel, put them under military occupation, and order citizens of the conquered nation to perform slave labor. Jesus doesn't deny that the Roman Empire is in violation of "international law" and the Geneva accords. Jesus doesn't deny that government conscription is evil. In fact, He plainly affirms it: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil."
Taxation is evil. We should not resist evil by violent acts against tax collectors.
The Apostle Paul echoes Christ's teachings and again applies the tactics to the Roman Empire:
Romans 12:17 - 13:7
We are not to overcome evil with evil, but with good.
Romans 13 is a dangerously misrepresented text. It is used to legitimize acts of conquest and violence: "The powers that be are ordained of God." The word "powers" means "demonic forces," as in Ephesians 6:12,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
So we do indeed "wrestle" or deny the moral legitimacy of "the powers," but our weapons are not muskets and cannons (1 Corinthians 10:3-5).
1 Peter 2:11-25
Notice in this passage that a conquered people are to submit to the conquerors, and a slave is to obey his slavemaster as if he were obeying Christ Himself (Ephesians 6:5-7). It was not wrong to persuade slave owners to release their slaves (Philemon 1:14-16). Just as the abolition of the institution of slavery was a Christian thing to do (as Wilberforce did it, but not as Lincoln did it), even though God commands slaves to obey their masters, so the abolition of the taxing institution would be a Christian thing to do, if done through persausion rather than violence, even though God commands us to obey evil extortionate tax collectors.
America's Founding Fathers believed some taxation was necessary. They were wrong. We must purge our collective consciousness of the idea that some people have a moral right to use violence against others.
In the mean time,
"Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor" (Romans 13:7).
Every 4th of July millions of Americans celebrate "Independence Day," without remembering for a second that the central message of that day is abolishing the government. Any government that seeks to "be as god" (Genesis 3:5) -- especially by taxing more than God demands (ten percent) -- is a "Tyranny" according to The Declaration of Independence. We have not just a right to abolish such an idolatrous government, but the duty.
The question is not whether we should abolish the government, but how.
I submit America's Founding Fathers gave the wrong answer to this question. They took up arms. They killed fellow Christians.
America's Founding Fathers were not perfect. They were products of their times. Although Christianity had been exercising its civilizing effects for 1700 years, there was still much maturing and growth to be done on issues such as slavery, war, and capital punishment.
The Bible could hardly be plainer: we are to pay our taxes and submit to Caesar.
This is not to say that Caesar has a right to do what he does. It simply means that we do not overcome Caesar's evil acts with greater evil.
Here are the key passages:
Matthew 5:38-48 (click the link to read the passage)
There was a law in Israel that permitted Roman soldiers to conscript Israelis and compel them to carry the soldiers' backpacks for up to one mile. Nobody in his right mind would concede that the Roman Empire had a moral right to conquer Israel, put them under military occupation, and order citizens of the conquered nation to perform slave labor. Jesus doesn't deny that the Roman Empire is in violation of "international law" and the Geneva accords. Jesus doesn't deny that government conscription is evil. In fact, He plainly affirms it: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil."
Taxation is evil. We should not resist evil by violent acts against tax collectors.
The Apostle Paul echoes Christ's teachings and again applies the tactics to the Roman Empire:
Romans 12:17 - 13:7
We are not to overcome evil with evil, but with good.
Romans 13 is a dangerously misrepresented text. It is used to legitimize acts of conquest and violence: "The powers that be are ordained of God." The word "powers" means "demonic forces," as in Ephesians 6:12,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
So we do indeed "wrestle" or deny the moral legitimacy of "the powers," but our weapons are not muskets and cannons (1 Corinthians 10:3-5).
1 Peter 2:11-25
Notice in this passage that a conquered people are to submit to the conquerors, and a slave is to obey his slavemaster as if he were obeying Christ Himself (Ephesians 6:5-7). It was not wrong to persuade slave owners to release their slaves (Philemon 1:14-16). Just as the abolition of the institution of slavery was a Christian thing to do (as Wilberforce did it, but not as Lincoln did it), even though God commands slaves to obey their masters, so the abolition of the taxing institution would be a Christian thing to do, if done through persausion rather than violence, even though God commands us to obey evil extortionate tax collectors.
America's Founding Fathers believed some taxation was necessary. They were wrong. We must purge our collective consciousness of the idea that some people have a moral right to use violence against others.
In the mean time,
"Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor" (Romans 13:7).
Monday, April 14, 2008
Christmas on the Potomac
Tomorrow is the day millions of Americans play Santa Claus, by dropping down the Washington D.C. chimney, and leaving oodles of money for Beltway bureaucrats, which America's Santa Clauses have taken out of their own paychecks.
And unlike the December Santa, the April 15th Santas don't even bother checking to see if Washington has been "naughty or nice." Ten years ago, conservatives were complaining that the feds were more naughty than nice, especially those at the National Endowment for the Arts, who were putting on indisputably pornographic "stage plays" (Annie Sprinkle, who spread her legs onstage in a New York exhibition and asked audience members to view her vagina with a flashlight) and blasphemous "art" displays ("Piss Christ" by Adres Serrano, featuring Christ submerged in the author's urine) and other "works" featuring feces, sadomasochism, same-sex erotica, carcasses, severed heads, vomit, genitalia, and the desecration of sacred objects . Republicans promised to cut funding for the agency. Instead, they increased it. On December 26 of last year,
President George W. Bush signed an omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2008 that includes $144.7 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This represents an increase of $20.1 million over the 2007 funding level of $124.562 million. It is the largest dollar increase in the NEA appropriation since 1979....
Would the situation be better if the NEA were funding wholesome Christian art?
No.
April 15 represents the largest act of theft on the planet, committed by an arm of the institution which is unquestionably the most destructive criminal syndicate in human history: "The State."
Taking money from another human being under threats of force (fines, prison, execution) is the legal definition of theft, robbery, extortion. All taxation is immoral, a violation of the command "Thou shalt not steal."
Men like Paul Revere, Sam Adams, John Hancock, and other members of "The Sons of Liberty" threw tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax of 3 pence per pound. Ben Franklin said Americans only used about 10 pounds of tea a year. In contrast, Americans today use more than 10 gallons of gas with every fill-up, and say nothing about taxes TEN TIMES GREATER than the taxes imposed by the British.
America's Founders called it "tyranny." What would they call our government today?
They would be staggered. They would be outraged.
"Tax Day" is a good day to ask two questions:
1. What motivated America's Founders to oppose so little tyranny with such passion?
2. What motivates you to accept so much tyranny with such apathy?
These questions are so much bigger than "Who will you vote for: Obama or McCain?"
Here are my two answers to those questions:
1. CHARACTER
America's Founding Fathers were much better trained to discern good and evil than we are. In general, Americans 200 years ago had better character than we do. When they saw the first expression of evil and tyranny, they nipped it in the bud. "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" were taught in every public school. Americans today blithely accept the most heinous forms of violence and debauchery, from our neighbors and from our government. We lack the character good Americans once had.
2. The unethical dream of getting “something for nothing.”
We pay our taxes only because we think we're going to get more in return than we pay. As if the government doesn't skim off their cut before sending it back to us with strings attached. We vote for the Congressman we think is shrewd enough to take more from the constituents of other Congressmen than he allows them to take from us. We're smart; they're stupid. We'll make a profit; they'll take a loss.
"The Government" is a huge con game. Only people of bad character fall for con games.
We accept tyranny, and hope to profit from mass, institutionalized systematic theft. And year after year, election after election, we believe the promises of politicians.
America's founders would probably not grace most of us with the title of "American."
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Samuel Adams, 1776
Applied Anarchy: Why Taxes Are Theft
LewRockwell.com Blog: April 15 Is Freedom Day
Exploiting the Workers by Anthony Gregory
What We Need Is a Good Old-Fashioned Tyranny
Shorn on the 4th of July
Can There Be a "Just Tax"? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
Tax Day - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
"Christmas on the Potomac" was lifted from: DownsizeDC.org Blog Tax Day Feelings
And unlike the December Santa, the April 15th Santas don't even bother checking to see if Washington has been "naughty or nice." Ten years ago, conservatives were complaining that the feds were more naughty than nice, especially those at the National Endowment for the Arts, who were putting on indisputably pornographic "stage plays" (Annie Sprinkle, who spread her legs onstage in a New York exhibition and asked audience members to view her vagina with a flashlight) and blasphemous "art" displays ("Piss Christ" by Adres Serrano, featuring Christ submerged in the author's urine) and other "works" featuring feces, sadomasochism, same-sex erotica, carcasses, severed heads, vomit, genitalia, and the desecration of sacred objects . Republicans promised to cut funding for the agency. Instead, they increased it. On December 26 of last year,
President George W. Bush signed an omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2008 that includes $144.7 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This represents an increase of $20.1 million over the 2007 funding level of $124.562 million. It is the largest dollar increase in the NEA appropriation since 1979....
Would the situation be better if the NEA were funding wholesome Christian art?
No.
April 15 represents the largest act of theft on the planet, committed by an arm of the institution which is unquestionably the most destructive criminal syndicate in human history: "The State."
Taking money from another human being under threats of force (fines, prison, execution) is the legal definition of theft, robbery, extortion. All taxation is immoral, a violation of the command "Thou shalt not steal."
Men like Paul Revere, Sam Adams, John Hancock, and other members of "The Sons of Liberty" threw tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax of 3 pence per pound. Ben Franklin said Americans only used about 10 pounds of tea a year. In contrast, Americans today use more than 10 gallons of gas with every fill-up, and say nothing about taxes TEN TIMES GREATER than the taxes imposed by the British.
America's Founders called it "tyranny." What would they call our government today?
They would be staggered. They would be outraged.
"Tax Day" is a good day to ask two questions:
1. What motivated America's Founders to oppose so little tyranny with such passion?
2. What motivates you to accept so much tyranny with such apathy?
These questions are so much bigger than "Who will you vote for: Obama or McCain?"
Here are my two answers to those questions:
1. CHARACTER
America's Founding Fathers were much better trained to discern good and evil than we are. In general, Americans 200 years ago had better character than we do. When they saw the first expression of evil and tyranny, they nipped it in the bud. "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" were taught in every public school. Americans today blithely accept the most heinous forms of violence and debauchery, from our neighbors and from our government. We lack the character good Americans once had.
2. The unethical dream of getting “something for nothing.”
We pay our taxes only because we think we're going to get more in return than we pay. As if the government doesn't skim off their cut before sending it back to us with strings attached. We vote for the Congressman we think is shrewd enough to take more from the constituents of other Congressmen than he allows them to take from us. We're smart; they're stupid. We'll make a profit; they'll take a loss.
"The Government" is a huge con game. Only people of bad character fall for con games.
We accept tyranny, and hope to profit from mass, institutionalized systematic theft. And year after year, election after election, we believe the promises of politicians.
America's founders would probably not grace most of us with the title of "American."
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Samuel Adams, 1776
---------=======*******O*******=======---------
Applied Anarchy: Why Taxes Are Theft
LewRockwell.com Blog: April 15 Is Freedom Day
Exploiting the Workers by Anthony Gregory
What We Need Is a Good Old-Fashioned Tyranny
Shorn on the 4th of July
Can There Be a "Just Tax"? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
Tax Day - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
"Christmas on the Potomac" was lifted from: DownsizeDC.org Blog Tax Day Feelings
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Bob Barr and the Blog Blizzard
A note on my threatened "blog blizzard": Nobody has unsubscribed as a result of my warning, so I've decided to do all the posting on a daily basis, two or three at a time. They will still show up all together in the archives, but my theory is that they will not be emailed all at once. I don't really know how this will work.
Bob Barr is exploring the possibility of running for President as a Libertarian. Barr, who represented Georgia's 7th congressional district from 1995 to 2003, is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial.
According to his blog, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in a speech at Mercer University on Thursday, was dismissive of Barr’s efforts to seek the Libertarian nomination. This is not the first time Gingrich has undermined libertarian Republicans.
In 1996, Ron Paul was reelected to Congress after a very difficult battle against the Republican establishment. According to Jake Morphonios, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the NRA all turned against Paul and threw their support to another Republican during the Texas primaries. Who was this opponent? His name was Greg Laughlin - a man who switched from the Democrat party after receiving promises of support from Gingrich and others if he ran against Paul. Why would Gingrich support a Democrat rather than Ron Paul? The neo-cons thought Laughlin would be more inclined to follow their neo-con agenda than Ron Paul.
At Mercer, Gingrich drew unfavorable contrasts between Barr and Ross Perot's 1992 "spoiler" campaign. Russ Verney, writing on Barr's blog, made some interesting clarifications:
In 1992 Ross Perot received almost 20% of the vote when just 34% could have won the election. Additionally, exit polling conducted by the news media asked voters leaving the polls who they voted for. Voters who responded Perot were then asked, “If Perot wasn’t in the race who would you have voted for?” The result of that question is that Bill Clinton would have won if Ross Perot was not in the race on election day. Ross Perot was not a spoiler, he was a contestant.
However, the voters who responded to the exit pollster that they voted for Bush (41) and Clinton were asked a follow-up question, “If you thought Perot could win, would you have voted for him?” The analysis of the responses to that question is that Perot would have won the 1992 election if the voters thought he could win: To the voters Perot was the preferred candidate, not the spoiler.
This is how the media controls elections in our day: by telling the voters who "will" win the election.
Bob Barr is exploring the possibility of running for President as a Libertarian. Barr, who represented Georgia's 7th congressional district from 1995 to 2003, is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial.
According to his blog, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in a speech at Mercer University on Thursday, was dismissive of Barr’s efforts to seek the Libertarian nomination. This is not the first time Gingrich has undermined libertarian Republicans.
In 1996, Ron Paul was reelected to Congress after a very difficult battle against the Republican establishment. According to Jake Morphonios, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the NRA all turned against Paul and threw their support to another Republican during the Texas primaries. Who was this opponent? His name was Greg Laughlin - a man who switched from the Democrat party after receiving promises of support from Gingrich and others if he ran against Paul. Why would Gingrich support a Democrat rather than Ron Paul? The neo-cons thought Laughlin would be more inclined to follow their neo-con agenda than Ron Paul.
At Mercer, Gingrich drew unfavorable contrasts between Barr and Ross Perot's 1992 "spoiler" campaign. Russ Verney, writing on Barr's blog, made some interesting clarifications:
In 1992 Ross Perot received almost 20% of the vote when just 34% could have won the election. Additionally, exit polling conducted by the news media asked voters leaving the polls who they voted for. Voters who responded Perot were then asked, “If Perot wasn’t in the race who would you have voted for?” The result of that question is that Bill Clinton would have won if Ross Perot was not in the race on election day. Ross Perot was not a spoiler, he was a contestant.
However, the voters who responded to the exit pollster that they voted for Bush (41) and Clinton were asked a follow-up question, “If you thought Perot could win, would you have voted for him?” The analysis of the responses to that question is that Perot would have won the 1992 election if the voters thought he could win: To the voters Perot was the preferred candidate, not the spoiler.
This is how the media controls elections in our day: by telling the voters who "will" win the election.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Rachel's Messiah
Last month's press release from Pacific Justice Institute regarding the California Homeschooling case, In re Rachel L., says the following:
Pacific Justice Institute has just received word that the court ruling which declared most forms of homeschooling unlawful in California has been vacated. This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to schedule oral argument and issue another decision.
Today's announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces PJI's position that homeschooling families should continue their current programs without fear of governmental interference. PJI will be actively involved in the upcoming briefs and will continue to post updates and special bulletins on this vital issue.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided to re-hear the Rachel L. case, and we are hopeful that the fundamental rights of these parents, our clients Sunland Christian School, and the tens of thousands of homeschooling families in California will be honored. Homeschooling parents should be treated as heroes - not hunted down or harassed by their own government."
I admit that I'm a paranoid anti-government extremist who believes in every conspiracy theory that comes along. Brad Dacus is an optimist who says he's "hopeful" that the reason the court is going to allow a new round of briefings and hear new oral argument is so the court can reverse itself, and instead of following California and federal legal precedents, the court can chart new legal ground by carving out a right for parents to keep their children at home away from government educators and government propaganda.
Yeah, right.
In the eyes of education bureaucrats -- including the judges that signed on to the opinion in Rachel -- the "right" to "home school" is the right to "play hooky." Creating such a right would completely destroy the entire theory of universal compulsory public schooling.
Such a (court-recognized) right should exist, and such a (God-ordained) right does exist, but teachers' unions and education bureaucrats are congenitally opposed to such a right, and their lawyers are doubtless churning out briefs and lining up witnesses this very moment to get a better (for them) opinion than the first Rachel opinion -- which was a pretty good one for them, all things considered -- one which can really break the backs of schools which are not run by the government, a decision which will win on all appeals.
Although the current Superintendent of Education in California has released a statement against the Rachel decision and in favor of homeschooling, this is an anomaly. Over the years there has been some incredibly pathological hatred of non-public education on the part of some education bureaucrats and Superintendents. This is because the issue in this case (unlike the title of a previous post) is not just "Who is Rachel's teacher?" the real issue is, "Who is Rachel's Savior?"
If you want to become paranoid, there is no better place to start than R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Messianic Character of American Education
. Rushdoony was a voracious reader and researcher, and the book is filled with quotations from public education pioneers, evangelists, and czars, all of whom passionately believed that government-administered education would bring social salvation.
Public education is not a neutral, technical legal doctrine. Public education is a religion.
Tyrants in Black Robes and Messianic Educrats -- Backwater Report
Incarnations of the Messianic State -- Gary North
William Edgar writes in FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life:
Many have credited Rushdoony with being an early inspiration behind the home school movement. He certainly was the strongest possible advocate of religious education, consistently favoring private over public schooling. In The Messianic Character of American Education (1963) Rushdoony decried the American public school system, tracing its ideology back to John Dewey and other secular thinkers who believed in the natural goodness of children and the role that education could play in liberalizing society.
Rushdoony was often called upon as an expert witness to defend the rights of home-school advocates against their detractors. In 1983 the Home School Legal Defense Association was formed under the leadership of people inspired by Rushdoony’s attacks on secular education. By 1990 over fifteen thousand families in all fifty states belonged to the Association, and today home schooling is more popular than ever.
I haven't yet (after less than 5 minutes of searching) found reaction to the Rachel case from the NEA or CTA. There's this:
NEA: Home Schools Run By Well-Meaning Amateurs
which argues that professional teachers (those who teach for money) are more to be trusted with children than amateur teachers (from the Latin, amāre, those who teach out of love). Economist Gary North notes that vast amounts of "Social Overhead Capital" are required in a society to teach the next generation, and the bonds of love in the family are the best institution to accomplish this. See also Jennifer Roback Morse's infelicitously titled Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work (the "socialist dictatorship family" does? She means the union-organized "professional" wages-for-hire family doesn't work).
Abolishing amateur teachers is bad PR for the State. Abolishing well-educated, well-behaved kids is also bad PR. So Brad Dacus can be forgiven for thinking that reversing the Rachel decision is the only reasonable thing the court can do.
If it seems unreasonable for the State to assume the mantle of Messiah, it is. But reason has never stopped the messianic State. One line of the Rachel court's opinion is a hint of how the State will rise to meet the homeschooling challenge. Quoting previous courts, the Rachel court said:
it would be an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated.
Yes, it would be unreasonable, but that doesn't mean the State won't attempt it. If the State cannot prevent homeschooling from taking place (without the State looking very bad in the process), it will attempt to regulate it. Like every good messiah, the State will seek to "save homeschooling from itself," and just as FDR "saved capitalism from itself" by abolishing it, homeschooling will be abolished. Sure, something called "education" will be allowed to take place in "homes," but it will no longer be "homeschooling" as a movement of resistance against The Messianic Character of Public Education. Home schoolers will be "welcomed" into the arms of the State's protective education bureaucracy -- like a boa constrictor welcomes its lunch.
If Rachel's court reverses itself and grants a "right" to "home school," this will be the purpose.
Previous blogs on government schools and their products:
• Yoder and Pierce
• Would God Bless This?
• "The Lust of the Eyes"
Pacific Justice Institute has just received word that the court ruling which declared most forms of homeschooling unlawful in California has been vacated. This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to schedule oral argument and issue another decision.
Today's announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces PJI's position that homeschooling families should continue their current programs without fear of governmental interference. PJI will be actively involved in the upcoming briefs and will continue to post updates and special bulletins on this vital issue.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided to re-hear the Rachel L. case, and we are hopeful that the fundamental rights of these parents, our clients Sunland Christian School, and the tens of thousands of homeschooling families in California will be honored. Homeschooling parents should be treated as heroes - not hunted down or harassed by their own government."
I admit that I'm a paranoid anti-government extremist who believes in every conspiracy theory that comes along. Brad Dacus is an optimist who says he's "hopeful" that the reason the court is going to allow a new round of briefings and hear new oral argument is so the court can reverse itself, and instead of following California and federal legal precedents, the court can chart new legal ground by carving out a right for parents to keep their children at home away from government educators and government propaganda.
Yeah, right.
In the eyes of education bureaucrats -- including the judges that signed on to the opinion in Rachel -- the "right" to "home school" is the right to "play hooky." Creating such a right would completely destroy the entire theory of universal compulsory public schooling.
Such a (court-recognized) right should exist, and such a (God-ordained) right does exist, but teachers' unions and education bureaucrats are congenitally opposed to such a right, and their lawyers are doubtless churning out briefs and lining up witnesses this very moment to get a better (for them) opinion than the first Rachel opinion -- which was a pretty good one for them, all things considered -- one which can really break the backs of schools which are not run by the government, a decision which will win on all appeals.
Although the current Superintendent of Education in California has released a statement against the Rachel decision and in favor of homeschooling, this is an anomaly. Over the years there has been some incredibly pathological hatred of non-public education on the part of some education bureaucrats and Superintendents. This is because the issue in this case (unlike the title of a previous post) is not just "Who is Rachel's teacher?" the real issue is, "Who is Rachel's Savior?"
If you want to become paranoid, there is no better place to start than R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Messianic Character of American Education
. Rushdoony was a voracious reader and researcher, and the book is filled with quotations from public education pioneers, evangelists, and czars, all of whom passionately believed that government-administered education would bring social salvation.Public education is not a neutral, technical legal doctrine. Public education is a religion.
Tyrants in Black Robes and Messianic Educrats -- Backwater Report
Incarnations of the Messianic State -- Gary North
William Edgar writes in FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life:
Many have credited Rushdoony with being an early inspiration behind the home school movement. He certainly was the strongest possible advocate of religious education, consistently favoring private over public schooling. In The Messianic Character of American Education (1963) Rushdoony decried the American public school system, tracing its ideology back to John Dewey and other secular thinkers who believed in the natural goodness of children and the role that education could play in liberalizing society.
Rushdoony was often called upon as an expert witness to defend the rights of home-school advocates against their detractors. In 1983 the Home School Legal Defense Association was formed under the leadership of people inspired by Rushdoony’s attacks on secular education. By 1990 over fifteen thousand families in all fifty states belonged to the Association, and today home schooling is more popular than ever.
I haven't yet (after less than 5 minutes of searching) found reaction to the Rachel case from the NEA or CTA. There's this:
NEA: Home Schools Run By Well-Meaning Amateurs
which argues that professional teachers (those who teach for money) are more to be trusted with children than amateur teachers (from the Latin, amāre, those who teach out of love). Economist Gary North notes that vast amounts of "Social Overhead Capital" are required in a society to teach the next generation, and the bonds of love in the family are the best institution to accomplish this. See also Jennifer Roback Morse's infelicitously titled Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work
(the "socialist dictatorship family" does? She means the union-organized "professional" wages-for-hire family doesn't work).Abolishing amateur teachers is bad PR for the State. Abolishing well-educated, well-behaved kids is also bad PR. So Brad Dacus can be forgiven for thinking that reversing the Rachel decision is the only reasonable thing the court can do.
If it seems unreasonable for the State to assume the mantle of Messiah, it is. But reason has never stopped the messianic State. One line of the Rachel court's opinion is a hint of how the State will rise to meet the homeschooling challenge. Quoting previous courts, the Rachel court said:
it would be an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated.
Yes, it would be unreasonable, but that doesn't mean the State won't attempt it. If the State cannot prevent homeschooling from taking place (without the State looking very bad in the process), it will attempt to regulate it. Like every good messiah, the State will seek to "save homeschooling from itself," and just as FDR "saved capitalism from itself" by abolishing it, homeschooling will be abolished. Sure, something called "education" will be allowed to take place in "homes," but it will no longer be "homeschooling" as a movement of resistance against The Messianic Character of Public Education. Home schoolers will be "welcomed" into the arms of the State's protective education bureaucracy -- like a boa constrictor welcomes its lunch.
If Rachel's court reverses itself and grants a "right" to "home school," this will be the purpose.
-----=====******O******=====-----
Previous blogs on government schools and their products:
• Yoder and Pierce
• Would God Bless This?
• "The Lust of the Eyes"
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Blog Blizzard this Weekend
I have received some candidate surveys from some PACs. I'm going to post answers to their questions on this blog this weekend. One post per question.
I'm also going to create blog posts on each of the "issues" pages on my website. That will make sure that each page is indexed on Google. (Many new pages -- such as the one with the court's opinion in the "Rachel" homeschooling case -- have yet to be added to my table of contents, so they have no links pointing to them. Now they will.)
That means (d.v.) I'll be posting a couple of hundred posts to this blog in the next few days.
Those of you who have subscribed to receive blog posts by email might consider unsubscribing for a week. This blizzard could fill up your email INbox.
At the bottom of each email you'll find this:
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from
"Kevin Craig For Congress Blog" or
change subscription settings
You can unsubscribe by clicking there.
Then, after the blog blizzard, you can resubscribe again on the blog:
http://blog.KevinCraig.us
That strikes me as the easiest way.
Or, if you want to click on "change subscription settings," you can find the link that says "Stop, pause, restart, or delete this subscription." click on "Pause your subscription," and then go back and click the > button to restart circulation next week. Make sure you keep one email undeleted so you can click the link to get back to the subscription page -- no new emails will be arriving once you pause the subscription.
If you're not worried about lots of blog posts in your email box, then do nothing.
Just thought I'd warn you.
I'm also going to create blog posts on each of the "issues" pages on my website. That will make sure that each page is indexed on Google. (Many new pages -- such as the one with the court's opinion in the "Rachel" homeschooling case -- have yet to be added to my table of contents, so they have no links pointing to them. Now they will.)
That means (d.v.) I'll be posting a couple of hundred posts to this blog in the next few days.
Those of you who have subscribed to receive blog posts by email might consider unsubscribing for a week. This blizzard could fill up your email INbox.
At the bottom of each email you'll find this:
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from
"Kevin Craig For Congress Blog" or
change subscription settings
You can unsubscribe by clicking there.
Then, after the blog blizzard, you can resubscribe again on the blog:
http://blog.KevinCraig.us
That strikes me as the easiest way.
Or, if you want to click on "change subscription settings," you can find the link that says "Stop, pause, restart, or delete this subscription." click on "Pause your subscription," and then go back and click the > button to restart circulation next week. Make sure you keep one email undeleted so you can click the link to get back to the subscription page -- no new emails will be arriving once you pause the subscription.
If you're not worried about lots of blog posts in your email box, then do nothing.
Just thought I'd warn you.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Rachel's Educator
In yesterday's post I confessed I had not yet read the California case (In re Rachel L.) which recognized that homeschooling was not protected in California by statute or by the Constitution. I have now read the court's opinion and commented briefly on it here.
The court is generally correct: California has prohibited "home schooling" for decades. The California Constitution recognizes that children belong to the State, and therefore the State determines how they are to be educated. The U.S. Constitution -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S. -- agrees.
To review early America's history of Christian education, click here. It's now a different world.
The court is generally correct: California has prohibited "home schooling" for decades. The California Constitution recognizes that children belong to the State, and therefore the State determines how they are to be educated. The U.S. Constitution -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S. -- agrees.
To review early America's history of Christian education, click here. It's now a different world.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Yoder and Pierce
Doug Newman has just written on the ultimate reason why government education fails and has reminded me that I haven't blogged on the recent California court ruling against home schooling (In re Rachel L.).
The case has incited many comments (e.g., Malkin, CATO, Vin S., Greenhut), but what I find most interesting in the court's decision (which I admit I haven't thoroughly read as yet) is the use of a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case which has long been seen as a great bulwark of parental liberty (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510) (see also the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, usually cited along with Pierce, and cited by Rachel's parents "as a basis for their contention that their religious beliefs entitle them to refuse to send their children to [a government-operated] school").
These cases have been aptly described as "Educational Bait-and-Switch."
These cases exemplify what James Madison described as the difference between "tolerance" and "liberty." "Tolerance" is when the government says, "We'll let you do that -- for now." "Liberty" is the idea that the government has no right to say anything about the subject, period. The courts have longed claimed that there are three parties to every marriage: the husband, the wife, and the State, and that children belong to the State as much as to the parents. So the California court cited Pierce and concluded:
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
This is fascism.
It was probably 25 years ago that I wrote about the Yoder case, and how home school defense associations were leading home-schoolers like Rachel's parents into a trap by relying on that case. My analysis is here:
http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/yoder.htm
There is no U.S. Supreme Court case which truly protects the Liberty of parents to educate their children. The protection lies in the Constitutional doctrine of "enumerated powers," which was long ago repudiated by the Courts.
The case has incited many comments (e.g., Malkin, CATO, Vin S., Greenhut), but what I find most interesting in the court's decision (which I admit I haven't thoroughly read as yet) is the use of a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case which has long been seen as a great bulwark of parental liberty (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510) (see also the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, usually cited along with Pierce, and cited by Rachel's parents "as a basis for their contention that their religious beliefs entitle them to refuse to send their children to [a government-operated] school").
These cases have been aptly described as "Educational Bait-and-Switch."
These cases exemplify what James Madison described as the difference between "tolerance" and "liberty." "Tolerance" is when the government says, "We'll let you do that -- for now." "Liberty" is the idea that the government has no right to say anything about the subject, period. The courts have longed claimed that there are three parties to every marriage: the husband, the wife, and the State, and that children belong to the State as much as to the parents. So the California court cited Pierce and concluded:
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
This is fascism.
It was probably 25 years ago that I wrote about the Yoder case, and how home school defense associations were leading home-schoolers like Rachel's parents into a trap by relying on that case. My analysis is here:
http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/yoder.htm
There is no U.S. Supreme Court case which truly protects the Liberty of parents to educate their children. The protection lies in the Constitutional doctrine of "enumerated powers," which was long ago repudiated by the Courts.
Friday, April 04, 2008
MLK Murder
Just a few thoughts on the anniversary of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. I don't claim to know much. I would love to see comments from those who do.
Here is a thought-provoking video:
The Real News: MLK: Beyond Vietnam--A Time to Break Silence
King talks about the number of blacks who died in Vietnam. He talks about the burning of Vietnamese babies with napalm. There is truth in King's words. At 15:00 we see a sign from a 1960's anti-war protester: "Children are not born to burn."
But the pro-King forces say little about today's burning of millions of black babies:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
When a movement speaks the truth about one thing, and refuses to speak the truth about another, I'm alerted to a political agenda. Why one and not the other?
What about the manner in which truth is spoken? I like the truths that Dr. Laura speaks, but sometimes the manner seems (at least to some) inconsistent with the truth, or ineffective, or counter-productive. Bill Cosby is also less than persuasive and attractive when he speaks the truth. A caricature is then inflated, and fuels even more vicious attacks from the opposite side.
Back to the video above: When I see U.S. Marines destroying villages, I say, "These are not my friends." But the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. When I see thousands of protesters clashing with police, I do not feel I am among friends. When I see a person walking with Fidel Castro, I no longer trust that person. King said many things that were true, but I don't feel like he and I were on the same side.
We live in the richest nation on the planet. We enjoy staggering wealth that previous generations could not have imagined. Yet the polls are dominated with concerns about "the economy," "economic injustice," and other ways of saying "I don't have enough," or "He has too much." Chris Floyd writes:
Forty years ago today, the last public figure to pose a serious, fundamental threat to the power structure that sustains the American elite in unmerited wealth and privilege was shot down in Memphis, Tennessee. Martin Luther King Jr. had gone there to help garbage workers win a living wage. He saw their struggle as part of an emerging campaign to give birth to a new paradigm for American society; in effect, to form a new union, based on economic justice, social equality -- and an adamant repudiation of state violence and empire.
I would like to think that I "pose a serious, fundamental threat to the power structure that sustains the American elite." I take second place to nobody in opposing "state violence and empire." But I don't think that their lear jets and mansions are "unmerited" -- at least if the implication of "unmerited" is that such wealth is merited by "garbage workers" and should be confiscated by the government and redistributed. The struggle of union workers is not against exploitative employers as much as it is other employees who are willing to work for less than union workers are willing to work. As Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement put it, "strikes don't strike me."
Floyd speaks of a "new paradigm." I don't understand what King's "paradigm" was. My "new paradigm" is really the very old paradigm of Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" society. Despite King's reference to that ideal at 21:50 in the video above, his influence has taken us away from, not brought us closer to, that ideal.
King failed to appreciate what is great about America, and mis-diagnosed her illnesses.
In 1968 there were two billion people on this planet who looked with envy on non-unionized American garbage workers. In America in the 1940's, a black man could live in a neighborhood with no sewage system and no paved streets, the mother of his children could work as a maid and collect food from the church charity, his son could finish college and support the Black Panthers, urging a student walkout to protest investments in South Africa, get married and have a son named Jamal, then become a corporate lawyer in the pesticide and agriculture division of the Monsanto Company, and finally become a high-ranking figure in "the power structure that sustains the American elite." I'm talking, of course, about the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
If "freedom" is defined as "opportunities," then Justice Thomas took advantage of his freedom.
Did King encourage his followers to take effective advantages of their freedom? What would "taking effective advantage of opportunity" look like? (I don't think Clarence Thomas is an example. He is not an effective opponent of the burning of babies in Iraq or in America. But his life proves that America is not a place where blacks are kept down because of the color of their skin.)
The three biggest mistakes made by Americas Founding Fathers were
• Using muskets and cannons to abolish the government
• Replacing the government they abolished
• Talking about "rights" instead of (or more than) duties.
The emphasis on "rights" has created the culture of entitlements, which has led to massive dependence, not independence, and slavery, not freedom.
When white employers deny jobs to blacks "with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack, it's called "racism." I have explained why I believe blacks were better off on plantations. So has Bill Cosby. So has Walter E. Williams. When Ron Paul says it, it's called racism; when blacks say it, it's ignored completely. (Of course, Ron Paul's ghost-writer may have attended the Dr. Laura School of Persuasive Arts.)
This seems to be the legacy of Martin Luther King: criticism of under-achieving blacks is not permitted. They are entitled to the achievements of others, and achievers should be punished, and reparations made to those who are politically entitled.
Conspiracy Theories
Those who thought that they could turn off the MLK faucet by murdering him were very stupid -- if that's what they wanted. And the plural is, I believe, appropriate, despite government claims to the contrary. I don't know who "they" were or what they wanted.
Were "they" the architects of the New World Order? For some reason I doubt it. Southern "good ol boys?" Probably closer to the truth.
Despite talk about "OBAMAMANIA," I don't see Obama having the impact that King had, so I don't think assassination is on "their" drawing board. I don't think Obama is a threat to the power of those who wanted King dead. And the higher you place MLK's conspirators, the more likely it's a mistake to think that they thought his life was a threat to their power. Actually, his "martyrdom" may have been seen as the best way to promote King's agenda -- and theirs.
Additional References:
James Earl Ray did not Assassinate MLK
Thomas Eddlem says I have an Unfrozen Caveman Ideology. I have admitted that King said some good things. But I will never thaw out.
Peace is Every Step « Vox Nova
Cynthia McKinney - William Pepper/MLK Trial
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Excerpts and comments:
the city's [Birmingham] white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative [but to engage in demonstrations]
Slavery was not abolished because slaves demonstrated.
We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?"
The goal should be to eliminate racism, not to add brutality to the list of Birmingham's sins. The Bible commands slaves to work for their masters the way they would work for Christ Himself (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5-8), not to provoke their masters with "demonstrations" which lead them to inflict even more violent blows.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension
"Nonviolent direct action" is a well-developed theory of social change. But where is this strategy in the Bible?
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
How was it imagined that confrontation and "tension" would lead to "brotherhood?" King has already admitted that he knew this strategy would lead to the infliction of retaliatory physical blows, not "brotherhood."
Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.
The State -- that is, "the government" -- that is, the city government of Birmingham -- passes laws prohibiting white restaurant owners from serving blacks. A non-racist white who would love to accept the money of black patrons does not see this law as a "privilege." Why would blacks see racists as having a "privilege?" What does it mean to take a privilege from someone involuntarily? Where does Christ condone the taking of anything from the "privileged" without their consent?
Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
"You shall not follow a crowd to do evil." (Exodus 23:2) Will an angry intimidating crowd teach this lesson to whites? If a white restaurant owner was willing to serve blacks but unwilling to buck the city establishment, what is the best strategy to convince the reluctant white integrationist to surrender his "privilege" of kowtowing to segregationist rulers?
For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.
Has "nonviolent direct action" proven more effective than waiting? Are blacks better off -- more Christlike -- in 2008 than they were in 1948?
What is the Biblical strategy: waiting or demonstrating?
Psalm 27:14
Wait on the LORD;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the LORD!
Psalm 33:20
Our soul waits for the LORD;
He is our help and our shield.
Psalm 37:7
Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him;
Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Psalm 37:9
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the LORD,
They shall inherit the earth.
Psalm 37:34
Wait on the LORD,
And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
Psalm 40:1
I waited patiently for the LORD;
And He inclined to me,
And heard my cry.
Psalm 59:3
For look, they lie in wait for my life;
The mighty gather against me,
Not for my transgression nor for my sin, O LORD.
Psalm 59 (Whole Chapter)
Psalm 130:5
I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,
And in His word I do hope.
Psalm 130:6
My soul waits for the Lord
More than those who watch for the morning—
Yes, more than those who watch for the morning.
Proverbs 20:22
Do not say, “I will recompense evil”;
Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.
Isaiah 8:17
And I will wait on the LORD,
Who hides His face from the house of Jacob;
And I will hope in Him.
Isaiah 25:9
And it will be said in that day:
“Behold, this is our God;
We have waited for Him, and He will save us.
This is the LORD; We have waited for Him;
We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
Isaiah 26:8
Yes, in the way of Your judgments,
O LORD, we have waited for You;
The desire of our soul is for Your name
And for the remembrance of You.
Isaiah 30:18
Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you;
And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
Blessed are all those who wait for Him.
Isaiah 33:2
O LORD, be gracious to us;
We have waited for You.
Be their arm every morning,
Our salvation also in the time of trouble.
Isaiah 40:31
But those who wait on the LORD
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.
Isaiah 49:23
Kings shall be your foster fathers,
And their queens your nursing mothers;
They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth,
And lick up the dust of your feet.
Then you will know that I am the LORD,
For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.”
As I look at historical footage like the video above, I notice how many of the black protesters in the 1960's wore suits and ties. As the spirit of "waiting on the Lord" is replaced by "nonviolent direct action," that dignity is eclipsed.
when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; ... then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. ... I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
Is impatience the cure for bitterness?
How did Christians explain to their children why they were being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum? Was Rome brought down by "nonviolent direct action?"
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
This is a classic and widespread misunderstanding of Augustine and Christianity. We must distinguish between those who pass unjust laws and those who are burdened by them. Those who pass such laws are commanded to repent of such lawmaking and repeal the laws. Those who are burdened by those laws are commanded to obey them (1 Peter 2; Romans 13) and "wait on the Lord." King's tactics of law-breaking were unChristian.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
The Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution were unChristian. It is not a sin to pay taxes. It is not a sin to not have coffee at a white lunch counter. It would have been a sin for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to worship a false god as commanded, or for the Christians to not preach the gospel as commanded. King's analysis misleads blacks.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Being lukewarm is indeed a sin. It is to white moderates, not to blacks, that King should have preached. Such a message would have been more powerful without the Marxist class warfare. King's tension was between black and white, between rich and less-rich. The conflict should have been: "We are Christians, you are not; you are your own god, making up your own rules." If a black teenager is beaten for being like Christ, respectfully preaching the gospel to whites when ordered not to speak to them, rather than for flirting with a white woman and breaking bounds of "decency," the "hidden tension" that King tried to bring to the surface would be more defining and consequential. Blacks would have had more cause for a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
What percent of blacks in America's public schools understand these references:
"eighth century B.C."
"Tarsus"
"Macedonian call"
Education is a more important issue than economics, because morality is a more important issue than rights, and service is more important than credentials. "Dr." King missed these truths. American blacks are morally and spiritually worse off today because of his influence.
Here is a thought-provoking video:
The Real News: MLK: Beyond Vietnam--A Time to Break Silence
King talks about the number of blacks who died in Vietnam. He talks about the burning of Vietnamese babies with napalm. There is truth in King's words. At 15:00 we see a sign from a 1960's anti-war protester: "Children are not born to burn."
But the pro-King forces say little about today's burning of millions of black babies:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
When a movement speaks the truth about one thing, and refuses to speak the truth about another, I'm alerted to a political agenda. Why one and not the other?
What about the manner in which truth is spoken? I like the truths that Dr. Laura speaks, but sometimes the manner seems (at least to some) inconsistent with the truth, or ineffective, or counter-productive. Bill Cosby is also less than persuasive and attractive when he speaks the truth. A caricature is then inflated, and fuels even more vicious attacks from the opposite side.
Back to the video above: When I see U.S. Marines destroying villages, I say, "These are not my friends." But the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. When I see thousands of protesters clashing with police, I do not feel I am among friends. When I see a person walking with Fidel Castro, I no longer trust that person. King said many things that were true, but I don't feel like he and I were on the same side.
We live in the richest nation on the planet. We enjoy staggering wealth that previous generations could not have imagined. Yet the polls are dominated with concerns about "the economy," "economic injustice," and other ways of saying "I don't have enough," or "He has too much." Chris Floyd writes:
Forty years ago today, the last public figure to pose a serious, fundamental threat to the power structure that sustains the American elite in unmerited wealth and privilege was shot down in Memphis, Tennessee. Martin Luther King Jr. had gone there to help garbage workers win a living wage. He saw their struggle as part of an emerging campaign to give birth to a new paradigm for American society; in effect, to form a new union, based on economic justice, social equality -- and an adamant repudiation of state violence and empire.
I would like to think that I "pose a serious, fundamental threat to the power structure that sustains the American elite." I take second place to nobody in opposing "state violence and empire." But I don't think that their lear jets and mansions are "unmerited" -- at least if the implication of "unmerited" is that such wealth is merited by "garbage workers" and should be confiscated by the government and redistributed. The struggle of union workers is not against exploitative employers as much as it is other employees who are willing to work for less than union workers are willing to work. As Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement put it, "strikes don't strike me."
Floyd speaks of a "new paradigm." I don't understand what King's "paradigm" was. My "new paradigm" is really the very old paradigm of Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" society. Despite King's reference to that ideal at 21:50 in the video above, his influence has taken us away from, not brought us closer to, that ideal.
King failed to appreciate what is great about America, and mis-diagnosed her illnesses.
In 1968 there were two billion people on this planet who looked with envy on non-unionized American garbage workers. In America in the 1940's, a black man could live in a neighborhood with no sewage system and no paved streets, the mother of his children could work as a maid and collect food from the church charity, his son could finish college and support the Black Panthers, urging a student walkout to protest investments in South Africa, get married and have a son named Jamal, then become a corporate lawyer in the pesticide and agriculture division of the Monsanto Company, and finally become a high-ranking figure in "the power structure that sustains the American elite." I'm talking, of course, about the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
If "freedom" is defined as "opportunities," then Justice Thomas took advantage of his freedom.
Did King encourage his followers to take effective advantages of their freedom? What would "taking effective advantage of opportunity" look like? (I don't think Clarence Thomas is an example. He is not an effective opponent of the burning of babies in Iraq or in America. But his life proves that America is not a place where blacks are kept down because of the color of their skin.)
The three biggest mistakes made by Americas Founding Fathers were
• Using muskets and cannons to abolish the government
• Replacing the government they abolished
• Talking about "rights" instead of (or more than) duties.
The emphasis on "rights" has created the culture of entitlements, which has led to massive dependence, not independence, and slavery, not freedom.
When white employers deny jobs to blacks "with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack, it's called "racism." I have explained why I believe blacks were better off on plantations. So has Bill Cosby. So has Walter E. Williams. When Ron Paul says it, it's called racism; when blacks say it, it's ignored completely. (Of course, Ron Paul's ghost-writer may have attended the Dr. Laura School of Persuasive Arts.)
This seems to be the legacy of Martin Luther King: criticism of under-achieving blacks is not permitted. They are entitled to the achievements of others, and achievers should be punished, and reparations made to those who are politically entitled.
Conspiracy Theories
Those who thought that they could turn off the MLK faucet by murdering him were very stupid -- if that's what they wanted. And the plural is, I believe, appropriate, despite government claims to the contrary. I don't know who "they" were or what they wanted.
Were "they" the architects of the New World Order? For some reason I doubt it. Southern "good ol boys?" Probably closer to the truth.
Despite talk about "OBAMAMANIA," I don't see Obama having the impact that King had, so I don't think assassination is on "their" drawing board. I don't think Obama is a threat to the power of those who wanted King dead. And the higher you place MLK's conspirators, the more likely it's a mistake to think that they thought his life was a threat to their power. Actually, his "martyrdom" may have been seen as the best way to promote King's agenda -- and theirs.
Additional References:
James Earl Ray did not Assassinate MLK
Thomas Eddlem says I have an Unfrozen Caveman Ideology. I have admitted that King said some good things. But I will never thaw out.
Peace is Every Step « Vox Nova
Cynthia McKinney - William Pepper/MLK Trial
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Excerpts and comments:
the city's [Birmingham] white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative [but to engage in demonstrations]
Slavery was not abolished because slaves demonstrated.
We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?"
The goal should be to eliminate racism, not to add brutality to the list of Birmingham's sins. The Bible commands slaves to work for their masters the way they would work for Christ Himself (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5-8), not to provoke their masters with "demonstrations" which lead them to inflict even more violent blows.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension
"Nonviolent direct action" is a well-developed theory of social change. But where is this strategy in the Bible?
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
How was it imagined that confrontation and "tension" would lead to "brotherhood?" King has already admitted that he knew this strategy would lead to the infliction of retaliatory physical blows, not "brotherhood."
Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.
The State -- that is, "the government" -- that is, the city government of Birmingham -- passes laws prohibiting white restaurant owners from serving blacks. A non-racist white who would love to accept the money of black patrons does not see this law as a "privilege." Why would blacks see racists as having a "privilege?" What does it mean to take a privilege from someone involuntarily? Where does Christ condone the taking of anything from the "privileged" without their consent?
Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
"You shall not follow a crowd to do evil." (Exodus 23:2) Will an angry intimidating crowd teach this lesson to whites? If a white restaurant owner was willing to serve blacks but unwilling to buck the city establishment, what is the best strategy to convince the reluctant white integrationist to surrender his "privilege" of kowtowing to segregationist rulers?
For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.
Has "nonviolent direct action" proven more effective than waiting? Are blacks better off -- more Christlike -- in 2008 than they were in 1948?
What is the Biblical strategy: waiting or demonstrating?
Psalm 27:14
Wait on the LORD;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the LORD!
Psalm 33:20
Our soul waits for the LORD;
He is our help and our shield.
Psalm 37:7
Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him;
Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Psalm 37:9
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the LORD,
They shall inherit the earth.
Psalm 37:34
Wait on the LORD,
And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
Psalm 40:1
I waited patiently for the LORD;
And He inclined to me,
And heard my cry.
Psalm 59:3
For look, they lie in wait for my life;
The mighty gather against me,
Not for my transgression nor for my sin, O LORD.
Psalm 59 (Whole Chapter)
Psalm 130:5
I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,
And in His word I do hope.
Psalm 130:6
My soul waits for the Lord
More than those who watch for the morning—
Yes, more than those who watch for the morning.
Proverbs 20:22
Do not say, “I will recompense evil”;
Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.
Isaiah 8:17
And I will wait on the LORD,
Who hides His face from the house of Jacob;
And I will hope in Him.
Isaiah 25:9
And it will be said in that day:
“Behold, this is our God;
We have waited for Him, and He will save us.
This is the LORD; We have waited for Him;
We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
Isaiah 26:8
Yes, in the way of Your judgments,
O LORD, we have waited for You;
The desire of our soul is for Your name
And for the remembrance of You.
Isaiah 30:18
Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you;
And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
Blessed are all those who wait for Him.
Isaiah 33:2
O LORD, be gracious to us;
We have waited for You.
Be their arm every morning,
Our salvation also in the time of trouble.
Isaiah 40:31
But those who wait on the LORD
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.
Isaiah 49:23
Kings shall be your foster fathers,
And their queens your nursing mothers;
They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth,
And lick up the dust of your feet.
Then you will know that I am the LORD,
For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.”
As I look at historical footage like the video above, I notice how many of the black protesters in the 1960's wore suits and ties. As the spirit of "waiting on the Lord" is replaced by "nonviolent direct action," that dignity is eclipsed.
when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; ... then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. ... I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
Is impatience the cure for bitterness?
How did Christians explain to their children why they were being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum? Was Rome brought down by "nonviolent direct action?"
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
This is a classic and widespread misunderstanding of Augustine and Christianity. We must distinguish between those who pass unjust laws and those who are burdened by them. Those who pass such laws are commanded to repent of such lawmaking and repeal the laws. Those who are burdened by those laws are commanded to obey them (1 Peter 2; Romans 13) and "wait on the Lord." King's tactics of law-breaking were unChristian.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
The Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution were unChristian. It is not a sin to pay taxes. It is not a sin to not have coffee at a white lunch counter. It would have been a sin for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to worship a false god as commanded, or for the Christians to not preach the gospel as commanded. King's analysis misleads blacks.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Being lukewarm is indeed a sin. It is to white moderates, not to blacks, that King should have preached. Such a message would have been more powerful without the Marxist class warfare. King's tension was between black and white, between rich and less-rich. The conflict should have been: "We are Christians, you are not; you are your own god, making up your own rules." If a black teenager is beaten for being like Christ, respectfully preaching the gospel to whites when ordered not to speak to them, rather than for flirting with a white woman and breaking bounds of "decency," the "hidden tension" that King tried to bring to the surface would be more defining and consequential. Blacks would have had more cause for a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
What percent of blacks in America's public schools understand these references:
"eighth century B.C."
"Tarsus"
"Macedonian call"
Education is a more important issue than economics, because morality is a more important issue than rights, and service is more important than credentials. "Dr." King missed these truths. American blacks are morally and spiritually worse off today because of his influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)