Spoiling the Party

Richard B. Boddie (center) has come up with a delightful idea:

You know what would REALLY perturb ( or p___ off) a whole lot of people, especially so-called Democrats?! How about this?

Bumbling George W. Bush, the puppet, could resign immediately -- before the new year, even. Then the shadowy Dick Cheney becomes the President. Now wouldn't THAT really perturb (or p___ off) those cocky liberals?!

Then Dirty Dick immediately appoints Condoleeza Rice as Vice President. Cheney then resigns weeks later, prior to the imminent overdone Obama coronation and (get this) CONDOLEEZA RICE then becomes THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT of the United States of America, and even more significant she is then also the first WOMAN President no less.

Now wake up from your dreams and get ready for the 'New New Deal' a.k.a "The Raw Deal" or just plain old socialist fascism, which definitely won't be of too much benefit to you and yours, black or not, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever. Of course, that's unless you are one of "the chosen" for Change.

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

It will never happen, of course. The Republican Elite have nothing against Obama, including McCain, who refused to mention Obama's 20-year relationship with "Rev." Jeremiah Wright during the campaign. Remember Bush's fawning praises for the treasonous rapist Bill Clinton at the dedication of the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Little Rock? They're all part of "The Establishment." Obama and Bush-Cheney are on the same team.

The Myth of "The Separation of Church and State" pt. 2

Last week's discussion of "the separation of church and state" continues tonight on "The Libertarian Dime." Hurry, the live show starts just 90 minutes ago. Notes and links will be posted here.

Obama is Not Immanuel

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

But while Joseph thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Matthew 1:18-23

“The State is God walking on Earth.”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

I could have easily entitled this post, "George Bush is not Immanuel." Whoever (s)he is, the President is not Immanuel. "The government" is not Immanuel. "The State" is not Immanuel.

"Immanuel" means “God with us.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
The Gospel of John, chapter 1

This is the meaning of Christmas. God with us.

The name "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew word Yhowshuwa', which is derived from yasha', which is the Hebrew word most frequently translated "salvation." "Jesus" means the One who brings salvation. The One who brings salvation is God with us.

In the Bible, the vast majority of occurrences of the word for "salvation" refer to such things as health, welfare, peace, prosperity, wholeness, victory, security -- all of which the State claims to provide us.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats promise salvation through government. Both parties can trace their dialectical heritage to Hegel and Marx. Both parties and their establishment-approved candidates believe they are God walking on earth, bringing salvation to the world. Voters who cast their electoral palm branches before these Demoblican and Republicrat candidates are part of the world's most powerful religious cult.

This Christmas, remember who God is, and who brings salvation.

The 12 Days of Liberty:
How Christmas Brought Liberty to the Modern World
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
Day 5: Peace on Earth
Day 6: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Capitalists
Day 7: Kingmas: Christ = King
Day 8: Let's Keep Christmas Commercialized
Day 9: A Christmas Nagocracy
Day 10: Christmas for the Lowly
Day 11: "All Flesh Will See the Salvation of God"
Day 12: The Christmas Millennium

The Excommunication of George W. Bush

If George W. Bush were a member of the church I pastored, I would denounce him from the pulpit as an unrepentant mass-murderer.

If I were pastor of a church which Bush were not a member of, I would still denounce him from the pulpit as a mass-murderer.

I believe all Americans -- not just pastors -- have a duty to denounce unrepentant mass-murderers.

Recently, a pastor denounced (or planned to denounce) a woman who was unrepentantly engaging in sex outside of marriage:

BREAKING NEWS: Church Dares to Practice New Testament Christianity!

Even the ostensibly conservative former Ohio Congressman John Kasich, standing in for the ostensibly conservative Bill O'Reilly on the ostensibly conservative FoxNews network, denounced the pastor for bringing up this woman's sins.

The problem is not that this church nags fornicators and adulterers. The problem is more likely that the church does not nag mass-murderers and currency debasers.

Jesus said:

if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
(Matthew 18:15-17)

I'll bet this church has at least one tax collector on the church rolls.

America's Founding Fathers believed that a Free Republic was possible only with the promotion and practice of Christianity, the True Religion. Stated another way, the practice of Christian morality makes liberty possible. Conversely, a society that rejects "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" rejects liberty and ends up with tyranny.

Shunning unrepentant sinners is the core of this campaign's program to beat our swords into plowshares and abolish the State.

www.NAGocracy.com

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State

Another live broadcast on The Libertarian Dime. Starting in 15 minutes.

Permalink: The LD Network » Blog Archive » Episode 36 - Theocracy In America?

Newsweek Attacks Marriage

Last week's cover story for Newsweek magazine was Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy.

Surely nobody still believes that any part of the mainstream news media is simply a neutral and unbiased reporter of objective facts. This cover story is not just opinion:

Newsweek, or OpinionWeak? (Family Research Council Blog)

it is pure propaganda. Agit-prop.

The author, Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller, argues that the Bible should not be taken seriously when it claims that homosexuality is a sin, but that it should be taken seriously when (in her fuddled opinion) it claims that homosexuality is the wave of the future.

But she and the mainstream media don't really take the Bible seriously, but are simply trying to confuse those who do.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15

(Feel free to suggest for me alternative motivations for this article. Obviously she's not trying to convince homosexuals to take the Bible seriously.)

Newsweek Argues the Religious Case for Gay Marriage - Albert Mohler

Why Have a King?

This children's video from 1972 fails to answer the obvious question: Why Have a King at All?

Pray for Mom!

I took my 82 year-old mother to the hospital yesterday. Her physical and mental health have been declining in the last month, and it turns out she has pneumonia. I think she'll be OK, but your prayers would be appreciated. :-)

Update, Wednesday December 10.
Yesterday mom had a battery of tests: a "TEE" (trans-esophogal echo: picture of heart taken through esophogus), ultrasound, MRI, and back x-ray. She went in because her back was hurting too bad to get out of bed. Now we've discovered that in addition to her pneumonia, she has an infection in her blood and heart. So my amateur prognosis posted above may have been overly-optimistic.

Thanks for your prayers.

Update, Friday December 12.

A letter from my sister:

-----=====******O******=====-----
Great news about Mom!

I spoke with her doctor at length this morning. Mom's prognosis for a full recovery is excellent.

Her nasty case of pneumonia snuck into her heart through the leaky valve (that we already knew she had) and caused endocarditis -- an inflammation of the heart caused by the infection. But, the antibiotics are working and her doctor says, "She's really doing very well."

Mom will have to remain on IV antibiotics for about three weeks. The hospital will install an IV port to make the daily IV infusions easier, without having to stick her with needles in her skinny little arms. Her care will be monitored by a home health care nurse and she'll also be tended to by visits from an in-home physical therapist to help her regain her strength. Kevin will be be on round-the-clock caregiver duty, which he did so admirably well in the past while he nursed Dad through cancer. He's already quite familiar with IV ports and popping pills into patients. I will be looking after Mom frequently, too, and relieved to be only making a trip to Powersite rather than clear to St. John's everyday. Peter and Darlene are wonderful Meals-On-Wheels providers, bless them. Mom will be in many good hands.

In any case, her doctor expects Mom to be released from the hospital by the end of this week -- in plenty of time for the family to gather for decking her halls -- and she'll have a brand new piano to play while she recuperates.

As my Dad used to say, "She's one tough cookie and still a pretty good-looking broad, too."

Thanks to all for the Get Well Wishes and prayers. Keep 'em coming; she's got a ways to go yet before she's "over the river and through the woods."

Amy

George W. Bush: European Socialist

Dick Morris wrote:

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.
• Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States?
• How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge?
• How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, which has 50 percent more population?
It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush -- not Obama -- Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

To paraphrase Richard Nixon: “We are all socialists now.”

"Too Many Links"

I tried posting the following comment on Thomas Knapp's blog, but was told (by the blogging software, not by Tom, I assume) "Your comment contains too many links and will not be added."

I love books with footnotes, and I like webpages with links.

Tom said (and I have no idea which post this comment was attached to):

1) The Constitution was broken before the ink was dry on it, both in construction (slavery, for example) and implementation (even the first three presidents, whose dedication to the country is difficult to doubt, found it impossible, or at least undesirable, to work within its constraints). There is no past constitutional candyland in which the thing was given full effect -- ever.

2) While there are overlaps between libertarianism and the content of the Constitution, libertarianism and constitutionalism aren't the same thing. Tactically, it may make sense to hold our opponents to the Constitution and to operate within its constraints ourselves ... but it's not scripture, it's not sacred, and a society moving in a libertarian direction will eventually find itself up against the choice of whether to heavily amend it or to simply overthrow it in favor of something entirely new.

In a nutshell, I use a pro-Constitution "tactic." But I also advocate abolition. (I think this is the original post.)

Here's how I put it in my comment -- with all its links:

I agree with you 200%, by which I mean, I may believe it more fanatically than you.

In my campaign I use the tactic of holding my opponent to his Oath of Office. Virtually no politician keeps his oath, and the Constitution is now just a fiction.

Every Signer of the Constitution, if he were here today, would confess the Constitution has completely and utterly failed to keep its objectives of preventing the government from becoming a Tyranny worse than the one we declared independence from in 1776. The Founders would surely work to abolish the Constitution and the government it created.

I would like to imagine that they would see (better than we do) that it isn't just the Constitution that failed, but it's the entire concept of "the government." Having abolished the Constitution and the federal government, they would not seek to replace it.

I don't think libertarians are going to make any real progress toward "political prosperity" (an old-fashioned term) unless we arouse Americans to Abolish the Federal Government entirely, and move to a state of "anarchism" (with a more marketable name).

It's like we're trapped in a spider web. We can struggle against the web, and "Reform" movements stretch the web temporarily in one direction or another, but we're still stuck -- until we achieve a collective will to break free of the web entirely.

That collective will won't develop without someone advocating for it.

Limited reforms -- like "making the Bush tax cuts permanent" -- make tyranny permanent.

And limited reforms and efforts to "shrink the size of government" continually fail. I have the Center for Small Government pledge on my website. It's just a "tactic." But Cloud and Howell failed to end the Income Tax in Massachusetts. I think it's because too many people feel that such efforts -- and all efforts to achieve "smaller" government -- will "lead to anarchy."

Most Americans don't want to go down that road.

We have to convince Americans to go down that road all the way, or the journey will never start.

(But I'm probably venting on the wrong blog. Apologies and thanks!)

Focus

I recently told someone that have over 200 webpages on my website, each attempting to show how "Liberty Under God" is the solution to America's many problems. I just counted and learned that I have over 700.

This gave me a feeling of being spread too thin.

I'm wondering if there isn't a more narrow goal, or a series of goals (step-by-step) to pursue to have more impact, to move more people away from fascism and socialism and closer to the goal of "Liberty Under God."

If you have suggestions, please post a comment -- with a link to your website if you'd like.

Income Redistribution

Raise your hand if you believe that America is the best place on earth for someone who wants to make more money, to move from the low income levels to the high income levels, if that person is willing to take time away from family and dedicate it to working on making more money, in a rational and cooperative manner.

I'm raising my hand.

Now, if you just raised your hand, raise it if you're willing to stand up before the crowd and explain why Larry Summers is not guilty of theft (a violation of the 8th Commandment) for his suggestions on how to redistribute the money earned by the rich by giving it to the poor.

I don't see any hands. If I missed yours, click the "comments" link below and make a comment.

Prof. George Reisman is not raising his hand either:

Summers apparently does not see, or if he does see, does not care, that in presenting his proposal for redistribution, what he is urging is armed robbery on a massive scale. That is the essence of any policy of “redistribution,” whether advocated by Summers and Obama or by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.

For what is going to make each of the top 1 percent of income earners pay an extra $800,000 in taxes? The only thing that would make them pay it is fear of being arrested and imprisoned. And who will arrest and imprison them? Armed thugs wearing the uniforms and badges of officers of the United States Government, who would give them no other choice but to pay the money or be hauled off to jail and clubbed or shot if they resisted. (What a total perversion this would be of what the United States Government once stood for: a transformation from an institution designed for the protection of individual rights into a gang of bandits massively violating individual rights.)

How does this differ in any essential respect from those who are to receive the loot, in the form of $10,000 checks, taking matters into their own hands and simply robbing the homes and businesses of the top 1 percent of income earners to the extent of $10,000 each? They would give the homeowners and businessmen the same choice, of their money or their lives.

See also: Income Inequality: What's the Problem?