Texas Secession Petition

Can this secession petition really succeed and would it really be peaceable?

I don't know. But Quebec had a cessation referendum in 1980 and 1995, the latter one failed by only 49.4% - 50.6%. Talks are still underway to allow a peaceful divorce. It is a distinct possibility.

In 2010 Texas had a candidate for governor (Larry Kilgore) who ran on an open secession platform. He also ran on secession platforms in statewide races in 2006 and 2008, garnering 225,000 votes in the latter race. Another 2010 gubernatorial candidate was on record as willing to allow a referendum vote.

In my opinion, it all depends on how many people support it. Texas is a big enough state that if enough people were to enthusiastically support it, it would be a peaceable withdrawal. By putting this type of petition on the table, we invoke the feminist conundrum. Feminism wants to empower women to make their own choices about their lives, expecting, of course, that women will chose careers, no children, and maybe marriage - or not. They are flummoxed and angered when the very women that have been empowered by the feminist machine to make those choices, use that "freedom" to chose to be mothers working at home for the good of their families.

The political establishment has long preached democracy, self-determination and self-government for nations around the world. This type of petition puts them in the same position as the feminists - if they deny it, they contradict themselves and expose their agenda, putting themselves in the the position of a repressive regime. If they grant it, we win our freedom back.
Some have wondered, should we sign this petition? Won't that put a signer on "the list"?

Yes, it might. So what? 

This is real, it is here, it is here now. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. Who knows what the Lord will be pleased to do. Our God is a mighty God. For the glory of his name he parted the Red Sea to save fewer people than than live in Houston. He would have saved Sodom for 10 righteous people. We have already witnessed the Lord work in astounding ways in our little county in the last 6 months. Are you praying for righteousness and truth to be restored in your county? The effectual fervent prayer of the righteous avails much. If so, keep praying and working. Ora et Labora.

Luther had no idea his simple act of nailing 95 technical propositions to a door for a scholarly debate would result in the Protestant Reformation. God alone knows what good will come of this petition, all we can do is obey in faith. But I do know we don't have because we do not ask.

This story has now been picked up by ABC and many others. As I write, the Texas petition has over 55,000 signatures and is gaining 5,000 votes an hour. At that rate, it would add 100,000 a day and could easily top 2 million votes by the time the petition signing window closes on Dec 9.

Although this petition is mainly symbolic and, from a legal perspective, largely meaningless, its political message to Austin (not Washington) is anything but insignificant. All governments follow the crowd. The bigger the crowd, the faster they follow. A couple million people signing a petition like this provides a footing for people to ask their state representative, "Why don't you introduce a bill to bring this referendum to a vote?" and it creates a favorable political atmosphere for such a bill. More signatures create more forward momentum that gets harder to stop as the numbers get bigger. In 1994, I saw a grass roots effort by home schooling parents shut down the US Congress over a proposed amendment to HR 6. Less than 2% of US children were home schooled at the time, yet Senators and Congressmen were tripping over themselves to get something nice into the Congressional record about it. In the days before the internet, calls on that amendment crashed the congressional switchboard generating more calls than GATT, NAFTA, and Homosexuals in the military combined. The proposed amendment failed 430+ to 1 when a few days earlier it was slated to pass by an overwhelming majority.

In addition to its political value, the petition also has practical value in that the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces. It would be nice to know if he would allow a peaceful departure or if he would use military force against people seeking to peacefully withdraw? Whether one believes his answer is, of course, an entirely different question.

Some have characterized signing this petition seeking peaceful secession for just cause as "reckless," proposing that we focus instead on Representative David Simpson's legislative efforts to enforce the 10th amendment. But why do these two courses of action have to be mutually exclusive? Supporting these efforts should not preclude peaceful calls for secession. In fact I would argue that the best help we can give to Rep. Simpson's efforts to enforce the 10th Amendment is to get a million signatures on this secession petition. That tells Austin we are serious, that we fear God more than we fear them or Washington, that we are willing to risk our security for our liberty, and that we expect them to actually enact legislation with teeth.

The fact that many are not signing the petition, fearing ridicule or even retaliation by the same parties perpetrating the abuse that gave rise to the petition, indicates how close we have come to being an enslaved nation. Every nation will always have some who are paralyzed by these fears. But the presence of this fear in a majority is what distinguishes a free people from an enslaved people. When people fear God more than they fear men, and are willing to say, like Patrick Henry, I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death, they will be free. Those who value safety and security above liberty get neither.

We need Godly men encouraging the weak and fearful to be courageous, to fear God rather than men, and to be willing to stand up and be counted with the 100,000 others already on record as standing against tyranny.
Revised 11/13/2012

Read My Lips

As the bombs started falling in Iraq, President George H W Bush told the American people in a televised speech, January 16, 1991,

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.

Now just what was the promise and vision of the founders of the United Nations that the President claims we are close to implementing?

One logical place to start in answering this question would be the charter of the United Nations. Charters are where founders often tell the world their hopes and vision for the new society they seek to establish.

In Article 43 of the UN charter we read,

Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

This means the military forces of the United States, which exist for our common defense and will expend the lives of our own sons, are in fact under the beck and call of unelected aliens who can use them as they see fit. In light of this, it would seem that we should stop referring to the President as the Commander-in-Chief. According to Article 46, the command function of our armed forces is now handled by the UN Security Council with the help of a committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

If the UN can direct the deployment our armed forces, even requiring rights of passage through our territorial jurisdiction, can we even call ourselves an “independent country” anymore? If the UN can order UN members China and Finland to station troops in Omaha, Nebraska in order to maintain peace and security, how are we any different than occupied Japan in 1946?

To add insult to injury, not only do American soldiers have to jump at the UN’s direction, they have to jump and jump right away. Article 45 requires members to hold national air force contingents immediately available for international enforcement actions.

Maybe you are having a hard time swallowing the implications of this treaty of which the US has been a signatory since WW2. Does the United States really believe this? Have our Presidents actually allowed the UN to command our troops?

The answer is not only yes, but yes, they have done all they can to further this vision. In a keynote address to the UN on September 25,1961 President Kennedy proclaimed his undying loyalty to the vision of the UN founders in these words,

 And as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war. …

This will require new strength and new roles for the United Nations. For disarmament without checks is but a shadow--and a community without law is but a shell.

… the recent Belgrade Conference … endorsed a program of "general, complete and strictly an internationally controlled disarmament." It is in this same spirit that we in the United States have labored this year, with a new urgency, and with a new, now statutory agency fully endorsed by the Congress, to find an approach to disarmament which would be so far-reaching, yet realistic, so mutually balanced and beneficial, that it could be accepted by every nation….

The program to be presented to this assembly--for general and complete disarmament under effective international control--moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. …

It [i.e. this Plan] would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. [Emphasis added]

I therefore propose on the basis of this Plan, that disarmament negotiations resume promptly, and continue without interruption until an entire program for general and complete disarmament has not only been agreed but has actually been achieved. …

The plan to which President Kennedy repeatedly refers was released as Department of State Publication 7277, titled, Freedom From War:The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a PeacefulWorld.

If you are unfamiliar with this program, maybe you just forgot to follow President Bush’s infamous admonition to the American people, “Read my lips.” Click here (or the video below) to do so.



 
By continuing to do many of the same things as President GW Bush, Obama angered many of his strongest supporters. They could not understand why he broke his campaign promises to them.  The reason he broke his campaign promises and has continued doing the same things President Bush was doing is because he is following the same agenda as President Bush was following. As President, Romney has indicated he will also follow the same agenda. He supports the Patriot Act, NDAA, foreign wars, the Federal Reserve, unions of homosexual fornicators, and the murder of some babies. 

Every president since Calvin Coolidge has followed this same agenda, some more and some less willingly than others. Every President since Truman (yes even Reagan - remember Beruit?) has committed troops under the auspices of the UN. US troops have served under foreign command wearing foreign uniforms (Remember Michael New ?) since President Bush. 

In all likelihood, the next step in implementing this agenda is stationing foreign troops on US soil. OSCE, a regional "UN group" has already been monitoring US elections since 2002. While it is encouraging to learn that they encountered some resistance trying to station foreign observers in Texas polls next week, this is just lip service to placate the naive just like their "support" of the Rep. David Simpson's TSA Anti-groping bill.  If Romney were planning to follow a different agenda in his presidency, he would be supporting Attorney General Greg Abbott. He would be speaking out against the advancement of this agenda, like Ron Paul has consistently done. The fact that he is completely silent on this matter is good evidence that his principles are not based on the constitution or the Truth of God's law. 

A vote for Romney is a vote to continue the exact same course we have been on the past 4 years.

If Two Men Go Into the Woods Without a Police Officer, How Many Will Come Out Alive?

With this question, Mark R. Crovelli opened a persuasively argued and brilliantly illustrated volley against the Biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man in which he rightly painted Thomas Hobbes' view of the civil magistrate as immoral tyranny. 

While Hobbes may not get total depravity exactly right, he is partially right in that man is by nature wicked and if left to his own devices, he will act in all the depraved ways Hobbes describes. But Hobbes is significantly wrong in seeing the power of the civil magistrate as a human power and thinking it can restrain sin apart from the grace of God. The civil magistrate conceived in Hobbes mind ignores God and his law and thus only replaces the decentralized corruption, depravity, and violence of the people with their own centralized corruption, depravity, and violence.  Far from restraining sin, Hobbes’ civil magistrate is an engine of evil, significantly exacerbating injustice and  oppression. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2 

According to scripture, there is no liberty apart from obedience to the law of God. Perfect liberty is perfect obedience to the law of God. (See this article for a fuller discussion.) Because Hobbes denies God’s law, his civil government can at best trade liberty for security. To the extent any government infringes liberty, it is tyrannical. It is never lawful or moral to infringe liberty. At times my will may be infringed by righteous laws, but in those instances it is my sinful desires that are being infringed, not my liberty. It makes no more sense to infringe liberty for the sake of security or societal stability than it does to poison your food for the sake of your health. If the “poison” improves your health, it’s not poison. We were told airport scanners are analogous to cutting off a gangrenous toe to preserve the rest of the body. But the point of that operation is to cut off gangrene. Airport scanners are like cutting off a good toe so that it doesn't get gangrene – something no lawful doctor would ever do.” (Quoted from here.)

On the other hand Crovelli is very wrong in his view of man as basically good. It is a flat contradiction of scripture (e.g. Rom 3). Pointing to a peaceful day on the Colorado range with some gun toting friends as an example of man’s basically good nature is as naïve and ungrateful as eating a scrumptious Thanksgiving feast and then supposing that the food must have cooked itself because there was no cook in the field of view.  It is the progressive success of the kingdom of God that men’s hearts are brought into submission to the law of God regarding the preservation of their neighbor’s life. This came through the preaching of the gospel over the past five hundred years. Even though his friends may have no knowledge of Jesus Christ, those men were enjoying the fruit of gospel as it has transformed our culture and law.  Men with changed hearts established laws for our body politic that upheld marriage, family wealth (inheritance laws),  industry (laws on theft), truth and so on. This is often referred to as God’s common grace.  These are the crumbs that fall to the dogs from the children at the table.  As our culture has substituted the laws of sinful men for the perfect law of God, we have seen exponential increases in crime. But even today, God’s restraint of sin through the means he has ordained is very great. All men would be wise to acknowledge this as the work of God’s grace and thank him for his restraint of sin. “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Romans 1:21. Kiss the Son lest you perish in his wrath. Psalm 2:12

The rainbow is the sign of God's covenant never to destroy the earth again with a flood. As long as earth remains, seed time and harvest, summer and winter, hot and cold, day and night will not cease. Implicit in this promise to sustain the earth is the promise to restrain the wickedness of man so that God's justice does not require a temporal judgment so severe as to destroy the earth. Concurrent with this promise in Genesis 8 is the command for men to shed the blood of those who shed human blood. With this authority  God established the means through which he would accomplish this restraint of evil. 

Anyone who thinks this authority unnecessary has no more wisdom or foresight than a pilot who thinks airplane engines are not necessary to sustain flight.  

Covenanted Christian Voting

• Do you believe God has given us commandments and principles concerning voting in the Bible?
• Are you committed to obeying those commands regarding voting?
• Do you believe we should obey God and leave the consequences of our obedience to him?
• Do you choose candidates first on Biblical principles and only secondarily on pragmatic concerns?
• Do you believe the Bible provides qualifications for civil rulers?
• Would you like to see the church of Jesus Christ speak with one voice?

If so, then you may be interested in covenanting together with us to vote in unison for a qualified candidate.

A Biblically Qualified Candidate
We believe the following scriptures, among others, provide qualifications for civil rulers. Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Deuteronomy 17:15-19, and Proverbs 31:4-5.
Exodus 18:21 requires civil rulers to be able or capable men of truth who fear God and hate covetousness.
Deuteronomy 16:18-19 requires that a civil ruler judge justly and not take bribes or be a respecter of persons.
Deuteronomy 17:15-19 requires that civil rulers be natural born citizens and be knowledgeable concerning the law of God. It forbids them from multiplying horses.
Proverbs 31:4-5 teaches us that wine and strong drink are not for civil magistrates.From these passages we can form a composite picture of a qualified candidate:

1. A civil ruler should be a male born in this country.
2. A civil ruler should have a basic understanding of law of God and the US Constitution. While many evils in our land can’t be eradicated in one term, his solutions should apply Biblical wisdom so as to bring the wheel over more evil and increase the number of well doers who are encouraged and rewarded consistent with enumerated powers in the Constitution.
3. A civil ruler should speak the truth. This means he will call abortion and unjust war, murder; homosexual fornication, sin, and fractional reserve banking and tax based welfare, theft. It also means he will warn the people that the practice of these sins will bring God’s wrath on the land.
4. A civil ruler must be capable, having demonstrated the ability to successfully rule one or more organizations.
5. A qualified candidate will not be without weaknesses. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah are all called good kings by God. Yet significant sins are recorded of each of them.

Issues for the 2012 Elections
The following issues are deemed to be significant issues of the day and will be used as the criteria for evaluation of candidates.
Abortion – must believe that anything done with the intent to kill an unborn baby is murder. Acceptable solutions would include removing state abortion laws from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Wars of Aggression – must recognize foreign dominion as a sign of judgment and seek to extricate the US from all treaties that cede authority over the US to any party other than duly elected officers in offices established by the Constitution and under oath to uphold the Constitution.  Should seek to end all foreign wars of aggression, collapse the US Empire, and bring US soldiers home.
Federal Reserve – must understand the threat this corporation poses to our well-being and seek to revoke their charter, including any intermediate steps to reduce their power and obscurity.
Federal Spending – must have a plan to balance the Federal budget within his first term and eliminate Federal departments that are not authorized by the Constitution (e.g. Education, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation). Must recognize existing tax rates are too high.
Homosexual fornication – must believe homosexual fornication to be heinous sin and seek to criminalize this activity wherever the federal government has Constitutional jurisdiction – i.e. armed forces, Washington, DC.
Constitution – must believe the constitution to be the law of the land and be committed to rescinding all existing legislation and vetoing all new legislation in violation of this law.

Party vs. Covenanted Voters
The big difference between this concept and a party is how a person becomes a candidate. With a party a person declares himself a candidate and then tries to accumulate money, often prostituting himself in the process. The candidate then persuades people to vote for him. With covenanted voters, the people persuade a person to be a candidate. The candidate does not need to raise money, because he is not trying to persuade anyone to vote for him. He can spend his time developing real solutions to the problems that face the nation and using whatever stumping opportunities are given to him to present these ideas. Any resources to get someone elected are spent directly by the people who are seeking to elect the candidate.

The goal is not to debate who is the "best" possible candidate. The goal is to find a candidate who meets the prescribed qualifications and is willing to accept the responsibility of ruling. Any candidate, meeting the legal requirements for office, for whom people are able to vote is electable. Whether or not the majority of people in a wicked land would ever be willing to vote for such a person is really irrelevant to our duty of choosing qualified men to rule.
This approach allows a candidate to obey the injunction in Deuteronomy 17:17 (“…neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”) against accumulating money. It would seem this principle is violated when the first action a candidate takes is to raise as much money as possible.
It is expected people in each state will use their write-in process to get their write in votes counted. In most cases, these are quite simple. In Texas for example, it only takes 34 signatures to get on the write-in ballot. In North Dakota, only three and the filing deadline is mid-October. See the (http://writein2008.blogspot.com/) for details on individual state laws.

Wooden Ballot box used in the northeast US c1870

Thoughts?

Should We Use OT Laws in Ethical Decisions Today?

In most ethical debates, the question causing debate is often not what the law means or how it should be applied, but rather what is the law that should be applied.

Even among Christians, who all recognize Jesus Christ as the King of Kings, there is significant disagreement about which of the many words that he has spoken are applicable in any given situation and which are not. One doesn’t have to listen to this debate very long before hearing the assertion, “We are not under law, but under grace.”  In fact, these words themselves are part of the law of God. (“…for you are not under law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14b)

What do they mean? To answer that question, let’s begin by defining the terms, particularly the terms under and law. In the Bible, Law is used in several different ways. It can refer to:

Since this article is much longer than a normal post and formatting is tedious on the web, the rest of the article here (where formatting is much easier).

Pro Life with No Exceptions?

Pro Life with No Exceptions? What about ectopic pregnancies?
Yes, there are no known cases of a pregnancy in the fallopian tube surviving, but spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy does occur frequently. But even if it doesn't, while treatment of the mother is absolutely necessary to save her life, murder of the unborn baby is never right or necessary. If this doesn't make sense, these doctors explain and illustrate this principle very well.  Official Position of Pro Life Physicians on ectopic pregnancies

This site provides a number of examples where mother and baby have survived ectopic pregnancies.  Survival of ectopic pregnancy

Truth From Russia? On Pragmatic Voting?

Why post a Russian's observations on this year's American presidential election? Because sometimes what's not so obvious to those of us in the middle of something is to those looking on from outside:

"And so we come to the case of the actual elections, or rather the mock elections. Once more, as has been the road show every 4 years for the past 24 years, Americans are given the choice between two muppet clones, presented to them by the two wings (Democrats and Republicans) of the One American Party of Oligarchs.
This year, more so than any other year, the two candidates have never been so much alike. In truth, what is the difference between the Muslim half Arab and the Mormon? Nothing. Both are war mongering socialists, running a bankrupt gangster war state. Both hold real Christianity in contempt at best and outright hostility at worst. Both are happy to promote filth and homosexuality to destroy what little Christianity is left in America and export this evil. Both are quite happy to empower one Islamic regime after another to murder Christians.
What is the difference that would make Americans ready to fight each other in the elections? Ready to beat each other's faces in? What? Why simply one has a D and the other an R and we all know that for bread and circuses to work, the circus has to be filled with blood." - Stanislav Mishin, August 12, 2012

Taking America back, Turning this country around, and whatever else conservatives are hoping to do in this election won't happen by voting for the "lesser of two evils" or by the victory of one socialist over another socialist, or even by the victory of a capitalist over a socialist. The liberty that conservatives are seeking to restore flows from obedience to King Jesus and his Word.  Far more important than whether a particular party wins is whether your vote for a particular candidate is obedient to scripture.  Far more significant as an indicator of progress is how many people obey scripture and remove their children from the idolatrous government school than how many people are voting for Romney. Far more important in restoring political liberty is how many Christians in the jury box obey God rather than men and refuse to convict people who have done no wrong.

Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than removing Obama, and to hearken than a Republican senate.

You Didn't Build That!

Obama's recent remark about successful Americans has stuck a nerve, spawning reams of replies.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back," the president said. "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen," he said. "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

But what's sparking this reply is not so much his remark as the responses of many who are rightly critical of his theology, but not critical enough. Are businesses helped by roads, the rule of law, and other government provided infrastructure? Does this mean that the government should get some (very small) amount of credit for helping people build their business? Not at all. 
Courts, police, firemen, and roads are all paid for by people who build things and do things to provide goods and services. The  just marketplace enforced by courts (obviously very imperfectly today) is a direct result of the labor of people who build things and do things. It's their labor that generates the money to fund these services. Roads, bridges, and Intellectual property (IP) enforcement are all provided by the labor of working people. In fact, in a just society, any benefit they derive from these services is less than the cost they pay because the people who build things and do things provide these services not just to themselves but to all the other people who are too old, or too young, or too sick, or too lazy to provide these things for themselves.

"But," a typical Obama defender replies, "the point Obama was making is that the business did not have to build the road. Other people built the road." True, but irrelevant to this discussion. Suppose a growing business erects a building - did they mine the ore and make the steel? Did they grow the trees and make the lumber? No, of course not. But they still built the building - all by themselves. It was their capital that funded the labor of all the other people that did do those jobs. That's why the Business owns the building at the end, not the smelter or the sawmill. The same is true of infrastructure. If there is anyone to thank, it is the generations of laborers who went before us, not the government.

This is not to deny that there are many who live off the labor of others - from big businesses to welfare recipients. But even these freeloaders are living off of the backs of those who build things and do things - not the government. The government can only give people what it first took from them. Anything the government provides comes from the labor of working people. If Obama's logic, that successful people owe a part of their success to the government, was correct, a thief who robbed a store at gunpoint of $10,000 and then gave back $9,000 to the store, would become partly responsible for the success of the store. 

Even if the Government acted like that thief, confiscating the fruit of our labor and using the funds to help us, it would not validate Obama's claim that we didn't build our businesses solely by our labor. But the situation is actually even worse. Congress and Executive office, enabled by the courts, take our wealth from us and use it to destroy us. They are like the thief who steals $10,000 from the store and then uses it to hire vandals to throw rocks through the store windows or hackers to crash their computer system. 

But there's a second area where Obama is dead wrong,  He's actually right about the fact that people have not gotten wealthy because they were so smart. But he's dead wrong about how they did get wealthy. No, they didn't get wealthy because they were so smart or because they were helped by government funded education or enabled by the "great American system." In fact Scripture directly warns against such thinking. 

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: 

Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 

Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end;

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth.

But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. Deuteronomy 8:11-18.

If you have be acquired wealth, it is because the Lord has favored you and has been gracious toward you, giving you something you did not deserve.
Do you thank him for this goodness and use his gifts for the advancement of his kingdom?

Romney and Obama - No Difference!

This is a good comparison showing that there is no substantive difference between Romney and Obama. In other words, it doesn't matter which of the two gets elected. Go vote for a good third party candidate and sleep well at night knowing you've done something honorable and useful instead of selling your children into slavery.

Is Ron Paul Pro-Life?

I periodically get emails from Christians claiming that Ron Paul is not pro-Life because he just:

• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) or
• Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) or
• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) or
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) or
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) or
• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999).

The latest such claim was that he does not care about moral issues because he just voted to allow people to abort their babies if they are the wrong gender - HR 3541. So once again, I dug out the law to see if in fact Ron Paul had made a bad vote. After reading the bill (copy here), I would have to agree once again with Dr. Paul. It’s an atrocious bill for a number of reasons. To be fair, I have found a couple times where he voted contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution, but not this time. First, it’s based on the politically correct notion of preventing sex and racial discrimination.  The bill reads:

• (B) United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimination in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.) …. (C) A `race-selection abortion' is an abortion performed for purposes of eliminating an unborn child because the child or a parent of the child is of an undesired race. Race-selection abortion is barbaric, and described by civil rights advocates as an act of race-based violence, predicated on race discrimination. By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the health of mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias.

This is a terrible basis for any law. Race selection abortion is barbaric because abortion itself is barbaric. Discrimination, on the other hand, is inevitable. It is impossible to live and not discriminate. I am not condoning race discrimination. I am just saying we should not have laws barring discrimination. For example, if someone is denied the right to vote because they are black, the crime is that a qualified voter was denied the right to vote - not that someone discriminated. Anyone who does that for any reason should be horsewhipped and forever barred from ever being an election official. If a state insists on outlawing black people from voting, the proper response is to expel that state from the Union. That preserves our Constitutional republic and disassociates us from reprehensible conduct. Meddling in the states' business undermines our Constitution and the country it established. But I digress.

Second, this bill is unconstitutional  because it usurps power that is retained to the states and has never been given to the Federal Government. The Federal government does not have jurisdiction over murder, which is what abortion is. This bill tries to assert authority based on the commerce clause – See Section 2(b) – as if the abortion industry was a type of interstate commerce to be regulated like the shipment of potatoes. Well, actually we know that the abortion industry does engage in interstate commerce and is tied to interstate sex trafficking. But that’s a great tragedy. To pass a bill based on their authority to regulate interstate commerce and allow the underlying industry to continue, is to implicitly sanction the underlying industry. 

Third, it claims that few states outlaw sex or race selection abortions. But that's a red herring. The real problem is many states which used to outlaw abortion no longer do. Our 2003 legislature in Texas (Republican controlled house) specifically voted to exclude abortions for profit from capitol murder by adding Sect 19.06 to the Penal Code. 

That would have been the place to get a good pro-life bill with some teeth. Instead "pro-life" Republicans changed the law to specifically exclude doctors who are performing a “medical procedure for profit where the death of the baby is the intended result “ from prosecution for capital murder.  A lot of so-called “pro life” people voted for that bill (HB246). Until we fix state law, violating the Constitution only undermines our Republic without stopping abortion.

The biggest problem with the bill, legally speaking, is that it tries to criminalize thoughts – like hate crime legislation.  It should criminalize abortion (but even that still runs afoul of #2). It is a meaningless bill that would do absolutely nothing to reduce abortions even if it were passed. Abortion providers would simply tell people who wanted an abortion because of the baby's gender to "pick another reason." This bill only exists to allow political actors to energize their base by voting for or against an abortion bill.

I would have voted against this bill too.  

On the other hand, if pro-lifers really wanted to do something to stop abortion, it would be very easy for our super majority republican legislature to outlaw abortion – just repeal section 19.06 of the Texas Penal code which was added in 2003. 

My question is, "Why, if we have so many pro life people in our legislature, aren’t they voting to do so?" If Ron Paul were in the TX house, I suspect, based on his record in Congress, that he would be submitting a bill every session to do just this, whether it went anywhere or not.  This is not to say that  Ron Paul hasn’t made some bad votes. I know of two very bad votes this session and there may be others. But I don’t think this is one of them.

Here's Dr. Paul's statement on why he did not support his bill. He reasoning is sound and has nothing to do with supporting abortion. 

Mr. Speaker, as an Ob-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different sex.

However, I cannot support HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the states in the Roe V. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a federal issue.
I also cannot support HR 3541 because it creates yet another set of federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting.  All other criminal matters are expressly left to states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by states rather than Congress.
I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe V. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the states and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a "politically incorrect" reason for special federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a federal law prohibiting "sex selection" abortions and federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or sex.

I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying "It is a violation of federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' sex.  Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under federal law."

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe V. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the states.

Wal-Mart vs. Washington, D.C.

I didn't write this (it was anonymously posted on the internet) and I haven't checked all the numbers, but they look about right and they don't directly affect the point.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined,
and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am anti-capitalism, but actually I am laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
Dear Washington D. C.,

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right;

$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more..

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have attempted. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ??  It is obvious that the majority of Washington D.C. is corrupt.

A Comparison of the Biblical and Libertarian Philosophy of Government

What is the source of liberty?

Is liberty based on the principle of self ownership?

By what authority do we take the life of a murderer? a homosexual fornicator?

While Christians and Libertarians often agree on many things in the practice of government, we do so from a vastly different foundation because we have a markedly divergent view of authority.

See where we differ and why in this side by side comparison.

Samuel Rutherford, Author of Lex Rex

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

Some Help For FOX News

Dear Fox News,

I saw recently that you were asking where Ron Paul was. Wanting to lend a humanitarian hand to help you find this missing person, I took some time to look for him. Having found him very quickly, I thought I should pass along my missing person techniques so that, if you so desire, you could train your reporters how to locate successful presidential candidates as they speak to very large and very loud crowds.

1. First, I googled "Ron Paul Texas" since I live in Texas and don't have a large expense account.
    
2. I then inspected all the links that Google found relating to Ron Paul speaking and selected the closest one- about an hour away.
    
3. I then wrote down the address, located it on an online map, got in my car, and drove to the address.
    
4.  Here is where amazing things started happening. Signs started appearing on the road pointing the way to Ron Paul. When I arrived and parked the car, there were streams of people pouring into a building nearby. Although I wasn't familiar with these buildings, AMAZINGLY, nearly everyone was carrying signs with Ron Paul's name and picture on them. I guess they wanted to make sure they would remember who they were going to see and would recognize him when he showed up. From this point on it would have been hard not to find RP.  I just followed the crowd to a seat and there was Ron Paul.

Now, I never had any training in investigative journalism, but I am sure that if these techniques are studied and mastered by your investigative journalists, they won't have any more trouble in the future finding Ron Paul or other liberty minded people. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Lending A. Hand

PS. Since your journalists, not being able to find Ron Paul, were probably not able to obtain a picture of this big event, please feel free to use the following picture which I took. Sorry my camera is not the best.

My first thought on seeing the World Trade Towers fall on live television was "That is without doubt a controlled demolition." I'd seen enough video to recognize a building free falling into its own footprint when I saw it. However I didn't have the engineering data or experience to prove it. But here's a credible expert witness who does.



For those who prefer to see the experimental data backing up Richard Gage, here it is. Actually this guy deserves a medal for investigative engineering. He's managed to do outside his field of expertise what a whole passel government scientists working inside their specialty could not do.

Political Corruption Blown Away (1946)

Political corruption is, of course, not new. The difference between today and previous generations is how it was dealt with.

Ray Comfort Tongue Ties a Psychiatrist

Some candid revelations from a pro-abortion psychiatrist.

• A liar, thief, blasphemer, and adulterer is a good person. (Ted Bundy's mother thought he was basically a good person too.)
• A baby becomes a person somewhere around the 5th week because that's when the heart starts beating.

Is Ron Paul Too Eccentric on the Importance of State Sovereignty?

This was posted earlier, but has been substantially lengthened.

"It was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation ... would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself. Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger."

Those are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in a speech delivered March 2, 1930 while governor of NY as printed on the front page of the NY Times on March 3. He obviously didn't go on to govern by those words once elected President, but that's the message he campaigned on because that is what Americans believed and that's what he had to say to get elected.

Ron Paul's opposition to federal amendments regarding marriage and abortion is consistent with the historic understanding of the proper role of the federal government. Simply put, the federal government has no authority in these matters. The 10th Amendment is very clear that the federal congress has no authority except what is explicitly delegated to it by the states in the constitution. Any power not delegated to the federal government is retained by the states and the people. Clearly, one cannot delegate power to those who are higher in the chain of command. Powers can only be delegated to those who are lower in the chain of command. In both the language and intent, the 10the Amendment clearly establishes that the federal government is UNDER the states.

But in the country in which we live today, this has been completely reversed in most people's thinking. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been used to dismantle our republic and the 10th Amendment that guaranteed it and to set up a central government. And as FDR so accurately predicted in 1930, it has brought about a government by oligarchy.

How did the federal government justify blocking enforcement of Texas' anti-abortion statute in Roe v. Wade? 14th Amendment  substantive due process. How did it block Texas' anti-sodomy statute in Lawrence? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why can a child get an abortion without her parents knowledge, but not get her ears pierced without their consent? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why could they stop all state executions? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why can't states outlaw pornography? You guessed it - 14th Amendment substantive due process. (See http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mike-farris-claims-ron-paul-bad-on-homeschooling/ for a much fuller discussion on this point.)

Big government "liberals" have long used the due process of 14th Amendment as a club to force all the states under the tyranny of the federal government. Many conservatives have cried foul, but not because of the abuse of the function of the federal government. They cried foul because they didn't like what they were being forced to do. But when big government "conservatives" have gotten a chance they have used the same club to force states to act according to their wishes. Their actions have had the same disastrous effects on liberty and on the health of our republic as the big government "liberals".  The Bill of Rights was meant to secure our liberty by restricting the federal government from imposing it's desires on the states. Notice, the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...". States were completely free to pass laws respecting the establishment of a religion, and several, including Massachusetts did. We have allowed the federal government to dictate to the states because we liked the policy they were imposing - black slaves are people too, don't drink alcohol (remember prohibition!), etc - but as soon as they started dictating policies we didn't like we start crying foul! We want the federal government out of our lives.But we can't have it both ways. Concentrated power corrupts. Like fornication, no man can withstand the temptation of concentrated power. The only answer is to flee from it.

Not only is Ron Paul's position regarding an anti-sodomy marriage amendment or federal legislation on prostitution Biblical, his position is also the historical position enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Passing these types of amendments will lead us yet one more step away from a republic of free people and 1 step closer to totalitarian slavery. Offered to a gullible nation in the name of stopping great evils, anti-abortion and anti-sodomy marriage amendments are a Trojan horse offered to the "Conservative Right" to destroy the fabric of our federal republic. Climate change and environmentalism are two Trojan horses offered to the "Liberal Left." It doesn't matter whether the Conservatives win or the Liberals win. As long as one group wins, the complete eradication of state sovereignty is ensured. Once the sovereignty of states has been undermined, there will be nothing standing in the way of the complete overthrow of our freedom and entire way of life.

Nevertheless, conservatives inevitably recoil in horror when they hear Ron Paul speak, thinking he wants to legalize sodomy, prostitution, drugs, and so on. But that misses the point of his argument and position. The point is that the federal government has no jurisdiction in those matters. The states have jurisdiction in those matters and that is where such laws need to be passed. You might think of it this way. Suppose your next door neighbors let their children eat candy and drink soda all day, watch unlimited TV every day, and stay up to midnight every night. Big government conservatives are like those who would seek to impose their own "good" rules on their neighbor's lives in order to correct such unhealthy behavior. Small government people like Ron Paul recognize that they have no jurisdiction over their neighbor's lives and don't attempt to regulate them. But refusing to regulate one's neighbors, because one has no jurisdiction to do so, is very different than believing that children ought to eat candy and watch TV all day.

It's a fair question to ask why it makes any difference if,  for example, prostitution is legislated at the state or federal level. How does the federal arrangement originally intended in the Constitution preserve freedom in a way that a centralized national government cannot? This was precisely the main issue debated between the federalists and the anti-federalists. (Actually those terms are a bit of a misnomer. The so-called federalist are more accurately described as supporters of a supreme central government over the states while the anti-federalists are more properly called "Federalists" in that they believed in a federal government to whom the states delegated certain limited powers.) This is most clearly seen in the resolution initially laid on the table at the start of the Constitutional Convention. According to Robert Yate's minutes, the first resolutions to be discussed were:

1. Resolved, That a union of the states, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.


2. Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the states, as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, liberty, or welfare.


3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." (Jonathan Elliot's Debates,  Vol 1, 1876. p391)

Thankfully the anti-federalists (who wanted a federal government) carried the day and we got a federal government (mostly), contrary to the wishes of a the Federalists who thought a federal union of sovereign states would not accomplish the objective of peace and security for the country.

The Anti-Federalists' reasoning which, tragically for us, has proven to be correct is:

1. That a central government was too far removed from the local region over which it was legislating, 
2. That laws need to be tailored to specific situations in order to be fair,
3. That representation at a national level was too dilute and thus unable to represent the many contours of the people, and 
4. Most importantly, that it did not allow for a good division of power. 

If a state passes tyrannical laws, people can easily move to another state. I moved to Texas because I did not want to live under the draconian homeschool laws of Ohio and Pennsylvania. If we had one national law, I would not have been able to do that.

We have a problem today with a tyrannical out-of-control federal government. Giving it more unconstitutional power, regardless of how well intentioned the supporting policy is, will only make our problems worse. This is what the anti-federalists understood, what FDR understood (although he used that knowledge to defeat freedom), and what Ron Paul understands so well. That's why he has so many enthusiastic supporters among common people, why he is bringing so many people back to the ballot box who had given up on politics years ago, and why he is so hated by the big government power brokers - be they "Conservative" or "Liberal."

Discussions of some of Ron Paul's positions from a Biblical perspective are here and here.

Coulter's Biting Satire Leaves Toothmarks In Her Own Tail

The main job of liberals like Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, and Michael Moore is to keep the liberals convinced that knuckle-dragging Republicans are responsible for everything that's wrong with America and that the solution is replacing them with intelligent Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job. On the other hand, the main job of Conservatives like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Mark Levin, and Michelle Malkin is to keep conservatives convinced that evil, God-hating Democrats are responsible for all that's wrong with America and that the solution is to elect good Christian Republicans.[i] Unfortunately for us, they too seem to be doing a snow-white job – or a white snow job depending on one’s perspective. Ann’s recent hit piece on Ron Paul in her Human Events article, Get Rid of Government, But First Make Me President, illustrates the extent to which these disinformers will bend logic and make fools of themselves in order to accomplish their purpose.

Now I don’t think Ann is all bad – she has an unquestionably sharp wit – but she commits a logical blunder of the first order when she attempts to go from Ron Paul’s statement

“I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church"

to

“If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? … Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicarebenefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry?”

This is a classic non sequitur. Registering a marriage is different than granting a license. You can have a requirement to register a marriage without having a requirement to get a license. It’s just like having a baby. A license is not required to have a baby, but the law does require the birth to be registered after the fact.

By definition, a license grants permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. (Bouvier’s Law dictionary defines a LICENSE as, “A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. VideAyl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.”)

When a couple requests a marriage license, they are entering into a 3 way contract with the state. This is explicitly stated in some state laws and acknowledged in many other places. For example see the first page of the Family Law manual produced by the Ohio Bar Association below. Or read the anecdotal, and possibly apocryphal, conversation that Virgil Cooper had with a clerk in the Maricopa County courthouse in Arizona that explains the implications of the fact that a marriage license from the state makes the state a party to the marriage.

Published by the Ohio Bar Association

All of the questions Ann Coulter raises about divorce, adoption,inheritance etc. were answered long ago. This country ran just fine for the first 250 years of its existence with the very situation she is mocking. Marriage licenses are relatively recent in history of the US, becoming commonplace only in the early 20^th century. The absence of a state issued marriage license in no way prevents the state from requiring that prospective adoptive parents be a married man and woman. What’s more, eliminating the necessity of asking the state’s permission to marry in no way diminishes the ability of a married couple to establish that they are married. It can be established the same way any other contract is established. Below is copy of the 1856 marriage covenant from my great, great grandparents. It is not a state issued document and it says nothing about it being a license, but it’s proof based on multiple witnesses that they were married.

In making irrational and ludicrous statements like: “Libertarians would be better off spearheading a movement to get rid of stop signs than to get rid of officially sanctioned marriage. A world without government stop signs would be safer than a world without government marriage." Ann is not only showing her us her juvenile reasoning ability, she is also, by implication,calling Blackstone a fool.

According to my 1915 US edition of his Commentary on the Laws of England, Blackstone said of marriage, “Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriage as a sin, but merely a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore or annulling of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is in the province of the spiritual courts which act for the welfare of the soul. And taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties as the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract;secondly, able to contract; and lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.” [Chapter 15, §533,Vol. 1] Emphasis mine.

The editor of the edition I have ( William Carey Jones, Director of the School of Jurisprudence, University of California ) says in the footnotes that “the law gives no action to the wife or child, directly, for any breach of the husband’s or the parent’s duty,” although it might punish a parent for neglect. In other words the state had no authority to interfere in a private contract unless there was a crime being committed.

When Ann states: