A Libertarian's New Year's resolutions - Harry Browne, 1998
70 Resolutions - Jonathan Edwards, 1722-23
New Year's Substitutions - Gary North, 2004
A Resolution of Heart - D. James Kennedy
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Nazis in America
John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute is warning us about Nazis in America.
If you've never heard of "Project Paperclip" or the importation of high-ranking Nazis into the United States at the end of WWII, Whitehead's article is a good place to start. (If you really want to get into anti-Nazi conspiracy theories, Dave Emory is your man.)
Without disagreeing with any facts Whitehead presents, I'd like to go a little deeper.
Whitehead paints a picture of Nazis being brought into the U.S. for their weapons expertise to be used by the U.S. in the Cold War and for U.S. imperialism in general, and U.S. intelligence agencies covering-up their Nazi backgrounds to make it easier for them to work for the U.S. government, particularly in the military-industrial complex. Whitehead quotes one writer who describes them as "ardent Nazis" who had carried out war crimes -- "crimes against humanity."
I'm wondering if anyone in a position of power is really an "ardent Nazi" in a way that an "ardent American" in a position of power is not.
I'm not talking about trailer-park losers on the fringes of society who move from one part-time job to another to finance the purchase of Nazi memorabilia. (But I think my theory also applies to them.)
I think someone who exercises political power for one regime will easily and smoothly make the transition to a rival regime if the first regime appears to be the loser, the rival regime appears to be the winner, and the power-holder is promised a position of equal power, with an equal number of ribbons on his chest, in the winning regime.
For scientists, the carrot is a nice lab and a hefty government grant, or the promise of publication in the leading scientific journals of the winning regime.
Ideologies on the left and the right are cosmetic. They are propaganda for the benefit of the trailer-park losers who buy the memorabilia and pay their taxes.
I remember hearing a story about Hans F. Sennholz, an admired figure in Free Market Economics. Born in Germany in 1922, he became a fighter pilot for the Nazis. Presumably, he killed people in France, Russia, and North Africa. He was shot down by New Zealand while killing Allies in Egypt, and became a POW in South Africa, New Zealand, and ultimately in U.S. prisoner of camps in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas. As I heard the story, his "conversion" from patriotic German to patriotic American was instantaneous, logical, dispassionate, and pragmatic. "Germany lost. The U.S. won. I'm with the winner." That kind of thing. His political loyalty was not based on ideology. (I can't remember if I heard this from Sennholz himself, whom I met at a summer seminar at the Foundation for Economic Education, or from someone like Rushdoony or Gary North.)
I'm not sure when Sennholz became an "ardent Austrian economist." His story doesn't appear to parallel that of Ludwig von Mises, who was an "Austrian economist" before the war and had to flee the Nazis. It appears that Sennholz began his studies in economics after he made the pragmatic decision to become a U.S. citizen, and at some point became more "capitalist" than "socialist" (though again, I'm not using those terms in a purely ideological sense). Sennholz' was not brought into the U.S. for his expertise in the field of Austrian economics (which is arguably more valuable to our society than weapons expertise anyway).
[Sidebar: I had a somewhat disagreeable conversation with Sennholz at FEE. I had brought all my Sennholz books with me for him to autograph. (He was impressed that I had a copy of his How Can Europe Survive?) While he was autographing, I asked him a question about inflation. I argued that inflation was an ethical and moral problem, not a purely political one; that the real blame for inflation lies with covetous borrowers, who were the root of the problem, and the Federal Reserve was just the branches. If ordinary people had a stronger moral compass and would underconsume, save for the future, and eschew debt, like our great-grandparents did, they wouldn't have to ask the government to create money for them through the fractional reserve banking system. There would be no inflation without borrowers.
Sennholz quickly went from flattered to angry. I think I had one more book to autograph, but he stopped autographing. He vehemently insisted the problem was all on the part of the government. The change in Sennholz' demeanor was palpable. As Sennholz walked away, David Chilton, who was with me at the time, was bug-eyed to see the abrupt turn-about. (I believe Chilton was writing Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators at that time, and we had been talking about the primacy of morality and ethics over politics.) End Sidebar.]
Did the CIA do something remarkably evil by removing all traces of Nazi loyalty from the files of German scientists in order to employ them in the U.S. military machine? I don't think so. I don't think German weapons experts were clandestinely reserving their ultimate loyalty to Germany or a future Fourth Reich. I doubt that they were Aryan blood-worshipping White Supremacists. Their ultimate loyalty was to power, regardless of the flag or the uniform. The personnel files are just a formality. Even the Germans themselves did this, after the war, if I correctly understand one recollection.
The problem is not ex-Nazis in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, as though that Complex would be morally pure without the ex-Nazis. We are no longer that "City upon a Hill" because we put our faith in military imperialism and refuse to beat our swords into plowshares.
If you've never heard of "Project Paperclip" or the importation of high-ranking Nazis into the United States at the end of WWII, Whitehead's article is a good place to start. (If you really want to get into anti-Nazi conspiracy theories, Dave Emory is your man.)
Without disagreeing with any facts Whitehead presents, I'd like to go a little deeper.
Whitehead paints a picture of Nazis being brought into the U.S. for their weapons expertise to be used by the U.S. in the Cold War and for U.S. imperialism in general, and U.S. intelligence agencies covering-up their Nazi backgrounds to make it easier for them to work for the U.S. government, particularly in the military-industrial complex. Whitehead quotes one writer who describes them as "ardent Nazis" who had carried out war crimes -- "crimes against humanity."
I'm wondering if anyone in a position of power is really an "ardent Nazi" in a way that an "ardent American" in a position of power is not.
I'm not talking about trailer-park losers on the fringes of society who move from one part-time job to another to finance the purchase of Nazi memorabilia. (But I think my theory also applies to them.)
I think someone who exercises political power for one regime will easily and smoothly make the transition to a rival regime if the first regime appears to be the loser, the rival regime appears to be the winner, and the power-holder is promised a position of equal power, with an equal number of ribbons on his chest, in the winning regime.
For scientists, the carrot is a nice lab and a hefty government grant, or the promise of publication in the leading scientific journals of the winning regime.
Ideologies on the left and the right are cosmetic. They are propaganda for the benefit of the trailer-park losers who buy the memorabilia and pay their taxes.
I remember hearing a story about Hans F. Sennholz, an admired figure in Free Market Economics. Born in Germany in 1922, he became a fighter pilot for the Nazis. Presumably, he killed people in France, Russia, and North Africa. He was shot down by New Zealand while killing Allies in Egypt, and became a POW in South Africa, New Zealand, and ultimately in U.S. prisoner of camps in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas. As I heard the story, his "conversion" from patriotic German to patriotic American was instantaneous, logical, dispassionate, and pragmatic. "Germany lost. The U.S. won. I'm with the winner." That kind of thing. His political loyalty was not based on ideology. (I can't remember if I heard this from Sennholz himself, whom I met at a summer seminar at the Foundation for Economic Education, or from someone like Rushdoony or Gary North.)
I'm not sure when Sennholz became an "ardent Austrian economist." His story doesn't appear to parallel that of Ludwig von Mises, who was an "Austrian economist" before the war and had to flee the Nazis. It appears that Sennholz began his studies in economics after he made the pragmatic decision to become a U.S. citizen, and at some point became more "capitalist" than "socialist" (though again, I'm not using those terms in a purely ideological sense). Sennholz' was not brought into the U.S. for his expertise in the field of Austrian economics (which is arguably more valuable to our society than weapons expertise anyway).
[Sidebar: I had a somewhat disagreeable conversation with Sennholz at FEE. I had brought all my Sennholz books with me for him to autograph. (He was impressed that I had a copy of his How Can Europe Survive?) While he was autographing, I asked him a question about inflation. I argued that inflation was an ethical and moral problem, not a purely political one; that the real blame for inflation lies with covetous borrowers, who were the root of the problem, and the Federal Reserve was just the branches. If ordinary people had a stronger moral compass and would underconsume, save for the future, and eschew debt, like our great-grandparents did, they wouldn't have to ask the government to create money for them through the fractional reserve banking system. There would be no inflation without borrowers.
Sennholz quickly went from flattered to angry. I think I had one more book to autograph, but he stopped autographing. He vehemently insisted the problem was all on the part of the government. The change in Sennholz' demeanor was palpable. As Sennholz walked away, David Chilton, who was with me at the time, was bug-eyed to see the abrupt turn-about. (I believe Chilton was writing Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators at that time, and we had been talking about the primacy of morality and ethics over politics.) End Sidebar.]
Did the CIA do something remarkably evil by removing all traces of Nazi loyalty from the files of German scientists in order to employ them in the U.S. military machine? I don't think so. I don't think German weapons experts were clandestinely reserving their ultimate loyalty to Germany or a future Fourth Reich. I doubt that they were Aryan blood-worshipping White Supremacists. Their ultimate loyalty was to power, regardless of the flag or the uniform. The personnel files are just a formality. Even the Germans themselves did this, after the war, if I correctly understand one recollection.
The problem is not ex-Nazis in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, as though that Complex would be morally pure without the ex-Nazis. We are no longer that "City upon a Hill" because we put our faith in military imperialism and refuse to beat our swords into plowshares.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Birth of a Ruler
If Christmas were taken seriously, today's secular government would make it illegal.
Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament and compiled it into a book he called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English." He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
"Angels?" Aren't those "supernatural" beings?
Ed says Jefferson removed them all from "the Jefferson Bible."
Nice try, Ed.
Jefferson's basic Christian doctrines were set out in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in 1822:
Anyone who did not join with Jefferson in believing in God and in future rewards and punishments could not take an oath in nearly every jurisdiction in America for decades after the Constitution was ratified.
http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#infidel
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/21atheists.htm
That means only Christians could hold public office.
Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:
These are usually considered "supernatural" beings.
Ed says they were "all removed."
Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:
Jefferson compiled "the Jefferson Bible" as a means of teaching the Indians the life and morals of Jesus, as a way of civilizing them.
What would Ed and the ACLU say if Christians started taking over school boards and making "the Jefferson Bible" a required school text?
What would the anti-federalist Jefferson say if he could return to America in the year 2011 and find out that Ed and the ACLU have given the federal judiciary the power to force municipal schools to remove "The doctrines of Jesus, which are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man" from their classrooms?
Isaiah 33:22 says:
http://KevinCraig.us/salvation.htm
On Christmas, true Christians celebrate the birth of the true King, the true Lawgiver, and the Judge of all mankind. The Herods and EdDarrells of the world seek to kill this Christ, or at least strip Him from public schools. They want to protect their own political power to rule, legislate, and judge.
In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, George Washington said
Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament and compiled it into a book he called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English." He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”Internet infidel Ed Darrell says this about "the Jefferson Bible":
“Jefferson removed all supernatural events, all miracles, all claims that Jesus was divine.I wonder how many people who believe this about Jefferson and his "Bible" have actually read the "Jefferson Bible." On Pages 67-68 of Jefferson's original hand-pasted version of the New Testament, with parallel columns of Greek, Latin, French, and English, Jefferson has Matthew 25:31ff., presumably because it reflects Jefferson's views of the authentic Christ:
Jefferson treated Jesus as a philosophical teacher, perhaps along the lines of Socrates or Aristotle.”
Matthew 25:31If Jesus is a mere man, and Ed Darrell is a mere man, then Ed Darrell, after his death, ought to be able to come again in glory, with all the holy angels, and sit on the throne of his glory.
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
"Angels?" Aren't those "supernatural" beings?
Ed says Jefferson removed them all from "the Jefferson Bible."
Nice try, Ed.
Jefferson's basic Christian doctrines were set out in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in 1822:
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man:Who is it that hands out these "rewards and punishments?"
1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.…But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of . . . the false shepherds foretold [in the New Testament] as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed Author himself with the horrors so falsely imputed to Him.
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.
Anyone who did not join with Jefferson in believing in God and in future rewards and punishments could not take an oath in nearly every jurisdiction in America for decades after the Constitution was ratified.
http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#infidel
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/21atheists.htm
That means only Christians could hold public office.
Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations:The "Devil?" "His angels?"
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
These are usually considered "supernatural" beings.
Ed says they were "all removed."
Continuing from Jefferson's Bible:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:So Jefferson believed that Jesus was the Judge of the entire world, who comes in glory and sits on his throne of glory. Jefferson believed Jesus was the Great Shepherd who sends all the goats off to everlasting punishment. That's quite a feat for a "philosophical teacher, perhaps along the lines of Socrates or Aristotle."
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Jefferson compiled "the Jefferson Bible" as a means of teaching the Indians the life and morals of Jesus, as a way of civilizing them.
What would Ed and the ACLU say if Christians started taking over school boards and making "the Jefferson Bible" a required school text?
What would the anti-federalist Jefferson say if he could return to America in the year 2011 and find out that Ed and the ACLU have given the federal judiciary the power to force municipal schools to remove "The doctrines of Jesus, which are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man" from their classrooms?
Isaiah 33:22 says:
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.Too many Americans today believe that the State is our Judge, the State is our Lawgiver, the State is our King, The State will save us.
http://KevinCraig.us/salvation.htm
On Christmas, true Christians celebrate the birth of the true King, the true Lawgiver, and the Judge of all mankind. The Herods and EdDarrells of the world seek to kill this Christ, or at least strip Him from public schools. They want to protect their own political power to rule, legislate, and judge.
In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, George Washington said
it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour . . . that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions....This is our national duty every day, but especially on Christmas Day, the day we celebrate the birth of the great Lord and Ruler of nations.
“ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”
Micah 5:2 (c. 720 B.C.)
For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle,
And garments rolled in blood,
Will be used for burning and fuel of fire.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:5-7
He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Micah 4:3-4
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Missionary to the Tea Party
The gut reaction of the missionary is to say, "You're doomed! Repent!"
The pagan marketer tries to sell you what you need by promising what you want.
Is there anything I can learn from the marketers? Leave your advice in the comments section.
http://MissionarytotheTeaParty.com
The pagan marketer tries to sell you what you need by promising what you want.
Is there anything I can learn from the marketers? Leave your advice in the comments section.
http://MissionarytotheTeaParty.com
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Amazon is Un-American
Gene Healy says "the campaign against WikiLeaks Is lawless." Healy writes (and I add the links):
Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., demanded that Assange be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. After all, she wrote, the First Amendment isn't "a license to jeopardize national security," any more than it's a license to "yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." A poor choice of metaphor: It comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 opinion in Schenck v. United States, when the Supreme Court allowed the Wilson administration to imprison a man for the crime of publicly arguing that the draft was unconstitutional.
We've since done a much better job protecting the First Amendment. In 1971's New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Nixon administration's attempt to stop the paper from publishing classified documents showing that the government had lied America into the Vietnam War.
WikiLeaks stands in the same position as the "gray lady" in New York Times v. United States, and since that case, the Congressional Research Service reports, no "publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it." "First Amendment implications" would likely "make such a prosecution difficult."
Even so, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has suggested that U.S. newspapers could still be punished for publishing WikiLeaks' leaks. Unsatisfied with mere threats, Lieberman has also gone outside the law, throwing his weight around to get Amazon.com to boot the site off its servers.
As new-media analyst Clay Shirky puts it, Myanmar and Russia "can now rightly say to us, 'You went after WikiLeaks' domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations,' all without the slightest legal authority. 'If that's the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.' "
Healy is too optimistic. The law is too vague. Nobody can depend on courts to defend freedom.
I have many links to Amazon.com on my websites, and I stand to make some money when people click my links and buy books from Amazon.com. I hope I don't lose my status as an Amazon affiliate by denouncing Amazon's cowardly unwillingness to stand up against government tyranny.
Please Don't Feed the Amazon - KN@PPSTER
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
A Day that Does Not Live in Infamy
Local blogger Randy Turner had the most interesting reflection on The "Day That Will Live in Infamy." Turner, a public school teacher, recalls the Q&A session following a talk by Dick Ferguson, retired President at Financial Federal Savings and Loan, to a middle school classroom. Ferguson was stationed at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Turner recalls:
Perhaps government schools don't cover World War II until after the eighth grade.
But even then, students will not be told the truth about Pearl Harbor: that FDR knowingly permitted the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place. Not only that, but inciting Japan to attack was a crucial part of Roosevelt's foreign policy.
As we noted before, on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his diary:
And government school students will not be told the infamous truth about World War II as a whole: the communists won the war.
Other notable articles du jour on Pearl Harbor:
It’s Pearl Harbor Day — Trot Out the Official Fable - The Beacon
Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie
Antiwar Radio: David Swanson - ScottHortonShow.com
Tuesday's Pearl Harbor Anniversary Spurs Reflection - Stanley Kober - Cato Institute: Commentary
Review:
2006: Pearl Harbor and 9-11
2007: Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001
2008: FDR and the Communists Won WWII
Swords into Plowshares
Pearl Harbor Archive - The Independent Institute
After he spoke to one of my eighth grade classes, he asked if the students had any questions. A girl in the back row, raised her hand and said, "Mr. Ferguson, your stories are so interesting. Who won that war?"Obviously the day does not live in infamy any more.
My horror grew as another student chipped in and said, "I'd like to know, too, Mr. Ferguson. Who won the war?"
Perhaps government schools don't cover World War II until after the eighth grade.
But even then, students will not be told the truth about Pearl Harbor: that FDR knowingly permitted the attack on Pearl Harbor to take place. Not only that, but inciting Japan to attack was a crucial part of Roosevelt's foreign policy.
As we noted before, on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his diary:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."Like FDR, Bush not only permitted 9/11 to take place, but making sure it took place was the linchpin of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.
And government school students will not be told the infamous truth about World War II as a whole: the communists won the war.
Other notable articles du jour on Pearl Harbor:
It’s Pearl Harbor Day — Trot Out the Official Fable - The Beacon
Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie
Antiwar Radio: David Swanson - ScottHortonShow.com
Tuesday's Pearl Harbor Anniversary Spurs Reflection - Stanley Kober - Cato Institute: Commentary
Review:
2006: Pearl Harbor and 9-11
2007: Pearl Harbor, 1941-2001
2008: FDR and the Communists Won WWII
Swords into Plowshares
Pearl Harbor Archive - The Independent Institute
Friday, December 03, 2010
Missouri Boy on Jobs
Benjamin McAlester Anderson, Jr. was a well-known Chase economist during the New Deal.
Anderson (1886-1949) was born in Columbia, Missouri, and entered the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1902 and was awarded the A.B. degree in 1906. He was appointed professor of political economy and sociology at Missouri Valley College in Marshall in 1906 and was named as the head of the department of history and political economy at the State Normal School at Springfield the following year.
He went on to earn his A.M. degree in 1910 from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1911. The prestigious Hart, Schaffner & Marx prize in economics was awarded to him in 1910 for part of his dissertation that was subsequently published in 1911 as Social Value: a Study in Economic Theory, Critical and Constructive.
Anderson served on the faculty of Columbia University for two years and then at Harvard for five.
In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. His book, Effects of the War on Money, Credit and Banking in France and the United States, was published in 1919. Chase National Bank hired Anderson in 1920 as economist and editor of the influential Chase Economic Bulletin. There he wrote a stream of learned articles critical of progressive policy in such diverse areas as money, credit, international economic policy, agriculture, taxation, war, government debt, and economic planning. He was a leading opponent of the New Deal and an enthusiastic supporter of a free market gold standard. He served as president of the Economists National Committee on Monetary Policy and often testified before Congress on matters of monetary and economic policy.
In 1939 he became professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles and was named the Connell professor of banking in 1946. He died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, California just prior to the publication of his magnum opus, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946, in which he draws the following conclusions on the ability of the government to create jobs:
Anderson (1886-1949) was born in Columbia, Missouri, and entered the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1902 and was awarded the A.B. degree in 1906. He was appointed professor of political economy and sociology at Missouri Valley College in Marshall in 1906 and was named as the head of the department of history and political economy at the State Normal School at Springfield the following year.
He went on to earn his A.M. degree in 1910 from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1911. The prestigious Hart, Schaffner & Marx prize in economics was awarded to him in 1910 for part of his dissertation that was subsequently published in 1911 as Social Value: a Study in Economic Theory, Critical and Constructive.
Anderson served on the faculty of Columbia University for two years and then at Harvard for five.
In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. In 1918 he joined the National Bank of Commerce in New York City. His book, Effects of the War on Money, Credit and Banking in France and the United States, was published in 1919. Chase National Bank hired Anderson in 1920 as economist and editor of the influential Chase Economic Bulletin. There he wrote a stream of learned articles critical of progressive policy in such diverse areas as money, credit, international economic policy, agriculture, taxation, war, government debt, and economic planning. He was a leading opponent of the New Deal and an enthusiastic supporter of a free market gold standard. He served as president of the Economists National Committee on Monetary Policy and often testified before Congress on matters of monetary and economic policy.
In 1939 he became professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles and was named the Connell professor of banking in 1946. He died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, California just prior to the publication of his magnum opus, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946, in which he draws the following conclusions on the ability of the government to create jobs:
- "Prior to 1924 we had not regarded it as a federal government function to make employment. Employment was a matter for the people themselves to work out."
"When the federal government took over and undertook to solve the problem for them, grave disasters followed.
"President Roosevelt inherited a huge volume of unemployment. He did not cure it. The figures for 1933 are worse than the figures for 1932. The years 1933 to 1939, inclusive, show unemployment exceeding 10 million for three years, including 1938, and show unemployment exceeding 9 million for five years out of the seven"
"The historical record is damning. The New Deal, viewed as an economic policy designed to promote employment, is condemned by the historical and statistical record."
"The New Deal policy ... had made capital timid in the extreme and had greatly retarded the application of new technology." (pp. 477-478) - "... the Great Depression of 1930-1939 [arouse out of] the efforts of the governments, and very specially of the government of the United States, to play God." (p. 483)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Libertarians Balance Budget by 2020
Libertarian Plan Balances the Federal Budget by 2020 Without Raising Taxes CNSnews.com
Two reasons why this plan from the CATO Institute won't be passed by Congress:
First, everyone these days is a special interest. Everyone is willing to cut the other guy's pork, but not his own. Congress responds to special interests, not morality.
Second, Republicans won't pass a Democrat (or Libertarian) proposal. Democrats won't pass a Republican (or Libertarian) Proposal. There are no Libertarians (except Republican Ron Paul [who has been advocating these cuts for decades]) in Congress.
Finally, why wait until 2020?
Two reasons why this plan from the CATO Institute won't be passed by Congress:
First, everyone these days is a special interest. Everyone is willing to cut the other guy's pork, but not his own. Congress responds to special interests, not morality.
Second, Republicans won't pass a Democrat (or Libertarian) proposal. Democrats won't pass a Republican (or Libertarian) Proposal. There are no Libertarians (except Republican Ron Paul [who has been advocating these cuts for decades]) in Congress.
Finally, why wait until 2020?
- The sane thing to do is to balance the very next budget, period.
- The Constitutional thing to do is to abolish all programs which do not have enumerated Constitutional authorization.
- The moral thing to do is to stop stealing and defrauding.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Harrisonville Stops Speech
In Harrisonville, thousands line street to keep Phelps clan away from soldier’s funeral - KansasCity.com
As I've said before, I don't disagree with what Fred Phelps and his family-church believes, I only cringe at the way they say it.
I do disagree with the patriotism and imperialism of Harrisonville, MO, and I also cringe at the way they express it.
The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from preventing speech, not the people of Harrisonville. But physically preventing speech is repugnant to the spirit of the First Amendment.
(To say that the Phelps church is not "reasonable" or open to rational argument is a claim I do not believe. I don't believe it of anybody, or of any church. But if you want to reason with them, you cannot approach them with the same tactics they use against others. This is the meaning of "love your enemies" in the First Amendment context.)
On the other hand, I don't object to supporters of a speaker filling up the seats in an auditorium before the hecklers can arrive. Cowardly, perhaps. But waving a flag and shouting "USA! USA!" is not a rational argument. (And yes, the Westboro signs and slogans are not a mature, robust exercise of the First Amendment either.)
As I've said before, I don't disagree with what Fred Phelps and his family-church believes, I only cringe at the way they say it.
I do disagree with the patriotism and imperialism of Harrisonville, MO, and I also cringe at the way they express it.
The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from preventing speech, not the people of Harrisonville. But physically preventing speech is repugnant to the spirit of the First Amendment.
“This soldier died so (Phelps) could do what he does, as stupid as that is,” said Steve Nothnagel of Harrisonville as he looked at the turnout.But Phelps was not allowed to "do what he does." So the soldier died in vain.
By 9 a.m., an hour before the funeral of Army Cpl. Jacob R. Carver, an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people, many of them waving American flags, lined nearly a half-mile of the street in front of the church, making sure Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church/family congregation were crowded out....If someone shows up at my funeral to shout bad things against me, I hope nobody else shows up just to shout louder and prevent the first group of shouters from being understood. As Justice Brandeis put it,
The seven protesters got out of their van and waved their signs and ranted their slogans that soldiers’ deaths were God’s punishment for America’s tolerance of homosexuality.
Opponents drowned them out with a rousing rendition of “God Bless America” and chants of “USA! USA!” and “Go home! Go home!”
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.The people of Harrisonville have chosen enforced silence rather than reasoned argument.
Louis Brandeis, concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
(To say that the Phelps church is not "reasonable" or open to rational argument is a claim I do not believe. I don't believe it of anybody, or of any church. But if you want to reason with them, you cannot approach them with the same tactics they use against others. This is the meaning of "love your enemies" in the First Amendment context.)
On the other hand, I don't object to supporters of a speaker filling up the seats in an auditorium before the hecklers can arrive. Cowardly, perhaps. But waving a flag and shouting "USA! USA!" is not a rational argument. (And yes, the Westboro signs and slogans are not a mature, robust exercise of the First Amendment either.)
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Give Thanks for Slavery
Jesus said His disciples must be slaves:
These days it's popular in some Christian circles to glamorize the word "servant." In these same circles, however, it's also "Better Dead than Red," that is, better to "Kill a Commie for Christ" than to allow your nation to become enslaved by the Commies.
Or the Islamic Mullahs.
Better TSA regulations than Sharia law.
Jesus told the Jews of His day -- and us -- not to engage in violent revolution against pagan, statist invaders. We are to overcome evil with good.
Some would say that "overcoming evil with good" is simply allowing oneself to become the slave of evil. True enough. We must serve the archists.
To those who were waiting for the "zealots" to raise the flag of insurrection and overthrow the Roman occupation, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar." To those who resisted being put under tribute by a godless empire, Paul said, "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom..." (Romans 13:7).
"Pay up."
By paying tribute, we send the message that resistance through violence is not God's way. We send the message that archism is not God's way.
Unless we affirmatively endorse archism by pledging our allegiance to it, cheering its troops, and waving its banner.
U.S. foreign policy in the second half of the 20th century was dominated by support for armed resistance against communism: Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, The Reagan Doctrine in Latin America and Africa, and NATO. Trillions of dollars expended to prevent the commies from taking over various countries, and ultimately, America.
But the uniformed socialists have invaded us anyway, and they are now groping our daughters at the airport.
I said "anyway," but I should have said, "as a result."
If we seek to resist socialism by violence, we will be enslaved.
The federal government has frequently attempted to gain the upper-hand over communism and tyranny by means of a blockade or "sanctions" against the slaves of the offending dictator. The U.S. killed more children in Iraq by these sanctions than the U.S. killed by nuking Hiroshima. Why not continue selling and even donating goods to men, women and children in communist or muslim nations?
"Better dead than Red" is the answer. Better them dead than them Red.
Capitalism is Slavery
We should be thankful for Capitalism. We should express our thanks for capitalism by guarding it against socialism (which shows we haven't been very grateful).
If you have to be a slave (and you do), it's better to serve under capitalism than under socialism. The business owner may work twice as many hours per week as the business employee, but the owner enjoys the rewards of success: profit. Consumers enjoy the rewards of capitalism: a rising standard of living.
Capitalists can only make a profit if they serve the consumer. "The customer is king." Customers under capitalism are very benevolent dictators, much more so than socialist dictators. Consumers in capitalist nations should be grateful for their royal lifestyle. A middle class American enjoys a standard of living that no emperor of the ancient world could have even dreamed of. This is the fruit of capitalism, not military dictatorship.
More people are served under capitalism than under socialism. There are more slaves under socialism, and their conditions are more deplorable.
In every case where the U.S. supplied arms in an attempt to prevent a nation from becoming enslaved by communism, it would have been better if the U.S. had encouraged them to become slaves of Christ, voluntarily become slaves to the commies, and to encourage their fellow countrymen to resist the temptation to use violence and instead to become slaves.
Stalin and Hitler did not rule over millions. Millions ruled over millions in the name of Stalin and Hitler. "Government" is not the dictator, but the armies, the police, the airport security agents, and the snitches. People just like you and me.
World peace will come
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."The word translated "rulers" comes from the Greek word from which we derive our word "anarchist." Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists." In fact, God hates "archists." But the true non-archist is a "servant." The Greek word in verse 44 is "slave."
Mark 10:42-45
These days it's popular in some Christian circles to glamorize the word "servant." In these same circles, however, it's also "Better Dead than Red," that is, better to "Kill a Commie for Christ" than to allow your nation to become enslaved by the Commies.
Or the Islamic Mullahs.
Better TSA regulations than Sharia law.
Jesus told the Jews of His day -- and us -- not to engage in violent revolution against pagan, statist invaders. We are to overcome evil with good.
Some would say that "overcoming evil with good" is simply allowing oneself to become the slave of evil. True enough. We must serve the archists.
To those who were waiting for the "zealots" to raise the flag of insurrection and overthrow the Roman occupation, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar." To those who resisted being put under tribute by a godless empire, Paul said, "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom..." (Romans 13:7).
"Pay up."
By paying tribute, we send the message that resistance through violence is not God's way. We send the message that archism is not God's way.
Unless we affirmatively endorse archism by pledging our allegiance to it, cheering its troops, and waving its banner.
U.S. foreign policy in the second half of the 20th century was dominated by support for armed resistance against communism: Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, The Reagan Doctrine in Latin America and Africa, and NATO. Trillions of dollars expended to prevent the commies from taking over various countries, and ultimately, America.
But the uniformed socialists have invaded us anyway, and they are now groping our daughters at the airport.
I said "anyway," but I should have said, "as a result."
If we seek to resist socialism by violence, we will be enslaved.
The federal government has frequently attempted to gain the upper-hand over communism and tyranny by means of a blockade or "sanctions" against the slaves of the offending dictator. The U.S. killed more children in Iraq by these sanctions than the U.S. killed by nuking Hiroshima. Why not continue selling and even donating goods to men, women and children in communist or muslim nations?
"Better dead than Red" is the answer. Better them dead than them Red.
Capitalism is Slavery
We should be thankful for Capitalism. We should express our thanks for capitalism by guarding it against socialism (which shows we haven't been very grateful).
If you have to be a slave (and you do), it's better to serve under capitalism than under socialism. The business owner may work twice as many hours per week as the business employee, but the owner enjoys the rewards of success: profit. Consumers enjoy the rewards of capitalism: a rising standard of living.
Capitalists can only make a profit if they serve the consumer. "The customer is king." Customers under capitalism are very benevolent dictators, much more so than socialist dictators. Consumers in capitalist nations should be grateful for their royal lifestyle. A middle class American enjoys a standard of living that no emperor of the ancient world could have even dreamed of. This is the fruit of capitalism, not military dictatorship.
More people are served under capitalism than under socialism. There are more slaves under socialism, and their conditions are more deplorable.
In every case where the U.S. supplied arms in an attempt to prevent a nation from becoming enslaved by communism, it would have been better if the U.S. had encouraged them to become slaves of Christ, voluntarily become slaves to the commies, and to encourage their fellow countrymen to resist the temptation to use violence and instead to become slaves.
Stalin and Hitler did not rule over millions. Millions ruled over millions in the name of Stalin and Hitler. "Government" is not the dictator, but the armies, the police, the airport security agents, and the snitches. People just like you and me.
“I did understand that it was totally wrong to do so. But if I didn’t do as I was told, I would be punished. I just followed the assignment.”"We must obey God rather than man."
Getting to the Roots of Evil
World peace will come
- when we all follow Christ to the Cross, submitting to evil commands but not obeying commands to evil,
- when we are all willing to be slaves, to let our neighbor the consumer be king,
- when we all resist the temptation to be an "archist" over our neighbor, and
- when we all beat our swords into plowshares.
This Thanksgiving, be grateful that we live in a country where capitalist service is still admired more than socialist ruling. It's possible that the balance is now razor thin: that at any time the scales could be tipped, and a majority of Americans will seek entitlements more than service, rule more than service, and capitalist service will be replaced by "public 'service'" and "the armed 'services.'"
We have our choice:
- serve the commies and the jihadists by working for them, selling or even donating our goods and services to them, overcoming evil with good, and enjoying the fruits of capitalism here at home, or
- resist slavery by giving our property and our liberties to TSA and the Pentagon, who will indulge our illusion that we are free and prosperous, and use violence against our "enemies."
If we pursue this latter option, we are not following Christ, we are rejecting God, and we will soon be under a real, outward, and more cruel yoke of slavery.
More Thanksgiving Reading:
• Giving Thanks to God
• Government-Sponsored Prayer: Giving God Thanks for the Theocratic Constitution
• Thanksgiving 2007
• Give Thanks to Our Redeemer, says George Washington
• Celebrating Thanksgiving in America
• Give Thanks for Our Christian Theocracy
• Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - Should the Government Give Thanks to the God of the Bible? - November 29, 2008
• Sam Adams: Giving Thanks to Drones
• The Manhattan Declaration
• Two Parties on Thanksgiving
• Strozewski on "Separation of Church and State"
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Veterans Day 2010
"Pride," "honor," and "support" are not words that come to my mind when I think about Veterans Day.
There are two kinds of veterans.
• Some were conscripted -- enslaved;
• some volunteered.
It's easier for me to have some sympathy for those who were ordered -- that is, threatened with violence -- to fight in an unconstitutional, unChristian war by an empire at war with God, than for those who enlisted of their own free will.
But I would have even more pride, honor and support for those who were threatened with prison and fines and chose to absorb the violence of The State rather than kill other human beings in an unjust war -- or support those who were actually doing the killing.
Even Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was willing to go to prison rather than Vietnam, which he called a "Christian war."
No war the United States has fought has been a "Christian war."
I've re-packaged my "Memorial Day" essay as a "Veterans Day" essay (if you haven't already read it), and (if you have) you can share your comments on that essay here on this blog.
There are two kinds of veterans.
• Some were conscripted -- enslaved;
• some volunteered.
It's easier for me to have some sympathy for those who were ordered -- that is, threatened with violence -- to fight in an unconstitutional, unChristian war by an empire at war with God, than for those who enlisted of their own free will.
But I would have even more pride, honor and support for those who were threatened with prison and fines and chose to absorb the violence of The State rather than kill other human beings in an unjust war -- or support those who were actually doing the killing.Even Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was willing to go to prison rather than Vietnam, which he called a "Christian war."
No war the United States has fought has been a "Christian war."
I've re-packaged my "Memorial Day" essay as a "Veterans Day" essay (if you haven't already read it), and (if you have) you can share your comments on that essay here on this blog.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Costly Election
If you take the dollars spent on this election:
Congressional Elections: Missouri District 07 Race: 2010 Cycle - OpenSecrets.org
and divide by the votes:
State Of Missouri - U.S. Representative - District 7 - Summary - MO Secretary of State
you get the cost paid per vote:
I'm quite happy I passed the 10,000 vote mark. I didn't do as well as the KOLR poll suggested, but still did very well for a Libertarian in a hotly-contested three-way race.
If I could have convinced an additional 70,131 Republicans to abandon the GOP and vote Libertarian, I could have won this election. But that would have cost me around $2,000 dollars (at my present rate of campaign efficiency).
I feel sorry for Scott Eckersley, who seems like a nice guy, but raised possibly a quarter of a million dollars and got fewer votes than Jack Truman did in 2006. I never saw Truman during the entire campaign. I don't know if he campaigned at all. He didn't spend much, if anything. This is why the Democrat Party never spends any money in this district.
Congressional Elections: Missouri District 07 Race: 2010 Cycle - OpenSecrets.org
and divide by the votes:
State Of Missouri - U.S. Representative - District 7 - Summary - MO Secretary of State
you get the cost paid per vote:
Billy Long = $7.13 per voteI went to a government-run school, so I admit I can't do math. My only campaign cost was gas to get to the debates.
Scott Eckersley = $3.01 per vote
Kevin Craig = $0.02 per vote
I'm quite happy I passed the 10,000 vote mark. I didn't do as well as the KOLR poll suggested, but still did very well for a Libertarian in a hotly-contested three-way race.
If I could have convinced an additional 70,131 Republicans to abandon the GOP and vote Libertarian, I could have won this election. But that would have cost me around $2,000 dollars (at my present rate of campaign efficiency).
I feel sorry for Scott Eckersley, who seems like a nice guy, but raised possibly a quarter of a million dollars and got fewer votes than Jack Truman did in 2006. I never saw Truman during the entire campaign. I don't know if he campaigned at all. He didn't spend much, if anything. This is why the Democrat Party never spends any money in this district.
Monday, November 01, 2010
A Message for Democrats
Here is the unheralded fact about the race for Congress in Missouri's 7th District: There is no Democrat in this race.
There is a candidate on the ballot with a "D" after his name, but until recently he worked in the office of Republican Governor Matt Blunt. He changed his registration to "Democrat" last year, probably just to be able to run for Congress in a smaller field of Democrats. (Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it's probably pretty shrewd, even if it won't be successful.)
So who should a Democrat vote for? Certainly not for Billy Long, the Republican candidate. And not even for the Republican-turned-Democrat, Scott Eckersley, whose platform echoes Billy Long's in nearly every respect.
Democrats should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Kevin Craig.
Phrased another way, liberals should be libertarian.
The words used to mean virtually the same thing.
Today they appear to mean the exact opposite.
But under the surface there are some shared goals which only liberals and Libertarians share, and not liberals and Republicans.
So click here and study the issues carefully and thoughtfully.
Please leave your comments or questions below. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why liberals believe what they believe.
There is a candidate on the ballot with a "D" after his name, but until recently he worked in the office of Republican Governor Matt Blunt. He changed his registration to "Democrat" last year, probably just to be able to run for Congress in a smaller field of Democrats. (Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it's probably pretty shrewd, even if it won't be successful.)
So who should a Democrat vote for? Certainly not for Billy Long, the Republican candidate. And not even for the Republican-turned-Democrat, Scott Eckersley, whose platform echoes Billy Long's in nearly every respect.
Democrats should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Kevin Craig.
Phrased another way, liberals should be libertarian.
The words used to mean virtually the same thing.
Today they appear to mean the exact opposite.
But under the surface there are some shared goals which only liberals and Libertarians share, and not liberals and Republicans.
So click here and study the issues carefully and thoughtfully.
Please leave your comments or questions below. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why liberals believe what they believe.
Last Minute Radio Interviews
This morning I was a guest on the morning show with Nick Reed on KSGF:
View webpage: What did Candidates for the 7th have to say
Click to listen
Yesterday I was interviewed by the local NPR affiliate, which will be broadcast on your local Missouri Public Radio station today at 4:30pm. The unedited recording is available here:
View webpage: KSMU - Missouri's 7th Congressional Seat: Libertarian Kevin Craig
Click to listen
View webpage: What did Candidates for the 7th have to say
Click to listen
Yesterday I was interviewed by the local NPR affiliate, which will be broadcast on your local Missouri Public Radio station today at 4:30pm. The unedited recording is available here:
View webpage: KSMU - Missouri's 7th Congressional Seat: Libertarian Kevin Craig
Click to listen
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Abortion is Murder
On this morning's Ozarks Virtual Town Hall I was asked about my position on abortion. That page explains it.
When I Googled abortion and my name, my abortion page was not listed. My page on how to end abortion without the initiation of force by the government was listed, as was my page in defense of Ron Paul's views on abortion. But not the central abortion page.
I have to suspect that the abortion page was consciously removed by a human being at Google. I admit I'm paranoid, but I don't see how Google's search algorithm could have indexed the other abortion pages yet missed my central abortion page, which has been on the Internet longer than these other pages, and is linked to from many other web pages and blog posts, including these:
When I Googled abortion and my name, my abortion page was not listed. My page on how to end abortion without the initiation of force by the government was listed, as was my page in defense of Ron Paul's views on abortion. But not the central abortion page.
I have to suspect that the abortion page was consciously removed by a human being at Google. I admit I'm paranoid, but I don't see how Google's search algorithm could have indexed the other abortion pages yet missed my central abortion page, which has been on the Internet longer than these other pages, and is linked to from many other web pages and blog posts, including these:
As it stands right now, Google says there are no pages that link to my abortion page. Not true.
Maybe this post will change that.
Until that gnome at Google deletes it from the index once again.
Friday, October 29, 2010
News-Leader Endorses Billy Long
The election of the Republican candidate is always a foregone conclusion in Missouri's 7th District. The Republican candidate needs the endorsement of no newspaper to win the election.
Nevertheless, the Springfield News-Leader has endorsed the Republican candidate.
I offer a few comments on the endorsement here.
Nevertheless, the Springfield News-Leader has endorsed the Republican candidate.
I offer a few comments on the endorsement here.
Missouri News Horizon Interview
You can listen to the Missouri News Horizon interview me here:
Kevin Craig, Libertarian : Missouri News Horizon
Listening to the audio is more enjoyable than reading the transcript, I think.
Kevin Craig, Libertarian : Missouri News Horizon
Listening to the audio is more enjoyable than reading the transcript, I think.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Edge Reacts to News-Leader Coverage
EDGE Boston, which bills itself as "the largest network of local Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) news and entertainment portals in the world," has featured my answers to questions sent to me by the Springfield News-Leader concerning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
DADT Becomes Major Issue in Congressional Elections :: EDGE Boston
Wow; I even got a photo!
DADT is not a major issue for me. It's just a minor symptom of a government that has declared war on God and on His Commandments. The major issue is the myth of "the separation of church and state."
A secondarily major issue is at the end of the News-Leader article:
We face economic meltdown if we don't cut wasteful and unconstitutional "big government programs." The military is a "big government program. ..."
"The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and un-Christian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic theocracy under Sharia law. ...
"Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors." He offered more comments on his Web site.
That's correct. Check these webpages out:
• Blessed Are the Peacemakers
• Iraq
• The Defense Budget
• Defense
• Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
• Is War Ever "Just"
• War and Imperialism
• Blueprint for Afghanistan
• Mutual Assured Destruction
• Swords Into Plowshares
• Was The Iraqi War Biblically Justified?
• Don't Send the Marines!
• Memorial Day 2010
• Mideast Conflict
• Who Owns the Holy Land?
• Weapons of Mass Destruction (RNEP)
• Torture is Un-American
• Military Tribunals
• Vengeance Belongs to God, Not to Man
• Vine & Fig Tree: The American Dream
• The Vietnam War
• World War II and its Lessons
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• The Draft
• Reclaiming the War Power
• U.S Security Strategy
• Terrorism
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Strategic Nuclear Forces and Missile Defense
• Trade Sanctions
• U.S. Security Strategy
• Iran
• Intelligence
• Oil and the Moslem World
• International Economic Policy
• A Biblical Defense of Pacifism
• A Pacifist for Congress
• Israel: Is the State God?
• Israel: The miracle country turns 60
• Exiting the Balkan Morass
• Patriotism: Loyalty to Country or to God?
• Department of Veterans' Affairs
More important than "DADT" is imperialist mass murder by the federal government and the "patriots" who just follow orders. More important than DADT is the military-industrial complex, which America's Founders condemned when they warned against "standing armies."
I don't even have a webpage on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh yes, this blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Speak." I'm wrong; here's another blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oops; here's a web page: My secret life under "don't ask, don't tell." (Honestly, I lose track of what I've written. I'm over 1,000 blog posts and webpages now. I have to coax results out of Google.)
Here's my point: anti-war is more important to me than anti-homosexual.
Maybe I give homosexuals too much credit for being "sensitive" and cool, but it strikes me as odd that homosexuals would want to become paid killers for Halliburton and the Bush-Obama regime. A silly stereotype, I suppose.
DADT Becomes Major Issue in Congressional Elections :: EDGE Boston
Wow; I even got a photo!
DADT is not a major issue for me. It's just a minor symptom of a government that has declared war on God and on His Commandments. The major issue is the myth of "the separation of church and state."
A secondarily major issue is at the end of the News-Leader article:
We face economic meltdown if we don't cut wasteful and unconstitutional "big government programs." The military is a "big government program. ..."
"The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and un-Christian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic theocracy under Sharia law. ...
"Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors." He offered more comments on his Web site.
That's correct. Check these webpages out:
• Blessed Are the Peacemakers
• Iraq
• The Defense Budget
• Defense
• Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
• Is War Ever "Just"
• War and Imperialism
• Blueprint for Afghanistan
• Mutual Assured Destruction
• Swords Into Plowshares
• Was The Iraqi War Biblically Justified?
• Don't Send the Marines!
• Memorial Day 2010
• Mideast Conflict
• Who Owns the Holy Land?
• Weapons of Mass Destruction (RNEP)
• Torture is Un-American
• Military Tribunals
• Vengeance Belongs to God, Not to Man
• Vine & Fig Tree: The American Dream
• The Vietnam War
• World War II and its Lessons
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• The Draft
• Reclaiming the War Power
• U.S Security Strategy
• Terrorism
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Strategic Nuclear Forces and Missile Defense
• Trade Sanctions
• U.S. Security Strategy
• Iran
• Intelligence
• Oil and the Moslem World
• International Economic Policy
• A Biblical Defense of Pacifism
• A Pacifist for Congress
• Israel: Is the State God?
• Israel: The miracle country turns 60
• Exiting the Balkan Morass
• Patriotism: Loyalty to Country or to God?
• Department of Veterans' Affairs
More important than "DADT" is imperialist mass murder by the federal government and the "patriots" who just follow orders. More important than DADT is the military-industrial complex, which America's Founders condemned when they warned against "standing armies."
I don't even have a webpage on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh yes, this blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Speak." I'm wrong; here's another blog post: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oops; here's a web page: My secret life under "don't ask, don't tell." (Honestly, I lose track of what I've written. I'm over 1,000 blog posts and webpages now. I have to coax results out of Google.)
Here's my point: anti-war is more important to me than anti-homosexual.
Maybe I give homosexuals too much credit for being "sensitive" and cool, but it strikes me as odd that homosexuals would want to become paid killers for Halliburton and the Bush-Obama regime. A silly stereotype, I suppose.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Voting for Baum Helps "Liberty Under God"
You can help promote "Liberty Under God" in 2012 by voting for Charles Baum in 2010.I enjoy running for office because it gives me an opportunity to promote "Liberty Under God." I might not have that opportunity if the Libertarian Party loses its ballot status. Without that status, I might have to gather as many as 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot. The Libertarian Party must poll 2% in one of the two statewide races or it will lose its qualified status.
Baum is the Libertarian candidate for Missouri State Auditor. If he gets 2% of the vote, I will benefit in 2012 by not having to collect all those signatures.
Is Baum qualified? I'll vote for him. Here's a message from his blog:
Susan Montee’s website celebrates her experience as an attorney and CPA, which she feels makes her the most qualified candidate to be Missouri’s State Auditor.
Tom Schweich proclaims how he loves to do audits.
I readily concede that both Tom and Susan can do a better audit than I do. I would love to have them on my staff.
However, the State Auditor has a staff of 125 people, many qualified to do a great audit. In fact, many of the audits are not even done by Susan. She just oversees them.
Susan claims to have saved Missouri millions of dollars. However, there is no accounting of this, which is kind of ironical in that the State Auditor has no real verification that she has saved the state any money.
The State Auditor’s budget is close to $5,000,000 and we really have no accounting of whether or not it pays for itself.
What we need is an auditor that can actually save the state of Missouri money.
Accountants are good at doing accounting, but not usually that good at achieving action and results. That takes a different skill. What we need is an auditor that can aggressively carry out the recommendations in the audit. How many of Susan’s staff’s recommendations are carried out? We don’t know. She does her audit, makes recommendations and moves on to the next audit. No real follow up.
We live in a society that loves to create volumes of paper. In fact, we are overwhelmed by paper. In 2009, Susan had overseen 151 audits, thousands of pages all buried away somewhere read by almost no one, like the 2,200 page financial reform bill that no one reads and no one knows what it will mean.
What we need today more than ever is simplicity, action, and leadership, not more audits. If the state auditor's job is to do audits and provide transparency, Susan has done a great job; but if it is to actually save the state money I’m afraid she falls short.
Accountants are great at counting the number of trees in the forest, but often miss the forest.
Charlie is a native Missourian, born in St. Louis, who lives in University City with Carol, his wife of 38 years. The Baums' daughter, Jennifer, is currently married living in Minneapolis with her husband Justin and daughter Camille. Charlie earned his bachelor's degree in Business with a major in Finance from the University of Missouri - Columbia and earned his master's degree in Teaching from Webster University. Charlie is a Certified Financial Planner and a Principal at Renaissance Financial in St. Louis. He has also earned the designations of Chartered Financial Consultant and Chartered Life Underwriter over the course of his career. He has over 25 years of experience in the financial services industry and is regularly relied on to mentor new advisors who join his company. Prior to his work in financial services, Charlie was a junior high school teacher in University City. Charlie has served on the boards of the Family Support Network and the Crisis Nursery in the St. Louis area.
An argument can be made that his opponents are more "qualified" than Baum, but they aren't motivated like a libertarian is to shrink the size of government, and voting for them does nothing to promote "Liberty Under God."
Individual audits are supervised by an auditor-in-charge, who normally is a senior auditor. Audit fieldwork is performed by senior auditors, staff auditors and audit assistants. Approximately 150 persons are employed by the state auditor’s office. About 50 percent of the audit staff are CPAs. That figure represents a marked increase from earlier years; in 1974 only about 10 percent of the staff were CPAs. [MO Manual, 2005-2006]
Sunday, October 24, 2010
5,000 Year Leap
Glenn Beck promotes a book called The Five Thousand Year Leap. It contains "28 Ideas that Changed the World." Since I've already been Banned by Beck for digging deeper than the principles of his "9-12 Project," I might as well incur further wrath for digging deeper than the "5,000 Year Leap." Especially since I admit I haven't even read the book. Don't even own it.
Here are the 28 principles, with comments and links to my campaign website:
1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is natural law.
I have explored the meaning of the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" on my website. It means the Bible. It does not mean that we look at "nature" and see that lions eat gazelles, and conclude that therefore Democrats should tax the rich. In this sense, "natural law" is a myth. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is God's Law, or "Theonomy," rather than autonomy.
America's "Organic Law" declares that "religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." "Religion" means revelation from God. It is not "natural," but supernatural.
2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
This is correct, provided that "virtue" and "morality" are defined by the Bible.
3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and a morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
I agree that electing virtuous leaders is better than electing leaders without virtue. But this principle is wrong-headed. Education is more important than leaders. Bad education will produce voters who elect bad leaders. You can have a prosperous society without leaders, not but without parents who take control of their children's education and make every child a leader in the life of someone else in society. Not a leader by control, but a leader by influence. Compare #26.
4. Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
True, but true only for the true religion, not true for any false religion. A false religion, like the religion of Secular Humanism, leaves people in darkness, not freedom.
5. All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent and to him they are equally responsible.
True.
6. All men are created equal.
True.
7. The proper role of government is to provide equal rights, not equal things.
True.
8. Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
OK. I prefer speaking of duties rather than rights. [And is it "Unalienable or Inalienable?"]
9. To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.
The second part is true. But it's not as though God is somehow obligated to protect man's rights; that man backed God into a corner through collective bargaining, and won a concession of "divine law" to protect his rights. See the link on "duties" above.
10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
"Governing" others is not a God-given right. It is historically true, however, that "the consent of the governed" is a concept that was derived from the Bible.
11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
True, but not through violence.
Why may not a minority abolish a tyrannical government if the majority are apathetic and don't object?
12. The United States of America shall be a republic.
Well, at least not a democracy.
13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.
Not "frailties," but depravity. Things like the desire to rule over others, the desire to take vengeance, the desire to get something for nothing, the desire to punish the rich. Not "frail" people, but evil sociopaths. The Constitution was not designed to empower the frail, but to bind down as with chains those who would be as gods.
14. Life and liberty is secure so long as the right to property is secure.
True.
15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and minimum of government regulations.
True, true and true. Even people who maximize government rather than minimizing it like to quote Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least," without reading further: "Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have."
16. The government should be separated into three branches—legislative, executive and judicial.
God's government is separated into "three branches":
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
it is He who will save us.
Do we need to create an earthly government when we already have God's government?
17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse. Human government is the power to abuse.
18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution.
Likely, but obviously not infallibly, as our own written constitution has failed to preserve our rights.
19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to the government, all others being retained by the people.
True. I am the only candidate in this race who believes in the concept of strictly enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.
20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
Sounds good. Has it ever happened in the history of human government? Does the minority get to withhold taxes for government programs it didn't vote for?
21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
True.
22. A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of man.
True. But if the majority votes to tax the minority, is this not "whim," even if it is enacted "according to law."
23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
False. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad spectrum of competing educational choices available to the public. We must affirm "the separation of school and state."
24. A free people will not survive unless they remain strong.
"Strong" morally? "Strong" enough to obliterate tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians?
25. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.
True, and utterly neglected by the Bush-Obama regime.
26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
The first part is true, but given #19 above, what does "foster" mean? Should the government tax families to fund some cockamamie federal program to "promote stronger families?" I wonder how many government programs claim to "strengthen families" in some way.
27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
Good point. A 3,000 year-old idea.
28. The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.
I don't know this to be a fact. The U.S. may have a "manifest destiny" to be an example to the world of how a once-Christian nation is utterly destroyed for repudiating that heritage.
I pulled the summary of these 28 points from Wikipedia, as well as these references:
W. Cleon Skousen - The Man Behind Glenn Beck By Bill McKeever. Mormonism Research Ministry
Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life. Zaitchik, Alexander (2009-09-16). Salon Magazine, September 16, 2009.
Five Thousand Year Leap
Glenn Beck Re-Energizes the Conservative Movement by Mark Skousen 19 March 2009. Human Events
Excerpts from The Five Thousand Year Leap – The New Yorker
Here are the 28 principles, with comments and links to my campaign website:
1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is natural law.
I have explored the meaning of the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" on my website. It means the Bible. It does not mean that we look at "nature" and see that lions eat gazelles, and conclude that therefore Democrats should tax the rich. In this sense, "natural law" is a myth. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is God's Law, or "Theonomy," rather than autonomy.
America's "Organic Law" declares that "religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." "Religion" means revelation from God. It is not "natural," but supernatural.
2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
This is correct, provided that "virtue" and "morality" are defined by the Bible.
3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and a morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
I agree that electing virtuous leaders is better than electing leaders without virtue. But this principle is wrong-headed. Education is more important than leaders. Bad education will produce voters who elect bad leaders. You can have a prosperous society without leaders, not but without parents who take control of their children's education and make every child a leader in the life of someone else in society. Not a leader by control, but a leader by influence. Compare #26.
4. Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
True, but true only for the true religion, not true for any false religion. A false religion, like the religion of Secular Humanism, leaves people in darkness, not freedom.
5. All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent and to him they are equally responsible.
True.
6. All men are created equal.
True.
7. The proper role of government is to provide equal rights, not equal things.
True.
8. Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
OK. I prefer speaking of duties rather than rights. [And is it "Unalienable or Inalienable?"]
9. To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.
The second part is true. But it's not as though God is somehow obligated to protect man's rights; that man backed God into a corner through collective bargaining, and won a concession of "divine law" to protect his rights. See the link on "duties" above.
10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
"Governing" others is not a God-given right. It is historically true, however, that "the consent of the governed" is a concept that was derived from the Bible.
11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
True, but not through violence.
Why may not a minority abolish a tyrannical government if the majority are apathetic and don't object?
12. The United States of America shall be a republic.
Well, at least not a democracy.
13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.
Not "frailties," but depravity. Things like the desire to rule over others, the desire to take vengeance, the desire to get something for nothing, the desire to punish the rich. Not "frail" people, but evil sociopaths. The Constitution was not designed to empower the frail, but to bind down as with chains those who would be as gods.
14. Life and liberty is secure so long as the right to property is secure.
True.
15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and minimum of government regulations.
True, true and true. Even people who maximize government rather than minimizing it like to quote Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least," without reading further: "Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have."
16. The government should be separated into three branches—legislative, executive and judicial.
God's government is separated into "three branches":
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
it is He who will save us.
Do we need to create an earthly government when we already have God's government?
17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
The problem is not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse. Human government is the power to abuse.
18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution.
Likely, but obviously not infallibly, as our own written constitution has failed to preserve our rights.
19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to the government, all others being retained by the people.
True. I am the only candidate in this race who believes in the concept of strictly enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.
20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
Sounds good. Has it ever happened in the history of human government? Does the minority get to withhold taxes for government programs it didn't vote for?
21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
True.
22. A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of man.
True. But if the majority votes to tax the minority, is this not "whim," even if it is enacted "according to law."
23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
False. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad spectrum of competing educational choices available to the public. We must affirm "the separation of school and state."
24. A free people will not survive unless they remain strong.
"Strong" morally? "Strong" enough to obliterate tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians?
25. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.
True, and utterly neglected by the Bush-Obama regime.
26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
The first part is true, but given #19 above, what does "foster" mean? Should the government tax families to fund some cockamamie federal program to "promote stronger families?" I wonder how many government programs claim to "strengthen families" in some way.
27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
Good point. A 3,000 year-old idea.
28. The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.
I don't know this to be a fact. The U.S. may have a "manifest destiny" to be an example to the world of how a once-Christian nation is utterly destroyed for repudiating that heritage.
I pulled the summary of these 28 points from Wikipedia, as well as these references:
W. Cleon Skousen - The Man Behind Glenn Beck By Bill McKeever. Mormonism Research Ministry
Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life. Zaitchik, Alexander (2009-09-16). Salon Magazine, September 16, 2009.
Five Thousand Year Leap
Glenn Beck Re-Energizes the Conservative Movement by Mark Skousen 19 March 2009. Human Events
Excerpts from The Five Thousand Year Leap – The New Yorker
Friday, October 22, 2010
Military Spending
I received the following email:
Mr. Craig:
One item that will be at the top of the congressional agenda next year is government spending. The deficit commission appointed by the president and Congress is expected to make recommendations on how to address this issue in December. Congress is planning to consider these recommendations early next year.
As a candidate to represent me in the House of Representatives, will you work to make sure that when Congress begins to look at government spending, the focus will be on cutting military spending and investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders?
Congress could save an estimated $2 trillion in the next ten years by not extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest households in our nation and by cutting the Pentagon budget using the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Will you support these sound policy recommendations?
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
I responded:
Hi [name],
I am overwhelmingly your choice for Congress if you are for peace. I am opposed to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as opposed to the hundreds of military bases the U.S. has in over 100 foreign nations.
My website is probably the largest candidate website on the Internet, and my webpages on peace and nuclear disarmament are prominently highlighted.
http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/afghanistan.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/disarm.htm
I am a Bible-believing Christian, and it is deeply troubling to me that so many Christians support U.S. military intervention. If elected, I would use the "bully pulpit" to engage the over 200 million self-described Christians in America in a conversation to follow the "Prince of Peace" more consistently.
http://KevinCraig.us/cityhill.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/imperialism.htm
I have to be honest, however, and confess that I believe taxation is an act of violence and the moral equivalent of theft. Therefore I support the extension of the "Bush tax cuts."
http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
Fully 50% of Americans do not pay taxes at all, so "tax cuts for the rich" is the only possible way to cut taxes.
Also, you speak of "investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders." We may disagree on these issues. For now.
I believe these tasks are outside the "enumerated powers" of the Constitution:
http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm
Government "investments" are counter-productive:
http://KevinCraig.us/investment.htm
These "investments" actually destroy jobs:
http://KevinCraig.us/jobs.htm
Government compulsion is no substitute for helping from the heart those in need:
http://KevinCraig.us/welfare.htm
The federal government is the biggest threat to the elderly:
http://KevinCraig.us/bankrupt.htm
We don't need to increase taxes, and we don't need government "investments." We need to cut government spending, especially military spending:
http://KevinCraig.us/defense_budget.htm
Not just "waste," but the core of the defense budget needs to be slashed to bring it into line with the non-interventionist foreign policy of America's Founding Fathers:
http://KevinCraig.us/foreign_affairs.htm
This is a call for a massive change of heart and soul.
If America's Christians would tithe on their income (presently they give only about 2.5% rather than 10%), there would be enough private donations to bring basic healthcare and education to all the poor of the earth. Christians would still have another $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world. [source] The possibilities are staggering.
If we can get Christians to follow the Prince of Peace and practice the "works of mercy," we won't need government taxes and impersonal bureaucratic "investment" programs.
http://KevinCraig.us/mercy.htm
Maybe you disagree, but I'm happy that we agree on the possibility of starting with substantial cuts in spending for military aggression.
Please tell all your friends to vote for Kevin Craig on November 2.
Thanks for writing.
Kevin Craig
www.KevinCraig.us
Libertarian Party Candidate
Missouri 7th District
U.S. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731
Mr. Craig:
One item that will be at the top of the congressional agenda next year is government spending. The deficit commission appointed by the president and Congress is expected to make recommendations on how to address this issue in December. Congress is planning to consider these recommendations early next year.
As a candidate to represent me in the House of Representatives, will you work to make sure that when Congress begins to look at government spending, the focus will be on cutting military spending and investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders?
Congress could save an estimated $2 trillion in the next ten years by not extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest households in our nation and by cutting the Pentagon budget using the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Will you support these sound policy recommendations?
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
I responded:
Hi [name],
I am overwhelmingly your choice for Congress if you are for peace. I am opposed to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as opposed to the hundreds of military bases the U.S. has in over 100 foreign nations.
My website is probably the largest candidate website on the Internet, and my webpages on peace and nuclear disarmament are prominently highlighted.
http://KevinCraig.us/peace.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/afghanistan.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/disarm.htm
I am a Bible-believing Christian, and it is deeply troubling to me that so many Christians support U.S. military intervention. If elected, I would use the "bully pulpit" to engage the over 200 million self-described Christians in America in a conversation to follow the "Prince of Peace" more consistently.
http://KevinCraig.us/cityhill.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/imperialism.htm
I have to be honest, however, and confess that I believe taxation is an act of violence and the moral equivalent of theft. Therefore I support the extension of the "Bush tax cuts."
http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
Fully 50% of Americans do not pay taxes at all, so "tax cuts for the rich" is the only possible way to cut taxes.
Also, you speak of "investing in programs that create jobs, assist those hardest hit by recession and take care of our elders." We may disagree on these issues. For now.
I believe these tasks are outside the "enumerated powers" of the Constitution:
http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm
Government "investments" are counter-productive:
http://KevinCraig.us/investment.htm
These "investments" actually destroy jobs:
http://KevinCraig.us/jobs.htm
Government compulsion is no substitute for helping from the heart those in need:
http://KevinCraig.us/welfare.htm
The federal government is the biggest threat to the elderly:
http://KevinCraig.us/bankrupt.htm
We don't need to increase taxes, and we don't need government "investments." We need to cut government spending, especially military spending:
http://KevinCraig.us/defense_budget.htm
Not just "waste," but the core of the defense budget needs to be slashed to bring it into line with the non-interventionist foreign policy of America's Founding Fathers:
http://KevinCraig.us/foreign_affairs.htm
This is a call for a massive change of heart and soul.
If America's Christians would tithe on their income (presently they give only about 2.5% rather than 10%), there would be enough private donations to bring basic healthcare and education to all the poor of the earth. Christians would still have another $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world. [source] The possibilities are staggering.
If we can get Christians to follow the Prince of Peace and practice the "works of mercy," we won't need government taxes and impersonal bureaucratic "investment" programs.
http://KevinCraig.us/mercy.htm
Maybe you disagree, but I'm happy that we agree on the possibility of starting with substantial cuts in spending for military aggression.
Please tell all your friends to vote for Kevin Craig on November 2.
Thanks for writing.
Kevin Craig
www.KevinCraig.us
Libertarian Party Candidate
Missouri 7th District
U.S. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Military and Veterans Issues
Here are my answers to questions from the News-Leader on Military and Veterans Issues:
1. How do you plan to vote on Amendment 2, the proposal to give former POWs who are totally disabled a break on their property taxes?
__X__ YES
_____ NO
Everyone should have a break on their taxes.
http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm
I may not take an hour to go to the polls on Nov. 2, but I will devote hundreds of hours in 2011 trying to cut taxes.
http://KevinCraig.us/vote.htm
2. Should gay and lesbian people be required to keep the fact that they are gay or lesbian secret in order to serve in the U.S. military?
_____ YES
_____ NO
__X___They shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all.
Every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence believed that homosexuality is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Sodomy has always been a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military has a duty to ask if a soldier is unapologetically committed to violating an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
3. Will you support an amendment proposed by Sen. McCaskill to provide up to $100,000 to soldiers who suffer severe injury from vaccines?
_____ YES
_____ NO
I don’t know the details of McCaskill’s amendment, or the bill it amends. In general, I oppose “sovereign immunity” and support holding government accountable for its actions. But there is also a legal concept called “assumption of the risk.” See below.
4. Other comments on Veteran’s Issues
We face economic meltdown if we don’t cut wasteful and unconstitutional “big government programs.” The military is a “big government program.” The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and unChristian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic Theocracy under Sharia law. There is no draft, so those who enlisted in the armed services did so voluntarily, and are responsible for their decisions to participate in unjust wars and foreign policy debacles. For many, enlisting in the armed services is considered a shrewd “career move.” Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors.
1. How do you plan to vote on Amendment 2, the proposal to give former POWs who are totally disabled a break on their property taxes?
__X__ YES
_____ NO
Everyone should have a break on their taxes.
http://KevinCraig.us/taxation.htm
I may not take an hour to go to the polls on Nov. 2, but I will devote hundreds of hours in 2011 trying to cut taxes.
http://KevinCraig.us/vote.htm
2. Should gay and lesbian people be required to keep the fact that they are gay or lesbian secret in order to serve in the U.S. military?
_____ YES
_____ NO
__X___They shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all.
Every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence believed that homosexuality is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Sodomy has always been a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military has a duty to ask if a soldier is unapologetically committed to violating an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
3. Will you support an amendment proposed by Sen. McCaskill to provide up to $100,000 to soldiers who suffer severe injury from vaccines?
_____ YES
_____ NO
I don’t know the details of McCaskill’s amendment, or the bill it amends. In general, I oppose “sovereign immunity” and support holding government accountable for its actions. But there is also a legal concept called “assumption of the risk.” See below.
4. Other comments on Veteran’s Issues
We face economic meltdown if we don’t cut wasteful and unconstitutional “big government programs.” The military is a “big government program.” The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional, wasteful, and unChristian. The Bush-Obama regime has committed $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein -- who granted Christians religious freedom -- and replace that government with an Islamic Theocracy under Sharia law. There is no draft, so those who enlisted in the armed services did so voluntarily, and are responsible for their decisions to participate in unjust wars and foreign policy debacles. For many, enlisting in the armed services is considered a shrewd “career move.” Veterans programs are essentially big government welfare programs. All such government programs should be cut, and replaced with voluntary charitable support from the individual, church, and business sectors.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Debate in Willard
I'm going to have to fire my campaign manager for failing to get around to posting details on yesterday's debate in Willard. The debate was open to the public and some of you might have gone to see it. I was hoping to meet a few readers of this blog at the debate.
Streaming Video of the Debate
Post Debate Panel Analysis
That's OK, I wasn't paying myself enough to do that job anyway.
Streaming Video of the Debate
Post Debate Panel Analysis
That's OK, I wasn't paying myself enough to do that job anyway.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Voter Turnout
Here are some statistics on National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008 from Infoplease.com
In the last mid-term election, 37.1% of the voting-age population turned out to vote.
That means that the results of the election represent about 15-20% of the people.
Democracy?
In the last mid-term election, 37.1% of the voting-age population turned out to vote.
That means that the results of the election represent about 15-20% of the people.
Democracy?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Romans 13
Tom Knapp has called my attention to an interesting article at the Center for a Stateless Society:
Give Nothing Unto Caesar
It has some interesting historical research, but reaches a faulty conclusion.
Jesus said we are not to resist evil, but "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). This does not mean that cheek-slappers are a "divine institution." It simply describes a Christian response to evil-doers.
Taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. But Biblical logic does not lead us to conclude that we should not pay the thief. The Bible says pay your taxes. "Turn the other cheek." "Resist not evil."
The desire to tax other people is sinful. The desire to rule over others by force is sinful. The desire for vengeance is sinful. The desire for a civil government is therefore idolatry. The desire to have a civil government is a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8). Therefore the State is evil. The State is a judgment sent by God.
But our relationship with these evil rulers is characterized by respect and honor (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Timothy 6:1; Exodus 22:28; Romans 13:7), not insult and defiance.
Our goal is persuasion, not revolution.
We must beat our swords into plowshares and help archists repent.
But this is not "us" vs. "them."
We all have our swords and we all want to be as gods.
We're in this together.
"Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
1 Peter 2:17
For Further Study:
Romans13.com
Rushdoony on the Tribute Money
Jesus and the Tax Revolt - Rushdoony
I'm going to have to take a closer look at these (maybe after the election!):
Tiberius
Romans 13:1-7 - Jesus Radicals Discussion Forum
Obedience to the state; An exegetical exploration of Romans 13. - unlearning the problem
Give Nothing Unto Caesar
It has some interesting historical research, but reaches a faulty conclusion.
Jesus said we are not to resist evil, but "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). This does not mean that cheek-slappers are a "divine institution." It simply describes a Christian response to evil-doers.
Taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. But Biblical logic does not lead us to conclude that we should not pay the thief. The Bible says pay your taxes. "Turn the other cheek." "Resist not evil."
The desire to tax other people is sinful. The desire to rule over others by force is sinful. The desire for vengeance is sinful. The desire for a civil government is therefore idolatry. The desire to have a civil government is a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8). Therefore the State is evil. The State is a judgment sent by God.
But our relationship with these evil rulers is characterized by respect and honor (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Timothy 6:1; Exodus 22:28; Romans 13:7), not insult and defiance.
Our goal is persuasion, not revolution.
We must beat our swords into plowshares and help archists repent.
But this is not "us" vs. "them."
We all have our swords and we all want to be as gods.
We're in this together.
"Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
1 Peter 2:17
For Further Study:
Romans13.com
Rushdoony on the Tribute Money
Jesus and the Tax Revolt - Rushdoony
I'm going to have to take a closer look at these (maybe after the election!):
Tiberius
Romans 13:1-7 - Jesus Radicals Discussion Forum
Obedience to the state; An exegetical exploration of Romans 13. - unlearning the problem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)