Some have said that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer got his just deserts after working so hard to enforce "victimless crime" laws in New York, only to be brought down by the same laws. Spitzer apparently thought he was a very powerful man, but others behind the curtains were more powerful.
The amount of power wielded by Spitzer over the people and economy of New York was extraordinary, when compared with the power exercised by President George Washington. The entire population of America was about 3 million in Washington's day, rivalled by any of the five boroughs of New York City, and vastly surpassed in economic power by any one of them. General Washington could issue an order and be delighted for the order to be received three days later. Spitzer, armed with cell phones and instant internet messaging, can move mountains in minutes. The entire economic output of FOREIGN SUPER-POWER Russia ($979 Billion GDP in 2007) totals less than the state Spitzer governed ($1.02 Trillion). Dictator Vladamir Putin doubtless envied the power of Eliot Spitzer.
Many of Spitzer's decisions were already made for him by the federal government, despite the Tenth Amendment and Madison's description of its limitation on federal power.
And of course George Bush, presiding over a "unitary executive," has committed the American people to paying $3 trillion -- a total three times greater than the entire combined annual economic output of the Soviet Union -- expecting no resistance from either House of Congress -- in an effort to replace the formerly U.S.-subsidized secular administration of Saddam Hussein with an Islamic theocracy, at a human cost of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. This "war on terror" has moved Americans significantly closer to an East German-style police state, where "Your papers, please" is a daily experience, as it already is for millions who travel by air.
Further, the entire foundational theory of the Bush-Clinton regime and modern political science has been ably summarized by William Norman Grigg:
• Constitutional rights are a government artifact, "created" primarily by the courts.
• Since "rights" are creations of the State, they can be summoned into existence, summarily abolished, or modified as the government sees fit, in order to serve the State's "compelling interests."
• The fact that certain freedoms have been historically exercised by Americans – such as the right to seek alternative treatments for life-threatening conditions, a right exercised by Americans without qualification for most of our nation's history (from the colonial period until 1962) – is of no consequence when the State decides to expand its own regulatory mandate.
• If, in defiance of the foregoing assumptions, terminally ill patients are permitted to exercise ownership over their health by seeking treatments not approved by government, then the entire rationale for the "administrative" State will be fatally undermined. It is better that we let a few innocent people die in agony, than to permit the State's regulatory powers to be undermined in any way.
These facts and credible opinions would leave America's Founding Fathers staggering at first, then outraged. They would, as I've asserted before, immediately take steps to abolish the present government, as they did in 1776 against a government far more Christian and libertarian than our present government.
Simply compare the power exercised by Spitzer and Bush with Alexander Hamilton's discussion of the Presidency in Federalist Paper No. 69. Hamilton urged farmers and mechanics in upstate New York to support the ratification of the Constitution on the grounds that the office of the President of the United States created by the proposed Constitution -- far from being a clone of the dreaded British Monarch -- would be no more powerful than the governor of New York. Here's Hamilton's concluding summation of his argument:
Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.
• The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince.
• The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.
• The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative.
• The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority.
• The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties.
• The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments.
• The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.
• The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin.
• The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!
What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.
Hamilton was no Jeffersonian libertarian. But both agreed that the President should be a very weak office compared with the People's representatives in Congress. Even Hamilton, were he alive today, would conclude that the United States is in fact "an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism" (and in the case of the Bush family, an hereditary monarchy), and is not in any meaningful sense being governed by the Constitution, respectful of the original intent of its Framers. In the name of that Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the present government should be abolished.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Shame on Google's Memorial Day Silence
Throughout the year, Google dresses up its corporate logo atop its search engine page to commemorate various holidays or special events.
More Google: Holiday Logos
Since 1999, when Google first took its search engine online, it has never dressed the logo for Memorial Day.
Another Memorial Day, Another Google Yawn
That article shows that Google has an emphatic left-wing bias. [It doesn't mention that since 2004 Google has been celebrating the Iranian ("Persian") New Year.]
Here's more:
Google shows conservative women in bikinis - TECH.BLORGE.com
These are insulting photoshopped pics of popular conservative talkers like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. The images do not automatically appear because of the large number of pages that Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have. Ayn Rand has more pages than Malkin, but no images. These Conservative columnists are clearly hated by somebody at Google, and I'm not talking about the janitor.
So why am I critical of Google for their silence on Memorial Day when my own Memorial Day posts are clearly anti-war, even going so far as to say "They Died In Vain," and that Jesus wouldn't celebrate Memorial Day?
Because Google won't come right out and admit they don't like war, and use their influence to bring peace.
Obviously Google doesn't want people remembering Memorial Day. Is it because they don't like war, or is it because they don't want the U.S. to win? Maybe they'd just rather have "the Persians" win.
Google is typical of the "mainstream media": they want to appear to be "neutral" and "objective," but they really have a left-of-center, pro-State bias. Even left-of-center anti-war activists are generally pro-State. Sometimes they're against Bush's wars, but not Clinton's wars. Many would like to see the U.S. lose.
I'd rather see the U.S. repent than be destroyed by war.
I used to assume that Google was a neutral computer-driven search engine that picked up everything on the Internet just because it was there, and I could be assured that if I didn't find it on Google, it didn't exist. Now I believe that human beings at Google spin the results to promote an ideology.
-----=====******O******=====-----
catholicanarchy.org » Memorial Day and the religious syncretism of the state
More Google: Holiday Logos
Since 1999, when Google first took its search engine online, it has never dressed the logo for Memorial Day.
Another Memorial Day, Another Google Yawn
That article shows that Google has an emphatic left-wing bias. [It doesn't mention that since 2004 Google has been celebrating the Iranian ("Persian") New Year.]
Here's more:
Google shows conservative women in bikinis - TECH.BLORGE.com
These are insulting photoshopped pics of popular conservative talkers like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. The images do not automatically appear because of the large number of pages that Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have. Ayn Rand has more pages than Malkin, but no images. These Conservative columnists are clearly hated by somebody at Google, and I'm not talking about the janitor.
So why am I critical of Google for their silence on Memorial Day when my own Memorial Day posts are clearly anti-war, even going so far as to say "They Died In Vain," and that Jesus wouldn't celebrate Memorial Day?
Because Google won't come right out and admit they don't like war, and use their influence to bring peace.
Obviously Google doesn't want people remembering Memorial Day. Is it because they don't like war, or is it because they don't want the U.S. to win? Maybe they'd just rather have "the Persians" win.
Google is typical of the "mainstream media": they want to appear to be "neutral" and "objective," but they really have a left-of-center, pro-State bias. Even left-of-center anti-war activists are generally pro-State. Sometimes they're against Bush's wars, but not Clinton's wars. Many would like to see the U.S. lose.
I'd rather see the U.S. repent than be destroyed by war.
I used to assume that Google was a neutral computer-driven search engine that picked up everything on the Internet just because it was there, and I could be assured that if I didn't find it on Google, it didn't exist. Now I believe that human beings at Google spin the results to promote an ideology.
-----=====******O******=====-----
catholicanarchy.org » Memorial Day and the religious syncretism of the state
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Better Dead than Red?
On Memorial Day we honor those who lost their lives in military conflict.
Andrew Bernstein supports the troops:
Regular American soldiers have fought and died for freedom around the globe. South Korea today is free, not a part of North Korea's murderous dictatorship, because U.S. soldiers helped defeat Communist aggression in the Korean War.
In other words, it's better to die while attempting to kill commies than to "love your enemies" and live under communist rule.
Better to get our muskets and cannons out and kill the red coats than live under British mercantilism.
That's what Memorial Day is all about: honoring the choice of those who took up arms and died in the process.
Why is the choice to kill commies (or Red Coats, or jihadists) more noble and honorable than the choice to follow Jesus and submit to communist rule (or Islamic theocracy)?
The Bible presents a completely different way of looking at life from that encouraged on Memorial Day:
Romans 12-13
13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitable quartering of troops.
14 Bless the "Red Coats" which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with the British.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if an enemy soldier hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are set in place by God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, throwing tea into the harbor, or firing muskets upon them from behind trees, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For archist red coats are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye taxes without representation: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: taxes to whom taxes are due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
1 Peter 2:11-24
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to king George III, as supreme;
14 Or unto parliament, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all the British. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cruel.
19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth:
23 Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by Whose stripes ye were healed.
Matthew 5:38-48
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The way this works in practice is for the first generation to repudiate violence, love their enemies, remain faithful to God, and lose their "rights" under slavery. The enslaving conquerors, seeing such love and faithfulness, are converted (or judged by God, who vindicates those who have "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence"). The next generation, having not gotten used to living in a military state, are freer than they would have been had their parents taken up arms in resistance.
If it's an honorable thing to lose your life and be honored on Memorial Day, then it shouldn't have been dishonorable if our parents lost their property or their freedom by not killing the conquerors, but didn't lose their soul (Matthew 16:26). They didn't lose their children's rights by trading them for temporary "security." The next generation grows up with more respect for life, more freedom, and more prosperity than they would have had had their parents gotten adjusted to a Garrison State and given half their wages to the Pentagon to kill the commies.
Andrew Bernstein supports the troops:
Regular American soldiers have fought and died for freedom around the globe. South Korea today is free, not a part of North Korea's murderous dictatorship, because U.S. soldiers helped defeat Communist aggression in the Korean War.
In other words, it's better to die while attempting to kill commies than to "love your enemies" and live under communist rule.
Better to get our muskets and cannons out and kill the red coats than live under British mercantilism.
That's what Memorial Day is all about: honoring the choice of those who took up arms and died in the process.
Why is the choice to kill commies (or Red Coats, or jihadists) more noble and honorable than the choice to follow Jesus and submit to communist rule (or Islamic theocracy)?
The Bible presents a completely different way of looking at life from that encouraged on Memorial Day:
Romans 12-13
13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitable quartering of troops.
14 Bless the "Red Coats" which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with the British.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if an enemy soldier hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are set in place by God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, throwing tea into the harbor, or firing muskets upon them from behind trees, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For archist red coats are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye taxes without representation: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: taxes to whom taxes are due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
1 Peter 2:11-24
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to king George III, as supreme;
14 Or unto parliament, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all the British. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cruel.
19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth:
23 Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by Whose stripes ye were healed.
Matthew 5:38-48
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The way this works in practice is for the first generation to repudiate violence, love their enemies, remain faithful to God, and lose their "rights" under slavery. The enslaving conquerors, seeing such love and faithfulness, are converted (or judged by God, who vindicates those who have "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence"). The next generation, having not gotten used to living in a military state, are freer than they would have been had their parents taken up arms in resistance.
If it's an honorable thing to lose your life and be honored on Memorial Day, then it shouldn't have been dishonorable if our parents lost their property or their freedom by not killing the conquerors, but didn't lose their soul (Matthew 16:26). They didn't lose their children's rights by trading them for temporary "security." The next generation grows up with more respect for life, more freedom, and more prosperity than they would have had had their parents gotten adjusted to a Garrison State and given half their wages to the Pentagon to kill the commies.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Politicians and Soldiers
With Teddy Kennedy's brain tumor providing full-employment for doctors speculating on cable TV, Sheldon Richman asks,
When was the last time a great inventor, scientist, intellectual, or entrepreneur got wall-to-wall coverage on cable television at word of his or her death or diagnosis of a terminal illness? Why does this happen only with politicians? It's just the media's subtle way of conveying their worldview that nothing is more important in life than the state and its "statesmen." Disgusting.
A similar question might be asked about Memorial Day. The United States has three holidays which honor those who chose war over peace: Veterans' Day (those who fought and lived); Memorial Day (those who fought and died) and Independence Day (those who took up arms to abolish their government). Shouldn't a Christian nation like America have a day to honor those who withstood the temptation to violence and vengeance and followed the Prince of Peace instead?
How about a day to honor missionaries like Jim Elliot
, who were martyred in their work to civilize the heathen, not to "bomb them back to the stone age?"
What might have been the result if the federal government spent a trillion dollars on missionaries to Iraq, rather than soldiers and sanctions?
How about a day to honor coal miners who lost their lives in dirty coal mines getting our electricity?
The answer to all these questions is simple: America is a nation of idolaters, members of a cult that believes the State and the sword is the source of blessing and salvation.
So should we spit in the faces of veterans? No. (Nor in the faces of those who protest the war.) Mourning is appropriate.
The shortest verse in the New Testament is John 11:35: "Jesus wept."
The context is the death of Lazarus.
It is appropriate that we mourn the ones we love who lost their lives in senseless wars. Romans 12:15 reminds us to "Weep with those who weep."
But Jesus also said,
“Follow Me.” But the man said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”
When John the Baptist was confronted by soldiers,
the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14)
Healthy mourning on Memorial Day will result in positive action the following week to give more honor to peacemakers and entrepreneurs than to warmongers and politicians (pardon the repetition).
When was the last time a great inventor, scientist, intellectual, or entrepreneur got wall-to-wall coverage on cable television at word of his or her death or diagnosis of a terminal illness? Why does this happen only with politicians? It's just the media's subtle way of conveying their worldview that nothing is more important in life than the state and its "statesmen." Disgusting.
A similar question might be asked about Memorial Day. The United States has three holidays which honor those who chose war over peace: Veterans' Day (those who fought and lived); Memorial Day (those who fought and died) and Independence Day (those who took up arms to abolish their government). Shouldn't a Christian nation like America have a day to honor those who withstood the temptation to violence and vengeance and followed the Prince of Peace instead?
How about a day to honor missionaries like Jim Elliot
, who were martyred in their work to civilize the heathen, not to "bomb them back to the stone age?"What might have been the result if the federal government spent a trillion dollars on missionaries to Iraq, rather than soldiers and sanctions?
How about a day to honor coal miners who lost their lives in dirty coal mines getting our electricity?
The answer to all these questions is simple: America is a nation of idolaters, members of a cult that believes the State and the sword is the source of blessing and salvation.
So should we spit in the faces of veterans? No. (Nor in the faces of those who protest the war.) Mourning is appropriate.
The shortest verse in the New Testament is John 11:35: "Jesus wept."
The context is the death of Lazarus.
It is appropriate that we mourn the ones we love who lost their lives in senseless wars. Romans 12:15 reminds us to "Weep with those who weep."
But Jesus also said,
“Follow Me.” But the man said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”
When John the Baptist was confronted by soldiers,
the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14)
Healthy mourning on Memorial Day will result in positive action the following week to give more honor to peacemakers and entrepreneurs than to warmongers and politicians (pardon the repetition).
They Died In Vain: Memorial Day 2008
No doubt many brave and courageous Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. We've seen pictures of their caring and self-sacrificing actions. On Memorial Day we mourn those who did not come home.If we back away from the emotion and look at their deaths more objectively -- from the perspective of those in Washington D.C. who ordered them off to foreign lands -- we have to conclude that they all died in vain.
Why should any American die to erect an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq? But that's what the Bush Administration has accomplished.
It seems that very little has changed since last year. No big changes have had to be made to my Memorial Day essay from last year. I'm still convinced that they all died in vain.
If you believe that the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Americans in wars throughout the 20th century, have made our world a better world, and brought us closer to the ideal of "Liberty Under God," feel free to post a comment.
Or speak out at the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall, this Saturday at 10:30am Central Time.
-----=====******O******=====-----
Free Association: Happy Revisionist History Day
Our military need real support, not empty rhetoric - Chuck Baldwin
Remember - Roger Young - Price of Liberty
Conscience On The Battlefield by Leonard E. Read
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Libertarian Democracy
America's Founding Fathers opposed "democracy." They gave us a "republic." Some of their warnings about democracy are collected here. The Constitution explicitly calls for a "Republican form of government" (Art. IV, sec. 4).
A "democracy" is every individual voting directly on each issue.
A "republic" has representatives of the people who are presumed to be wiser than the masses might be when stirred up contrary to reason. Most of America's Founders believed that Christians should be elected as these wise representatives rather than atheists:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, co-author of "The Federalist Papers"
On the other hand, some -- like Thomas Jefferson -- were "radical democrats."
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
For Jefferson, a "republican" form of government was necessary only because size stretched the limits of democracy:
"A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
For Jefferson, our republic was not aristocratic, but democratic.
"An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
"The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently none where the authorities are hereditary... or self-chosen... and little, where for life, in proportion as the life continues in being after the act of election."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
"The small and imperfect mixture of representative government in England, impeded as it is by other branches aristocratical and hereditary, shows yet the power of the representative principle towards improving the condition of man."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
"I do not flatter myself with the immortality of our governments; but I shall think little also of their longevity, unless this germ of destruction [i.e., the aristocratical spirit] be taken out."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
There was a popular bumper sticker years ago:
"Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner."
Jefferson was less worried about the People eating each other than he was about the power-holders:
"Courts love the people always, as wolves do the sheep."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1789.
"Democrats... consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them, therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96
"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
"The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.
"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"Aristocrats... fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825.
"The people...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
Democracy was feared by the Founders because the majority claimed the power to oppress the minority. Democracy also sowed the seeds of social destruction by making the determination of wise public policy a simple matter of voting, rather than finding a more permanent and absolute standard of truth. In other words, said those Founders who feared democracy, the "voice of the People" is not the voice of God.
But the real problem with democracy is not the people, it's the power. It's not that the people are bad, but that the political power claimed by the majority is dangerous.
Radical libertarians deny the legitimacy of all political power. Radical libertarians ask if it is ever necessary for the People to "elect representatives" and give them the moral approbation of the initiation of force against the minority.
Radical libertarians believe in pure democracy, but not for purposes of electing "representatives" and giving them power over the minority, but for purposes of self-government and association with other self-governors. For the radical libertarian, everyone has the right to vote with his wallet, his feet, and his mind. He can buy what he wants, move where he wants, believe what he wants.
Regular democrats believe that the majority can tell the minority what to buy and what not to buy, where to live and where not to live, and what to believe and what not to believe, and the representatives elected by the majority should execute the will of the majority over the minority.
Example: suppose an amusement park on the outskirts of town realized that they would have more customers if tourists could be diverted from the main drag through town onto a road that goes directly to the amusement park. If the wealthy amusement park owner had gone door-to-door through the town in a democratic way asking for donations to build a by-pass to his place of business, doubtless few would have contributed. But in a "democratic republic," the "elected representatives" can levy a tax on everyone to build a road for the benefit of the amusement park.
Radical libertarians believe the power to tax is never justified. When "elected representatives" initiate force against the innocent, they commit acts of theft and injustice.
A Libertarian Democracy is where every individual has the right to "vote" on every issue, to buy and sell, to move or stay, to work or rest, to associate or discriminate. Each individual has the right to buy or sell everything that "the government" currently offers:
• agriculture
• commerce
• education
• energy
• health
• human services
• housing
• urban development
• justice
• labor
• transportation
• minted coins and currency
• mail
• home security
If these things are not for sale, at the right price or standard of quality, each individual has the right to start a business, by himself or in association with other individuals, raise capital, and provide these goods and services for sale in a free market. If there's a demand for his product, he'll make a profit. And everyone else has the right to "vote" for these goods and services, or to vote for a competitor.
This is a Libertarian Democracy
-----=====******O******=====-----
Jefferson on Politics & Government
A "democracy" is every individual voting directly on each issue.
A "republic" has representatives of the people who are presumed to be wiser than the masses might be when stirred up contrary to reason. Most of America's Founders believed that Christians should be elected as these wise representatives rather than atheists:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, co-author of "The Federalist Papers"
On the other hand, some -- like Thomas Jefferson -- were "radical democrats."
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
For Jefferson, a "republican" form of government was necessary only because size stretched the limits of democracy:
"A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
For Jefferson, our republic was not aristocratic, but democratic.
"An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
"The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently none where the authorities are hereditary... or self-chosen... and little, where for life, in proportion as the life continues in being after the act of election."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
"The small and imperfect mixture of representative government in England, impeded as it is by other branches aristocratical and hereditary, shows yet the power of the representative principle towards improving the condition of man."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
"I do not flatter myself with the immortality of our governments; but I shall think little also of their longevity, unless this germ of destruction [i.e., the aristocratical spirit] be taken out."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
There was a popular bumper sticker years ago:
"Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner."
Jefferson was less worried about the People eating each other than he was about the power-holders:
"Courts love the people always, as wolves do the sheep."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1789.
"Democrats... consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them, therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96
"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
"The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.
"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"Aristocrats... fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825.
"The people...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
Democracy was feared by the Founders because the majority claimed the power to oppress the minority. Democracy also sowed the seeds of social destruction by making the determination of wise public policy a simple matter of voting, rather than finding a more permanent and absolute standard of truth. In other words, said those Founders who feared democracy, the "voice of the People" is not the voice of God.
But the real problem with democracy is not the people, it's the power. It's not that the people are bad, but that the political power claimed by the majority is dangerous.
Radical libertarians deny the legitimacy of all political power. Radical libertarians ask if it is ever necessary for the People to "elect representatives" and give them the moral approbation of the initiation of force against the minority.
Radical libertarians believe in pure democracy, but not for purposes of electing "representatives" and giving them power over the minority, but for purposes of self-government and association with other self-governors. For the radical libertarian, everyone has the right to vote with his wallet, his feet, and his mind. He can buy what he wants, move where he wants, believe what he wants.
Regular democrats believe that the majority can tell the minority what to buy and what not to buy, where to live and where not to live, and what to believe and what not to believe, and the representatives elected by the majority should execute the will of the majority over the minority.
Example: suppose an amusement park on the outskirts of town realized that they would have more customers if tourists could be diverted from the main drag through town onto a road that goes directly to the amusement park. If the wealthy amusement park owner had gone door-to-door through the town in a democratic way asking for donations to build a by-pass to his place of business, doubtless few would have contributed. But in a "democratic republic," the "elected representatives" can levy a tax on everyone to build a road for the benefit of the amusement park.
Radical libertarians believe the power to tax is never justified. When "elected representatives" initiate force against the innocent, they commit acts of theft and injustice.
A Libertarian Democracy is where every individual has the right to "vote" on every issue, to buy and sell, to move or stay, to work or rest, to associate or discriminate. Each individual has the right to buy or sell everything that "the government" currently offers:
• agriculture
• commerce
• education
• energy
• health
• human services
• housing
• urban development
• justice
• labor
• transportation
• minted coins and currency
• home security
If these things are not for sale, at the right price or standard of quality, each individual has the right to start a business, by himself or in association with other individuals, raise capital, and provide these goods and services for sale in a free market. If there's a demand for his product, he'll make a profit. And everyone else has the right to "vote" for these goods and services, or to vote for a competitor.
This is a Libertarian Democracy
-----=====******O******=====-----
Jefferson on Politics & Government
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Liberalism is Aristocracy
Since I am the founder of a non-profit tax-exempt organization called Vine & Fig Tree, and since I am a third-party candidate with no realistic hope of unseating the third most powerful Republican in Congress, who has raised millions of dollars in his congressional campaigns, it should be no secret that I'm using this campaign as an educational vehicle to promote the Biblical ideal of "Liberty Under God," which America's Founding Fathers found in Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" prophecy (Micah 4:1-7).
Yesterday I introduced a comparison of modern liberalism with classical laissez-faire liberalism.
19th century liberalism meant smaller government.
20th century liberalism meant bigger government.
Classical liberalism meant everyone had an equal opportunity shot at the "pursuit of happiness."
Modern liberalism means regulations and obstacles for the disfavored, and special privileges and subsidies for the favored.
Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal.
FDR was a modern liberal.
Jefferson was a democrat.
FDR was an aristocrat.
Jefferson had confidence in "the People."
FDR believed that the masses were retarded, and needed to be guided by the aristocracy.
Let's examine this idea of democracy vs. aristocracy in more detail.
In a letter to William Johnson in 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"At the formation of our government, many had formed their political opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests."
In 1810 Jefferson wrote to Joel Barlow:
"[We] believe in the improvability of the condition of man, and [we] have acted on that behalf, in opposition to those who consider man as a beast of burden made to be rode by him who has genius enough to get a bridle into his mouth."
In 1816 he wrote to Samuel Kercheval:
"[Our] object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom."
"I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, 1787
"The only point on which [General Washington] and I ever differed in opinion was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they might trust themselves with a control over their government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813.
More from Jefferson on Self-Government
The English word "democracy" comes from two Greek words: demos, "people," and kratein, "to seize." The idea behind the "-cracy" part of various political terms (e.g., aristocracy; democracy, mobocracy, bureaucracy), is the idea of making a choice, and being able to hold onto that choice.
Modern liberalism denies that "the People" are able to make choices wisely, that they can hold onto their choices providently, and that they can live with their choices, taking personal responsibility. The aristocracy must do these things for them. ("Aristocracy" comes from the Greek aristos, "the best.")
So for example, the aristocracy needs to plan for the retirement years of "the People," because "the people" are too stupid to plan for themselves. And if the Jones family suffers because Mr. Jones was too stupid to plan ahead, the Smith family next door, intelligent enough to plan for themselves, are too greedy to help the Jones family when they hear of the Jones family problems.
Fortunately for America, the liberal aristocracy is both wise and compassionate. This is "government of the people, by the best (the liberals), for the people."
This is not democracy.
In fact, it represents a fundamental repudiation of democracy, even though liberals claim an almost sacramental belief in democracy (and most liberals are "democrats"). Liberal aristocratic democrats believe "the People" are too stupid to take care of themselves and each other, because they are greedy and foolish. But in a liberal democracy, the greedy and the foolish get to vote. They vote for candidates who are their peers, who are by nature greedy and foolish. But the sacrament of voting creates an electoral transubstantiation of greedy and foolish people into the priestly caste of the liberal bureaucracy. At one time greedy and foolish, they become - by virtue of being elected - wise and compassionate. Once selfish and short-sighted, they become focused exclusively on the long-term best interests of the governed.
(Which explains why no politician wants to even discuss the imminent bankruptcy of the Social Security ponzi scheme.)
If "the People" can be trusted with political democracy (using their votes to elect liberal aristocrats who are wise and benevolent), why can they not be trusted with economic democracy (choosing where to work, at what wage, spending their earnings as they see fit, choosing how to educate their children, etc., etc.)?
Jefferson was aware that democracy required education:
"The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1824.
"[Without becoming] familiarized with the habits and practice of self-government,... the political vessel is all sail and no ballast." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1822.
"[It is a] happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrant." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Marbois, 1817.
For nearly 100 years, James Madison has been quoted as saying:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
But liberal educators will not even allow a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in a classroom for students to see. Teaching children that the Declaration of Independence is really true, and giving students the "liberal arts," that is, the art of being a free and independent person, living securely under one's own vine & fig tree, is now illegal in schools controlled by modern secular liberals. Jefferson would be the first to accuse modern liberal education of "dumbing down" students to prevent their challenging the aristocracy.
The Bible is much more supportive of classical laissez-faire liberalism than modern liberalism. Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" prophecy (Micah 4:1-7) is democratic:
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
All nations, all people, will seek the truth to be governed by it, which is the mark of self-government.
The Prophets continuously declare that Israel had been a "chosen nation" by grace, not by merit, and for a temporary purpose, which was the eventual conversion of all the gentile nations. Malachi 1:11 echoes this idea. So did Micah's contemporary, Isaiah (Isaiah 56:1-8).
The idea of "all nations" coming to true faith annoyed Jewish aristocrats. Jesus quoted Isaiah's prophecy and the religious leaders wanted to kill Him (Mark 11:17-18). Jewish aristocrats believed that Malachi's "true religion" could only be practiced under their liberal guidance with their liberal regulations in the temple centrally located at Jerusalem. Jesus explained to the Samaritan woman at the well that this was never the teaching of Moses and the Prophets (John 4:1-26).
A world of classical liberalism is:
__a laissez-faire world of economic democracy,
__with all people Free to Choose, and
__taking personal responsibility for their choices.
The world of modern liberalism is:
__a world of passive uneducated faith in
__the Messianic Liberal Aristocracy.
Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush?
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power. . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.
In the 21st century, both Republicans and Democrats are proponents of atheistic liberal aristocracy. Only the Libertarian Party believes in Jeffersonian democracy. Only Kevin Craig is a Christocrat.
Yesterday I introduced a comparison of modern liberalism with classical laissez-faire liberalism.
19th century liberalism meant smaller government.
20th century liberalism meant bigger government.
Classical liberalism meant everyone had an equal opportunity shot at the "pursuit of happiness."
Modern liberalism means regulations and obstacles for the disfavored, and special privileges and subsidies for the favored.
Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal.
FDR was a modern liberal.
Jefferson was a democrat.
FDR was an aristocrat.
Jefferson had confidence in "the People."
FDR believed that the masses were retarded, and needed to be guided by the aristocracy.
Let's examine this idea of democracy vs. aristocracy in more detail.
In a letter to William Johnson in 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"At the formation of our government, many had formed their political opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests."
In 1810 Jefferson wrote to Joel Barlow:
"[We] believe in the improvability of the condition of man, and [we] have acted on that behalf, in opposition to those who consider man as a beast of burden made to be rode by him who has genius enough to get a bridle into his mouth."
In 1816 he wrote to Samuel Kercheval:
"[Our] object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom."
"I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, 1787
"The only point on which [General Washington] and I ever differed in opinion was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they might trust themselves with a control over their government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813.
More from Jefferson on Self-Government
The English word "democracy" comes from two Greek words: demos, "people," and kratein, "to seize." The idea behind the "-cracy" part of various political terms (e.g., aristocracy; democracy, mobocracy, bureaucracy), is the idea of making a choice, and being able to hold onto that choice.
Modern liberalism denies that "the People" are able to make choices wisely, that they can hold onto their choices providently, and that they can live with their choices, taking personal responsibility. The aristocracy must do these things for them. ("Aristocracy" comes from the Greek aristos, "the best.")
So for example, the aristocracy needs to plan for the retirement years of "the People," because "the people" are too stupid to plan for themselves. And if the Jones family suffers because Mr. Jones was too stupid to plan ahead, the Smith family next door, intelligent enough to plan for themselves, are too greedy to help the Jones family when they hear of the Jones family problems.
Fortunately for America, the liberal aristocracy is both wise and compassionate. This is "government of the people, by the best (the liberals), for the people."
This is not democracy.
In fact, it represents a fundamental repudiation of democracy, even though liberals claim an almost sacramental belief in democracy (and most liberals are "democrats"). Liberal aristocratic democrats believe "the People" are too stupid to take care of themselves and each other, because they are greedy and foolish. But in a liberal democracy, the greedy and the foolish get to vote. They vote for candidates who are their peers, who are by nature greedy and foolish. But the sacrament of voting creates an electoral transubstantiation of greedy and foolish people into the priestly caste of the liberal bureaucracy. At one time greedy and foolish, they become - by virtue of being elected - wise and compassionate. Once selfish and short-sighted, they become focused exclusively on the long-term best interests of the governed.
(Which explains why no politician wants to even discuss the imminent bankruptcy of the Social Security ponzi scheme.)
If "the People" can be trusted with political democracy (using their votes to elect liberal aristocrats who are wise and benevolent), why can they not be trusted with economic democracy (choosing where to work, at what wage, spending their earnings as they see fit, choosing how to educate their children, etc., etc.)?
Jefferson was aware that democracy required education:
"The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1824.
"[Without becoming] familiarized with the habits and practice of self-government,... the political vessel is all sail and no ballast." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1822.
"[It is a] happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrant." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Marbois, 1817.
For nearly 100 years, James Madison has been quoted as saying:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
But liberal educators will not even allow a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in a classroom for students to see. Teaching children that the Declaration of Independence is really true, and giving students the "liberal arts," that is, the art of being a free and independent person, living securely under one's own vine & fig tree, is now illegal in schools controlled by modern secular liberals. Jefferson would be the first to accuse modern liberal education of "dumbing down" students to prevent their challenging the aristocracy.
The Bible is much more supportive of classical laissez-faire liberalism than modern liberalism. Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" prophecy (Micah 4:1-7) is democratic:
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
All nations, all people, will seek the truth to be governed by it, which is the mark of self-government.
The Prophets continuously declare that Israel had been a "chosen nation" by grace, not by merit, and for a temporary purpose, which was the eventual conversion of all the gentile nations. Malachi 1:11 echoes this idea. So did Micah's contemporary, Isaiah (Isaiah 56:1-8).
The idea of "all nations" coming to true faith annoyed Jewish aristocrats. Jesus quoted Isaiah's prophecy and the religious leaders wanted to kill Him (Mark 11:17-18). Jewish aristocrats believed that Malachi's "true religion" could only be practiced under their liberal guidance with their liberal regulations in the temple centrally located at Jerusalem. Jesus explained to the Samaritan woman at the well that this was never the teaching of Moses and the Prophets (John 4:1-26).
A world of classical liberalism is:
__a laissez-faire world of economic democracy,
__with all people Free to Choose
, and__taking personal responsibility for their choices.
The world of modern liberalism is:
__a world of passive uneducated faith in
__the Messianic Liberal Aristocracy.
Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush?
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power. . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.
In the 21st century, both Republicans and Democrats are proponents of atheistic liberal aristocracy. Only the Libertarian Party believes in Jeffersonian democracy. Only Kevin Craig is a Christocrat.
Monday, May 19, 2008
"Liberalism" and "Rights"
I ran across an interesting article from The National Center for Policy Analysis on the distinction between "economic liberties" and "civil liberties." It also helps us understand the meaning of the world "liberal." From their website:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.
National Center for Policy Analysis - About Us
They pose the question, What Is Classical Liberalism? In Europe and in 19th century America, "liberal" meant "conservative" (in the Reagan/Goldwater sense of smaller, less intrusive government). Milton Friedman once said of Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990: "The thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not (in terms of belief) a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."
In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture, Mrs. Thatcher argued that "The kind of Conservatism which he and I ... favoured would be best described as "liberal," in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists." She once slammed a copy of Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a Shadow Cabinet meeting, saying, "This is what we believe."
NCPA says,
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government.
At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature.
If I may interrupt: human "nature" and human rights, according to America's Founding Fathers, are not the product of meaningless mutations in an impersonal, evolving universe. Rather, they are the product of Intelligent Design. The Declaration says human beings are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights. Continuing the quote:
Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
Another interruption: Not only can we dissolve government, the Declaration says we have a DUTY to abolish tyrannical governments.
OK, here's the beef:
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate
• where people work,
• when they work,
• the wages they work for,
• what they can buy,
• what they can sell,
• the price they can sell it for,
• etc.
Notice again this statement:
The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not.
If it is correct to state that 20th century liberals do not believe in "economic rights," would it be correct to infer that 19th century liberals believed in "economic rights" but not "civil rights?" I don't think so. Do modern liberals believe in the same "civil rights" as classical liberals? I wonder.
Speaking of "economic liberties," then, for the old-fashioned liberal, individual "economic" liberties make up "the pursuit of happiness," pursued in conformity to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." For the modern liberal, government has the right to obstruct the pursuit of happiness by individuals. Continuing:
At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties.
Is this really true?
Is there really a difference between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties?
Is there any evidence that the Signers of the Declaration of Independence believed in any such distinction?
Did anyone in the 18th or 19th century distinguish between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties? NCPA has already given us the answer: Those who follow Jefferson and the Founders
do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties
Do 20th century liberals really respect the same "civil" liberties which America's Founders respected?
Do modern liberals believe in the same rights America's Founders did?
Continuing:
By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.
In its article on "Civil Liberties," Wikipedia says:
Common civil liberties include
• freedom of association,
• freedom of assembly,
• freedom of religion, and
• freedom of speech, and additionally,
• the right to due process,
• to fair trial,
• to own property,
• to keep and bear arms and
• to privacy.
I can't think of anyone who believes in "economic rights" who does not also believe in freedom of assembly, religion, speech, property and arms -- and in fact believes in all of these "civil rights," except possibly the non-constitutional right of "privacy," which in practice means "the right to violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God in your own home."
Just as the meaning of "liberal" was transformed from the 19th century definition of "pro-liberty for producers" to the 20th century definition of "anti-liberty for producers," so the meaning of "economic rights" has changed from "rights of producers" to "rights of consumers." Here's an excerpt from a speech by Barack Obama:
Third thing -- we've got to recognize that we fought for civil rights, but we've still got a lot of economic rights that have to be dealt with. We've got 46 million people uninsured in this country despite spending more money on health care than any nation on earth. It makes no sense. As a consequence, we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap.
Blacks are less likely in their schools to have adequate funding. We have less-qualified teachers in those schools. We have fewer textbooks in those schools. We got [sic] in some schools rats outnumbering computers. That's called the achievement gap. You've got a health care gap and you've got an achievement gap. You've got Katrina still undone.
Economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (both Nobel Prize-winners) have shown that when government "guarantees" or tries to provide these "rights" (education, healthcare, housing and urban development) people are less educated, less likely to be able to see a doctor or have a surgery, and are not going to have decent housing.
I'd like to suggest that if a right isn't an "economic" right (as described by NCPA and not Obama) then it is a spurious right, such as the "right" to abortion or same-sex "marriage."
I'd also like to suggest that none of the real rights (with which we are endowed by our Creator) can be provided by government; they can only be infringed upon by government. America's Founding Fathers believed government was the biggest threat to our God-given rights.
"Civil rights" turn out on closer inspection to be the "right" to be lazy and irresponsible. It is the "right" to be free of the consequences of violating "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It's the right to get something for nothing.
It turns out the entire concept of "rights" should be frankly and explicitly abandoned in favor of the concept of "duties" according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.
National Center for Policy Analysis - About Us
They pose the question, What Is Classical Liberalism? In Europe and in 19th century America, "liberal" meant "conservative" (in the Reagan/Goldwater sense of smaller, less intrusive government). Milton Friedman once said of Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990: "The thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not (in terms of belief) a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."
In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture, Mrs. Thatcher argued that "The kind of Conservatism which he and I ... favoured would be best described as "liberal," in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists." She once slammed a copy of Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a Shadow Cabinet meeting, saying, "This is what we believe."
NCPA says,
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government.
At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature.
If I may interrupt: human "nature" and human rights, according to America's Founding Fathers, are not the product of meaningless mutations in an impersonal, evolving universe. Rather, they are the product of Intelligent Design. The Declaration says human beings are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights. Continuing the quote:
Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
Another interruption: Not only can we dissolve government, the Declaration says we have a DUTY to abolish tyrannical governments.
OK, here's the beef:
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate
• where people work,
• when they work,
• the wages they work for,
• what they can buy,
• what they can sell,
• the price they can sell it for,
• etc.
Notice again this statement:
The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not.
If it is correct to state that 20th century liberals do not believe in "economic rights," would it be correct to infer that 19th century liberals believed in "economic rights" but not "civil rights?" I don't think so. Do modern liberals believe in the same "civil rights" as classical liberals? I wonder.
Speaking of "economic liberties," then, for the old-fashioned liberal, individual "economic" liberties make up "the pursuit of happiness," pursued in conformity to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." For the modern liberal, government has the right to obstruct the pursuit of happiness by individuals. Continuing:
At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties.
Is this really true?
Is there really a difference between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties?
Is there any evidence that the Signers of the Declaration of Independence believed in any such distinction?
Did anyone in the 18th or 19th century distinguish between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties? NCPA has already given us the answer: Those who follow Jefferson and the Founders
do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties
Do 20th century liberals really respect the same "civil" liberties which America's Founders respected?
Do modern liberals believe in the same rights America's Founders did?
Continuing:
By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.
In its article on "Civil Liberties," Wikipedia says:
Common civil liberties include
• freedom of association,
• freedom of assembly,
• freedom of religion, and
• freedom of speech, and additionally,
• the right to due process,
• to fair trial,
• to own property,
• to keep and bear arms and
• to privacy.
I can't think of anyone who believes in "economic rights" who does not also believe in freedom of assembly, religion, speech, property and arms -- and in fact believes in all of these "civil rights," except possibly the non-constitutional right of "privacy," which in practice means "the right to violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God in your own home."
Just as the meaning of "liberal" was transformed from the 19th century definition of "pro-liberty for producers" to the 20th century definition of "anti-liberty for producers," so the meaning of "economic rights" has changed from "rights of producers" to "rights of consumers." Here's an excerpt from a speech by Barack Obama:
Third thing -- we've got to recognize that we fought for civil rights, but we've still got a lot of economic rights that have to be dealt with. We've got 46 million people uninsured in this country despite spending more money on health care than any nation on earth. It makes no sense. As a consequence, we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap.
Blacks are less likely in their schools to have adequate funding. We have less-qualified teachers in those schools. We have fewer textbooks in those schools. We got [sic] in some schools rats outnumbering computers. That's called the achievement gap. You've got a health care gap and you've got an achievement gap. You've got Katrina still undone.
Economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (both Nobel Prize-winners) have shown that when government "guarantees" or tries to provide these "rights" (education, healthcare, housing and urban development) people are less educated, less likely to be able to see a doctor or have a surgery, and are not going to have decent housing.
I'd like to suggest that if a right isn't an "economic" right (as described by NCPA and not Obama) then it is a spurious right, such as the "right" to abortion or same-sex "marriage."
I'd also like to suggest that none of the real rights (with which we are endowed by our Creator) can be provided by government; they can only be infringed upon by government. America's Founding Fathers believed government was the biggest threat to our God-given rights.
"Civil rights" turn out on closer inspection to be the "right" to be lazy and irresponsible. It is the "right" to be free of the consequences of violating "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It's the right to get something for nothing.
It turns out the entire concept of "rights" should be frankly and explicitly abandoned in favor of the concept of "duties" according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Your Check is in the Mail
Have you gotten your "economic stimulus" check yet? They started being mass produced on May 8, and pretty soon, the American economy will once again be the strongest in the world.
I got this idea from P.J. O'Rourke [pdf]:
Imagine a fellow who can bench press 168 lbs. (Probably more than I can do, but hardly a record.) While at the gym, he hears a thundering noise outside. The rumble is caused by a huge metal ball, rolling down the street, crushing every car in its path. The ball weighs over 13,000 lbs -- nearly 7 tons.
Undaunted, our valiant bench-presser stakes out ground in the middle of the street, moves loose gravel out from under his gym shoes to ensure good traction, and holds his arms out stiff as a board, ready to stop the 13,000-lb. metal globe with 168 pounds of a mighty horizontal bench press.
President Bush and both houses of Congress -- both Republicans and Democrats combined -- can collectively bench press only $168 billion. They want us to believe that their mighty heave-ho is going to change the trajectory of a $13 Trillion dollar economy.
(Public school graduates are permitted to use calculators to confirm the mathematical proportions of our analogy.)
Here's more information about the "Stimulus Package." Wait a minute. That article is about the President's 2001 Stimulus Package. Try this: Bush to Propose $600 Billion Economic Stimulus Package. No wait -- that's the 2003 Stimulus Package. Hmmm. Shouldn't the economy have been stimulated by now? OK, check out the video here.
I got this idea from P.J. O'Rourke [pdf]:
Imagine a fellow who can bench press 168 lbs. (Probably more than I can do, but hardly a record.) While at the gym, he hears a thundering noise outside. The rumble is caused by a huge metal ball, rolling down the street, crushing every car in its path. The ball weighs over 13,000 lbs -- nearly 7 tons.Undaunted, our valiant bench-presser stakes out ground in the middle of the street, moves loose gravel out from under his gym shoes to ensure good traction, and holds his arms out stiff as a board, ready to stop the 13,000-lb. metal globe with 168 pounds of a mighty horizontal bench press.
President Bush and both houses of Congress -- both Republicans and Democrats combined -- can collectively bench press only $168 billion. They want us to believe that their mighty heave-ho is going to change the trajectory of a $13 Trillion dollar economy.
(Public school graduates are permitted to use calculators to confirm the mathematical proportions of our analogy.)
Here's more information about the "Stimulus Package." Wait a minute. That article is about the President's 2001 Stimulus Package. Try this: Bush to Propose $600 Billion Economic Stimulus Package. No wait -- that's the 2003 Stimulus Package. Hmmm. Shouldn't the economy have been stimulated by now? OK, check out the video here.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Indigenous Islamo-Fascism?
I've been participating in an argument about the word "Islamo-fascism" on Thomas Knapp's blog. My latest comment was rejected with these words:
"Your comment contains too many links and will not be added"
So I'm posting my comment here.
According to Steve Newton, Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, says:
I have argued on several occasions that it is not helpful to describe radical Islam as "Islamofascism." That imposes a Western ideological contrast--fascism--on an indigenous, however wrongheaded, Islamic teaching. The more accurate term, I have suggested, is Jihadism which refers to the doctrine that it is the duty of Muslims to force the world's submission to Allah by any means necessary.
To what degree is "jihadism" really "indigenous?"
It looks to me like "jihadism" is a creation of the superpowers, beginning with CIA funding of the "anti-soviet Afghan resistance," and continuing with Soviet funding of anti-U.S. jihadists (i.e., the same terrorists).
Sources to the right of Neuhaus:
Behind Islamic Terror
The Real Terror Paymasters
The "Former" Soviet Bloc
Sources to the left include Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad (nicely distinguishing it from "ancient" or "indigenous" jihad), released in the U.S. as Terror Incorporated.
There seems to be quite a few people willing to argue passionately for or against the word "islamo-fascism." I'm not sure I understand the passion. I don't really care; I just like to argue with people. I'm currently attending a 12-step group for argument addicts, so I need to step back and ask again, what is the value that's being protected by this argument over terms? What's really at stake?
"Your comment contains too many links and will not be added"
So I'm posting my comment here.
According to Steve Newton, Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, says:
I have argued on several occasions that it is not helpful to describe radical Islam as "Islamofascism." That imposes a Western ideological contrast--fascism--on an indigenous, however wrongheaded, Islamic teaching. The more accurate term, I have suggested, is Jihadism which refers to the doctrine that it is the duty of Muslims to force the world's submission to Allah by any means necessary.
To what degree is "jihadism" really "indigenous?"
It looks to me like "jihadism" is a creation of the superpowers, beginning with CIA funding of the "anti-soviet Afghan resistance," and continuing with Soviet funding of anti-U.S. jihadists (i.e., the same terrorists).
Sources to the right of Neuhaus:
Behind Islamic Terror
The Real Terror Paymasters
The "Former" Soviet Bloc
Sources to the left include Napoleoni's book Modern Jihad (nicely distinguishing it from "ancient" or "indigenous" jihad), released in the U.S. as Terror Incorporated
.There seems to be quite a few people willing to argue passionately for or against the word "islamo-fascism." I'm not sure I understand the passion. I don't really care; I just like to argue with people. I'm currently attending a 12-step group for argument addicts, so I need to step back and ask again, what is the value that's being protected by this argument over terms? What's really at stake?
Weather.com Global Warming Poll
For what it's worth, here's a weather.com Global Warming Poll.
More than a majority believe that "global warming" is either a myth, or not serious enough to be concerned about.
This won't stop government "global warming" policies from being imposed on us, because the idea that ours is a "representative" system of government is a myth.
Keep in mind that all government "global warming" policies, even if implemented to the degree environmentalists demand, will not stop "global warming" (that is, the planet's rise out of the "Little Ice Age" that's been going on for the last several centuries). The change in temperature, if any, resulting from government environmental policies would be almost unmeasurable.
"Global warming" policies are demanded not because of their claimed effect on climate change, but because of their unspoken effect on human behavior. Specifically, environmentalists are anti-industrialists. Human technology and economic growth are anathema to environmentalists. They want human beings to live in teepees, in "harmony" with "nature." (And they'll work on getting rid of the teepees when we get there, especially those made with animal hides.)
Tell your "elected" "representative" to vote against all government policies designed to combat "global warming."
Previous posts:
• Global Warming and the G8
• 1,000 Words on Global Warming
• Alligators and Environmentalists
Platform:
• Stewardship vs. Environmentalism
• Global Warming
Other resources:
• Global Warming Petition Project
• Environmentalism Is Recycled Communism and Nazism George Reisman
• Global Warming: Socialism’s Trojan Horse
• Why Environmentalism Is Anti-Human George Reisman
• Cato Institute Publications
• Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is George Reisman
• The Bogeyman Will Get You!! Jude Wanniski
• Collectivism, Climate Change, and Economic Freedom George Reisman
More than a majority believe that "global warming" is either a myth, or not serious enough to be concerned about.
This won't stop government "global warming" policies from being imposed on us, because the idea that ours is a "representative" system of government is a myth.
Keep in mind that all government "global warming" policies, even if implemented to the degree environmentalists demand, will not stop "global warming" (that is, the planet's rise out of the "Little Ice Age" that's been going on for the last several centuries). The change in temperature, if any, resulting from government environmental policies would be almost unmeasurable.
"Global warming" policies are demanded not because of their claimed effect on climate change, but because of their unspoken effect on human behavior. Specifically, environmentalists are anti-industrialists. Human technology and economic growth are anathema to environmentalists. They want human beings to live in teepees, in "harmony" with "nature." (And they'll work on getting rid of the teepees when we get there, especially those made with animal hides.)
Tell your "elected" "representative" to vote against all government policies designed to combat "global warming."
Previous posts:
• Global Warming and the G8
• 1,000 Words on Global Warming
• Alligators and Environmentalists
Platform:
• Stewardship vs. Environmentalism
• Global Warming
Other resources:
• Global Warming Petition Project
• Environmentalism Is Recycled Communism and Nazism George Reisman
• Global Warming: Socialism’s Trojan Horse
• Why Environmentalism Is Anti-Human George Reisman
• Cato Institute Publications
• Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is George Reisman
• The Bogeyman Will Get You!! Jude Wanniski
• Collectivism, Climate Change, and Economic Freedom George Reisman
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Republicans Legalize Homosexual "Marriage"
Another thing I find "morally repugnant" is the civil government telling citizens that two (or more?) homosexuals have a "right" to be "married."
Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have done that today.
The Los Angeles Times, speaking of "the Republican-dominated court," alluded to the fact that 6 out 7 Justices were appointed by Republican governors.
Republican voters in California passed a ballot initiative in 2000 ("Proposition 22") which limited "marriage" to a relationship between a man and a woman (passing handily, 4,618,673 votes for versus 2,909,370 against).
But it seems that whenever Republicans are elected to political office (or appointed by other Republicans), they lose touch with voters, the Constitution, and the principles upon which America was founded. Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have utterly disregarded the unambiguous intent of California voters.
They have also disregarded God's intent. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) believed that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The rights we have are only those with which we have been endowed by our Creator, who also ordained "marriage," and who also defined who we can and cannot be "married" to.
For the government to declare that a man can be "married" to a barnyard animal is as ludicrous as the government declaring that an atheist can be "baptized." "Marriage" and "Baptism" are not defined by the State. The rights with which human beings have been endowed by their Creator are also not determined by Republicans on the California Supreme Court.
On March 4, 2008, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument at the California Supreme Court in defense of the marriage laws. The court hearing lasted more than three hours, as each side debated the issue.
Commenting on today’s ruling, Mathew Staver said: "This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California’s Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom. The California Supreme Court has defied logic, undermined the will of the people, and weakened our future. This decision will ignite California voters to amend their state constitution to protect marriage and prevent judges from wrecking marriage."
The presence of such an initiative on the November ballot could have an effect on the Presidential race.
Republican voters in Southwest Missouri need to realize that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the moral and political chaos that grows darker every day in America. In November, Southwest Missouri voters have a chance to stop wasting their vote and send a clear message to the rest of America: "Liberty Under God" is the moral and political philosophy that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in human history.
Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have done that today.
The Los Angeles Times, speaking of "the Republican-dominated court," alluded to the fact that 6 out 7 Justices were appointed by Republican governors.
Republican voters in California passed a ballot initiative in 2000 ("Proposition 22") which limited "marriage" to a relationship between a man and a woman (passing handily, 4,618,673 votes for versus 2,909,370 against).
But it seems that whenever Republicans are elected to political office (or appointed by other Republicans), they lose touch with voters, the Constitution, and the principles upon which America was founded. Republicans on the California State Supreme Court have utterly disregarded the unambiguous intent of California voters.
They have also disregarded God's intent. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) believed that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The rights we have are only those with which we have been endowed by our Creator, who also ordained "marriage," and who also defined who we can and cannot be "married" to.
For the government to declare that a man can be "married" to a barnyard animal is as ludicrous as the government declaring that an atheist can be "baptized." "Marriage" and "Baptism" are not defined by the State. The rights with which human beings have been endowed by their Creator are also not determined by Republicans on the California Supreme Court.
On March 4, 2008, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument at the California Supreme Court in defense of the marriage laws. The court hearing lasted more than three hours, as each side debated the issue.
Commenting on today’s ruling, Mathew Staver said: "This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California’s Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom. The California Supreme Court has defied logic, undermined the will of the people, and weakened our future. This decision will ignite California voters to amend their state constitution to protect marriage and prevent judges from wrecking marriage."
The presence of such an initiative on the November ballot could have an effect on the Presidential race.
Republican voters in Southwest Missouri need to realize that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the moral and political chaos that grows darker every day in America. In November, Southwest Missouri voters have a chance to stop wasting their vote and send a clear message to the rest of America: "Liberty Under God" is the moral and political philosophy that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in human history.
Phillies on Abortion
Decades ago, in Windsor, Connecticut, an older woman took in boarders and allegedly poisoned them for their pensions. American playwright Joseph Kesselring turned the events surrounding this serial murderer into a comic play, "Arsenic and Old Lace," eventually adapted for film starring Gary Grant.Wikipedia describes the plot:
The play is a farcical black comedy revolving around Mortimer Brewster, a theatre-hating drama critic who must deal with his crazy, homicidal family and local police in Brooklyn, New York, as he debates whether to go through with a honeymoon with the woman he loves and has recently agreed to marry. His family includes two spinster aunts who have taken to murdering lonely old men by poisoning them with a glass of home-made elderberry wine laced with arsenic, cyanide and "just a pinch" of strychnine; a brother who believes he is Teddy Roosevelt and digs locks for the Panama Canal in the cellar of the Brewster home (which then serve as graves for the aunts' victims); and a murderous brother who has received plastic surgery performed by an alcoholic accomplice, Dr. Einstein (a character based on real-life gangland surgeon Joseph Moran) to conceal his identity and now looks like horror-film actor Boris Karloff (a self-referential joke, as the part was originally played by Karloff).
George Phillies is a candidate for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination. His campaign has released this statement:
Phillies Reiterates Commitment to Keeping Government out of Abortion Question
Worcester, Mass., May 13: In a statement issued earlier today, Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies reiterated his commitment to keeping government at all levels out of the abortion question. "Government, no matter whether state, Federal, or local, has no legitimate right to interfere in your private life or your medical decisions," he said. "You will not hear me talking about making abortion obsolete, banning abortion, or encouraging abortion."
Phillies said that he completely supports a woman's right to choose, but added that he believes the government should likewise respect individuals' beliefs. "Remember, no matter your side on the issue: Once you agree that our government can intervene in these decisions, you have agreed that a future government that disagrees with your stands can compel you to take actions that you find morally repugnant."
Does the federal government of the United States, the state government of Connecticut, the government of Hartford County, Connecticut, or the city government of Windsor, Connecticut, have a right to "interfere in your private life or your medical decisions" if you're an insane woman poisoning boarders for their pensions? What if this woman's most intimate personal decisions, made in the privacy of her own home, are also made with the professional aid and counsel of "Dr. Einstein," her personal physician?
If the civil magistrate does not have the right to prevent a mother from killing her own defenseless children, does a civil magistrate have a right to do anything?
What I find "morally repugnant" is anyone, but especially "the government," telling mothers they have the "right" to kill their children if they find their children to be a temporary inconvenience.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
300 posts
I've now posted over 300 times to this blog. This may not be of any benefit to anyone else, but I want to download a copy of all my posts, so here they are:
- Welcome To The Site
- 32 Tuesdays
- The Big Picture: "Vine & Fig Tree"
- The Big Picture: "Liberty Under God"
- "Winners" and "Losers"
- The Libertarian Pledge
- More on the Libertarian Pledge
- Libertarian Morality
- The Immigration Issue Takes to the Streets
- The Benefits of 40 Million Illegal Aliens
- The Criminal Culture of Immigrants
- Immigration and the War on [Some] Drugs
- Take Two
- Congressman Ron Paul
- Happy Birthday Booker T.!
- Federal Education Promises Never End
- Is the Republican Party a Cult?
- The Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Bush
- Acheson and MacArthur
- April 12: A Triumph of "Voluntary Effort"
- April 13, 1743 - Thomas Jefferson born
- Good Friday
- An Al-Queda Easter
- The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere
- Oklahoma City - April 19, 1995
- Unions vs. the Free Market
- A Catholic Worker Seder
- Catherine Morris, Public Servant
- Immigration and Health Care
- The Company I Keep
- "Your Papers Please"
- National Day of Prayer
- Trouble for Ron Paul?
- The Death of Wisdom
- Branson Democrats
- Letter from Iran
- Gas Prices in Perspective
- Teach Republicans a Lesson
- U.S.: Defender of Freedom?
- Happy Mothers' Day
- Alligators and Environmentalists
- "Minuteman" Founder Jim Gilchrist
- Constitution Party, Part 2
- Iraq and the Constitution Party
- Minuteman Founder on UN, Sodomy, Draft, and more
- Are Unbelievers Believable?
- They Died in Vain
- Democracy Assassinated the Family
- Phyllis Schlafly's Goose and Gander
- Marriage Amendment
- The 4th of July
- 4th of July
- Congress Perceived as Unethical
- Pink Pistols Survey
- A Libertarian Manifesto: July 4th, 1776
- 9-11 in the News
- Nobody Believes in the 4th of July Anymore.
- 16 Tuesdays
- Who Creates Your Vote?
- Flight 800 - July 17, 1996
- Stop The SPP
- Abolishing "Vital Government Services"
- Apple Pie and Torture
- Christianity and Capitalism
- The Cult of Social Security
- The Cult of "National Security"
- I'd Push the Button
- On Pushing the Button
- Hiroshima / Nagasaki
- Stiff Competition
- There is no Button
- Campaign Wiki
- Why Incumbents Always Win
- The SPP Coup d'Etat
- Canadians Against SPP
- SPP Deception
- More SPP Deception
- A Neglected Anniversary
- Jim Rutz on Democide
- Rep. Ron Paul on SPP
- More Canadian Opposition to SPP
- SPP = European Union
- Freeman's Journal Candidate Survey
- CAGW vs. WHTI
- The Meaning of 9-11
- The Meaning of 9-11
- The Real Enemy: Bush or al-Qaeda?
- Bush's Transportation Secretary and NASCO
- Global Supply-Chain Fascism
- SPP Destroying Evidence?
- Anti-SPP Resolution in Congress
- Tell me what Blunt thinks
- Kupelian on 9-11 Conspiracies
- The Foley Scandal
- A Thank-You Note
- Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt?
- Secular Education and the War on Drugs
- NO on Amendment 2
- Saddam Will Hang
- Post-Election Spin
- Send the Marines?
- Elton John: "Ban religion"
- Nobel Prize-Winning Libertarian Dies
- Rendition
- Pearl Harbor and 9-11
- Libertarian Party Anniversary
- Ramsey Clark: Three Reasons to Impeach
- Gerald R. Ford, Mass Murderer
- A Libertarian's New Year's Resolutions
- Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them
- Robert E. Lee
- LP Flash Needed
- Death to Valentine!
- George Washington
- MEK
- North Korea
- St. Patrick: Christian Libertarian
- Happy Birthday Tom!
- April Violence
- Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
- Greene County Libertarians: Immigration
- Libertarian Candidate Filters
- Immigration and Gun Control
- Welfare and Immigration
- Immigration and the LP Platform
- Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007
- 9-11 and School Shootings
- Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?
- On Overthrowing Governments
- Ann Coulter on Immigration
- America's Psikhushka for 9/11 Truthers
- Josef Mengele Released from Prison
- Phillies, Falwell, and Goldwater
- Do Communists Make Better Spouses?
- Sibel Edmonds and Valerie Plame
- Second Cold War
- Global Warming and the G8
- The Surgeon General
- Conservative Christians for Hillary
- Response to Jason
- I am a Bigot
- The Latest Laziness
- How Big is America?
- Al Capone and the Zetas
- Apology accepted, Dr. Kuznicki.
- Advertising under God
- Providence and "The National Malaise"
- Iraq: Lexington and Concord for Today
- Lexington, Concord, and Plainfield
- Stem Cells Endowed by Their Creator
- What Would the Signers Think?
- U.S. Ready for a Third Party?
- Shunning Government Down
- 1776-Style Radical Transformation
- 1776-Style Theocracy
- Who is more "Radical?"
- Hindu Prayers in the Senate
- Vengeance vs. Self-Defense
- "The Lust of the Eyes"
- Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Can Charity Solve Poverty?
- More on Poverty
- No Free Exercise of Religion
- Hiroshima - Gulf of Tonkin
- Bridges One Week Later
- Nagasaki, August 9, 1945
- IRS and the Rule of Law
- Inventions and "National Security"
- "Suspicious Behavior"
- Secret Military Intelligence
- Abolish the USA!
- "Corruption" is Inescapable
- Corruption in the Military
- More on Military Corruption
- 9/11 - Six Years Later
- Family Research Council on 9/11
- Petraeus: America Safer? "I don't know."
- Constitution Day?
- War and Public Relations
- Two Manifestos, Two Different Nations
- "Do Violence to No Man"
- Eminent Domain Sociopaths
- McCain and "Christian America"
- Columbus and Civilization
- "Media Bias"
- Holocaust Denial in the Service of War
- Conservative Christians for Hillary
- Government Theft Admitted
- Update on Government Theft
- Cheney's Victory in Iraq
- Conservative Christians Reject Huckabee
- Wilberforce: Role Model for Anarchists
- Veterans' Day Weekend 2007
- Thanksgiving 2007
- Zogby: "Voters in a nasty frame of mind"
- Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001
- Winter of Our Discontent
- Spitting in the Wilderness
- Heisman Career Nearly Ended
- Holiday Hypocrisy
- Advertising Milestone
- Sound as a Dollar
- John McCain vs. Al Gore
- The 12 Days of Liberty
- Day 1: Incarnation and Liberty
- Day 2: I'm Dreaming of a Large Christmas
- Day 3: The Birth of the Anti-King
- Day 4: Defeating the Enemies
- Taking Year-End Inventory
- Day 5: Peace on Earth
- Day 6: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Capitalists
- McCain Leads in Rasmussen Poll
- Day 7: Kingmas: Christ = King
- Big Resolutions for 2008
- Day 8: Let's Keep Christmas Commercialized
- Day 9: A Christmas Nagocracy
- Denver Talk Show Host Slanders Ron Paul
- Denver Talk Show Host Responds
- Day 10: Christmas for the Lowly
- Day 11: "All Flesh Will See the Salvation of God"
- Day 12: The Christmas Millennium
- Torture: Stereotyping vs. Analyzing
- Liberal Fascism
- Choosing Slavemasters
- Ron Paul: Racist?
- 1776 and the Plantation
- Allegiance: Obama's Hand and Heart
- Secularist Questions
- Ron Paul, 1924
- Martin Luther King
- Roe v. Wade 35 Years Later
- Reasons to be "Pro-Choice"
- John Mark Reynolds vs. Huckabee
- 1.Hillary; 5.Giuliani; 6.Huckabee; 8.Obama
- God and Huckabee, part 2
- Obama's Big Changes
- The Beheading of Obama
- Ron Paul Book Bomb
- Iraq: A Chinese View
- Garfield and Gore
- The Rogue Co-President
- "Cookie" and America's Founding Fathers
- Charles Thornton: American Archetype
- Terrorist Anniversaries
- Obama's "Economic Plan"
- The Myth of the "Senseless Killing"
- 1,000 Words on Global Warming
- An Affordable Ferrari
- George Washington's Birthday
- Federal Reserve Video
- Rationing Ferraris
- More on Presidents' Day
- I've often wondered myself
- Candidate Filing and Interview
- The Cult of the Omnipotent State
- More Lies from Bob Enyart
- Naomi Wolf: "The End of America"
- The End of Impeachment
- The $2 Trillion Nightmare
- The State vs. Society
- Unilateral Disarmament
- Would God Bless This?
- Client 9: Elliot Spitzer
- Tax Relief At Last!
- Spitzer Conspiracy?
- Happy St. Patrick's Day!
- St. Patrick for Today
- Holy Week
- Republican Rallying Cry
- Spitzer Conspiracy Pt. 2
- Good Friday
- An Uninspiring Easter Message
- Patrick Henry Was Wrong
- Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama
- Government as Criminal Syndicate
- Government Health Care
- Ron Paul is a Warmonger
- MLK Murder
- Yoder and Pierce
- Rachel's Educator
- Rachel's Messiah
- Bob Barr and Ross Perot
- Christmas on the Potomac
- Pay Your Taxes!
- War Tax Refusal
- Battle of the Cults
- Mormons and Davidians
- April 19, 1775, 1993, 2008
- Video Interview
- Jill Lepore's America
- The Money Tree in Kinder's Garden
- McCain's Murder of 1st Amendment
- Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
- Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal"
- National Day of Prayer
- Immigration: Where in the Constitution?
- Who Owns the Holy Land?
- Buy American? U.S. Concentration Camps
- Mother's Day Town Hall
- Slavery, Capital Punishment, and the Bible
- State Pension Fraud
- The Masks of Hollow Men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)