Tom Knapp says he was thinking about me. I'm honored.
My reply to Tom's comment (knocked out again by Holoscan because of too many links):
The tactics used by the current ruling regime against Muslim rebels in Iran are pretty much identical in character to the tactics used by Putin against Muslim rebels in Chechnya. But when Putin cracked down in Chechnya, I don't recall you announcing "This is what theocracy looks like."
I might have applauded you if you had, arguing that Putin's brand of theocracy is based on the religion of Secular Humanism, where every man is his own god, especially those who hold political power. Or the religion of statism.
But I don't think you would be one trying to argue that Secular Humanism is a theocratic religion.
What you're really arguing, by pointing to totalitarian political thugism and saying "This is what theocracy looks like," is really "This is what all theocracy looks like." The implication being that so-called secular governments which hide their religious presuppositions are always better than governments which openly admit theirs and seek to be consistent with them.
Christocrat Benjamin Rush and I would disagree with you and Putin.
And I would argue that all but one or two of America's "Founding Fathers," were they to travel through time to July 4th, 2009, would agree that Christian Theocracy is what made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history, and that a true, purified version of Christian Theocracy -- which I call "anarcho-theocracy" -- is the answer to our problems today.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Happy Father's Day
Everyone recognizes the importance of fathers. Father's Day usually produces some good thoughts that need to be remembered and considered more frequently.
Here's a video from The White House Blog: Responsible Fatherhood. Obama says,
the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.
But the government continues to try to be "Big Brother," Big Father, and our Savior. Obama continues:
We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference.
See? I assume "we" means the government. It's not the government's job to provide jobs and schools, and even streets. Fathers create good workers on the job; homes make the best schools.
I've been trying all day to think of something to say about Father's Day. It hasn't clicked for me yet. After I became a Creationist, my father and I lived in different worlds, as he remained an Evolutionist. But I wouldn't be blogging here if it weren't for him. He helped me incorporate "Vine & Fig Tree," and the pension he diligently worked and consistently saved for since he was a teenager pays my Internet bill today. He was nothing if not a faithful provider for his family. He was the model middle-class American in the mid-20th century, leaving the Ozarks and moving to California to catch the upwardly-mobile trends, working for aerospace and defense contractors.
My two favorite books on the importance of fathers are works by George Gilder
. First I read his book Wealth and Poverty
. Then Sexual Suicide
, which was later released as Men and Marriage
. I think this book spun out of his work Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America, or vice versa
. Maybe I'm thinking of Visible Man: A True Story of Post-Racist America
. I believe I first heard about Gilder in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction Symposium on the Family (Winter, 1977-78).
I can't put my hands on my copy of Wealth and Poverty right now, but I seem to recall my shock to read Gilder the "good guy" writing some dedicatory notes to David Rockefeller, whom I had always regarded as a "bad guy," to the effect that Rockefeller had served in some fatherly role to Gilder. That was clarified for me a couple of years ago, when I read David Rockefeller's Memoirs
, one of the most interesting and inspiring books I've ever read. I would have to say that John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the most important father in the 20th century, because his son David Rockefeller was the most important person in the 20th century. David was raised to be important. From an early age he was given a vision to be a steward of vast wealth and preserve/change the world. Out of hundreds of millions of Christian fathers, I can think of only a handful who give their children such a future-oriented vision. God owns more than the Rockefellers. Anyway, I believe Gilder's father was college buddies with David Rockefeller, and when Gilder's dad died in WWII, Gilder became a ward of Rockefeller. But I don't think of Gilder as a promoter of the plutocrats' "New World Order." I could draw some parallels between my own father's worldview and that of David Rockefeller, despite my dad having been born and raised in dirt-poor Arkansas (and I think "dirt-poor" can be taken quite literally here).
The books I dreamed of using if I ever became a father were Bill Gothard's Men's Manual
, the Rebuilder's Guide
, the three volumes of Character Sketches
, and much of the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts materials.
Here are the books Doug Philips recommends fathers pass on to their children. I've never read a single one. They seem sentimental and past-oriented, rather than dominion- and future-oriented.
I hear Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's Ruth Institute is running a Father's Day Movie Poll. You can click here either to vote for one of their choices, or to nominate a favorite "dad movie" of your own. I caught the last 15 minutes of Will Smith's movie last night on TV. I'll thank you to put a comment on this blog if you can think of better Father's Day movies.
Kudos to fathers.
Here's a video from The White House Blog: Responsible Fatherhood. Obama says,
the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.
But the government continues to try to be "Big Brother," Big Father, and our Savior. Obama continues:
We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference.
See? I assume "we" means the government. It's not the government's job to provide jobs and schools, and even streets. Fathers create good workers on the job; homes make the best schools.
I've been trying all day to think of something to say about Father's Day. It hasn't clicked for me yet. After I became a Creationist, my father and I lived in different worlds, as he remained an Evolutionist. But I wouldn't be blogging here if it weren't for him. He helped me incorporate "Vine & Fig Tree," and the pension he diligently worked and consistently saved for since he was a teenager pays my Internet bill today. He was nothing if not a faithful provider for his family. He was the model middle-class American in the mid-20th century, leaving the Ozarks and moving to California to catch the upwardly-mobile trends, working for aerospace and defense contractors.
My two favorite books on the importance of fathers are works by George Gilder
. First I read his book Wealth and Poverty. Then Sexual Suicide, which was later released as Men and Marriage. I think this book spun out of his work Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America, or vice versa. Maybe I'm thinking of Visible Man: A True Story of Post-Racist America. I believe I first heard about Gilder in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction Symposium on the Family (Winter, 1977-78).I can't put my hands on my copy of Wealth and Poverty right now, but I seem to recall my shock to read Gilder the "good guy" writing some dedicatory notes to David Rockefeller, whom I had always regarded as a "bad guy," to the effect that Rockefeller had served in some fatherly role to Gilder. That was clarified for me a couple of years ago, when I read David Rockefeller's Memoirs
, one of the most interesting and inspiring books I've ever read. I would have to say that John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the most important father in the 20th century, because his son David Rockefeller was the most important person in the 20th century. David was raised to be important. From an early age he was given a vision to be a steward of vast wealth and preserve/change the world. Out of hundreds of millions of Christian fathers, I can think of only a handful who give their children such a future-oriented vision. God owns more than the Rockefellers. Anyway, I believe Gilder's father was college buddies with David Rockefeller, and when Gilder's dad died in WWII, Gilder became a ward of Rockefeller. But I don't think of Gilder as a promoter of the plutocrats' "New World Order." I could draw some parallels between my own father's worldview and that of David Rockefeller, despite my dad having been born and raised in dirt-poor Arkansas (and I think "dirt-poor" can be taken quite literally here).The books I dreamed of using if I ever became a father were Bill Gothard's Men's Manual
, the Rebuilder's Guide, the three volumes of Character Sketches, and much of the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts materials.Here are the books Doug Philips recommends fathers pass on to their children. I've never read a single one. They seem sentimental and past-oriented, rather than dominion- and future-oriented.
I hear Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's Ruth Institute is running a Father's Day Movie Poll. You can click here either to vote for one of their choices, or to nominate a favorite "dad movie" of your own. I caught the last 15 minutes of Will Smith's movie last night on TV. I'll thank you to put a comment on this blog if you can think of better Father's Day movies.
Kudos to fathers.
More Theocracy Needed in Iran
Once again, Tom Knapp's blogging software has bounced me because of my penchant for linking to other web pages. "Your comment contains too many links and will not be added."
Here's his post: KN@PPSTER: This is what theocracy looks like
This would have been mine:
No, that's what Democracy looks like.
Both sides in Iran claim to be "theocratic," and both sides believe that the other side is acting inconsistently with the theocratic tenets they profess. Both sides would deny that "This is what theocracy looks like."
Further, there is a big difference between a Christian Theocracy and an Islamic theocracy. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian Theocracy, a nation "under God," which is the literal meaning of the word "theocracy."
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. Rush's party? He was a Christian Theocrat:
Iran's problem is too many human archists and not enough Christian Theocracy.
This is what true Theocracy looks like. And this.
Here's his post: KN@PPSTER: This is what theocracy looks like
This would have been mine:
-----=====******O******=====-----
No, that's what Democracy looks like.
Both sides in Iran claim to be "theocratic," and both sides believe that the other side is acting inconsistently with the theocratic tenets they profess. Both sides would deny that "This is what theocracy looks like."
Further, there is a big difference between a Christian Theocracy and an Islamic theocracy. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian Theocracy, a nation "under God," which is the literal meaning of the word "theocracy."
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. Rush's party? He was a Christian Theocrat:
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.True Christian Theocracy is Anarcho-Theocracy.
Iran's problem is too many human archists and not enough Christian Theocracy.
This is what true Theocracy looks like. And this.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
June 17: Bunker Hill, Smoot-Hawley, and Atheism
Today is a legal holiday in Suffolk County, Massachusetts (which includes the city of Boston), in commemoration of the Battle of Bunker Hill, which took place on this day in 1775, two months after the battle at Lexington and Concord, and a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Massachusetts was a hotbed of anti-government sentiment in 1775. Isn't that ironic. They were serious when they said "No Taxation Without Representation." The Battles at Lexington and Concord, in Middlesex County, were essentially a rebellion against Gun Control acts, with the British attempting to confiscate stores of ammunition, which were going to be used by the American colonists to resist the British tax collectors.
155 years later to the day, in 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law. Lawrence Reed describes the taxes (which is what "tariffs" really are):
Tariffs on linseed oil, tungsten, and casein hammered the U.S. paint, steel and paper industries, respectively. More than 800 items used in automobile production were taxed by Smoot-Hawley. Most of the 60,000 people employed in U.S. plants making cheap clothing out of imported wool rags went home jobless after the tariff on wool rags rose by 140 percent.
Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. But they ignored an important principle of international commerce: Trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here. Or, to put it another way, government cannot shut off imports without simultaneously shutting off exports.
With a stroke of the presidential pen, farmers in this country lost nearly a third of their markets. Farm prices plummeted and tens of thousands of farmers went bankrupt. A bushel of wheat that sold for $1 in 1929 was selling for a mere 30 cents by 1932.
With the collapse of agriculture, rural banks failed in record numbers, dragging down hundreds of thousands of their customers. Nine thousand banks closed their doors in the United States between 1930 and 1933. The stock market, which had regained much of the ground it had lost since the previous October, tumbled 20 points on the day Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into law, and fell almost without respite for the next two years
Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”
Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right.
Today the sympathies of the people of Boston and Cambridge are on the side of the massive taxation and government control which produced and prolonged the Great Depression, not on the side of the militia who fought at Bunker Hill.
Last fall, when President Bush proposed his massive "bailout" bill, the American people expressed with undeniable clarity their opposition to the bill, sending their representatives in Congress a huge amount of letters, noted not only for their number, but for their passion. The House of Representatives voted against the "bailout."
Then they were apparently "taken out to the woodshed" by the "powers that be," and they returned to Congress with their tails between their legs and voted a second time -- this time in favor of the bailout.
In just the last few years, the federal government has confiscated and redistributed trillions of dollars of wealth through a process called "monetization of debt." The colonists at Bunker Hill took up arms against a ridiculously small amount of taxation and government control, compared to what Americans put up with today.
Which is not to advocate taking up arms against the government in 2009. But never has this nation seen such flagrant "taxation without representation."
188 years to the day after the Battle of Bunker Hill, in 1963, the federal government prohibited Pennsylvania (and the rest of the nation) from permitting voluntary Bible reading in public schools (School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Schempp et al., 374 U.S. 203).
In his dissent, Justice Stewart charged that the U.S. Supreme Court had assumed "the role of a super board of education for every school district in the nation."
It might also be argued that parents who want their children exposed to religious influences can adequately fulfill that wish off school property and outside school time. With all its surface persuasiveness, however, this argument seriously misconceives the basic constitutional justification for permitting the exercises at issue in these cases. For a compulsory state educational system so structures a child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.
This decision would have generated more revolutionary alarm in 1775 than all the Stamp Acts put together.
Can anyone seriously deny that America, once a land of "Liberty Under God," has now become an atheistic dictatorship? The decisions to remove voluntary prayer (1962) and voluntary Bible reading (1963) from public schools eventually resulted in our becoming a nation where it is illegal for students to be taught that the Declaration of Independence is really true. Students can be taught that Americans in 1776 -- like those who fought at Bunker Hill -- believed that the Declaration was true, but students in 2009 cannot be taught that the propositions contained in the Declaration of Independence really are true, true outside my own head, objectively true, regardless of what mere mortals believe.
While the anti-religion Court decisions in 1961-63 were important, they also represented trends which had been developing for decades. Many of these trends originated in Massachusetts. They were first to load their muskets (a mistake), first to repudiate Trinitarianism in favor of unitarianism (a mistake), and the last to repudiate government-funded clergy (taxes and clergy are both mistakes). These are the roots of secular statism. Back in 1892, when the Court was more conservative, it saw these secular trends, and tried to warn America against them. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, the Court reminded the nation that America was officially and legally a Christian nation. Though this blog takes the position that the American Revolution was an unChristian violation of Biblical commands against violent resistance against the State, it was also Christian morality that formed the foundation for the moral outrage against taxation and government control of the colonies.
Today the only idea that creates "moral outrage" is the claim that Christianity is the only true religion. We tolerate everything that Christianity prohibits, including massive government theft. Americans don't even want to audit the government and learn the dimensions of its theft -- much less actively oppose it.
I am an intolerant Christian pacifist in a land of "tolerant" secular statists. It is a land that those who fought at Bunker Hill would not recognize.
Massachusetts was a hotbed of anti-government sentiment in 1775. Isn't that ironic. They were serious when they said "No Taxation Without Representation." The Battles at Lexington and Concord, in Middlesex County, were essentially a rebellion against Gun Control acts, with the British attempting to confiscate stores of ammunition, which were going to be used by the American colonists to resist the British tax collectors.
155 years later to the day, in 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law. Lawrence Reed describes the taxes (which is what "tariffs" really are):
Tariffs on linseed oil, tungsten, and casein hammered the U.S. paint, steel and paper industries, respectively. More than 800 items used in automobile production were taxed by Smoot-Hawley. Most of the 60,000 people employed in U.S. plants making cheap clothing out of imported wool rags went home jobless after the tariff on wool rags rose by 140 percent.
Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. But they ignored an important principle of international commerce: Trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here. Or, to put it another way, government cannot shut off imports without simultaneously shutting off exports.
With a stroke of the presidential pen, farmers in this country lost nearly a third of their markets. Farm prices plummeted and tens of thousands of farmers went bankrupt. A bushel of wheat that sold for $1 in 1929 was selling for a mere 30 cents by 1932.
With the collapse of agriculture, rural banks failed in record numbers, dragging down hundreds of thousands of their customers. Nine thousand banks closed their doors in the United States between 1930 and 1933. The stock market, which had regained much of the ground it had lost since the previous October, tumbled 20 points on the day Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into law, and fell almost without respite for the next two years
Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”
Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right.
Today the sympathies of the people of Boston and Cambridge are on the side of the massive taxation and government control which produced and prolonged the Great Depression, not on the side of the militia who fought at Bunker Hill.
Last fall, when President Bush proposed his massive "bailout" bill, the American people expressed with undeniable clarity their opposition to the bill, sending their representatives in Congress a huge amount of letters, noted not only for their number, but for their passion. The House of Representatives voted against the "bailout."
Then they were apparently "taken out to the woodshed" by the "powers that be," and they returned to Congress with their tails between their legs and voted a second time -- this time in favor of the bailout.
In just the last few years, the federal government has confiscated and redistributed trillions of dollars of wealth through a process called "monetization of debt." The colonists at Bunker Hill took up arms against a ridiculously small amount of taxation and government control, compared to what Americans put up with today.
Which is not to advocate taking up arms against the government in 2009. But never has this nation seen such flagrant "taxation without representation."
188 years to the day after the Battle of Bunker Hill, in 1963, the federal government prohibited Pennsylvania (and the rest of the nation) from permitting voluntary Bible reading in public schools (School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Schempp et al., 374 U.S. 203).
In his dissent, Justice Stewart charged that the U.S. Supreme Court had assumed "the role of a super board of education for every school district in the nation."
It might also be argued that parents who want their children exposed to religious influences can adequately fulfill that wish off school property and outside school time. With all its surface persuasiveness, however, this argument seriously misconceives the basic constitutional justification for permitting the exercises at issue in these cases. For a compulsory state educational system so structures a child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.
This decision would have generated more revolutionary alarm in 1775 than all the Stamp Acts put together.
Can anyone seriously deny that America, once a land of "Liberty Under God," has now become an atheistic dictatorship? The decisions to remove voluntary prayer (1962) and voluntary Bible reading (1963) from public schools eventually resulted in our becoming a nation where it is illegal for students to be taught that the Declaration of Independence is really true. Students can be taught that Americans in 1776 -- like those who fought at Bunker Hill -- believed that the Declaration was true, but students in 2009 cannot be taught that the propositions contained in the Declaration of Independence really are true, true outside my own head, objectively true, regardless of what mere mortals believe.
While the anti-religion Court decisions in 1961-63 were important, they also represented trends which had been developing for decades. Many of these trends originated in Massachusetts. They were first to load their muskets (a mistake), first to repudiate Trinitarianism in favor of unitarianism (a mistake), and the last to repudiate government-funded clergy (taxes and clergy are both mistakes). These are the roots of secular statism. Back in 1892, when the Court was more conservative, it saw these secular trends, and tried to warn America against them. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, the Court reminded the nation that America was officially and legally a Christian nation. Though this blog takes the position that the American Revolution was an unChristian violation of Biblical commands against violent resistance against the State, it was also Christian morality that formed the foundation for the moral outrage against taxation and government control of the colonies.
Today the only idea that creates "moral outrage" is the claim that Christianity is the only true religion. We tolerate everything that Christianity prohibits, including massive government theft. Americans don't even want to audit the government and learn the dimensions of its theft -- much less actively oppose it.
I am an intolerant Christian pacifist in a land of "tolerant" secular statists. It is a land that those who fought at Bunker Hill would not recognize.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Rugged Individualism v. Community
New York Times columnist David Brooks comments on John Ford westerns. He says Ford did not exalt the "rugged individual," but rather "civic order."
But "civic order" in the West was not created by government programs and Washington bureaucrats. It was not imposed by the government. Community was created by "rugged individualists." Discussion.
"Individualists" are not anti-communitarians. They are pro-liberty. That makes them anti-government, since government is the enemy of freedom.
Not all "individualists" are "survivalists." "Survivalists" deny the division of labor, or believe a breakdown in the division of labor is coming, and therefore seek radical self-sufficiency. Individualists are not "isolationists." They buy from others and sell to others, they play in orchestras or join bowling leagues, and, to quote Brooks, they're interested in "religion, education, science, culture, [and] etiquette." But "individualists" make individual choices about churches, schools, creation or evolution, symphonies or garage bands, and don't use the sword to impose their individual choices on others.
Community is ultimately an expression of morality, which is religion externalized.
Government destroys religion, education, science and culture. These things are created by human beings enjoying freedom, not the barrel of a gun. Coercion, compulsion, and threats of violence are the opposite of community. They are also the opposite of morality.
For further reading:
The American West: A Heritage of Peace - Ryan McMaken - Mises Institute
But "civic order" in the West was not created by government programs and Washington bureaucrats. It was not imposed by the government. Community was created by "rugged individualists." Discussion.
"Individualists" are not anti-communitarians. They are pro-liberty. That makes them anti-government, since government is the enemy of freedom.
Not all "individualists" are "survivalists." "Survivalists" deny the division of labor, or believe a breakdown in the division of labor is coming, and therefore seek radical self-sufficiency. Individualists are not "isolationists." They buy from others and sell to others, they play in orchestras or join bowling leagues, and, to quote Brooks, they're interested in "religion, education, science, culture, [and] etiquette." But "individualists" make individual choices about churches, schools, creation or evolution, symphonies or garage bands, and don't use the sword to impose their individual choices on others.
Community is ultimately an expression of morality, which is religion externalized.
Government destroys religion, education, science and culture. These things are created by human beings enjoying freedom, not the barrel of a gun. Coercion, compulsion, and threats of violence are the opposite of community. They are also the opposite of morality.
For further reading:
The American West: A Heritage of Peace - Ryan McMaken - Mises Institute
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Risking Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor
Statistically speaking, it is likely that all the men in this painting were Christians. The men wearing Red Coats were members of the Church of England.Clearly, the Christians in the Red Coats are using their bayonets and trying to kill the Christian on horseback, who, with his sword, is trying to kill the Christians in the Red Coats.
In a couple of weeks, on July 4th, Americans will honor the man on the horse, but not the men in the Red Coats. There will be parades, fireworks, concerts, and a national day off work.
Statistically speaking, the vast majority of Americans will be oblivious to the issues depicted in the painting above. They just like parades, hot dogs, and fireworks.
And a day off work.
The more you know about that painting, and the more you know about the emotions and ideas that are behind it, the more you realize that America is a completely different nation today.
Statistically speaking, most Americans really don't honor the Minutemen. Americans don't believe in resisting tyranny. Certainly not with the arms protected by the Second Amendment.
In fact, statistically speaking, most Americans favor tyranny. What America's Founders called tyranny, today's Americans call "security." Or "a safety net." Far from resisting tyranny, most Americans clamor for it, and vote for it.
Americans want security, not risk.
Samuel Adams, the "Father of the American Revolution," said:
If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom
—go from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and
may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Americans love wealth better than liberty. Today "the animating contest of freedom" is denounced as "cut-throat competition."
Ironically, love of wealth has led to slavery. "I own my own home," says the average mortgage-paying American, thinking he has "wealth." The Bible says "The borrower is the slave of the lender." (Proverbs 22:7) And while homes built in 1776 were built with quality to last for centuries, homes today are designed to be torn down and replaced within a generation.
Should we celebrate "Independence Day" on the 4th of July?
Americans today are not real Americans, if "American" is someone who loves liberty more than security, and more than the trinkets we call "wealth."
Monday, June 08, 2009
Nazis and Stem Cells
An analysis of Obama's Executive Order on federal funding for embryonic stem cells has been posted.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Would Jesus Celebrate D-Day?
By "celebrate," I mean honor those who chose to land on the beach at Normandy and elsewhere along the coast of France 65 years ago, June 6, 1944; honor those who chose to fight rather than those who may have chosen to be "conscientious objectors" or "evaders" or go "AWOL" rather than fight.
Everyone agrees that if we took Jesus' ethical teachings seriously (e.g., "Love your enemies," "go the second mile," "give to him who asks"), we'd all be a "bunch of pacifists." I'd like to suggest that the world be a better place today if we Americans had been a "bunch of pacifists" and hadn't gotten involved in a single war in the last 200 years.
I don't think Jesus would celebrate D-Day, so I don't think people who call themselves "Christians" should either. I don't think we should honor those who chose to fight, though we should mourn their loss and help those they left behind.
Imagine an immature teenager who sees one of those "extreme" television shows featuring "incredible" stupid stunts. He then tries the stunt at home and dies. We mourn the loss, and console his family. Do we honor his choice? No.
But we are told that those who died -- and knew they would die -- on D-Day died for a higher, nobler cause.
What was "the cause?"
Well, "the Allies" won the war, we are told.
So what did "the Allies" win?
One of "the Allies" were the communists.
The communists walked away with Eastern Europe.
The Allied "Big Three," deciding the fate of
a billion people at the Soviet Embassy in
Tehran, Iran, in late 1943. "Uncle Joe" Stalin
is on the left, in case you didn't know that.
FDR appears to be leaning to the left,
in case you were deceived by
his campaign rhetoric.
Perhaps the nobility of the cause involves fighting against something bad more than fighting for something good.
Ask the "man on the street" who we fought in World War II and you'll hear "Hitler."
Were the people on the East side of the Berlin Wall better off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler? Was Communism so much better for Eastern Europe than Nazism or Fascism so that you would be willing to kill another human being -- or be killed -- for the difference?
Not me.
Communism was the winner in Asia too.
Was China better off under Mao Tse Tung than it would have been under "Japanese Fascism?" Is the answer to that question so morally clear that you're willing to kill or die for it? Willing to use nuclear bombs in the attempted murder of half a million civilians?
Communism killed 60 million human beings in China after we "won" World War II against Japan.
Who did we fight in World War I?
What was the issue?
Most Americans don't know.
I couldn't explain it to you.
Germany was the loser, I know that.
Russia went communist.
Many historians believe the Treaty of Versailles made the rise of Hitler inevitable.
World War I appears to have been a truly senseless war -- except from the perspective of expanding big "progressive" government.
So World War I made the world safe for World War II, and together these wars made the world safe for fascism, socialism, communism, progressivism, or whatever you want to call the cult of the omnipotent state -- the clear winnner in the wars of the 20th century.
America's Founding Fathers warned about "standing armies." They described our foreign policy in these words:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
Would anybody who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution have served in World War I or World War II? Would they have approved of its design, its constitutionality, or its results? Should someone living under Bush-Obama be willing to kill another human being rather than live under Hitler? What's the difference? Would the choice have seemed as obvious to America's Founding Fathers (who would have been appalled at either one)?
Is it really so "impractical" and "unrealistic" to take Jesus seriously?
We should beat our swords into plowshares.
Everyone agrees that if we took Jesus' ethical teachings seriously (e.g., "Love your enemies," "go the second mile," "give to him who asks"), we'd all be a "bunch of pacifists." I'd like to suggest that the world be a better place today if we Americans had been a "bunch of pacifists" and hadn't gotten involved in a single war in the last 200 years.
I don't think Jesus would celebrate D-Day, so I don't think people who call themselves "Christians" should either. I don't think we should honor those who chose to fight, though we should mourn their loss and help those they left behind.
Imagine an immature teenager who sees one of those "extreme" television shows featuring "incredible" stupid stunts. He then tries the stunt at home and dies. We mourn the loss, and console his family. Do we honor his choice? No.
But we are told that those who died -- and knew they would die -- on D-Day died for a higher, nobler cause.
What was "the cause?"
Well, "the Allies" won the war, we are told.
So what did "the Allies" win?
One of "the Allies" were the communists.
The communists walked away with Eastern Europe.
a billion people at the Soviet Embassy in
Tehran, Iran, in late 1943. "Uncle Joe" Stalin
is on the left, in case you didn't know that.
FDR appears to be leaning to the left,
in case you were deceived by
his campaign rhetoric.
Perhaps the nobility of the cause involves fighting against something bad more than fighting for something good.
Ask the "man on the street" who we fought in World War II and you'll hear "Hitler."
Were the people on the East side of the Berlin Wall better off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler? Was Communism so much better for Eastern Europe than Nazism or Fascism so that you would be willing to kill another human being -- or be killed -- for the difference?
Not me.
Communism was the winner in Asia too.
Was China better off under Mao Tse Tung than it would have been under "Japanese Fascism?" Is the answer to that question so morally clear that you're willing to kill or die for it? Willing to use nuclear bombs in the attempted murder of half a million civilians?
Communism killed 60 million human beings in China after we "won" World War II against Japan.
Who did we fight in World War I?
What was the issue?
Most Americans don't know.
I couldn't explain it to you.
Germany was the loser, I know that.
Russia went communist.
Many historians believe the Treaty of Versailles made the rise of Hitler inevitable.
World War I appears to have been a truly senseless war -- except from the perspective of expanding big "progressive" government.
So World War I made the world safe for World War II, and together these wars made the world safe for fascism, socialism, communism, progressivism, or whatever you want to call the cult of the omnipotent state -- the clear winnner in the wars of the 20th century.
America's Founding Fathers warned about "standing armies." They described our foreign policy in these words:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
Would anybody who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution have served in World War I or World War II? Would they have approved of its design, its constitutionality, or its results? Should someone living under Bush-Obama be willing to kill another human being rather than live under Hitler? What's the difference? Would the choice have seemed as obvious to America's Founding Fathers (who would have been appalled at either one)?
Is it really so "impractical" and "unrealistic" to take Jesus seriously?
We should beat our swords into plowshares.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Tiller the Nazi
Salon News and many others are complaining about Bill O'Reilly's campaign against murdered doctor George Tiller, particularly O'Reilly's allegation that Tiller engaged in "Nazi stuff."
Tiller killed more human beings than Adolph Hitler.
Sure, Hitler ordered the killing of more people than Tiller killed, but Hitler himself didn't do the killing. He depended on people like Tiller -- people who could kill, co-conspire, or be accomplices, and still assuage their consciences, because they were "just following orders," and they "weren't fully human," and it was "safe and legal."
It takes a lot of Tillers to pull off a holocaust. Ordinary, church-going people, respected by their ordinary church-going neighbors, who have to "feed their families." Somebody has to drive the cattle cars to the concentration camps. Somebody has to make sure the Fuhrer's orders are carried out. Lots of somebodies. Tiller was somebody.
Under America's secular system of "capitalism," the government doesn't order the Tillers to kill. It just makes it very profitable for somebody to do so.
And the profits are then used to make it "safe and legal" -- though hardly "rare" -- through campaign contributions to pro-"choice" politicians.
Or pro-"defense" politicians.
And the "Decider's" decisions are carried out by somebody else, somebody who "has to make a living."
Are YOU a "somebody?"
Tiller killed more human beings than Adolph Hitler.
Sure, Hitler ordered the killing of more people than Tiller killed, but Hitler himself didn't do the killing. He depended on people like Tiller -- people who could kill, co-conspire, or be accomplices, and still assuage their consciences, because they were "just following orders," and they "weren't fully human," and it was "safe and legal."
It takes a lot of Tillers to pull off a holocaust. Ordinary, church-going people, respected by their ordinary church-going neighbors, who have to "feed their families." Somebody has to drive the cattle cars to the concentration camps. Somebody has to make sure the Fuhrer's orders are carried out. Lots of somebodies. Tiller was somebody.
Under America's secular system of "capitalism," the government doesn't order the Tillers to kill. It just makes it very profitable for somebody to do so.
And the profits are then used to make it "safe and legal" -- though hardly "rare" -- through campaign contributions to pro-"choice" politicians.
Or pro-"defense" politicians.
And the "Decider's" decisions are carried out by somebody else, somebody who "has to make a living."
Are YOU a "somebody?"
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Tiller Deserved to Die
Scott Roeder also deserves to die, if he indeed is Tiller's Killer. There is no disputing the fact that Tiller killed over 60,000 children, most of whom were "viable."
If convicted, Roeder will go to jail (or be executed) as a murderer, but not as a Christian:
14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter
1 Peter 4:14-16
Murderers do not "inherit the Kingdom of God" (Romans 13:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Tiller was 65,000 times more worthy of death than Roeder. That's about how many people Tiller -- the paid assassin -- murdered -- at $5,000 a pop. The Apostle Paul speaks of those who murder as "worthy of death."
Steve Lefemine of Columbia Christians for Life declares,
The land is polluted with innocent blood (Genesis 4:10, Numbers 35:33, Proverbs 6:16,17, 2 Kings 24:1-4) and God is bringing His Divine Judgement upon America. George Tiller should have been brought to justice a long time ago, tried for his many crimes of murder, and upon a verdict of guilty for his thousands of counts of murder, executed for his crimes.
I don't believe that Tiller's execution would cleanse the land of the pollution caused by the shedding of innocent blood. Here's why. This is why Tiller's Killer is also a murderer.
Contrary to the claim of Frank Schaeffer, the "religious right" is not responsible for Tiller's murder. It's possible to say that the religous right is responsible for the election of George Bush, because the religious right told anyone who listened to vote for Bush. But nobody -- I repeat, nobody in the Religious Right is advocating vigilante justice. If the religious right were really advocating violence, there would have been more than 4 murders of abortionists in the last 50 years to balance against their 49 million murders.
So-called "Christians" who kill abortionists are wacko. Liberals who kill their children are logical.
Ann Coulter asks which trite liberal moralism should be applied to Tiller's murder:
• "I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others."
• "No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?"
• Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: "If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one."
Liberals say they want to make abortions "rare." Since they were made "safe and legal," there have been 49 million of them (plus several times that number [?] by abortifacient "birth control"). Pro-lifers certainly want to make abortionist killings "rare." It's a good thing for abortionists that pro-lifers aren't following the "pro-choice" strategies on that project.
The killing of Tiller was evil. Perhaps God sent this evil to warn the other 2 abortion clinics (the other two that kill babies who could [and maybe did for a few minutes] survive outside the womb) to go out of business. (Plus abortion clinics that don't do late-term abortions.) Doctors who kill babies in order to become millionaires should fear the verdict of "the Supreme Judge of the World," a Judge Who -- contrary to the claims of deists -- supernaturally intervenes in human history and changes the "natural" course of events.
It is never necessary to intentionally kill an unborn child to save the life of the mother. It is also not necessary to kill an abortionist. God will take care of vengeance.
If convicted, Roeder will go to jail (or be executed) as a murderer, but not as a Christian:
14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter
1 Peter 4:14-16
Murderers do not "inherit the Kingdom of God" (Romans 13:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Tiller was 65,000 times more worthy of death than Roeder. That's about how many people Tiller -- the paid assassin -- murdered -- at $5,000 a pop. The Apostle Paul speaks of those who murder as "worthy of death."
Steve Lefemine of Columbia Christians for Life declares,
The land is polluted with innocent blood (Genesis 4:10, Numbers 35:33, Proverbs 6:16,17, 2 Kings 24:1-4) and God is bringing His Divine Judgement upon America. George Tiller should have been brought to justice a long time ago, tried for his many crimes of murder, and upon a verdict of guilty for his thousands of counts of murder, executed for his crimes.
I don't believe that Tiller's execution would cleanse the land of the pollution caused by the shedding of innocent blood. Here's why. This is why Tiller's Killer is also a murderer.
Contrary to the claim of Frank Schaeffer, the "religious right" is not responsible for Tiller's murder. It's possible to say that the religous right is responsible for the election of George Bush, because the religious right told anyone who listened to vote for Bush. But nobody -- I repeat, nobody in the Religious Right is advocating vigilante justice. If the religious right were really advocating violence, there would have been more than 4 murders of abortionists in the last 50 years to balance against their 49 million murders.
So-called "Christians" who kill abortionists are wacko. Liberals who kill their children are logical.
Ann Coulter asks which trite liberal moralism should be applied to Tiller's murder:
• "I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others."
• "No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?"
• Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: "If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one."
Liberals say they want to make abortions "rare." Since they were made "safe and legal," there have been 49 million of them (plus several times that number [?] by abortifacient "birth control"). Pro-lifers certainly want to make abortionist killings "rare." It's a good thing for abortionists that pro-lifers aren't following the "pro-choice" strategies on that project.
The killing of Tiller was evil. Perhaps God sent this evil to warn the other 2 abortion clinics (the other two that kill babies who could [and maybe did for a few minutes] survive outside the womb) to go out of business. (Plus abortion clinics that don't do late-term abortions.) Doctors who kill babies in order to become millionaires should fear the verdict of "the Supreme Judge of the World," a Judge Who -- contrary to the claims of deists -- supernaturally intervenes in human history and changes the "natural" course of events.
It is never necessary to intentionally kill an unborn child to save the life of the mother. It is also not necessary to kill an abortionist. God will take care of vengeance.
Monday, June 01, 2009
How Obama Treats His Employees
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?
THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
-----=====******O******=====-----
Every time the government prints new money, it steals from someone. If there are 300 people in the economy and the government prints one dollar, a third of a cent is stolen from each person. If there are 300 million people in the economy and the government prints ten trillion dollars, the government steals $33,333.33 from every man, woman and child. (I learned math in a government school, so tell me if I need to move the decimal point over.) When one person gets a "subsidy" or a "bailout" from the government, that person is able to buy groceries and pay the mortgage. But someone else has to give up groceries and rent. Either today or when they're retired.
Government is supposed (by liberal fascists
George C. Joseph, and car dealers like him, are finding out that the government isn't going to help them.
The government-trained media will usually not tell us these stories. They tell us about the people the government is saving, such as those who get welfare checks.
Redistributing wealth is government's "Job 1."
Statists (those who believe in government salvation) have been demanding government action on behalf of those who are out-competed in a Free Market. Imagine statists asking the government to help workers in the horse-and-buggy industry back when Henry Ford's Model T began competing for consumer dollars. In a Free Market, a horse-and-buggy dealer might have to sell his entire buggy inventory for pennies on the dollar. The dealer and his employees might have less money for groceries or retirement. This is because of that heartless, cold, cruel Free Market Capitalism. The government, being more "compassionate," will save the horse-and-buggy dealer and his employees.
But it can only do this by stealing from the fellow who might have been able, decades ago, to start selling hybrid cars to consumers.
Such choices should be made by Americans, acting voluntarily in a Free Market, not by the government, unpredictably imposed by force for the benefit of favored special interests.
The government, unlike father, does not know best
Every action by the government creates winners and losers, and changes the future for everyone. The "winners" are visible and temporary, and the losers are invisible, long-term, and always out-number the "winners."
By definition, the government makes choices that "We the People" didn't want, or would not have wanted. That's why government has to use force, while the Free Market reflects voluntary choices. That means government always changes the future for the worse -- worse for those who would have chosen otherwise, and worse for those who think they are winners in the short-term, but are losers in the long-run.
HT: Gary North
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)