Leaked UN Documents Reveal Plan For “Green World Order” By 2012

Leaked UN Documents Reveal Plan For “Green World Order” By 2012
Massive $45 trillion transfer of wealth to fund creation of “global governance structure”

Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Friday, February 26, 2010



Leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power, crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again.

As we warned at the time, the failure of Copenhagen in December did not spell the end of the global warming heist, but merely a roadblock in the UN’s agenda to create a world government funded by taxes paid by you on the very substance you exhale – carbon dioxide.

Using the justification of the vehemently debunked hoax that carbon dioxide is a deadly threat to the planet, the UN is already working to resurrect the failed Copenhagen agreement, with a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June.

Leaked planning documents (PDF) obtained by Fox News lift the lid on the UN’s plan to impose global governance by the time of their 2012 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio, which will mark the 20th anniversary since the notorious “Earth Summit” held in the same city.

“The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a “focused political document” presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order,” reports Fox News’ George Russell.

“Just exactly what that environmental order will look like, and the extent of the immense financial commitments needed to produce it, are under discussion this week at a special session in Bali, Indonesia, of the United Nations Environment Program’s 58-nation “Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum,” which oversees UNEP’s operations.”

The document outlines the globalist’s mission to enact a “radical transformation of the world economic and social order” by putting “a new treaty in place as the capstone of the Green World Order”.

This system will be managed by “an additional governing structure composed of exactly those insiders,” writes Russell.

“Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities,” states the white paper (emphasis mine).

The imposition of such “global governance structures” will be achieved with the help of “vast wealth transfers” from richer countries (in the form of carbon taxes levied on citizens) to poorer nations, amounting to no less than $45 trillion dollars. The paper also outlines the need to change the “consumption patterns” of people living in richer countries, which undoubtedly is a euphemism for lowering living standards.

The policy proposes that the old economic model be discarded in pursuit of a new global green economy focused around “green jobs”.

As we have previously highlighted, the promise that the creation of “green jobs” will offset the inevitable damage to the economy that a 50 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will cause is a complete fallacy.

The implementation of so-called “green jobs” in other countries has devastated economies and cost millions of jobs. As the Seattle Times reported back in June, Spain’s staggering unemployment rate of over 18 per cent was partly down to massive job losses as a result of attempts to replace existing industry with wind farms and other forms of alternative energy.

In a so-called “green economy,” “Each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital,” states the report.

As we have documented, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 50-80 per cent would inflict a new great depression in the United States, reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

The UN’s mission to create a legally binding treaty on the reduction of CO2 emissions is running parallel with measures already being enforced at state level in the U.S. which bypass stuttering federal efforts to impose the cap and trade fraud.

The very foundation of the global warming argument has been completely eviscerated by the Climategate scandal, which proved that United Nations IPCC scientists forged and exaggerated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures while engaging in witch hunts to cull dissenting opinions from appearing in IPPC reports.

Despite this, control freaks intent on taxing the life-giving gas carbon dioxide have signaled that they no longer care about the truth behind man-made climate change and have resolved to slam through their totalitarian agenda anyway. EPA head Lisa Jackson told reporters this week that “The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” even though she failed to refute the fact that there had been no global warming since 1995, as was admitted by CRU scientist Professor Phil Jones.

U.S. Supported Al Qaeda Affiliate

Arrested Terrorist Leader Exposes Extensive CIA Connections
Al Qaeda affiliate says his group was armed and assisted by U.S., Britain and Israel

Steve Watson - Infowars.net - Friday, Feb 26th, 2010



The leader of a Pakistan based terrorist organisation closely affiliated with Al Qaeda has detailed how his group benefited from extensive political and financial support from the CIA in return for continued attacks against the government, the people and the infrastructure of Iran.

Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of the Pakistan-based Jundullah terrorist organization was captured earlier this week by Iranian security officials in the south of the country.

Rigi was tracked by Iranian intelligence when he boarded a flight from Dubai to Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday.

According to officials, Rigi was using a forged Afghan passport which was issued to him by the U.S. government.

The 31-year-old terror leader issued a statement on Iranian state TV yesterday, during which he alleged that he had made a pact with the U.S. for safe haven and unlimited military aid to pursue terrorist activities against the Iranian government.

“They said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran,” Rigi said.

“They [were] prepared to give [us] training and/or any assistance that [we] would require, in terms of telecommunications security and procedures as well as other support, the Americans said they would be willing to provide it at an extensive level,” he added.

Rigi indicated that the relationship with U.S. intelligence continued through the election of Barack Obama and up to the present day.

Iranian officials paraded Rigi before the press and presented a photo they claim showed the terrorist leader entering a U.S. base in Afghanistan one day before his arrest.

The Pentagon has strenuously denied having any links to the Jundullah, describing the revelations as “fabrications” and “propaganda” concocted by Iranian officials.

Iran’s intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi also alleged that Rigi had met the then Nato secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, in Afghanistan in 2008, and had visited European countries.

Moslehi said agents had tracked Rigi’s movements for five months, calling his arrest “a great defeat for the US and UK”.

Of course, you will not hear about this story in the controlled U.S. media, so it is left to Russia Today broadcasters, with the help of investigative journalist and author Webster Tarpley to break down the story:




Iran has repeatedly claimed that Jundullah, which has carried out scores of bombings against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, killing hundreds of civilians in the process, is backed directly by Pakistan, Britain and Israel, as well as America.

So why should we give any credence to a captured terrorist who has undergone hours of interrogation from Iranian officials?

Because his confession backs up already substantial evidence that the the Jundullah group, in addition to other anti-Iranian terrorist groups, have enjoyed fruitful relationships with western intelligence.

We have consistently reported on the ties, as has award winning journalist Seymour Hersh and other notable publications such as the London Telegraph. Below is a selection of core articles that present substantive evidence of the terrorist groups’ links to the CIA:

Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding Of Terrorists In Iran
Western Governments Funding Taliban & Al-Qaeda To Kill U.S. Troops, Destabilize Countries
US Aiding Al Qaeda Affiliated Group In Iran?
Bush sanctions ‘black ops’ against Iran
CIA Protects Al-Qaeda Group From Extradition
U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran
Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
U.S. Attacks Iran Via CIA-Funded Jundullah Terror Group
Iranian Interior Minister: Western Intelligence Behind Riots And Unrest

Abdolmalek Rigi’s claims echo those of his brother Abdolhamid Rigi, who was arrested by Pakistani security forces last year and extradited to Iran.

We have also previously detailed the fact that the West has a long history of meddling in Iranian affairs and stirring up unrest and division.

The following is a video and detailed transcript of Abdolmalek Rigi’s confession, stated in Farsi, as broadcast on Iran’s Press TV:



“After Obama was elected, the Americans contacted us and they met me in Pakistan.They met us after clashes with my group around March 17 in (the southeastern city of) Zahedan, and he (the US operative) said that Americans had requested a meeting.”

“I said we didn’t have any time for a meeting and if we do help them they should promise to give us aid. They said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran.”

“They asked to meet me and we said where should we meet you and he said in Dubai. We sent someone to Dubai and we told a person to ask a place for myself in Afghanistan from the area near the operations and they complied that they would sort out the problem for us and they will find Mr. Rigi a base and guarantee his own security in Afghanistan or in any of the countries adjacent to Iran so that he can carry on his operations.

“They told me that in Kyrgyzstan they have a base called Manas near Bishkek, and that a high-ranking person was coming to meet me and that if such high-ranking people come to the United Arab Emirates, they may be observed by intelligence people but in a place like Bishkek this high-ranking American person could come and we could reach an agreement on making personal contacts. But after the last major operation we took part in, they said that they wanted to meet with us.

“The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran. We don’t have a military plan against Iran. Attacking Iran is very difficult for us (the US). The CIA is very particular about you and is prepared to do anything for you because our government has reached the conclusion that there was nothing Americans could do about Iran and only I could take care of the operations for them.

“One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system. They reached the conclusion that your organization has the power to create difficulties for the Islamic Republic and they are prepared to give you training and/or any assistance that you would require, in terms of telecommunications security and procedures as well as other support, the Americans said they would be willing to provide it at an extensive level.”

Book: Cheney pushed for military conflict with Russia

Book: Cheney pushed for military conflict with Russia
Raw Story - Daniel Tencer - Friday, February 19th, 2010



A new book suggests Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for the US to engage militarily with Russia when Russia invaded the US-allied Georgian republic in 2008.

Ronald Asmus' A Little War that Shook the World, published last month, says that in August 2008, as the South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia was raging, the White House looked at the possibility of taking military action to prevent Georgian forces from being routed by Russian troops.

Georgia's leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, was seen as an ally of Washington and had pushed for NATO membership for his country.

"The sheer scale of the Russian attack did lead several senior White House staffers to push for at least some consideration of limited military options to stem the Russian advance," Asmus wrote. "The menu of options under discussion foresaw the possibility of bombardment and sealing of the Roki Tunnel as well as other surgical strikes to reduce Russian military pressure on the Georgian government."

Asmus paints a scenario in which Cheney appears to be the most vocal proponent of the idea of engaging in the South Ossetia conflict, even as other members of the administration, including the national security adviser and the president, resisted the idea.

Asmus writes that there was disagreement on the issue between Bush administration National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and Cheney. Hadley “thought Russia was focused only on Georgia," while "Cheney had a different and harder-edged view of Moscow’s goals. Both Hadley's and Cheney's staffs had also raised the question of considering limited military options."

Asmus suggests Hadley argued against the idea that the US should intervene militarily. "Hadley had pushed them to think hard about the consequences of any proposed military steps and where they could lead. He was convinced they would lead quickly to a US-Russian military confrontation."

The book indicates that President Bush was told of the suggestion that the US should interfere militarily in Georgia, and rejected it.

"At a meeting of the Principals Committee on Monday, August 11 [2008], Hadley ... put the military option on the table to see whether there was any support for such steps to help the Georgians repel the Russians. There was not."

Asmus added: "There was a clear sense around the table that almost any military steps could lead to a confrontation with Moscow, the outcome of which no one could predict, and which was not in the US interest."

Reporting on the book's revelations, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times notes that the book doesn't explicitly come out and say Cheney wanted a war with Russia -- "but that seems to be the implication to me."

Rachman reports that Georgian President Saakashvili told him "that is also how he read the account of the White House’s deliberations."

The pro-Western Saakashvili came to power in 2004 when then-Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze resigned, in what came to be known as the "Rose Revolution." Saakashvili had strong relations with the West until 2008, when many Western leaders quietly blamed him for the conflict with Russia.

The South Ossetia war of 2008 had to do with two disputed provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose inhabitants are generally either ethnically Russian or pro-Russian in their politics. Both provinces had had de facto independence from Georgia for years, though their governments, while backed by Russia, were not internationally recognized.

On August 7, 2008, Georgia launched a military campaign to reclaim parts of the breakaway territories. Russia responded with an air assault and ground invasion. Over the next week, Russian forces penetrated deep into Georgia. After a ceasefire was signed on August 12, Russia withdrew from Georgia proper but kept troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and set up buffer zones between those territories and Georgian forces. The military campaign was generally seen as a significant success for Russia.

(You can find the relevant part of Asmus' book if you've bought from Amazon.com, by going to the "search this page" option on the book's page and typing in "Cheney.")

Kucinich jeers: Congress is ‘complicit’ in violating Americans’ constitutional rights

Kucinich jeers: Congress is ‘complicit’ in violating Americans’ constitutional rights
Stephen C. Webster - Raw Story - Friday, February 26th, 2010



In the wake of congressional Democrats’ reauthorization and extension of the USA Patriot Act, few elected Democrats have been as vocal about the post-9/11 security measures as they were during the Bush administration.

Leave it to stalwart House progressive Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to raise a rallying cry against what he called America’s love of its fears.

“This legislation extends three problematic provisions of the PATRIOT Act and, at the same time, leaves some of the most egregious provisions in place, absent any meaningful reform and debate,” he declared in a media advisory.

The specific provisions he cited are the Patriot Act’s powers to conduct roving wiretaps, conduct surveillance of people not thought to have any association with terrorism and tap into your personal records, such as library accounts.

The extensions were approved by Congress and sent to President Obama on Thursday, several days before the Patriot Act’s most nefarious portions were set to expire. President Obama had yet to sign the bill at time of this writing.

The Associated Press called the votes a “political victory for Republicans.”

Some Senate Democrats did attempt to propose some modifications to the legislation that would have allowed for greater oversight, but they were ignored. Democratic leadership bowed to the wishes of Republicans and conducted a voice vote on Wednesday, upon which the one-year extension was passed. The House voted 315-97 in favor on Thursday.

“Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records,” AP added.

“While I strongly support using the most robust tools possible to go after terrorists, Congress must revise and narrow — not extend — Bush era policies,” said Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), according to Reuters.

Kucinich’s scorn for the legislation was even more pronounced.

“Despite years of documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions during the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice has failed to hold Bush Administration officials accountable for illegal domestic spying by barring any lawsuits to be brought against those officials,” he said. “Months into this Administration, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had ‘intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits,’ and that the practice was ’significant and systematic.’ Passage of this legislation today continues to make Congress complicit in these violations of our basic constitutional rights.”

The title of his press release pleaded for congress to “repeal” the Patriot Act and “restore Constitutional rights to Americans.”

“As Members of Congress sworn to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution, we have a responsibility to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the PATRIOT Act, ensuring that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected,” he said. “More than eight years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act, we have failed to do so. As National Journal correspondent Shane Harris recently put it, we have witnessed the rise of an ‘American Surveillance State.’ We have come to love our fears more than we love our freedoms.”

The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the weeks proceeding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many Democrats criticized its passage as too hasty, with some even claiming they did not have a chance to read the hefty legislation before the vote. At the time, the Republican majority did not question it, falling in line to support the legislation seemingly regardless of what the Bush administration put in it.

“This was not, in my view, the finest hour for the United States Senate,” Senator Russel Feingold (D-WI) said, in an address given to Congress on Oct. 12, 2001. “The debate on a bill that may have the most far reaching consequences on the civil liberties of the American people in a generation was a non-debate. The merits took a back seat to the deal.”

In contrast, many of those same Republicans have criticized President Obama for attempting to pass his package of health care reforms too quickly, though none of them voiced that same concern about the USA Patriot Act.

President Obama is expected to sign the extension before Sunday.

Property rights the key to environmental stewardship

By contrast, what is the track record of governments as stewards of the environment, say for example, in the state-run economy of the Soviet Union/Eastern Europe?

Ron Paul clips on the cable news shows following CPAC victory

Ron Paul on fire after CPAC straw poll victory!

Fox News scrambles to discredit CPAC after Ron Paul wins presidential poll

Fox News scrambles to discredit CPAC after Ron Paul wins presidential poll
Stephen C. Webster - Raw Story - Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Remember the big conservative conference Fox News has been hyping over the past 10 days?

The Conservative Political Action Conference’s presidential straw poll, a key marker of the mood among conservative voters, apparently didn’t mean anything to the network. And if it did mean something, the only real result is bragging rights for the individual candidates who were so well exposed. And hey, even Dick Cheney showed up.

Or, at least that’s how Fox News characterized the poll, after it was reported that Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) had won it by a wide margin.

CPAC participants voted for Paul as their favored candidate by some 31 percent, giving him the largest margin of victory in recent years. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has won the vote over the last three years, was the runner up with 22 percent. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was third with seven percent.

Over 10,000 people attended CPAC this year. Among them, 2,395 voted in the straw poll.

“It is way early, it is unscientific,” said a Fox News host, even as the split-screen showed Glenn Beck on stage at the conference. “Perhaps it offers nothing more than bragging rights, uh, through the course of this year. But, it is quite a, uh, enthusiastic crowd. What a difference a year makes.”

What a difference a year makes, indeed. Paul himself said something quite similar a day prior, when he spoke before the largest, loudest audience of any other presenter.

He asked if the crowd remembered when he was the guy “off in the corner” predicting doom, and none in the media paid him any serious mind.

“All the sudden, the crash that I had predicting all along: it came,” Paul said. “And now, Fox News TV has had me on about 60 times since the campaign was over.”

On its Web site, Fox News said that the vote is “not necessarily a good forecaster” of conservatives’ leanings nation wide.

Jake Gibson, micro-blogging for Fox News’s Live Shots, wrote that Paul’s win was “surprising” and caused very audible booing throughout the crowd. Meanwhile, Live Shots writer Kelley Beaucar Vlahos characterized the poll as an annual competition between the Republicans’ “bright lights.”

Paul is now, apparently, counted among them. Or is he? National Review praised him, jeering “Feel the ‘Ronmentum,’” thus triggering a sharp response from Robert Costa.

“Some older CPAC attendees don’t seem to care much for the Texas congressman, sure, but many young activists seem to regard him as a hero of sorts,” he wrote. “When he talks about the debt, like he did on Friday, calling it a ‘monster’ that will ‘eat up’ our future, it was with a passion that you can’t fake in politics. He also didn’t mind challenging many of the room’s security hawks on foreign policy.”

Indeed, Costa touched on a key undercurrent at this year’s CPAC: youth. According to the straw poll’s detailed breakdown [PDF link], 48 percent of the participants were students. A full 80 percent of respondents said their number one issue is “to promote individual liberty” and “reduce the size of government.” Sixty-four percent of participants were male.

Conservative blog Hot Air questioned whether the poll could be taken seriously, adding: “53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?”

Huckabee, now a paid Fox News contributor, joined other conservatives in kicking sand on Paul’s victory, telling one of his coworkers that he abstained from CPAC because it had been taken over by libertarian activists.

“CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year,” he said, according to Politico.

He also knocked the conference’s relevance this year in particular, with so much activity around the tea parties.

“Because of the way that it solicits sponsors, it’s almost becomes a pay-for-play,” he said, taking a shot at the group’s credibility as a whole. “It’s kind of like, who will pay money to be able to be a sponsor and get time in the program. That’s one of the things that has hurt its credibility in the last couple of years.”

FireDogLake noted that even Ann Coulter told a CPAC crowd that she agrees with Paul on everything, except his foreign policy. “Or, put another way,” wrote FDL user Blue Texan, “Coulter and the neoconservatives that have taken over the Republican Party want Ron Paul’s pre-WWI, pre-Fed, pre-Social Security, pre-IRS federal government — to go with LBJ’s Great Society military.”

Among the poll’s participants, 98 percent said they disapproved of the job President Obama is doing. Sixty-eight percent said they approved of congressional Republicans’ actions.

In 2009, CPAC was arguably the biggest event in conservative politics all year, featuring right-wing all-stars like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and many more. In 2008, pollsters were shocked when Romney beat Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by just one percent of the vote, even after announcing the suspension of his presidential campaign.

That year, Paul tied for third with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 12 percent of the vote. In the same poll for 2009, Ron Paul again came in third place, this time with 13 percent of the vote. He was bested by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, at 14 percent, and Mitt Romney, with 20.

“I believe we are on the verge of something very significant,” Paul told CPAC in 2010.

Strangely, in The Washington Post’s Monday coverage of the GOP’s 2012 presidential contenders, the congressman from Texas was not mentioned once. Staff writer Chris Cillizza instead plugged Romney as the party’s “nominal front-runner.”

Watch Paul’s full CPAC speech here.

This video is from Fox News, broadcast Feb. 20, 2010, as culled by watchdog group Media Matters.

Ron Paul blows out other GOP presidential hopefuls!

Ron Paul: 31%
Mitt Romney: 22%
Sarah Palin: 7%

Looks like libertarianism is taking over the GOP. Good news.

Fox gets it wrong, too. There's no organization that drives the Ron Paul movement. It's a strong movement because it's about liberty and it's about people being dissatisfied with the status quo of the Republican Party.

Glenn Beck: Shoot the POW in the head

This is the leader of the liberty movement in America? Glenn Beck, arch-neocon on the Fox News Panel, argues again that detainees in American custody be shot in the head.

As Think Progress noted last time Beck said this,

If Beck were President since 9/11, he would have killed many innocent people. Here are some of those held in Guantanamo who have either been cleared of charges or were mistakenly detained. For example:

– The “Tipton Three” who were forced into false confessions and later released.
– Huzaifa Parhat, an ethnic Uighur Chinese national swept up by the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who was improperly classified as an “enemy combatant.” Parhat has been recommended for release by U.S. officials, while a military tribunal found no evidence that Parhat was a member of any radical group.
– Over 30 former Guantanamo detainees who have already been released.

Not only would such a policy undoubtedly kill innocents, but as former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora has said, the belligerent treatment of terror suspects increases the recruitment of “insurgent fighters into combat.”

Here's the clip. Oh, and this detainee wasn't #2 in al Qaeda (as Beck claims), but #2 in the Taliban. (Both of these groups are similar in that they were both created by the CIA, but there is a distinct difference.) But the distinction is important because the Taliban are those who were overthrown by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and they are resisting U.S. occupation currently. Screw the Geneva Conventions. Shoot "interrogate" (read: torture) him then "shoot him in the head."

Two anti-Obama factions shaking out

As recently reported (here and here) there is an ongoing controversy not only over GOP primaries for the Texas governorship and Ron Paul's congressional district, but also over the very identity of the Tea Party resistance to Obama's form of government power.

Ideally, the most profound, persuasive and compelling theoretical critique of the central state would come from peacemaking Christians who insist on a kingdom of love and servitude. But, the present reality is that there are two primary versions of opposition to the Obama administration. First, there is the establishment Republican version that is based upon no greater principle than the principle of empowering the Republican version of big government with its wars, empire, police state, bailouts and big deficits. Not to judge these individual people, but the politicians and actors known as Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck, who claim to represent a real opposition to Obama provide no consistent critique of the ruling elite of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

However there is a principled opposition to the Obama administration. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Debra Medina represent a bonified libertarian or constitutional conservative alternative to politics-as-usual. This is not to say that these individuals are where the trust of Christians should be placed. They will provide no government-run utopia. But what is attractive about them is that, rather than setting about building a political kingdom, these individuals are 1) really calling the government what it is, and 2) they are asking it to back off.

To the Christian who is interested in being politically involved, a libertarianism rooted in the Christ ethic of non-violence is the only ideology available. The moment the Christian seeks to acquire power over other peoples' economic or moral behavior, the second the Christian seeks to wage war on people abroad, we have left the kingdom of God and joined the violent kingdoms of this world that are under the dominion of Satan.

Given this approach, the Christian ought to familiarize himself with the contrast between the Beck/Palin/Perry camp versus the Paul/Jones/Medina camp. The contrast has become all the more marked as members of the former (the establishment phony alternative) have unleashed an attack on the latter libertarian camp.

There is a battle going on over the identity of the anti-Obama opposition. I'd like to throw my weight behind the more fundamental critique of the state represented by the Paul/Jones/Medina camp.

To understand the current controversy read the following articles:
~Insider: Republican Dirty Tricks Machine Targeting Grass Roots Constitutionalists
~Chris Matthews Mimics Glenn Beck’s Talking Points
~Sarah Palin 9/11 Truther Controversy Explodes

Stossel Excerpt on Crony Capitalism

Nato rockets kill 12 Afghan civilians

CIVICS NEWS Comment: I guess we're celebrating Presidents' Day by reporting on what the kings of this world do best. Extinguish human life.

Nato rockets kill 12 Afghan civilians
Declan Walsh and Stephen Bates - London Guardian - Monday, February 15th, 2010

Two Nato rockets aimed at Taliban insurgents in Helmand missed their target today, killing 12 civilians sheltering in their home and dealing a sharp blow to hopes that civilian casualties would be avoided in the largest western-led operation of the nine-year Afghan war. [...]

Newsweek denies global government agenda

Go Back To Sleep, There’s No New World Order
You can trust us, we’re owned by the military-industrial complex; Newsweek says there’s no agenda for global government, as every globalist on the planet calls for it

Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Thursday, February 11, 2010

A major Newsweek hit piece against the Tea Party movement and Alex Jones claims that the move towards a global government and the fact that governments commit acts of false flag terrorism is all an invention of “conspiracist kooks” who wear “tin foil hats”. Like we’ve never heard that one before.

Self-described “conservative” Jonathan Kay invokes Obama regulation czar Cass Sunstein in railing against ideas he describes as “dangerously detached from reality” by labeling vehemently proven facts as “conspiracy theories” and thereby exposing himself as the only person dangerously detached from reality in his article, Black Helicopters Over Nashville.

In the hit piece, Kay smears Alex Jones as a “modern day prophet” of the Tea Party movement that he goes on to relentlessly attack as progenitors of “toxic fantasies”.

Kay contacted Alex Jones’ office nearly a year ago seeking an interview about 9/11 truth. Of course, he spewed the usual baloney about “wanting to understand our perspective” while all along preparing to unleash a vitriolic hit piece without one iota of the “balance” establishment journalists always claim that they adhere to.

When we explained to him that in order to understand the 9/11 attacks in context, a brief exploration of the documented and manifestly provable examples in history where western governments have staged attacks in order to advance their agenda was necessary, Kay wasn’t interested.

We’re talking about events such as Operation Northwoods, a plan signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon to to “kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war”.

We’re talking about Operation Ajax, where the CIA instituted a program of false flag terror to crush Iran’s first democratic government in the 1950’s, killing around 300 people. Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the CIA admits to the program on their own website.

We’re talking about Operation Gladio, a “decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West — against their own populations” run by NATO in collusion with the CIA, a campaign which included the 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station which killed 85 people.

Kay wasn’t having any of it, he merely wanted to hang around Alex Jones for days on end and try and catch him out by seizing upon ambiguous one-liners that could be spun out of context to make us look like mentally unstable extremists, which is precisely the tactic he uses against several other people in his Newsweek article.

According to Kay, a one world government run by the United Nations that will implement greenhouse gas taxes is another “toxic fantasy” of those crazy Tea Party lunatics. In that case, I guess we must have all just imagined UN Secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s December 16 2009 Los Angeles Times interview during the Copenhagen summit in which he stated, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”

Ban Ki-moon’s October 2009 New York Times editorial in which he wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure” is also a figment of the imagination if you subscribe to Kay’s world view.

Yes – shocking as it is – top globalists like Herman Van Rompuy, Gordon Brown, Al Gore and others have all publicly and repeatedly called for a new world order and a global government. This is why even Bloomberg writers like David Reilly and former Democratic advisors like Dick Morris are finally admitting that those tin foil hat wearing kooks Kay derides in his article were right after all – a secret cabal of bankers and industrialists really does run the world.

Of course, if you still believe Kay’s fairytale make-believe world in which there is no “new world order” and no march towards a “global government” which would include a “global currency,” then the following You Tube compilation of top power brokers saying those very things since the 1950’s doesn’t exist either.

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission
The future of policing: Dissidents to be tortured into compliance by marauding unmanned vehicles



Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Friday, February 12, 2010

Illustrating once again that the prison planet being built around us far outstrips anything Aldous Huxley or George Orwell ever imagined, a Wired News report details how police forces worldwide are preparing to unveil drone aircraft that can not only conduct surveillance of protesters, but also zap them into submission with non-lethal weapons.

As part of their ongoing mission to “protect and serve” the new world order, cops across the world are getting access to military drones which allow them to “carry out surveillance on everyone from protesters and antisocial motorists to fly-tippers,” reports Wired News.

The report details how the future of policing will resemble something approaching a combination of They Live and The Running Man, with unmanned drones replacing police helicopters whizzing around everywhere torturing and knocking out anyone who misbehaves.

According to the report, this is a natural progression from CCTV cameras that shout at passers-by, currently deployed in several UK cities, only now drones will be fitted with LRAD acoustic devices, torture sound weapons that were indiscriminately used and abused during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on innocent members of the public who were just walking down the street and had not even dared to engage in the criminal activity of expressing their First Amendment right to assemble.

“The LRAD has been tested on the Austrian S-100 unmanned helicopter, and the technology is ready if there is a police requirement,” states the article.

Also available to police will be a drone that can fire tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the delusion that they were born in a democratic country.

“French company Tecknisolar Seni has demonstrated a portable drone armed with a double-barrelled 44mm Flash-Ball gun,” states the report. “Used by French special police units, the one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large calibre handgun and fires non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact rounds to bring down a suspect without permanent damage — “the same effect as the punch of a champion boxer,” claim makers Verney-Carron.”
Of course the fact that the Flash-Ball devices have caused “permanent damage” in the form of head injuries is glossed over.

Another option will be a mini-flying saucer drone fitted with a Taser gun, primed to shoot 50,000-volts into anyone who refuses to bow down at the feet of global government.
“Taser stun guns are now so light (about 150 grams) that they could be mounted on the smaller drones. Antoine di Zazzo, head of SMP Technologies, which distributes tasers in France, says the company is fitting one to a small quad-rotor iDrone (another quad-rotor toy helicopter), which some have called a “flying saucer”.

Since police routinely use Tasers as a method of “pain compliance,” ie torture, and not in genuinely threatening situations, abuse of the devices is widespread in every country that has introduced them. Since June 2001, over 350 people have died in the United States after being hit with these “non-lethal weapons”. Imagine how incidents of abuse would skyrocket once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur.
Why not just equip the drones with hellfire missiles and have done with it? Now it’s admitted that the authorities treat any dissenter, any protester, anyone who questions the system, even anyone who takes a photograph in public as a terrorist, why not just blow us all away like they do to “insurgents” in Afghanistan?

The fact that every one of these fascistic and futuristic tools of enslavement is being primed to be used mainly against protesters only confirms that the police state is not coming, it’s not some future threat, it’s here in 2010 – we’re living in a world that does not tolerate dissent against its overlords, we’re truly living on a prison planet.

Ron Paul and the Tea Party movement

Rachel Maddow exposes the GOP establishment and Fox News for giving the Ron Paul Revolution the cold shoulder but giving the watered down Tea Party movement a red carpet. Witness the Republican establishment take-over of the Tea Party via neo-cons Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.

Media attack on Medina

Texas candidate for governor, Debra Medina, is being attacked by the left and the right on mainstream media--namely, Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews.

Yes, Glenn Beck. Why? Well, Medina is the true libertarian "Ron Paul Republican" in the race. And Glenn Beck is not a Ron Paul libertarian (also see here, here, here, here on Beck).

Keep in mind that the three GOP primary opponents of Ron Paul's congressional seat are "TEA PARTY" people.

Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement are not to be trusted. Any even moderately conservative Republican is now wearing the "Tea Party" label. It is a movement that was started by Ron Paul, but has become something altogether different. The fact that Sarah Palin was invited to be the most prominent representative of the Tea Party convention should tell us that this is not a libertarian movement. (This is not to say that they are 100% wrong on everything. I value their critique of the Obama administration.)

But Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party movement are NOT presenting a consistent liberty philosophy in the face of Obama authoritarianism. Ron Paul, Debra Medina, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash (among others), are the ones doing that valuable work. Beck, Palin and the Tea Partiers should learn from these principled libertarians.

UPDATE 2/14/10: Regarding Chris Matthews' critique of the grassroots states' rights movement that Medina is a part of, Matthews and his guests need a bit of a history lesson. They first equate states' rights, nullification and interposition with racism, segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery. It is true that segregationists and slave-owners claimed states' rights to continue their outrages, but that doesn't make state sovereignty guilty by association. Northern states also "nullified" laws, namely, the federal fugitive slave act, using states' rights for their cause. New England states even considered secession during the War of 1812 out of protest against what they viewed as an unnecessary war. States' rights are a tool that different regions, different ideologies, and different partisan interests have tapped into throughout history. To say that "state sovereignty = racism" makes as much sense as saying "state soveriegnty = anti-war protest," since New England utilized this method for their cause. If somebody throws a brick through a black man's window, you don't say the brick was racist; just down the road bricks are being used for something positive--the construction of a hospital. States' rights is a constitutional principle that should be used for good.

Also, Matthews and his guests, in opposing Medina's views, state that it's "un-American" to believe in state nullification of federal laws. Do these men know who first articulated the view of nullification? It was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the champion of state sovereignty and a strict interpretation of the Constitution against the Hamiltonian nationalists who twisted, stretched and bended the Constitution to fit their desired policy ends. It was during the Hamiltonian Adams administration in 1798 that some of the worst federal laws ever were passed: the Alien and Sedition Acts. They outlawed free speech in America. An outrage. The Supreme Court sat idly by. What is a state to do when faced with federal intrusion on the liberties of the people? Well, Jefferson (along with another "anti-American", James Madison) penned the famous Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which was an example state of nullification of federal laws that were unconstitutional.

It's not just Chris Matthews, either. CNN is now labeling Jeffersonian Americans as fringe radical "tenthers" (because they believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government). The "tenther" term is meant to be a word association with "truthers" (i.e. 9/11-truther) who are painted in the mainstream media as being crazy kooks.

For Christians or anybody who is interested in the subject of liberty, state sovereignty is an important concept, as state governments can stand in the gap and oppose federal tyranny and oppression. It's not un-American and it's not racist to believe in freedom.

Justin Amash for Congress

For those Christians who believe in using the privilege of their vote and their political voice to reduce the destructive, oppressive power of human governments, consider supporting Justin Amash for Congress.

Recently, Vern Ehlers, long-time Congressman from Michigan's third district (my hometown: Grand Rapids), announced his retirement, and Amash promptly announced his candidacy. He will certainly be facing a competitive field of Republicans, but if he wins the primary, his election is highly likely, since this district is strongly Republican.

Amash, who is the clear "Ron Paul Republican" of West Michigan, can, with the help of a grass roots response, ride the tide of libertarian fervor in the current American political ocean to a victory for liberty, adding one more principled conservative/libertarian to the Congress.

Your Help Requested

To my friends who value the point of view that we're trying to bring to Christians and to the world: May I ask for your help at something? I'm looking for a publisher for my book. I've uploaded it at Authonomy so that publishers can view it. But, they tend to only scout out the books that are voted up by readers.

So if the Spirit moves, I would appreciate it a lot if you went to Authonomy.com/Christian and voted for The Way, the Truth and the Sword. You'll need to create an account, which takes only a second. Since I just uploaded it, it's dead last, so there's nowhere to go, but up! Needless to say, the book needs your help if it is to succeed.

Grace and Peace,

Scott

Put not your trust in Palin, in the mere mortal who cannot save

Christians have been flocking to Sarah Palin since she burst on the scene as McCain's VP candidate. She is the supposed political savior of the dying religious right. She stands for "righteous" (her word) Christian wars in the Middle East, an aggressive approach to Iran, Christian dominionism in civil structures, a continuation of the growing police state domestically, and last of all, absolutely no fundamental critique of the government as it is now practiced.

Why do I write these things of Mrs. Palin? Because Christians are idolatrously looking to her as the standard-bearer for their political crusade, and we need stop. Even the Tea Party movement (which was started by the Ron Paul people who actually have a principled libertarian critique of the violent state) is now embracing Palin, giving to her conservative credentials that will win big points for her bid to gain the GOP nomination for president in 2012.

Christians who believe in Palin, please look away from political power and toward the power of the gospel of Jesus--the good news about the character of a God of love who calls us to live in a posture of love and servitude to those around us.

Put not your trust in princes of the sword--Republican or Democrat--but only in the Prince of Peace.

Perhaps this book can play a small part as an antidote against the Christian support of Palinism.

--------------------------------------------------------

Related Post: Religious Right/Christian militairsm/Christian Zionism is not going away any time soon

Christians taking care of their needy, not waiting for government aid

Strangers and friends, Christians and non-Christians. They're all drawn by the hope and by the help offered by the hands and feet of Jesus. The church building is destroyed, but the Church is alive and well. Beautiful story. Fox News reports.

(I had to laugh at the nationalistic tough-guy comment at the end by the Fox News reporter--he just had to throw a statement in there about the greatness of the U.S. military.)

Doodle on your desk? Cops will take you away in handcuffs.

I guess it's the "public schools are insane" day. Not only was a 4th Grader busted for bringing a lego-sized plastic "gun" to school, but now this. EFF reports:

The mother of Alexa Gonzalez, the Queens public school student arrested after being caught doodling on her desk, tells the Daily News that the principal is unapologetic about how the 12-year-old was treated. According to Moraima Camacho, Junior High School 190 principal Marilyn Grant said “that it wasn’t their fault that it was something they had to do. She doesn’t consider it doodling.”

When her teacher saw her doodling/defacement of school property with a lime green magic marker, an assistant principal called the cops and Gonzalez was hauled away in metal handcuffs (and not plastic handcuffs that authorities use on adult protesters!) to the police precinct across the street. Camacho told WCBS 2, “As soon as I saw her take off the handcuffs I said, ‘No, what are you …’ and (the
officer) was like, ’sorry, this is the procedure. We have to do this.’… My daughter was humiliated! Humiliated!” Plus, Gonzalez is reportedly throwing up after the trauma.

Child gets in big trouble for bringing a gun to school

Somebody could've choked on that!

Governments store your DNA indefinitely

Those who advocate for a controlled government must register as "subversives"

If you live in South Carolina and you believe for whatever reason that unlimited government power is a bad thing and should be prevented, then you must register with the government as a "subversive."

This is not a joke. Raw Story reports:

The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act,” passed last year and now officially on the books, states that “every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”

According to what you've just read, what is the minimum threshold to be considered a subversive in South Carolina? Answer: "Every person who advocates...the duty...of controlling the...government" is a subversive.

Wait a minute. Don't all Americans believe that the government should be kept within the control of the people? After all, the Constitution states that "we the people" are the sovereigns who established and who ought to control the government. Popular sovereignty, right? Ours is intended to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." I guess, in the new America, if you believe in these basic red-white-and-blue Civics class truisms, you are now a political subversive.

It is true that a people, even a non-violent people, who are wise to the crimes of the state are the greatest threat to the establishment, so I guess it's no surprise that they're passing laws like this one. Let this be one more example of why we should not put our trust in princes, in an institution that has to threaten and keep an eye on those who merely question and seek to restrain its further acts of oppression, violence, theft and murder.

Old news, but important: "The Surge Worked" fraud

Remember the neo-con argument from 2006? It went something like this: the problem with the Iraq War was that we didn't have ENOUGH occupation troops to "do the job."

Thus, "The Surge" was created as the salvation of the dying Bush presidency.

After violence subsided in Iraq to some degree, the mantra began: "The Surge worked!"

Well, did it really? Answer: No. Read Paul Craig Roberts' fine commentary, "Bush’s Dirty Secret: Bribing Iraq Insurgents Not to Fight" to find out how the civil war in Iraq was toned down.

Pentagon offers morning-after pill

Norman Horn at Libertarian Christians.com comments:

From the irony department… Apparently, the Pentagon has approved the “Morning-After Pill” for soldiers abroad. Besides the fact that this just shows that military life is not one exemplifying virtue, I will be interested to see the pro-life lobby’s response to this. Who wants to make a bet that they will yell and scream about the morning-after pill without batting an eye or saying a word about the death and destruction the military causes abroad to fifty-thousand times more individuals who are maimed, killed, displaced, and oppressed through military
occupation?

The pro-life lobby can be horribly inconsistent, and as I’ve said before the tragedy is that pro-life voters still think the Republican Party is the answer when for six straight years of Republican domination of the Federal Government they did virtually nothing. The only things Republicans have done to limit abortion was to “ban” partial-birth abortion from the Federal level and temporarily stop funding for abortions from the Feds. When will Christians learn that the Republican Party is patently ridiculous?

Good news about big deficits!

The NYT reports that the massive government deficits expected to continue for years to come suggest that there is "little room for new domestic initiatives for a decade." Celebrate good times, come on!!

Forget not that in the political realm the innocuous sounding phrase, "domestic initiatives" means, essentially, government using violence to steal, kill, kidnap and otherwise destroy life, liberty and property. You see, when regular folks undertake an "initiative" it's usually a good thing, because they're engaging in some peaceful, voluntary act that will benefit their fellow man. But in the realm of government, an "initiative" is code for just another exercise of coercive power that disrupts free human existence. This is true in nearly all cases.

The NYT story goes on to report the good news thus: "Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors."

Yeah! I have discovered a silver lining in the dark clouds of debt gathering over our heads. (Please don't burst my bubble and comment that they'll just print more money and borrow even greater sums in order to undertake their "initiatives." If you do, I will cry.)

The 'god of this world' is the one who enjoys destruction

You've heard that God sent the earthquake upon Haiti as his way of punishing the people there. I very much appreciate the response of Dr. Brad Cole at GodsCharacter.com. He explains that the devil, not God, is given the name "the destroyer" in the Bible, and is responsible for death and destruction:

The book of Revelation, which is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:2) describes a war that began in heaven and that has spilled over onto planet earth. In this book, God is portrayed as “a slaughtered Lamb” (Revelation 5:6) while Satan is a ferocious beast, “his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon—the Destroyer” (Revelation 9:11).

Satan is the destroyer, not God, and we do great damage to God’s reputation when we label the slaughtered Lamb as the destroyer.

Cole then goes on to describe the character of God as revealed in Jesus:

Jesus revealed a God who seeks out the poor and the mistreated of society. Even prior to the earthquake, Haiti was the poorest country in the western hemisphere. There are thousands of verses in the Bible that speak against the sin of greed and of not helping those who are in poverty. Contrast that with literally a handful of verses that have anything at all to do with homosexuality and the “sins” most Christians today usually associate with earthquakes and hurricanes. In other words, the Bible repeatedly hammers the seriousness of doing nothing for the poor and oppressed of society. Based on this, if God were the kind of person to pour out active judgments on the world, it seems to me that this would more likely occur toward those who have the means to help those who are suffering but yet choose not to do so.

The God who healed lepers, fed the hungry 5,000, chose a group of lowly fishermen to be his disciples and who ate with prostitutes and other “low-life” of society would never look down on the poverty stricken people of Haiti and say, “Look at all that voodoo going on down there…I’m sending a 7.0 their way.” God did not send the earthquake in Haiti; he is rather suffering with the people in Haiti who have fallen victim to the rule of Satan, the “prince of this world.” Our mission in Haiti is to do what we can to help and to heal, and in that way we might just reveal that the God we serve is a Healer, not a destroyer.

Imagine if prominent Christians spoke the way Dr. Cole does following natural disasters and other tragedies. What if the Christian community put the blame for such events squarely on the devil, where it belongs? We could begin to restore the name of God in the world by painting a picture of God weeping with his beloved children who are enduring the suffering of a world under the dominion of Satan.

Obama Seeks $1.9 Trillion Tax Rise on Rich, Business

Two things strike me as noteworthy, no, astounding, about the Bloomberg headline above.

First, it's amazing that even with a tax increase of this magnitude, the federal Leviathan still cannot reign in spending enough to balance its books in order to reduce the rate of current theft from future generations (i.e. deficit spending). Seriously? They're raising taxes by $1.9 trillion dollars while at the same time running a deficit in the trillions of dollars? How is that even possible? Apparently, with the state, all things are possible (consider the costs of financing on-going imperial occupations and expanding a nuclear arsenal). Sometimes, though, you just have to laugh at this institution known as government. Realizing its absurdity is one path to reducing the idolatry that we cherish toward this great Beast.

Secondly, it is strange that a government that claims to be trying to help the economy would punish the most economically productive members of society through such taxation (read: theft) measures. Punitive taxes on those doing the most to produce goods and services in the economy? Really? Don't we want to encourage production? Well, I guess in FDR's, I mean Obama's view, the mere act of "creating jobs" is the goal, and of course we "create jobs" though continual government borrowing and spending. In case the question was begged in your mind, don't bother the economic minds that advise the president with any pestering questions about the sustainability of such a plan; they are way smarter than us; just believe in the magic of Change. (Yes, it does take quite a leap of faith to put your trust in Prince Obama's economic team.)

All the sarcasm aside, in all seriousness, my heart goes out to all those who are victims of this government system of economic madness, including the very people in government who are victims of their own misguided good intentions. The critique of the state should never land on an image bearer of God, but rather, should oppose only the lies and the father of lies that stands behind the state. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the prince of the kingdom of the air, against the principalities and powers of darkness in this world, which are passing away. But, regarding those souls working in the heart of the D.C. Beast it is recommended that anybody with good intentions stay away from a career in politics; stay away from the temptation to pick up the legislative sword to dictate to people what will be done with the fruits of their labor. Only those who seek to remove the oppressive force of government need apply to the reform of the state, but even then, let it be advised that Christians seek reform of the church and seek the extension of the gospel before pretending to build an ideal civil structure, as government is merely a crumbling temporal institution that is passing away.

Calling all people of conscience! Resist the violent kingdom of the state and join the kingdom of love, non-violence, peaceful coexistence, and economic and personal liberty. The peaceable way of the kingdom of Jesus makes sense and is morally upright, while the way of the Regime is illogical and morally bankrupt. "Come out of her, my people!", cries Jesus. "Bureaucrats, democrats, republicans, and publicans of all kinds, I love you and I have come to rescue you from such systems of human power and violent coercion!"