Read This

There is an incredible article at LewRockwell.com by Stefan Molyneaux. You must read it. Molyneaux is a market anarchist, but this article doesn't promote anarchy. Anybody who thinks they understand government or liberty needs to read it, "The Gun in the Room."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html

Hold On

There is indeed another post in the works. I felt rather uninspired for a few days, and then tonight, I started a new post, which should be up within a couple days. The topic is important but a surprise. It's important, though, so it requires plenty of time, as does my 17 credit course load.

Christianity and Government

I feel thoroughly unqualified as a 19-year old college student to even begin to do this topic justice. But I'm not a professional writer. My job is to stimulate discussion. And this discussion will focus on what a Christian should do about politics.
First of all, what is required of us as Christians in this area? Well, for starters, there is always the controversial Romans 13. We are told to be subject unto the higher powers because there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. Verse 2 states that whoever resists the power receives damnation. But what did Paul actually mean? We know that he was obviously disobedient to the authorities, leading to persecution and eventual martyrdom, taking Peter's advice that we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Romans 13 didn't save the German concentration camp guards from being hanged. Another quandary we have observed is that some rulers are a terror to good works, the rejection of donations by Walmart during Hurricane Katrina being just one example, and they are not always a terror to the evil, but often protect them or employ them. Do all rulers minister good for God and deserve honour? Verse 6 tells us to be subject for conscience's sake. But what happens when the conscience God gave us tells us not to obey our rulers? In that case, we should look to Acts 5:29 and also Romans 13:8-9. We are told to owe no man anything except to love one another, which fulfills the law. Paul names off some basic commandments such as not stealing, killing, bearing false witness, or coveting, which he also summarizes by reminding us that these commandments are commandments to love our neighbor as ourself. These of course, are the things that respect the life, liberty, and property of others. Given that this is what is truly what is required of us, as confirmed by the Lord (Matthew 22:37-40), I would argue then that our obedience to rulers is conditional upon whether or not their commands respect the life, liberty, and property of others, since God is no respecter of persons and the ruler must also respect the rights of others. Remember also that when we bid an evildoer Godspeed, we are a partaker in his evil deeds
(1 John 1:11). I would also argue then, that the answer to evil rulers is peaceful resistance after the example of our Lord and Savior. And although it is our responsibility not to aid evil rulers, Jesus showed that it's OK to pay them taxes. He understands our situation and the reality that you cannot completely escape the system. At some point, the responsibility falls on the evildoers themselves, because the One who searches the heart and mind (Romans 8:27) will know what is truly in our hearts. So follow your conscience. You have no duty to participate in government or the selection thereof; if your conscience feels contaminated by doing so, then feel free to abstain. The Quakers or Amish live admirable and respectable lives, and feel no guilt over the crimes of government.
What is important for us is to love our neighbor as ourself, which is to respect their life, liberty, and property, and to possibly be charitable and merciful. Now there is no reason why an innocent Iraqi is not our neighbor. The blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis is on the heads of our leaders who voted to invade their country and impose "freedom" on them. It also lies with those who bid the killers Godspeed. Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." It is unconscionable for a Christian to condone or support death and destruction of innocent people, whose only crime is resisting foreign invaders. The tens of thousands dead are tens of thousands who can never be reached for Jesus. The other Muslims see this and become hostile to Christianity and persecute their Christian countrymen. But the overwhelming support of Christians for war, which destroys the life, liberty, and property of the victims, and thus hating their neighbor, is a sign of a much larger problem. That problem is an allegiance to the State that is stronger than the allegiance to God and his word.
This reminds me of the recent fight over the pledge of allegiance. Why should we even bother to pledge allegiance to a State, which is run by fallible and often sinful men? The pledge was invented by socialist Francis Bellamy, probably for that very purpose, to secure primary allegiance to the State and not God or His laws. So I completely agree with anyone who feels they should not pledge allegiance to the State. After a couple years of thinking about this issue, I have decided that I will no longer pledge allegiance to the flag, a piece of cloth. I will not give my approval to murder and destruction or anything else that God's word and my conscience tell me are wrong. I pledge to respect the life, liberty, and property of my fellow man. And what about this flag-burning amendment that Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ and other Christians support? Don't they understand property rights? Don't they understand that this life and this earth and this nation are temporary? One day, this empire will crumble as the Roman Empire did, but God is eternal. Who is their God? The State or El-Shaddai?
This probably isn't the last thing I'll say on this issue. My conscience bothers me and I do not like taking the heat that statist, warmongering Christians bring upon the rest of us. For much more, and better articles on this issue, I urge you to read Laurence Vance's articles at LewRockwell.com. Until next time, may God open our eyes to see and our ears to hear.

Elections, Part 7

Well, it's over now and the Democrats have won. While I wasn't really rooting for them, I was glad the Republicans lost, because they deserved it, just as the Democrats deserved it in 1994. Actually, as I said before, all the incumbents except Ron Paul deserved to lose. The Democrats are not the solution to our problems and this election did not change the direction of this country at all. When government is the problem, sort of like a disease, replacing its agents is like deciding whether to acquire pneumonia or tuberculosis. Maybe you shouldn't pick a disease. I feel great about not voting yesterday. A girl asked me, "Are you planning to vote tonight?" "No." "Are you registered to vote?" "No." I didn't feel bad , either. Why become part of the problem? A crappy government is not my fault, but rather the fault of those who voted for it. Why become part of the struggle to control the liberty and property of others? One of the problems with our elections is that Americans are incredibly selfish. They respect nobody's property. The politicians that get the most federal tax dollars (taken from other people of course) get re-elected. I read about Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl saying how Bob Casey would be good for Pittsburgh because he would bring in more federal tax dollars (stolen from others at gunpoint) for Pittsburgh. What a jerk! That's part of why we have so many fiscal problems. Everybody wants the tax money stolen from other people for their area and for their entitlements, without any regard as to how this affects their children or any other taxpayers or the economy or the value of our currency. This is what we call "pork," a euphemism for booty plundered by certain privateers who are more powerful than others. But enough with this. Elections are done, and now I no longer feel the need to write about them.
Life, liberty,and property for all!

Elections, Part 6

If you didn't take a political philosophy course in college, you missed out. Good old PHIL 332 last year exposed me to some important literature. The most important were Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Second Treatise on Government, and Rousseau's On the Social Contract. For a synopsis, Hobbes argues for a totalitarian monarchy as the only way to create and preserve civil society. His state of nature (anarchy) is a war of all against all. There is never an end to the fighting and doing the wrong thing is always in one's best interest. His views on anarchy resemble The Prisoners' Dilemma. Hobbes believes the only way to solve these problems is for everybody to cede all rights to the sovereign, who will enforce punishment so harsh that it is always in one's best interest not to engage in criminal activity (remember my discussion on crime). Unfortunately in this system, no one may challenge the singular authority of the sovereign.
Locke believed in civil society also. But he preferred anarchy to a monarch, because the actions of lone or small bands of criminals are not nearly so devastating as those of someone in whom is vested all power and resources. The problem Locke saw with the SN is that there would be no impartial justice system, and that the common enforcer or vigilante could become capricious or lose impartiality. Locke saw the purpose of civil society as the preservation of the rights of men, which we know are life, liberty, and property. Anything that a government did beyond these bounds was viewed as illegitimate by Locke, and failure to protect rights was grounds for dissolution. Locke realized that people gave up a few rights to protect their liberty, and that they could not give away anyone else's liberty to a legislative body. You cannot cede what is not yours. You are not allowed to vote yourself or anybody else into tyranny. HA! But you did anyways.
Rousseau believed in pure democracy, that everybody should vote, and that the majority was always right, no matter what. Simply put, he was an idiot. Rousseau's form of government leads directly to socialism and communism, because there is no guarantee of individual rights at any time. Any property you have that enough other people want is no longer yours. Certain unpopular dissenting ideas? Banned. Why? Because most people choose to be rulers over other people and that's what motivates most voting. Most people do not respect the freedom of others. This is where Rousseau differs from Locke in a huge way. In Locke's government, a small amount of freedom is relinquished for the government to protect your natural rights. In Rousseau's social contract, the government, aka everybody else, grants you your rights. This country was founded on Locke's ideas, that all men are endowed with certain rights by their Creator, and not by men. My right to life, liberty and property is granted to me by God and cannot be taken away by you or anyone you empowered. Democracy is not freedom, unless freedom is slavery. And democracy is slavery to the whims of your fellow citizens.
Try this. We are all responsible for our actions, and in some circumstances, we are responsible for the behavior of guests. We are also responsible for the behavior of animals and all our other property. You vote to have people "represent you." So what happens when these officials molest children, order innocent people to be killed, or embezzle money and take bribes? They do it in your name. They are acting as an agent for you. When you knowingly elect criminals, you are an accessory to the crime. Residents in a certain congressional district of Massachusetts are responsible for Barney Frank's perversion, and millions of Americans have the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their heads. Secret ballots are a bad idea. If you're going to vote for someone and vest in them virtually limitless power and resources, be a man and have the balls to take responsibility for your actions. If you're an accessory to crime, you should be tracked down and prosecuted as such. This is just one of the ways in which a lack of individual responsibility is bringing this country down. It is an incentive in most other areas of life not to make poor choices, because you often will reap the negative consequences. This motivates us to make better, more conscientious decisions. Voting would drastically improve if the same incentive applied.
Anyways, the elections are tomorrow, and I strongly encourage you not to vote if you are unsure, lazy, ignorant, principled, or you just don't want to. There's plenty of better things to do. You're not responsible for how others vote, and if you don't vote for the criminals, you won't be responsible for them, and you also have been granted the right to complain about the government. Besides, your vote only makes the difference if your state decides the election and if the state totals are tied. So what if everyone else thought that way? Less people would vote for the criminals, and the crooks would have less support. We would have at least a slightly less terrible government. But if you do vote tomorrow, don't vote for a criminal. Don't vote for an incumbent except for Ron Paul, and please try not to vote for Republicans or Democrats. However, if you do, don't complain about the terrible, corrupt government which you are responsible for selecting and empowering.

Elections, Part 4

Hallelujah! This post has been recovered after the technical error. I'm sorry for getting mad at blogger.com. So here it is again.


There's been a couple news items of interest recently. One was a teenager who was tasered to death when he was walking around carrying a Bible and a cordless phone shouting "I want Jesus!" The other was the recent exposure of Ted Haggard as a homosexual. When I read that story, I honestly was not surprised. Haggard is the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which has 30 million members. This group has strong ties to and strongly supports criminal warmongering Republicans. For an exposure of Haggard and other suspicious people at his church, see http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=bill+deagle+new+life+church+small+group&tab=Web&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-web-top&u=www.christianissues.com/letter2.html&w=bill+deagle+new+life+church+small+group&d=PmQFa5IFNqzL&icp=1&.intl=us. Remember the post about homosexuality, blackmail, and corruption? Did you read any of the posted links? Those were posted for a good reason. Also, another suspicious person at this church is Dr. Bill Deagle, mentioned in the article as prohesying the author's death, and also being kicked out of The Prophecy Club. For more info on why Dr. Deagle is a suspicious character, see http://www.erichufschmid.net/Columbine-DonnaTaylor.html and just google him. I suppose this doesn't have that much to do with elections, except for that some of the Kool-Aid Republicans who are pastors are charging that this is an attempt to sway the upcoming elections. Maybe it is. Maybe it's to send a message to the homosexuals and others under blackmail to do what they're told. Or maybe Republicans are having the carpet pulled from underneath them so that Americans will gladly elect the Democrats to enslave them. Unfortunately, the recent news has distracted me from my original objective here in this post, which was to be an assault on democracy, but unfortunately, it may have to wait a day or two.In the meantime, a you must read these most excellent articles.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/070205notfreedom.htmhttp://www.strike-the-root.com/62/davis/davis4.html

Technical Difficulties

Well, thanks to this awesome website, Elections part 4 was erased and replaced with another Part 5 due to some sort of error. The website said that the posting failed, and then immediately it posted Part 5 twice and Part 4 disappeared off the face of the earth. Great job, blogger.com. I'll try to e-mail for help to see if I can get it back, or maybe the Wayback Machine can find it, but it's probably gone for good now. Oh well. I might try to rewrite it if I can remember it.

Elections, Part 5

Glad to be back. I did indeed get distracted a couple days ago with the Haggard business, along the weird sidebar about Dr. Deagle. The election is now only two days away. I've heard that the Haggard outing and the verdict date of the Saddam trial was an attempt to influence the election, and maybe it was. After all, the voters have shown themselves to be that dumb. Have you seen the campaign ads? I don't think all that money is a complete waste, otherwise the politicians would have intelligent things to say by now. Judging by the ads, most of us are incapable of thinking and are easily swayed by ad hominem attacks and a non-existent Social Security Trust Fund. Check this out: "The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way." [Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]
Anyways, I was just pointing out that Eric Hufschmid is right about voting maybe we really are this bad. It is true that the leaders we select and their character reflect on us and our character in the same way as our purchases. Only corrupt or stupid people select and tolerate corrupt or incompetent leaders. I'd also have to say that judging by political contributions and votes, most of our officials from both parties are corrupt. Now I will finally show you why American voters are literally dumber than chimps. Now, be nice to the politicians and say that only half of them on your ballot are corrupt. Now if you send the monkeys in to vote, they randomly select the candidates. Some of the candidates would still be corrupt, but others would be from third parties, creating gridlock, and there would be many more honest officials. The monkeys would do a better job. The monkeys would disregard the incumbents and the stupid ads, and could not be manipulated by gerrymandering. So if you want to be regarded as smarter than a chimp, act like it. You can give up and quit voting because you realize that you're bad at it, and that's OK. Or you could try and do better. Don't pressure people to vote if they don't want to; that won't elect better leaders. We need less people to vote. Or maybe just smarter people. The point is I'm trying to make is that better leaders can be elected whenever people want to. You're not wasting your vote unless you're voting for a corrupt poilitician, i.e, most with an R or D. Write in somebody if you want. Or stay home. Just don't empower the criminals.

Elections, Part 3

Well, the last post on elections certainly ended on a depressing note, by just skimming some of the widespread pedophilia, hoomosexuality, and blackmail. I think another source of control in Congress should also be addressed right now. This has to do with our foreign policy, which kills innocents and steals money from the American people. Hopefully, you won't be surprised to know that your representatives and senators were probably given money by AIPAC. Here is a list of the current and lifetime contributions given by pro-Israel PACs to incumbents and challengers http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2006/0605031.html as of this June. Why is this important? Well, out of all the billions that are stolen from the American people, a couple of these go to Israel, along with all sorts of arms. Not only that, but our government constantly seems to be making trouble for Israel's enemies. We also have a substantial number of dual Israeli citizens working in our government, such as Michael Chertoff and Dov Zakheim to name a few. This is not a problem because these men are Jews, it is a problem because of Israel's treachery toward us in recent years, and I dislike those criminals that conspire to take away our liberties and make war on others. Christians like John Hagee aren't helping either when they enable and praise such abuse. Maybe we will delve into the Iran non-issue sometime. There was of course Jonathan Pollard and Larry Franklin spying for Israel, and then the 200+ "art students" deported after 9/11, including the "dancing Israelis," the Mossad agents of Urban Moving Systems in Weehawken. There were actually multiple incidents involving Israeli "movers" in their vans, often close to some sort of military or other sensitive location. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3879-2001Nov22 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/07/wspy07.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/07/ixworld.html
You can also watch the video of an investigation into the Israeli spy ring, apparently the largest spy ring ever discovered in U.S. history. Carl Cameron, of Fox News of all channels, did the investigation, and although Fox erased it from their website, others were smart enough to save it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew
There was also Governor McGreevey in New Jersey a couple years ago who had that affair with Golan Cipel, an Israeli navy veteran, who gave him the top job in the New Jersey DHS basically for sex. When this became public, McGreevey quickly resigned on grounds that he was gay (although married) and Cipel was quietly sent home to Israel. This could have prevented larger issues of corruption from being exposed, such as blackmailing of homosexuals in government, but instead, it just became another left-right fight over homosexuality. For the love of your country, please stop listening to the two branches of the same party. They are distracting you.
What does this mean? It just means that we should not regard Israel as an ally, since it seems to be spying on us and subverting our political system. Also, why should we give foreign aid to an apartheid country that steals land and kills civilians? Now I actually oppose government foreign aid to any country, as it is theft from our citizens. If you want to send your money to another country, even a racist and murdering country, go ahead. But don't force others into it. Israel is not the worst country on earth, not even close to it, but we should stop pretending that it is some bastion of peace, liberty, and prosperity. Zionism is racism, because basically, Zionists believe they have an inherent right to the land Arabs lived on for centuries, and a right to keep the Arabs out of certain areas where they can concentrate Jews. Everybody would be up in arms if blacks were again forcibly segregated in the US. All I'm aksing is that every country, America, Israel, China, etc. are held up to the same standards, which are respect for life, liberty, and property. The Arabs owe no restitution because they did not persecute the Jews in Europe. We wonder why the Arabs are mad, but we shouldn't forget that we did the same thing a few centuries ago to the natives of this land, theft and murder. I couldn't argue with the Zionists had they peacefully bought the land in a proper and libertarian manner, as the Dutch did with the island of Manhattan, but I cannot condone theft of property and murder of those who enjoy keeping their rightful property. See this article
http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html
Basically, our government needn't take sides here, and with a little intelligence, voters would not allow Israel to abuse our system. But I can't really blame Israel when our voters are so terrible. If we have bad leaders, and you voted for any of them, look no further than yourself.