The Left and the Politics of Rapture
Lew Rockwell.com Blog - Anthony Gregory - March 30, 2010 02:27 PM
Rachel Maddow had a whole segment last night on the religious views of this “Christian militia,” and the startling affinity that anti-government rightwing militias have had toward the Biblical end times. Her guest said that the last time he’d really seen this was the 1990s.
I suppose the fear is that armed Americans with an active interest in bringing on the rapture through violence will commit domestic acts of terrorism. But wait a second. What about U.S. foreign policy? As Maddow’s guest notes, millions of Americans subscribe to somewhat similar views on eschatology. But whereas a small sample of them, allegedly, are inclined toward violence directed against the U.S. government that they hate, many more are inclined toward the U.S. government committing its own violence, on a massive scale, in the Middle East — also with the goal of bringing on the rapture. The main difference is the latter group is much larger, more influential in mainstream politics, and has the satisfaction of believing their goal is being implemented, right now, thanks to the wars started by Bush, whom they loved, and continued now by Obama.
Hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in these wars, and millions of Americans defend them for religious reasons. But strangely, this is not considered worthy of discussion at MSNBC, at least not these days when this crazed foreign policy is being carried out by a left-liberal, for secular reasons, rather than a Republican with ties to the Christian right like Bush.
Many millions of Americans have odd views about their role in bringing on the rapture. But the left would rather focus on a handful who allegedly, one day, might have committed violence against the government, and so were preemptively arrested — ignoring the millions who got to vote for rapture in 2004 and whose violent foreign policy ambitions are right now killing thousands.
The left often seems to fear the out-of-power right more than the right in power. Is this because they’re in so much love with the state that even when those they most fear are in command they can’t help but be in awe?
3/31/10
Comments on Militias
In the wake of the arrest of the members of Hutaree, a Michigan-based group of deluded, sad individuals, it's appropriate for me to give my perspective.
I should mention at the outset that, as a Christ-follower, I am against violence, especially the organized, mechanized, institutionalized violence of a powerful government. I am also against regular folks adopting government methods of force in order to oppose government. Instead, I believe in meeting force with love. So I am not interested in supporting or taking part in a militia. I find it absurd that Hutaree claimed to be a "Christian militia," which is an oxymoron.
The American way, though, is to have all able-bodied adult males own guns and comprise a militia. While I personally choose to be a conscientious objector, I can also see that the American concept of the militia is the best form of defense. Militias are far superior to standing armies and empires. The concept of a militia is properly defensive, whereas the American empire is offensive (even though it's falsely called the "Department of Defense"). I would be pleased to see the empire end and to see Americans own guns as a measure of national self defense, since this is a far less evil form of force, begin defensive rather than offensive. Again, the traditional American way of the militia is not the Kingdom of God, so I don't consider myself a part of it, but it is far better than the status quo of imperial domination.
Now, on the matter of the Hutaree group, some clarification is necessary. First of all, they were a group of ignorant, perhaps mentally ill individuals. This was not a true militia. Other legitimate militia groups had always kept their distance from these, well, weirdos. It would be painting with an unfairly broad brush to wrap other militia groups in with Hutaree. However, the media has really enjoyed doing this to demonize patriotic Americans who believe in owning self-defense weapons.
A second point about Hutaree is the recent revelation that an FBI informant was present in their midst. Based on historical examples, it is likely that the FBI provocateured or radicalized and encouraged violent plans in the group. This is also known as a sting operation. Perhaps the FBI did this for the purpose of demonizing the militias and the patriot movement.
Why would they do such a thing? Consider the fact that the growing libertarian movement in America is the most intellectually consistent, persuasive and attractive alternative to Obamaism and the establishment status quo of the Republicrat one-party system. Also, recall the DHS report and the MIAC report, which labeled libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and others as potential violent extremists. (This is crazy, because libertarianism is based upon the non-aggression axiom.) Is it a coincidence that there has been a growing number of incidents that paint libertarians and patriots as violent right-wing extremists, just in time to demonize the government's most effective political opponents? Consider the fact that the FBI and CIA infiltrated the civil rights movement to demonize it. Consider the fact that the government infiltrates protests to paint peaceful protesters as violent. I smell a rat here. And I think there's more to come. It is likely that there will be more manufactured violent incidents to be blamed on the government's opponents.
I should mention at the outset that, as a Christ-follower, I am against violence, especially the organized, mechanized, institutionalized violence of a powerful government. I am also against regular folks adopting government methods of force in order to oppose government. Instead, I believe in meeting force with love. So I am not interested in supporting or taking part in a militia. I find it absurd that Hutaree claimed to be a "Christian militia," which is an oxymoron.
The American way, though, is to have all able-bodied adult males own guns and comprise a militia. While I personally choose to be a conscientious objector, I can also see that the American concept of the militia is the best form of defense. Militias are far superior to standing armies and empires. The concept of a militia is properly defensive, whereas the American empire is offensive (even though it's falsely called the "Department of Defense"). I would be pleased to see the empire end and to see Americans own guns as a measure of national self defense, since this is a far less evil form of force, begin defensive rather than offensive. Again, the traditional American way of the militia is not the Kingdom of God, so I don't consider myself a part of it, but it is far better than the status quo of imperial domination.
Now, on the matter of the Hutaree group, some clarification is necessary. First of all, they were a group of ignorant, perhaps mentally ill individuals. This was not a true militia. Other legitimate militia groups had always kept their distance from these, well, weirdos. It would be painting with an unfairly broad brush to wrap other militia groups in with Hutaree. However, the media has really enjoyed doing this to demonize patriotic Americans who believe in owning self-defense weapons.
A second point about Hutaree is the recent revelation that an FBI informant was present in their midst. Based on historical examples, it is likely that the FBI provocateured or radicalized and encouraged violent plans in the group. This is also known as a sting operation. Perhaps the FBI did this for the purpose of demonizing the militias and the patriot movement.
Why would they do such a thing? Consider the fact that the growing libertarian movement in America is the most intellectually consistent, persuasive and attractive alternative to Obamaism and the establishment status quo of the Republicrat one-party system. Also, recall the DHS report and the MIAC report, which labeled libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and others as potential violent extremists. (This is crazy, because libertarianism is based upon the non-aggression axiom.) Is it a coincidence that there has been a growing number of incidents that paint libertarians and patriots as violent right-wing extremists, just in time to demonize the government's most effective political opponents? Consider the fact that the FBI and CIA infiltrated the civil rights movement to demonize it. Consider the fact that the government infiltrates protests to paint peaceful protesters as violent. I smell a rat here. And I think there's more to come. It is likely that there will be more manufactured violent incidents to be blamed on the government's opponents.
Environmentalist: "Put Democracy on Hold"
If you haven't read the articles in this archive, you are missing a big piece of what drives the radical wing of the environmental movement. In case the articles in that archive aren't indicative enough, a prominent environmentalist has now called for a reduction in freedom and democracy to bring in world authoritarianism. Via Prison Planet.com:
A renowned environmentalist, known for his advocacy of population reduction as a means of offsetting climate change, has called for “a more authoritative world” where freedom comes second to tackling what he sees as the devastating effects of global warming.
Futurist James Lovelock, tells the London Guardian that he believes “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while,” in order to save humanity.
“We need a more authoritative world.” Lovelock states.
“We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that.” the 90 year old proponent of the Gaia
hypothesis adds.
“You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.”
“But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” Lovelock concludes.
3/29/10
Health Care and Special Interests
Obama gives sugar plums to the special interests
Timothy P. Carney - Washington Examiner - Wednesday, March 24, 2010
“Tonight,” President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, “we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. … We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”
But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history — hailed the health package as “important and historic.”
The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama’s underdog tale is all bark and no bite.
The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street. [...]
Timothy P. Carney - Washington Examiner - Wednesday, March 24, 2010
“Tonight,” President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, “we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. … We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”
But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history — hailed the health package as “important and historic.”
The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama’s underdog tale is all bark and no bite.
The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street. [...]
Health Care reform aims to "control the people"
“It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps, to put the legislation together to control the people.”
3/28/10
Under God or Under Delusion?
Recently the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the claim that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the words "In God We Trust" on the U.S. currency violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Most Christians are breathing a sigh of relief following the Appellate Court decision. However, a closer look at the Court's reasoning is necessary.
My good friend, Michael Peabody, at Religious Liberty.TV, points out the fact that the court upheld the phrases on the grounds that the words "under God" and "In God We Trust" have no religious meaning, and that the words instead possess merely a historic or symbolic meaning. Given this fact, why are Christians excited that the phrases remain, if they remain only as a hollow shell with no religious meaning at all? Peabody asks the question,
So, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t keeping God’s name in the Pledge and on money under the condition that it is permissible only as long as it is meaningless implicate the 3rd Commandment which specifically states, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...” (Exodus 20:7)?He's right. Making void references to God as a mere historic concept should not exactly get Christians excited. It is simple vain repetition and offensive to God. To the extent, then, that Christians applaud the decision by the 9th Circuit Court to uphold the phrases, Christians are inadvertently applauding the violation of the Third Commandment. Good point, Michael.
But there are even worse implications for Christians than that.
First of all, Christians should not be excited about a pledge to a human kingdom or a human government at all. Our message should not be "keep 'under God' in the Pledge," but rather, our message should be, "we have something a whole lot more lovely to which we pledge our allegiance." I have personally decided not only to cease saying the Pledge of Allegiance in Christian school chapels, but also to cease saying it altogether. My allegiance is not to a kingdom of this world. As C.S. Lewis stated, "He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself..."
Secondly, sheer historical ignorance is wrapped tightly around the subject of the Pledge of Allegiance. Most Christians do not know that the Pledge was written by an atheistic socialist, and it was penned after the Civil War as a statement against the Jeffersonian, constitutional principle of state sovereignty ("One Nation, indivisible"). And it was only in the 1950s that the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge. Given the historical context, saying the Pledge, with or without "under God" in it, is a slap in the face against the Jeffersonian and truly American principles of 1798.
Thirdly, Christians who advocate keeping references to "God" in the public sphere should ask themselves what kind of God is being praised in such a setting. When "God" is referred to by the government is it the God of the founding fathers? Because that was certainly not the Triune God of the Bible whom Christians worship.
Is it the God of war who was invoked during the Civil War when "in God we Trust" was first placed on American coins as Christian Soldiers were "administering God's vengeance" on innocent Southern civilians?
Or is it the God of empire that was again invoked in the 1950s when "under God" was placed in the Pledge to baptise the new American Imperium?
But for the sake of argument, let's re-write all of the above history. Let's say the founders were all evangelical Christians. Let's say that it was a Christian pastor during the early republic who wrote the Pledge. Let's say the Pledge included "under God" in it from the start. And let's say the coins had "in God we trust" from day one of the American republic. The question still remains for Christians: would Jesus have us advance worship of Him through the public sector?
I suggest strongly that He would not. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). His kingdom has different principles--whereas the rulers of this world use coercion to impose their way, we are to use love and servitude to persuade (Matt. 20:25-28). Satan's way is the way of coercion and forced worship (Rev. 13). Jesus' way is the way of invitation, non-violence and servant-like love of our enemies. When we try to force everybody in the country to honor God by uttering the words "under God," we're sounding more like the roar of the Beast than the voice of the Lamb who was slain.
3/23/10
Obama signs bill before promised 5 days to review it
Remember this promise? (See video below.) Is anybody surprised that it has been broken? Does anybody still trust these people? Today, Obama signed the health care bill without waiting the 5 days he promised on the campaign trail.
If you're disillusioned with politicians, if you're tired of politicians lying, stealing and murdering, then you're starting to get it. Satan comes to steal, to kill and to destroy. He is the father of lies. The kingdoms of this world are his. But the kingdom of God is about life, truth and peace. I have found that putting my trust in the princes of this world leads to disappointment but putting my trust in the Prince of Peace leads to, well, true peace.
If you're disillusioned with politicians, if you're tired of politicians lying, stealing and murdering, then you're starting to get it. Satan comes to steal, to kill and to destroy. He is the father of lies. The kingdoms of this world are his. But the kingdom of God is about life, truth and peace. I have found that putting my trust in the princes of this world leads to disappointment but putting my trust in the Prince of Peace leads to, well, true peace.
Obamacare To Cost American Families $15,200 A Year
Obamacare To Cost American Families $15,200 A Year
Terence P. Jeffrey - CNSNews.com - March 22, 2010
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 on Sunday night to socialize health care in the United States, making the government the paymaster of, and giving it sweeping regulatory authority over, the U.S. health care industry which represents one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The legislation also enacts a dramatic and unprecedented diminution in the individual liberty of citizens. It does so by mandating that all Americans buy a government-approved health care plan while redistributing wealth on a massive scale by promising annual federal insurance subsidies to all Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level, which is currently $88,200 for a family of four.
[...]
Five self-professedly “pro-life” Democratic congressmen joined Stupak at a Sunday press conference to say that they would vote for the health care plan after President Obama promised he would sign this Executive Order dealing with the accounting mechanisms that will be used by abortion-providing, federally subsidized health insurance plans. These congressmen were Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.), Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.V.), Rep. Nick Rahal (W.V.)
According to the CBO, by 2016, the cheapest family health care plan that Americans will be required to buy under the law will cost $12,000 per year. The average family plan will cost $15,200. A family of four making $88,201 per year—or more than 400 percent of the poverty level—will not receive any federal subsidy to purchase such a plan. They will pay taxes, however, to subsidize the health care purchases of people earning less than 400 percent of poverty.
According to the Treasury Department the Medicare system faced about $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities before Sunday’s bill was passed.
Full article here
Terence P. Jeffrey - CNSNews.com - March 22, 2010
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 on Sunday night to socialize health care in the United States, making the government the paymaster of, and giving it sweeping regulatory authority over, the U.S. health care industry which represents one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The legislation also enacts a dramatic and unprecedented diminution in the individual liberty of citizens. It does so by mandating that all Americans buy a government-approved health care plan while redistributing wealth on a massive scale by promising annual federal insurance subsidies to all Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level, which is currently $88,200 for a family of four.
[...]
Five self-professedly “pro-life” Democratic congressmen joined Stupak at a Sunday press conference to say that they would vote for the health care plan after President Obama promised he would sign this Executive Order dealing with the accounting mechanisms that will be used by abortion-providing, federally subsidized health insurance plans. These congressmen were Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.), Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.V.), Rep. Nick Rahal (W.V.)
According to the CBO, by 2016, the cheapest family health care plan that Americans will be required to buy under the law will cost $12,000 per year. The average family plan will cost $15,200. A family of four making $88,201 per year—or more than 400 percent of the poverty level—will not receive any federal subsidy to purchase such a plan. They will pay taxes, however, to subsidize the health care purchases of people earning less than 400 percent of poverty.
According to the Treasury Department the Medicare system faced about $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities before Sunday’s bill was passed.
Full article here
Health care bill unconstitutional
CIVICS NEWS Comment: Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of Congress, and the 10th Amendment reminds federal public servants that they are not to legislate on any matters not listed there. Legislating on health care (or anything related to health care for that matter) is not present. This is a supremely criminal law since it is illegal under the supreme law of the land.
Virginia Calls Health Bill Unconstitutional, Files Suit
Attorney General: “At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service”
Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com - Monday, March 22nd, 2010
The State of Virginia has confirmed that it will sue the federal government over the health care reform bill, declaring the legislation unconstitutional and legally conflicting.
The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, issued a statement last night, giving notification that the State will file suit as soon as the president signs the bill into law, later this week.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The suit will also raise the notion that the legislation creates a legal conflict between the federal government and Virginia, the only State so far that has passed a law ruling that its residents are not mandated to buy health insurance.“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli’s statement explained.
“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” the attorney general added.
“If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.”
The final reform bill mandates that every American must purchase health insurance before 2014 or pay a fine.
On the evening the House passed the reform 219-212, all five Republican representatives in Virginia voted against the bill (Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Robert J. Wittman, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, and Rep. Frank R. Wolfe), along with two Democrats (Rep. Glenn Nye, and Rep. Rick Boucher).
Rep. Eric Cantor described the bill as a “trillion-dollar overhaul” that would reduce freedom of choice, raise taxes, and increase the national debt.
“It’s the latest part of an agenda that is being forced upon the American people that attempts to seize more control over the economy and our lives,” Cantor said on the House floor before the vote.
Watch Cantor’s speech:
Virginia isn’t the only state looking to the courts on this issue. Last week, the State of Idaho passed a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is also pending in 37 other states.
The violence behind Obamacare
Obamacare To Be Enforced By Armed Thugs
Ron Paul: “If it was a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules”
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Tuesday, March 23, 2010
If the health care bill was such a positive act of reform, as establishment Democrats and the corporate media are pitching it, then how come it needs to be enforced by means of coercion at the hands of thousands of armed IRS thugs?
That was the context of the discussion during Ron Paul’s appearance on Fox Business’ America’s Nightly Scoreboard last night, as the Congressman continued to speak out against the tyrannical nature of Obamacare.
Paul emphasized the need to protect the private option in health care as a fundamental right for all Americans not to be reliant on the government for their services.
“During this debate they talked a whole lot about the public option, I just wish they would protect the private option, give us a chance to have it private, just like you should have a chance to have private education, home schooling, you should always protect that….if you always had a private option in medicine some of us could survive and at least we could set an example for the type of medicine that the people should be getting,” said the Congressman.
Host David Asman pointed out that it would now be illegal to have private health care and that people would be forced to buy insurance under the constant glare of the 16,000 plus new IRS agents being hired to harass people into compliance to the new program.
Under Obamacare, $10 billion dollars is allocated to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory “premiums.”
Paul said that the people who previously needed to carry the least insurance would now be forced to carry the maximum, and be hounded by the IRS as a result.
“This is a command society now and medicine is right at the forefront of this….16,500 armed bureaucrats coming to make this program work – if it was a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules,” said Paul.
The Congressman highlighted the fact that people don’t trust the government’s record on social programs, pointing out that Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office are all bankrupt, and that the majority of Americans have little confidence in Obamacare being any different.
Paul said there was a chance parts of the bill would be overturned if Republicans were victorious in November, but that the biggest threat to the legislation was the probability that the entire system would collapse, labeling Obamacare a “Horrendous new burden that we have placed on the economy.”
Watch the clip below.
Ron Paul: “If it was a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules”
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Tuesday, March 23, 2010
If the health care bill was such a positive act of reform, as establishment Democrats and the corporate media are pitching it, then how come it needs to be enforced by means of coercion at the hands of thousands of armed IRS thugs?
That was the context of the discussion during Ron Paul’s appearance on Fox Business’ America’s Nightly Scoreboard last night, as the Congressman continued to speak out against the tyrannical nature of Obamacare.
Paul emphasized the need to protect the private option in health care as a fundamental right for all Americans not to be reliant on the government for their services.
“During this debate they talked a whole lot about the public option, I just wish they would protect the private option, give us a chance to have it private, just like you should have a chance to have private education, home schooling, you should always protect that….if you always had a private option in medicine some of us could survive and at least we could set an example for the type of medicine that the people should be getting,” said the Congressman.
Host David Asman pointed out that it would now be illegal to have private health care and that people would be forced to buy insurance under the constant glare of the 16,000 plus new IRS agents being hired to harass people into compliance to the new program.
Under Obamacare, $10 billion dollars is allocated to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory “premiums.”
Paul said that the people who previously needed to carry the least insurance would now be forced to carry the maximum, and be hounded by the IRS as a result.
“This is a command society now and medicine is right at the forefront of this….16,500 armed bureaucrats coming to make this program work – if it was a good program and everybody liked it, you wouldn’t need 16,500 thugs coming with their guns and putting you in jail if you didn’t follow all the rules,” said Paul.
The Congressman highlighted the fact that people don’t trust the government’s record on social programs, pointing out that Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office are all bankrupt, and that the majority of Americans have little confidence in Obamacare being any different.
Paul said there was a chance parts of the bill would be overturned if Republicans were victorious in November, but that the biggest threat to the legislation was the probability that the entire system would collapse, labeling Obamacare a “Horrendous new burden that we have placed on the economy.”
Watch the clip below.
3/22/10
The loving IRS to persuade people to fund health care
I figured out a good summer job for anybody who is interested.
“Any time a government tries to give you a service or something of substance, they have to steal it from somebody else, so the whole process is immoral because it’s based on government theft, that’s why they’re hiring 16,000 more new IRS agents, because they have to steal more money,” stated Congressman Ron Paul, referring to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee that found “Up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses,” under the health care bill.
So here's a great career change idea: join the IRS!
You will be well trained and well armed as you go to peoples' houses and become the iron fist enforcer underneath the velvet glove of the loving health care bill. And if anybody deems it moral to protect their home and their property from your IRS intrusion/enforcement, you know what to do. Just gut up, channel the progressive, Teddy Roosevelt and do what needs to be done for the greater good.
Enough with the non-violence. Long live the Regime!!
3/21/10
Government-sanctioned vegetarianism?
As a vegetarian, I want to clearly and concisely oppose the "Michigan Meatout Day," a day declared by the governor to be a state-sanctioned day of vegetarianism. For now they are merely proclaiming a special day, but soon enough this trend could lead to legislation that manipulates the market for food in favor of vegetarianism and against the eating of meat.
Now, why would a vegetarian oppose such a thing? After all, wouldn't I want the state to advance my ethical viewpoint through special days like "Meatout Day" or even outright prohibitions on the eating of meat?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The great problem of politics is that people feel morally obligated to utilize the force of government on behalf of their own views. So many of us forget that government IS FORCE, and to push your own agenda politically would entail the use of violence to advance your position. Take a prohibition on meat eating, for example. If this were to occur, and an individual who disagrees with vegetarianism were to slaughter and eat (or sell) an animal, then the government would arrest or fine this individual for violating "the law." If he were to continue to insist on resisting the punishment, then ultimately the force of arms would be brought to bear against him. And if he resisted THAT he would be murdered.
Christians don't believe in murder. Even when the state does it.
As a Christian committed to non-violence, it would be the height of hypocrisy to attempt to make vegetarianism a political issue, in other words, to use the violent act of government against human beings in order to protect animals. Human beings are God's special, intelligent creatures who were made in His own image and so the Christian should not use the violent political process to advance Christian values, including in this case kindness to animals.
Now, why would a vegetarian oppose such a thing? After all, wouldn't I want the state to advance my ethical viewpoint through special days like "Meatout Day" or even outright prohibitions on the eating of meat?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The great problem of politics is that people feel morally obligated to utilize the force of government on behalf of their own views. So many of us forget that government IS FORCE, and to push your own agenda politically would entail the use of violence to advance your position. Take a prohibition on meat eating, for example. If this were to occur, and an individual who disagrees with vegetarianism were to slaughter and eat (or sell) an animal, then the government would arrest or fine this individual for violating "the law." If he were to continue to insist on resisting the punishment, then ultimately the force of arms would be brought to bear against him. And if he resisted THAT he would be murdered.
Christians don't believe in murder. Even when the state does it.
As a Christian committed to non-violence, it would be the height of hypocrisy to attempt to make vegetarianism a political issue, in other words, to use the violent act of government against human beings in order to protect animals. Human beings are God's special, intelligent creatures who were made in His own image and so the Christian should not use the violent political process to advance Christian values, including in this case kindness to animals.
3/15/10
3/8/10
McCain trying to give Obama dictatorial powers
Dissenters To Be Detained As “Enemy Belligerents”?
New bill allows U.S. citizens to be kidnapped and detained without trial indefinitely based on “suspected activity”
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, March 8, 2010
Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.
The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.
The full bill can be read here (PDF).
The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”
A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfil one of the following criteria.
(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.
Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.
However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.
This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.
The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.”
“The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination,” states the bill.
The ACLU has expressed its vigorous opposition to the legislation, labeling it nothing less than a “direct attack on the Constitution”.
“Indefinite detention flies in the face of American values and violates this country’s commitment to the rule of law,” states Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
Of course, such positions from the ACLU as well as Amnesty International will only be used as grist for the neo-con propaganda mill about how the bill ought to be passed in order to avoid being “soft on terrorists,” a piece of spin still being swallowed whole by millions of conservatives who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the apparatus of the war on terror is now being aimed squarely at politically active American citizens.
“Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it’s the triumph of terrorism.” [...]
Possible over-turn of law shielding vaccine makers from liability
Court to decide if vaccine makers can be sued
Reuters - March 8, 2010
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits in state court seeking damages for alleged design defects.
The high court agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of a child who suffered seizures after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine. They sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, which Pfizer Inc purchased last year.
Pfizer shares fell 1 percent to $17.30 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
At issue was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It says no manufacturer “shall be liable in any civil action” for any injury that “resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
The justices agreed to decide the issue after conflicting lower-court rulings. [...]
Reuters - March 8, 2010
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits in state court seeking damages for alleged design defects.
The high court agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of a child who suffered seizures after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine. They sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, which Pfizer Inc purchased last year.
Pfizer shares fell 1 percent to $17.30 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
At issue was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It says no manufacturer “shall be liable in any civil action” for any injury that “resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
The justices agreed to decide the issue after conflicting lower-court rulings. [...]
3/5/10
1 in 3 Killed by U.S. Drone Attacks In Pakistan Are Civilians
1 in 3 Killed by U.S. Drone Attacks In Pakistan Are Civilians
Thinktank report figures highlight increasing frequency of missile deaths
Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com - Thursday, March 4th, 2010
One out of every three people killed by unmanned US Predator drones in Pakistan is a civilian, according to a new report that highlights the collateral damage caused by the targeting of Taliban and “Al Qaeda” operatives with missiles.
The report by Washington think tank The New America Foundation has found that 32% of the more than 1,200 people killed since 2004 were innocent bystanders rather than dangerous terrorists.
The nonpartisan public policy institute based it’s research on media accounts from sources including the New York Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, the BBC, in addition to reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan, as well as coverage by the largest independent Pakistani television network.
“Our study shows that the 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 18 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 834 and 1,216 individuals,” the report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann states.
“…around 549 to 849 were described as militants in reliable press accounts, about two-thirds of the total on average. Thus, the true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 percent.” the study concludes.
The thinktank has produced an interactive map that shows the location and details of each reported strike. Click here access the map:
Of course, given that these figures are based on public media reports of drone attacks only, the actual figures of civilian deaths are likely to be much higher.
Indeed, reports last year drawn up by Pakistani authorities indicated that close to 700 civilians had already perished, with just 14 wanted Al Qaeda leaders killed in the attacks.
The frequency of unmanned drone attacks has increased, as expected, under the Obama administration, with 53 reported attacks last year; more than were carried out during the entirety of George W. Bush’s two four year terms in office.
This is one campaign promise Obama has kept, as he admitted that he would seek to expand the U.S. led war on terror into Pakistan should he be elected.
In January, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama requested a record defense budget, the bulk of which will be used to acquire more pilotless Predator and Reaper drones.
Reports last December revealed that drone strikes are set to be expanded again, this time into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province for the first time, and into the country’s cities.
The U.S. still officially refuses to acknowledge the existence of any unmanned drone program inside Pakistan.
The reason for this is simple – even if you discount the hundreds of innocent lives lost in the attacks, the strikes still amount to unlawful extra-judicial killing of militants. They also infringe the national sovereignty of Pakistan and constitute an act of war.
While Pakistani authorities have consistently voiced public opposition to cross border missile strikes, which have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has stated that the Pakistani government is actively facilitating the attacks by providing bases from which to launch the drones.
The New America Foundation report concludes that although civilian casualty figures are high, they do not believe their study will influence the U.S. military to reconsider their use.
“Despite the controversy drone strikes are likely to remain a critical tool for the United States to disrupt Al Qaeda and Taliban operations and leadership structures,” it states.
Thinktank report figures highlight increasing frequency of missile deaths
Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com - Thursday, March 4th, 2010
One out of every three people killed by unmanned US Predator drones in Pakistan is a civilian, according to a new report that highlights the collateral damage caused by the targeting of Taliban and “Al Qaeda” operatives with missiles.
The report by Washington think tank The New America Foundation has found that 32% of the more than 1,200 people killed since 2004 were innocent bystanders rather than dangerous terrorists.
The nonpartisan public policy institute based it’s research on media accounts from sources including the New York Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, the BBC, in addition to reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan, as well as coverage by the largest independent Pakistani television network.
“Our study shows that the 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 18 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 834 and 1,216 individuals,” the report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann states.
“…around 549 to 849 were described as militants in reliable press accounts, about two-thirds of the total on average. Thus, the true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 percent.” the study concludes.
The thinktank has produced an interactive map that shows the location and details of each reported strike. Click here access the map:
Of course, given that these figures are based on public media reports of drone attacks only, the actual figures of civilian deaths are likely to be much higher.
Indeed, reports last year drawn up by Pakistani authorities indicated that close to 700 civilians had already perished, with just 14 wanted Al Qaeda leaders killed in the attacks.
The frequency of unmanned drone attacks has increased, as expected, under the Obama administration, with 53 reported attacks last year; more than were carried out during the entirety of George W. Bush’s two four year terms in office.
This is one campaign promise Obama has kept, as he admitted that he would seek to expand the U.S. led war on terror into Pakistan should he be elected.
In January, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama requested a record defense budget, the bulk of which will be used to acquire more pilotless Predator and Reaper drones.
Reports last December revealed that drone strikes are set to be expanded again, this time into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province for the first time, and into the country’s cities.
The U.S. still officially refuses to acknowledge the existence of any unmanned drone program inside Pakistan.
The reason for this is simple – even if you discount the hundreds of innocent lives lost in the attacks, the strikes still amount to unlawful extra-judicial killing of militants. They also infringe the national sovereignty of Pakistan and constitute an act of war.
While Pakistani authorities have consistently voiced public opposition to cross border missile strikes, which have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has stated that the Pakistani government is actively facilitating the attacks by providing bases from which to launch the drones.
The New America Foundation report concludes that although civilian casualty figures are high, they do not believe their study will influence the U.S. military to reconsider their use.
“Despite the controversy drone strikes are likely to remain a critical tool for the United States to disrupt Al Qaeda and Taliban operations and leadership structures,” it states.
3/3/10
Obama vs. Jesus
See the contrast between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of Jesus.
Just as Bush did, Obama is claiming the name of Jesus (even citing the Sermon on the Mount as his inspiration!!) while commanding the most powerful empire in human history.
To the world: Please don't blame Jesus or Christianity for the folly and wickedness of the princes of this world. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. It operates on completely different principles from those of this world.
3/2/10
Gates: Vaccinate to reduce population (I hope there's another explanation for this)
Bill Gates: Use Vaccines To Lower Population
Microsoft chief echoes John P. Holdren’s call for massive sterilization program, wants CO2 tax
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, March 1, 2010
Microsoft founder Bill Gates told a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions.
Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”
Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.
“I’m not sure what the nothing-to-see-here explanation is for Bill Gates’ theory that “new vaccines” can help lower the population of the world,” points out the Cryptogon blog, “But I thought about the incidents from the 1990s where the World Health Organization was providing a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women (and just poor girls and women) that contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). For those who don’t want to delve into that, in short, it was a World Health Organization experiment; a test of a vaccine against pregnancy.” [...]
Microsoft chief echoes John P. Holdren’s call for massive sterilization program, wants CO2 tax
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, March 1, 2010
Microsoft founder Bill Gates told a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions.
Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”
Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.
“I’m not sure what the nothing-to-see-here explanation is for Bill Gates’ theory that “new vaccines” can help lower the population of the world,” points out the Cryptogon blog, “But I thought about the incidents from the 1990s where the World Health Organization was providing a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women (and just poor girls and women) that contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). For those who don’t want to delve into that, in short, it was a World Health Organization experiment; a test of a vaccine against pregnancy.” [...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
