Ron Paul is clearly the only candidate not running against Barack Obama or against the other GOP candidates. He is running to promote liberty and a restoring of the Republic to the Constitution. He does criticize Obama, but more importantly he describes our social problems as stemming from something greater and more problematic.

Yet one thing doesn’t seem to be clear to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is not the hope of America, or even the world. Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolinski cautions Paul’s supporters into being overly excited about a Paul Presidency, and has taken considerable heat from it. In short, he said that the time supporting Ron Paul could be better spent. Maybe, but that’s too sharp a dichotomy for me. Elections are for a season. Supporting institutions like the Institute for Humane Studies can continue beyond the 2012 election cycle. Call me crazy, but I’m 100% sure Ron Paul won’t run for president again. So let’s seize the day. And if we have enough time and money, we can do both.

But Zwolinski hints at a deeper point that he doesn’t quite explicitly say: Ron Paul is not the ultimate solution to our social problems. To be fair, I truly, honestly, deeply believe that no Ron Paul supporter believes a Paul Presidency will usher in the New Millennium (or something like it). I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Paul (if you don’t believe me, check out my Facebook). Yet as a Christian I am reminded that the hope of the world doesn’t rest in worldly institutions, as much as they need dramatic reform. The hope of the world doesn’t rest in the administrations of men. It doesn’t come through mere human efforts.

A Ron Paul White House would yield tremendous positive results for society and the world. Fewer nations would be threatened by our military. Diplomats around the world might begin to trust our nation. Children will have their fathers return from foreign lands. Fewer troops will suffer from psychological disorders. The importance of sound money will become center stage in the national conversation. Those changes are truly needed. Let’s not underestimate or devalue those outcomes.

But the hope of the world doesn’t come through the actions of one administration. It comes from the members of society who are committed to change, starting from the inside out. Those individuals will shape the world around them. God’s will done “on earth as it is in heaven” will happen when the love of Jesus is demonstrated throughout society. When followers of Jesus funnel their gifts, talents, resources, abilities, and passions for the good of the world, they become God’s image to mankind so real hope is present.* And even though we are ardent supporters of Ron Paul, this thoroughly hope-filled belief is the true position of LibertarianChristians.com.

Perhaps former presidential candidate Barack Obama said it best: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” 

—–

* It’s far too easy to ignore the virtue of suffering, something Western Christians avoid at all costs. When we suffer along with our fellow human beings, we bring ourselves closer to each other and to God in a way unlike any other. True “social justice” (whatever that phrase implies) requires it, otherwise change is anything but real. But that’s for a future article…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul is NOT Obama

In the field of Republican candidates sans Ron Paul, you essentially have a bunch of ideologically identical bozos. On all the issues that matter, they are essentially the same (or worse) than Obama himself. Take health care, for instance. Can any candidate, other than Paul, offer one piece of substantial evidence that they do not want to replace Obamacare with some form of Republicare? As the wise sage Yoda once said, “Size matters not.” Republicare may be a smaller version of Obamacare in the details, but never forget that in principle there is no difference.

The candidate’s positions on health care should be proof-positive that none of them care about the free market. Only Ron Paul has consistently defended the free market and demands that the federal government stop interfering in health care and otherwise. But there is more to the story.

Regarding taxation, the candidates (sans Paul again) completely miss the point. Of course they all want to cut taxes, this is the bread and butter of Republican rhetoric (other than pro-life language). But taxation itself is not the only variable in the equation. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you cut taxes without cutting spending, because any deficit incurred by the government is simply delayed taxation.

All candidates (sans Paul) advocate essentially the same kind of spending spree that Obama has been on the past three years, and Bush II for the previous eight. For what it’s worth, Barack Obama is essentially the continuation and logical conclusion of George W. Bush, and the current candidates (sans Paul) are in their essence the continuation and logical conclusion of Obama. Again, only Ron Paul has provided a plan to substantially reduce the actual size and scope of government power and to substantially reduce taxes in tandem.

So on these key issues, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are no different than Obama, and Paul is left standing. Why, then, do conservatives, and especially “conservative” Christians, avoid Ron Paul?

It probably has to do with their devotion to war. In that case, however, the conservative case against Obama must be abandoned. Every ounce of Obama’s dubious anti-war leanings touted during his campaign has been completely ripped to shreds, yet we still hear that Obama is “anti-military” for some reason. Christian warmongers should be proud of Obama.

Interestingly enough, if you want to see who troops support you should once again look to Ron Paul. Just as in 2008, military donors prefer Ron Paul over other candidates. Their second choice, interestingly enough, is Obama. What does the right – especially the Christian right – think that means?

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed at how much the right says they care about spending, yet turn a blind eye to the trillion dollar Iraq War and repeatedly call for military action against Iran. Which pocketbook do they care about?

On every issue of spending, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of defense, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of spending and defense that supposedly matter to Republicans, only Paul can lay claim to a realistic solution. On every issue that matters*, Ron Paul has been right and the other candidates wrong. Again, how can anyone claim a dime’s worth of difference between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama? It certainly isn’t enough to write home about.

Yet “conservatives” and Christians still flock to crooks, liars, and at least one pathological adulterer. Why is this?

Wanting to get rid of Obama is fine, but don’t kid yourself. When you love war more than liberty, you will make crooked compromises. When you begin to truly appreciate what liberty means, I think you will find more than just your views on the free market changing.

This post was inspired in part by Anthony Gregory’s piece regarding the left on the LewRockwell.com Blog.

* One caveat: immigration. I am not 100% on board with Paul’s views on immigration, but they are still much better than anyone else in the field.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Weighing Political Planks and the Obama Dilemma

I remember back in the mid 1990s when I was teaching theology and Zondervan published Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I thought it was a good book, and now see that it has sold over 300,000 copies. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw that the author recently wrote an equally massive book on politics. It is not everyday when a theologian is found to have such a different field of interest and, in the case of Grudem, expertise.

As I have mentioned in some of my other reviews of Christian books (see here, here, here, here, and here), because one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I try to read and possibly review any books on these subjects. Although I am usually disappointed, Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (hereafter just Politics – According to the Bible), although it has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He was formerly Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Grudem holds degrees from Harvard, Westminster Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge. He has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

The book is very well written and organized. Grudem divides the book into three parts: Basic Principles (5 chapters), Specific Issues (10 chapters), and Concluding Observations (3 chapters). There is a brief preface and introduction, a very detailed table of contents, clear chapter divisions, footnotes, and Scripture, name, and subject indexes.

The author’s approach to the issues he discusses is threefold: arguments from direct biblical statements, arguments from broader biblical principles, and arguments that do not depend on the Bible but on an evaluation of the relevant facts in the world today.

Grudem is a conservative and a Republican, makes no apologies for it, and doesn’t try to hide it. But although he claims in his preface to "not hesitate to criticize Republican policies" where he differs with them and gives as examples "runaway government spending" and "the continual expansion of the federal government" under conservative Republican presidents, the book is long on criticism of Democrats and liberals (with one direct, negative mention of libertarianism [p. 275], although it is not in the index), and short on criticism of Republicans and conservatives.

Grudem’s whipping boys are President Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and, to a lesser extent, Greg Boyd, the author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church.

Boyd has written what I think is a good book criticizing Christian nationalism and warmongering, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it. Wallis is a liberal Christian that I rarely agree with either. I also share Grudem’s aversion to the Marxist, socialist, fascist, corporatist abomination that is Obama. In other words, I feel about him the same way as I feel about George W. Bush.

Bush should go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. He gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, expanded Medicare with a prescription-drug program, started two immoral and senseless wars, justified perpetual incarceration, torture, and innumerable other violations of civil liberties and human rights. He had bailout and stimulus programs before Obama did. He crippled corporations with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, destroyed the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act, waged war on the Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons, and increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. Bush and the Republicans used the federal treasury as an ATM, doubling the national debt, massively increasing government spending, and giving us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Although Bush is mentioned many times in the book, there is only one negative thing said about "George W. Bush’s administration" (p. 573). It is in the Concluding Observations section, and it is just basically a restatement of what Grudem said in the preface that I quoted above about the increase in government spending that occurred "when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate." Taken together, both of these statements imply that there is some criticism of Republicans in the pages between them. But all you will see is some faint criticism of Republicans on pages 274 (a quote from someone else about government debt), 313 (some Republicans opposing change because they are fearful of losing re-election), and 489 (wealthy members of Congress). The only significant criticism of Republicans is on page 474 where Grudem says he is astounded "that anyone in either party, whether Democrat or Republican, would oppose having Congress and the President take the necessary steps to complete a secure and impenetrable border fence immediately." Later in his Concluding Observations section, Grudem reluctantly admits that "President Reagan, a Republican, supported some reduction of the US nuclear arsenal" (p. 582), condemns "hyper-conservative people who have opposed any elements of a plan that would allow any path to citizenship whatsoever for the illegal aliens who are now here in the United States" (p. 584), and criticizes John McCain for being an opponent of "coercive interrogation methods" (p. 582) and a prominent supporter of campaign finance restrictions (p. 585).

Part I

As mentioned previously, the book is divided into three parts. The first section, Basic Principles, actually consists of four distinct elements: what Grudem considers to be five wrong views about Christians and government followed by his "better solution," biblical principles concerning government, a biblical worldview, and the court system as the ultimate power in a nation. The second and most important part of the book is the Specific Issues section. Although there are ten chapters here, there are actually about fifty topics that are discussed, from things one would expect like abortion and private property, to unexpected topics like farm subsidies and CAFE standards. The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book.

Grudem starts out with his five wrong views about Christians and government: "government should compel religion," "government should exclude religion," "all government is evil and demonic," "do evangelism, not politics," and "do politics, not evangelism." The problems with the first two and the last one are obvious, but I think Grudem errs in his treatment of the other two.

In his discussion of "all government is evil and demonic," Grudem is mainly arguing against Greg Boyd and his The Myth of a Christian Nation. Grudem takes issue with Boyd’s reference to Jesus’ encounter with Satan when he was fasting in the wilderness, specifically this:

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (Luke 4:5-7)

Grudem says Boyd is wrong in pointing out that Jesus "doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim" because Satan is lying, because "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). I think the point here is that Satan was offering Christ the kingdoms of the world now, without the Cross, which was not in the plan of God. Christ later said that his kingdom was not now of this world (John 18:36), although it will be in the future (2 Timothy 4:1). Christ three times refers to the devil as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) – the "present evil world" (Galatians 1:4) that "lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). It could be argued that the devil had this position by usurpation and permission (see Job 1 & 2; Daniel 2:21, 4:25; John 19:11), but he had it nevertheless.

In taking issue with Boyd’s pacifism (which I don’t necessarily agree with), Grudem makes some statements that show where he will go later in the book on the subject of national defense (chap. 11). He reasons that taking the view that "all government is demonic" (how else could you describe the current U.S. government?) "would mean less and less support for a strong military" that could "oppose evil aggressors anywhere in the world" (p. 43). He is concerned about "aggressive nations who would attack us and our allies," blind to the fact that the United States has the most aggressive foreign policy of any country and is the only country currently engaged in foreign wars half way around the world. Naturally, like all apologists for U.S. wars, he is compelled to mention Munich and appeasement, as if that someone justifies the aggressive foreign policy of the United States. (On Munich, see my review of "Buchanan’s Necessary Book.")

In arguing against "do evangelism, not politics," Grudem seems to equate Christians not using political means to transform society with not preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God and not seeking to be a good influence on society. He is arguing here against a straw man. And I think he is incorrect in more than one respect when he says that "God gave both the church and the government to restrain evil in this age" (p. 48). The real purpose of government, as my friend Tom DiLorenzo has said, is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

I have no argument with Grudem’s "better solution" to what he considers to be wrong views of Christians and government of "Christian influence on government." I wholeheartedly concur that "the responsibility of pastors is to give wise biblical teaching, explaining exactly how the teachings of the Bible apply to various specific situations in life, and that should certainly include instruction about some political matters in government and politics" (p. 62). On the subject of Prohibition, Grudem makes the good point that "it is impossible to enforce moral standards on a population when those moral standards are more strict than the standards found in the Bible itself" (pgs. 63-64).

The one problem I see with Grudem’s "better solution" is that it includes voting. Although I think he wisely says that he doesn’t think Christians should only vote for Christian candidates or generally prefer an evangelical candidate over a non-evangelical one (Grudem’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2007 over Mike Huckabee proves his sincerity), he believes that Christians have an obligation to vote. And not only vote, but to do something else like "giving money or giving time to support specific candidates and issues," "writing letters or helping to distribute literature," or "running for office or volunteering to serve in the military" (p. 75). I think rather that Christians would do better to give their money and time to churches and charity work instead of politicians and political parties, distribute religious literature instead of political literature, and run for a church office instead of a political office. And above all, stay out of the military. We are only in chapter two, and once again Grudem’s admiration for the military shines through. He also mentions here the canard of U.S. soldiers dying for our freedoms, including in that number those who were duped to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. One can already see that we are going to have a tough time getting through his chapter on national defense.

In the third chapter of the Basic Principles section, Grudem gives us his biblical principles concerning government. Here we find mostly good, but sometimes a mixed bag. He recognizes that "governments too often attempt to restrict human liberty in ways that are much more extensive and intrusive and that prohibit not only the doing of things that are clearly evil, but also doing things that are morally neutral or good but not favored by the government" and that "every incremental increase in governmental regulation of life is also an incremental removal of some measure of human liberty" (p. 94), but then defends the current airport security system that views all travelers as criminals and expresses support for a federal court decision that prohibited a religious group from using marijuana.

Another example is on the subject of taxes. Grudem mentions how taxes result in lost liberty and freedom and rob people of huge portions of their lives. But he speaks favorably of "tax-supported playgrounds and parks where families can picnic and sports teams can practice and compete" (p. 80). We will see the same thing in his section on taxes in the chapter on economics (chap. 9).

Grudem makes a distinction between "blind patriotism" and "genuine patriotism" (p. 109), and makes some good biblical points about the necessity of sometimes disobeying the government, but does not seem to sufficiently recognize a distinction between a country and its government.

To finish out the Basic Principles section, Grudem has chapter on "a biblical worldview" that is straightforward enough. However, his final chapter on "the courts and the question of ultimate power in a nation," while it contains much good information, concludes with the admonition to vote Republican as "the best way – in fact, the only way known to me – to bring about a change and break the rule of unaccountable judges over our society" (p. 154). Grudem is under the delusion that Republicans generally support "‘originalist’ judges and justices who will rule according to the original meaning of the Constitution." I guess that’s why Senator John McCain voted to confirm to the Supreme Court the liberal, pro-choice justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. It is also delusional to say that justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas "consistently" rule "according to the original meaning of the Constitution" (p. 151). Just look at the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) where Scalia voted with the "liberal" majority while Thomas wrote a blistering dissent that charged the majority with making a mockery of the Constitution. And on the federal appeals court level, in the case of Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just recently ruled that the Obamacare "individual mandate" was constitutional. The opinion was written by Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman. (On the legal challenges to Obamacare, see my "The Supreme Court and Obamacare.")

Part II

The meat of Politics – According to the Bible is the Specific Issues section. Each of the ten chapters discusses from four to eleven topics. The best chapter is the one on The Environment; the worst is the one on National Defense. Although Grudem covers about fifty topics, I think some important ones are missing; e.g., civil liberties and the war on drugs.

The Protection of Life

The chapter on The Protection of Life includes the topics of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and self-defense and ownership of guns. Obviously, Grudem, as a conservative Republican, is an opponent of abortion, and states his case quite well, but I take issue with his statement that "every vote for every Democratic candidate for President or Congress undeniably has the effect of continuing to protect 1,000,000 abortions per year in the United States" (p. 177). Earlier in the section on abortion, Grudem says that no government money should be given to pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. But just look at who has been funding Planned Parenthood. This is a blog post I did on April 28, 2010:

I have seen it reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on the Planned Parenthood website. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

Although I agree with Grudem on his biblical defense of capital punishment, I think he exceeds the biblical mandate when he says that he thinks "that capital punishment should be the penalty for some other crimes that were intended to or actually did lead to the death of other people" (p. 192). In his otherwise good discussion of gun control, I think he compromises when he says the government should be able to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership including "the prohibition of private ownership of certain types of weapons not needed for personal self-defense" (p. 211).

Marriage

In his chapter on marriage, Grudem shines except for his insistence that "only a civil government is able to define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for a whole nation of whole society" (p. 222). Marriage preceded the state, and does not need the state’s oversight. Furthermore, I think Grudem greatly overstates his case:

Without a governmentally established standard of what constitutes marriage, the result will be a proliferation of children born in relationships of incest and polygamy as well as in many temporary relationships without commitment, and many children born with no one having a legal obligation to care for them (p. 222).

Taking these in reverse order, a child’s parents have the legal obligation to care for it whether they are married or not, there are many children born now as a result of temporary relationships without commitment, and it is ludicrous to think that it is only state oversight of marriage that keeps people from incest and polygamy. This is akin to the drug warrior implying that everyone would be on drugs if all drug prohibitions were lifted.

Grudem unfortunately provides the wrong information on which states have legalized same-sex marriage. In a book the size of Politics – According to the Bible, it is understandable that has to be written over a long period of time. However, every attempt should be made to have facts and figures up-to-date by the time the book is published. We are told on page 229 that three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage, but that the voters in Maine overruled the legislature and governor. This leaves two states where same-sex marriage is legal. But on page 596, Grudem tells us that there are four states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Both of these are wrong. The date Grudem gives at the end of his preface is February 2010. On page 395 he mentions that he is writing in early 2010. Five states plus the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage before the book was published. And since Grudem mentions in one place the latest state to do so – New Hampshire on January 1, 2010 – there is no excuse for the other states and the District of Columbia not being mentioned.

Grudem makes a good point when he says that if the majority of society decides to grant domestic partner benefits, "they should not be limited to homosexual domestic partners, but should apply to all people living together in long-term relationships where there is mutual commitment and obligation to care and support each other" (p. 234).

On the topic of pornography, Grudem begins well: "The fact that something is morally wrong according to the Bible does not by itself mean that governments should have laws against it" (p. 242). Yet, he makes a distinction between laws against looking at pornographic material (he opposes them) and laws against the production, distribution, and sale of pornography (he supports them).

The Family

This brief chapter includes a discussion of educational vouchers. Although Grudem believes that "parents, not the government, should have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children" (p. 248), he believes, unfortunately, that this freedom includes the use of other people’s money to pay for their decision. Grudem wants to see "a system of school vouchers provided by the local government to pay for the education of children in each family" (p. 250). To the objection that parents could use vouchers to send their children to church-related schools, he says, correctly: "The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit the governmental establishment of one certain church or religion as the official state church. It was never intended to prevent all government support for everything that is done by a church." But this does not mean that the government should support anything done by a church. What we need, of course, is a complete separation of school from state, not a continuation of it through a voucher system. (See my articles on vouchers here, here, here, and here.) But as to whether "governments should encourage married couples to bear and raise children" (p. 245), the government should neither encourage nor discourage this decision.

Economics

Overall, this is a very good chapter. Grudem defends free markets, personal liberty, limited government, and property rights while disparaging government regulation, progressive taxation, the "fair tax," and income redistribution. My favorites:

• Every increase in taxes takes away that much more human freedom (p. 286).
• Governments all over the world are notorious for waste and inefficiency (p. 286).
• Higher taxes on corporations are just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices (p. 289).
• A strong argument can be made that the capital gains tax should be completely abolished (p. 291).
• I can see no justification in the Bible for a "progressive" tax rate (p. 292).
• When taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their own money, there is an increase in the amount of personal liberty in society (p. 300).
• Property belongs to individuals, not to society and not to the government (p. 301).
• My conclusion is that the estate tax should be permanently repealed (p. 309).

But in typical Republican fashion, Grudem compromises, and sometimes a great deal. Note carefully the downward progression (emphasis mine):

• Government is never an efficient provider of economic goods (p. 313).
• It is difficult to think of any goods or services that a government might produce that could not be produced better by private companies (p. 285).
• The free market is almost always a better way of solving an economic problem than government ownership or control (p. 275).
• Some services and products needed by the entire society are best provided by government (p. 285).

Therefore, "government should establish and maintain an effective money supply for a nation" (p. 271), "it is necessary for governments to impose some health and safety standards on the sale of medicines and foods or other products such as bicycles and cars" (p. 274), some government regulation is necessary "to prevent wrongdoing such as theft, fraud, and breaking of contracts (p. 276), "there is some need for government-supported welfare programs to help cases of urgent need (for example, to provide a ‘safety net’ to keep people from going hungry or without clothing or shelter)" (p. 281), "it is appropriate for government to provide enough funding so that everyone is able to gain enough skills and education to earn a living" (p. 281), the government should enable "every citizen to live adequately in the society" (p. 281), "there is nothing wrong with the original idea behind Social Security" (p. 312), and "some provision should be made to care for those who truly cannot afford medical insurance" (p. 315).

So, lest there be any misunderstanding about Grudem’s compassionate conservatism:

I want to reaffirm that I believe that it is right that government provide some kind of guarantee of support for those who are genuinely no longer able to work due to old age, disability, or involuntary unemployment. And it would of course make sense to provide provisions for partial benefits to be paid to people who wanted to take semi-retirement and then ease gradually into full retirement (p. 312).

It would make more sense to follow the Constitution, which Grudem says is the highest government authority (p. 153), and that authorizes no such provisions.

It is unfortunate that in this chapter Grudem perverts Matthew 22:17 in maintaining that "Jesus thus endorsed the legitimacy of paying taxes to a civil government" (p. 285) and Romans 13:4 in saying that "governments should do ‘good’ for people." (On the former see Jeffrey Barr on "Render unto Caesar"; on the later see my recent analysis of another perversion of Romans 13.)

The Environment

As mentioned previously, this is Grudem’s best chapter in the Specific Issues section. "It is not wrong in principle, as many environmentalists think it is, for human beings to modify the world" (p. 323), says Grudem. Man was placed on the earth to subdue it and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28). Grudem demolishes environmentalist wacko claims about global warming, and perceptively sees the issue as a controversy over human liberty versus government control:

If the government can dictate how far you drive your car, how much you heat or cool your home, how much you will use electric lights or computers or a TV, how much energy your factory can use, and how much jet fuel you can have to fly an airplane, then it can control most of the society (p. 380).

Grudem makes the case that there is no good reason to think we will ever run out of any essential natural resource. To this end, he examines data regarding population, land, water, clean air, waste disposal, forests, species loss, pesticides, and life expectancy, and discusses energy sources. I also like his heroic defense of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

National Defense

All good things must come to an end. Grudem’s chapter on National Defense is typical Republican and conservative pro-war and pro-military claptrap.

No one would have an argument with one of Grudem’s opening statements:

Now, if a government is commanded by God to protect its citizens from the robber or thief who comes from within a country, then certainly it also has an obligation to protect its citizens against thousands of murderers or thieves who come as an army from somewhere outside of the nation. Therefore a nation has a moral obligation to defend itself against foreign attackers who would come to kill and conquer and subjugate the people in a nation (p. 388).

He also says later: "No nation has the right ever to use military power simply to conquer other nations or impose their ideas of social good on another nation" (p. 394). But all of this goes by the wayside when Grudem says: "I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just wars" (p. 414). And especially when he says: "The war in Iraq was a necessary, strategic, and highly significant step in defending the United States against radical Islamic terrorism" (p. 417).

But that’s not all, Grudem, in typical warmongering, interventionist Republican fashion, defends coercive interrogation techniques (he justifies this on the basis of biblical admonitions to discipline children), John Yoo, George W. Bush, the atomic bombing of Japan, the FBI, the CIA (we should "be thankful" for it), NATO, more weapons, missile defense, bigger military budgets, the war on terror, waterboarding ("this procedure does not seem to me to be inherently morally wrong"), and warrantless wiretapping.

Grudem singles out Congressman Ron Paul for his noninterventionist views (p. 398-399). He calls his understanding of foreign policy "deeply flawed." His criticism of the sane noninterventionist views of Dr. Paul is enough to make you want to put down the book. But your reviewer has persevered.

There are some real howlers in the chapter. Like justifying foreign intervention with the Declaration of Independence (p. 397-398). Like bemoaning the vote of the Senate to stop production of the F-22 at 187 fighters (p. 400-401), a decision supported by Senator John McCain, senior military leaders, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and opposed by Democratic and Republican senators because they were concerned about job losses in their districts. Like Saddam Hussein transported his mass of weapons destruction to Syria (p. 415). And like it is all Obama’s fault that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is decreasing (p. 418) when Bush made an agreement to do so in 2008.

Because this review is already too long, I refer the reader to some of my articles regarding things Grudem brings up. On the sixth commandment is only about murder (p. 389), see my "The Unholy Desire of Christians to Legitimize Killing in War." On soldiers in the New Testament not being condemned (p. 389), see my "There They Crucified Him" and "Do Violence to No Man." On the just war tradition being consistent with biblical teachings (p. 389), see my "What About Hitler?" On Romans 13 as a justification for national defense (pgs. 392, 425, 428), see my "Romans 13 and National Defense." On Obama reducing the strength of the military, see my "Rush Is Wrong." On torture being okay if we don’t call it torture (p. 425-433), see my "Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus," "Christians for Torture," and "The Morality of Torture." And on the war in Iraq being a just war (p. 414-418), see my "Christianity and the War."

Foreign Policy

Grudem’s chapter on foreign policy isn’t much better than his chapter on national defense. But this was to be expected since an interventionist military policy is just the other side of the coin of an interventionist foreign policy. No one would argue with the author that the "promotion of human freedom, human rights, and democratic government is consistent with the most foundational convictions of our nation" (p. 441). But it is the way Grudem feels the United States should go about this that is troubling. He applies the command of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) to nations, saying that "nations should seek to do good for other nations insofar as they have opportunity to do so" (p. 437). However, the main way this is to be done is through foreign aid; that is, the looting of the American taxpayers (see my many articles on foreign aid here). Grudem supports continuing the Cuban embargo. Grudem is not a dispensationalist, but still believes that "we should treat Israel as a very special and close ally" (p. 467). He again states his disagreement with the noninterventionism of Ron Paul because it is a policy "which opposes any defense alliances with Israel and all foreign or military aid to Israel."

Grudem takes an exceptionally hard line on immigration. "The United States must take immediate action to immediately and effectively close its borders," he says (p. 473). As mentioned previously, Grudem favors the immediate construction of a secure and impenetrable border fence. He sees no valid argument to oppose it or delay it. He favors more effective law enforcement to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants and the E-Verify program. To his credit, Grudem does say that the idea that foreign workers will take jobs away from Americans "is based on a misunderstanding of economics" (p. 481) And he also says that "immigrants who want to come to the United States are, by and large, producers who bring benefit to the economy and helpers who bring other benefits to the society as a whole" (p. 476). One thing he doesn’t say is that the welfare state should be abolished to prevent immigrants draining more resources "from the nation than they provide to the nation" (p. 472). The fact that Grudem lives in Arizona may somewhat explain his views on immigration.

Freedom of Speech

Here Grudem presents a biblical and constitutional defense of freedom of speech. In doing so he harshly criticizes campaign finance restrictions, campus "hate speech" codes, and the Fairness Doctrine.

Freedom of Religion

The only problem I see with the author’s chapter on Freedom of Religion is his advocacy of government-supported "faith-based" programs because they "‘promote the general welfare’ of the nation" (p. 508). He maintains that faith-based programs "actually save tax dollars that would otherwise need to be spent to help the people who are cared for by these religiously based institutions." But just like vouchers don’t lower federal spending on education, so faith-based program funding will not lower federal welfare spending. Our main disagreement is over government funds needing to be spent on welfare in the first place.

Special Groups

The last chapter in the Specific Issues section covers topics like regulators, earmarks, affirmative action, gender-based quotas, farm subsidies, tariffs, tort reform, the NEA, Native Americans, and gambling. Grudem favors "the complete abolition of all affirmative action policies in law and business and government once for all" (p. 524). He opposes farm subsidizes and tariffs on principle, but is willing to make some exceptions. He terms regulators "a vast army of bureaucrats," and labels increasing government regulation as "anti-democratic" and "anti-free market" (p. 517), but allows for "certain product control standards and certain standards for safety and justice in the workplace" to be "enforced by such government agencies" (p. 515). His criticism of the NEA is mainly over its opposition to vouchers. The solution to the Indian problem he sees as private ownership of property instead of the system of tribal ownership.

On gambling, Grudem says he is not aware of any specific Bible verses that directly prohibit participating in gambling" (p. 550), and that it is his personal practice to avoid gambling, but since casinos and state lotteries "bring much more harm to society than the benefits they generate" (p. 551), he would vote against a state allowing a lottery, an Indian casino, or a commercial casino to operate. (See my articles on gambling prohibitions at the state and federal levels.) Since Grudem has a section on gambling, there is no excuse for not having a section on the drug war.

Part III

The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book. Chapter 16, on "media bias," closes with one Scripture reference at the end. Chapter 18, on "faith and works, and trusting God while working in politics and government," although it contains may Scripture references, likewise departs from the subject of politics and the Bible.

Chapter 17, titled "application to Democratic and Republican policies today," forms the book’s conclusion. It also serves as the author’s solution to policies that don’t line up with the Bible – vote Republican. Grudem criticizes Jim Wallis for writing a book about God not being a Republican or Democrat and then arguing that "‘God’s politics’ are the politics of the Democratic Party" (p. 573), but this is exactly what he has done as it relates to Republicans.

Grudem is deluded to think that the policies and principles of the two major parties represent very different viewpoints (see my many articles on the Republican Party here). He claims that "the Republican Party has been dominated by people favoring smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, traditional standards regarding abortion and marriage, the promotion of democracy, and the promotion of free market economics" (p. 574). Anyone who has studied the history of the Republican Party knows that this is simply not true (again, see my many articles on the Republican Party here). Rather than the teachings of the Bible mostly supporting "the current policies of the Republicans" (p. 573-574), it would be more accurate to say that the teachings of the Bible mostly support Republican rhetoric that they don’t really believe.

One thing that will turn people from, and cause readers not to finish Politics – According to the Bible is its size (619 pgs.). The main reason for this is the author’s departure from the book’s subject, which is not limited to just chapters 16 and 18. This does not mean that all his departures are necessarily bad, but I do think that the book, in its current format, should have been shorter, or else expanded and put into a more encyclopedic format.

To repeat what I said at the onset, although this book has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on November 17, 2011.

You might not want to read Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Republican Politics According to the Bible

It has now come to light that, like the Commission that governed the American Mafia, the Obama administration has a secret panel of senior government officials that places the names of individuals on a hit list and then notifies Obama the capo di tutti capi. There is no congressional oversight or judicial review.

This very real death panel was behind the decision to add American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki to the hit list and take him out by CIA drone strike in Yemen last month.

The evidence that al-Awlaki actually killed anyone is nonexistent, unlike the following Americans who actually kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed other Americans.

John Couey, a convicted sex offender, abducted Jessica Lunsford, aged nine, from her home in Florida in 2005, raped her, and buried her alive. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for kidnapping, rape, and murder. He died in prison before the sentence could be carried out.

Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, killing 168 people. He was tried on eleven federal offenses, convicted, and sentenced to death. He was executed in June of 2001.

Charles Manson and his "family" committed the brutal Tate/LaBianca murders in California in 1969. Except for Linda Kasabian, who was given immunity in exchange for her testimony against the "family," Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Charles Watson, Leslie Van Houten, and Susan Atkins were tried for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in 1972.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer who confessed to murdering thirty people in seven states from 1974-1978. In Florida, he was charged with killing two FSU students and a twelve-year-old girl. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed in January of 1989.

John Wayne Gacy raped, tortured, and killed thirty-three young men in Illinois between 1972 and 1978. He buried twenty-six of his victims in the crawlspace of his house. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. After spending fourteen years on death row, he was executed in May of 1994.

Jeffrey Dahmer killed fifteen young men between 1978 and 1991 after raping many of them. This was followed by dismemberment, necrophilia, and cannibalism. He was tried, and found guilty of fifteen counts of murder, and sentenced to fifteen life terms. He was beaten to death by a fellow prisoner in November of 1994.

None of these Americans – as reprehensible as their actions may have been – were executed without trial even though there was no doubt as to their guilt.

When Lee Harvey Oswald was suspected of killing the president of the United States in 1963, he was captured and held for trial before being killed by Jack Ruby, a private citizen.

And then there is Jared Loughner, who publicly killed six people and shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head in a shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, earlier this year. He is awaiting trial even though fifty people saw him commit murder.

Heck, even in wartime, if an enemy soldier – who may have been trying to kill you for days – comes out of the woods waving a white flag or raising his hands above his head, he is supposed to be taken prisoner, not killed.

And then, according to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, POWs are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. And if there is any doubt as to whether an "enemy combatant" is in fact a legitimate POW, he is to be treated as such until his status can be determined. In Article 3 is prohibited "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1946, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Twenty-two of them were found guilty. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, which was carried out in October of 1946.

Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who had escaped to Argentina, was captured by Israeli intelligence in 1960, taken to Israel, tried with defense lawyers and witnesses for both sides, convicted after deliberation, and allowed to appeal before he was hanged in 1962.

If the perpetrators of World War II and the Holocaust were tried before their executions, then any American who commits any crime should be tried likewise.

Was Anwar al-Awlaki a bad guy who inspired and motivated others to want to commit acts of terrorism against America and Americans? Certainly. Should he have been killed by a CIA drone pilot acting simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? Certainly not.

The killing of an American citizen without trial sets a terrible precedent. As Congressman Ron Paul has well said: "If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a ‘really bad American,’ is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?"

Dozens of U.S. citizens are thought to be on the government’s hit list. Will you be next?

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on October 24, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Murder Inc.

You can see the full details of the plan here, or you can download a PDF. Here are some of the high notes:

Spending and Entitlement Programs

The Paul budget cuts $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency, including complete evaporation of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, Interior, and Education. Finally, a Republican who actually wants to abolish the wretched DOEs (both of them)! Ending foreign wars provides most of the cuts in this category. Spending returns to 2006 levels within a year (not enough, in my opinion, but a good start).

The plan provides for preservation of existing Medicaid and other welfare programs for the time being, but more importantly allows people to opt out! Considering that I no ZERO people, libertarian or not, who expect to receive a cent back from what they pay into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security this is a godsend.

Taxes

Paul’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is down from around 40%. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates out there and it is one of the many reasons for the declining industrial economy here. All of the Bush tax cuts remain (one of the few good things Bush ever did) and the Death Tax is abolished. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Regulation

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley will be scrapped, thank goodness. Not really a surprise, of course, because these monstrous regulatory devices are easily some of the most destructive mandates in recent years.  The report also says, “President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.” Hopefully by “onerous” he means almost everything.

Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve, of course, will get a full audit, exposing the government banksters’ fraud and deception forced upon the world. Gold may not be made official money yet, but this is the best start you can hope for.

Conclusion

All this being said, as an abolitionist I would be remiss to point out that this budget does not go far enough, for three reasons. First, why are certain departments, like defense, seeing nominal increases in spending after the major cuts year on year? If the plan is to drill down the size of government, I wouldn’t expect to see any department or program see increases over the years. And no, I don’t think that inflation-adjusted numbers should count. I don’t get a raise just because my money is worth less, and neither should the government.

Second, unless I missed it then why on earth is the income tax not eliminated on day one? Has that not been a pretty important point of Paul’s message from the beginning? Would somebody correct me please?

Third, why stop here with the cuts? There are plenty more departments to eliminate, bureaucratic orgs to eradicate, and government waste to incinerate. Never rest on your laurels, strike the root! Now, I grant that, while comprehensive, this plan is not written on stone tablets. Ron probably would love to do more, but in such a publication as this you must nail down the essentials rather than write every detail you can. So, kudos to the Paul campaign for putting forward a good plan.

Again, you can check out the full plan here.

I hear there is another major money bomb coming up, called Black This Out. If you support this plan, perhaps you should consider donating?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), more popularly known as Obamacare, passed the Senate on Christmas Eve of 2009, passed the House on March 21, 2010, and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It was one of the most controversial and partisan pieces of legislation in history, with no Republican in either house of Congress voting in favor of the 2407-page bill (H.R. 3590 [PDF]).

The onerous provisions of the PPACA include an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, the prohibition of annual and lifetime coverage caps, the elimination of co-payments and deductibles for selected health-insurance benefits, guaranteed issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions, federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, employer mandates, more arcane insurance regulations, an increase in the Medicare tax on the “rich,” and a tax on indoor tanning services. Perhaps the most egregious part of Obamacare is the “individual mandate” that every American not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or health insurance must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

Within hours of the passage of Obamacare, the attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, and the attorneys general of twelve other states (Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, and their respective department secretaries, Kathleen Sebelius, Timothy Geithner, and Hilda L. Solis, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The lawsuit was later joined by the attorneys general of thirteen other states (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), the National Federation of Independent Business, and two individuals, Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg.

On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola struck down the Obamacare mandate, declaring, “The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional” (PDF). He said further,

The defendants’ argument that people without health insurance are actively engaged in interstate commerce based on the purported “unique” features of the much broader health care market is neither factually convincing nor legally supportable.

Because I find both the “uniqueness” and “economic decision” arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.

And because Judge Vinson reasoned that “the Constitutionality of the individual mandate is the crux of this entire case,” and “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable,” he also ruled that “the entire Act must be declared void.”

The judge then ruled on March 3 that he would honor the Obama administration’s request that his ruling be stayed while the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, reviewed the case. He also expressed interest in the Supreme Court hearing the case because “the sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be.”

After an official appeal by the government on March 8, the Atlanta appellate court, by a 2–1 vote on August 12, affirmed the judgment of Judge Vinson in a 207-page opinion that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but rejected his argument that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the PPACA, thus rendering the rest of Obamacare “legally operative” (PDF).

On September 28, the state plaintiffs (PDF), the National Federation of Independent Business (PDF), and the Obama administration (PDF) each filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Obama administration also issued a statement through Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor, affirming the constitutionality of the PPACA and expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will agree.

But Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al. is not the only lawsuit against Obamacare. Since the PPACA was passed, there have been twenty-five other court challenges to the new health care law.

Besides the Florida case, there are two other cases where the individual mandate of Obamacare was declared unconstitutional.

In Virginia v. Sebelius, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the individual-mandate provision of the law on December 13, 2010. Said Judge Henry Hudson, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” But the government appealed the decision in the 4th circuit court of appeals, in Richmond, which ruled unanimously on September 8, 2011, that the district-court judgment be vacated and the case remanded back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” because the plaintiff lacks standing.

In Goudy-Bachman v. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on September 13, 2011, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Judge Christopher Connor wrote that allowing the individual mandate to stand “would effectively sanction Congress’s exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure.”

In six other cases, the constitutionality of Obamacare was upheld. Three of them were also heard at the appeals court level.

In Liberty University v. Geithner, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case on November 30, 2010. On appeal, the fourth circuit court of appeals, by a vote of 2–1 on September 8, 2011, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” because the individual mandate is a tax that cannot be challenged in court until it is collected, which will not be until 2014.

In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case on October 7, 2010. On appeal, the sixth circuit court of appeals ruled, by a vote of 2–1 on June 29, 2011, that Congress has a “rational basis” to impose the individual mandate, and the court upheld the constitutionality of the PPACA.

In Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on February 22, 2011. The decision of the D.C. circuit court of appeals is pending.

Nine other cases were dismissed by district courts for lack of standing or procedural problems. One of these cases, New Jersey Physicians v. Obama, was also heard by the third circuit court of appeals, which upheld the district court ruling. Two of the nine cases, Baldwin & Pacific Justice Institute v. Sebelius and Kinder v. Geithner, are pending at the appeals-court level.

Eight cases are still pending at the district-court level.

All these cases basically come down to the question of the “individual mandate” versus the “commerce clause.” In general, liberal judges appointed by Democratic presidents view the mandate as constitutional, while conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents view the mandate as unconstitutional. Both groups err, but in different respects.

The commerce clause is the most abused part of the Constitution. It has been used by the federal government to increase its power over the states and their citizens and to decrease the power of the states and their citizens. It has been used to force farmers to destroy crops and pay a fine for growing “too much” wheat (Wickard v. Filburn). It has also been used to criminalize marijuana for medical use even where states approve its use (Gonzales v. Raich). All the commerce clause says is that Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

During the health-care debates back in 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNS News where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to purchase health insurance. Her response was simply, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She answered no further, and took another question. Her press secretary then said that asking Pelosi where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a “serious question.”

Pelosi’s office has issued a statement on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” in which she does answer the question:

The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the health care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.

In the early history of the American republic, as Judge Vinson points out in his decision striking down Obamacare, “The word ‘commerce’ was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, ‘the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest’” (PDF). Not manufacturing, not mining, not agriculture, not insurance, not medical care.

Nowhere, as Judge Vinson further points out, “in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist” is the term “commerce” “ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.” Any member of the federal judiciary should be familiar with this.

Obamacare is unconstitutional because health care and health insurance are not commerce, are not interstate commerce, and are not relevant to the commerce clause.

According to Madison — the father of the Constitution — the commerce clause

grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, as Judge Vinson summarized from U.S. v. Lopez (1995), has “identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power”:

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

But even under the widest possible interpretation of the commerce clause, the individual mandate is still unconstitutional. In the PPACA, Congress has assumed the power to create commerce by forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and to regulate inactivity by penalizing individuals for not doing so. Obamacare moves the country closer to a single-payer system; that is, socialized medicine, something that Democrats in Congress have sought to institute since the presidency of Harry Truman.

When the Supreme Court decides to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it will have to decide two questions: whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and whether it is severable from the rest of the health care law.

There is something far more important, however, that the Supreme Court will not be deciding: whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care in the first place.

Nancy Pelosi’s aforementioned “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” says

Reform opponents continue to spread myths about components of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, including the nonsensical claim that the federal government has no constitutionally valid role in reforming our health care system — apparently ignoring the validity of Medicare and other popular federal health reforms.

The federal judges who found the individual mandate unconstitutional actually agree with Pelosi on this point. Here is Judge Vinson in his original decision that declared Obamacare unconstitutional:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. (PDF)

And here are Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull of the 11th circuit court of appeals in Atlanta, stating that although the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Congress still has broad power to legislate concerning health care:

We conclude that the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975-page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die. (PDF)

As demonstrated at length throughout our opinion, Congress has broad power to deal with the problems of the uninsured, and it wielded that power pervasively in this comprehensive and sweeping Act. As to the individual mandate provision, however, Congress exceeded its enumerated commerce power.

Because the belief that government should intervene in some way into health care is so pervasive and systemic, the question of whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care was not and will not be considered by any federal court. And that is unfortunate, because strict constitutionalists recognize that the Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with health care or health insurance.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to provide a health-care safety net, a prescription drug plan, vaccinations, medical treatment, or health insurance subsidies.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care or insurance, to eliminate co-payments and deductibles, or to guarantee issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to fund clinical trials, laboratories, community health centers, medical research, or family planning.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to mandate medical licensing or force hospitals to treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, or HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to regulate hospitals, nursing homes, the health-insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, organ sales or donations, medical devices, medical schools, physicians, dentists, nurses, midwives, psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, or practitioners of holistic, chiropractic, homeopathic, nutritional, or other forms of alternative medicine.

Libertarians, of course, also recognize that not only are these things unconstitutional, they are beyond the purpose and scope of a government limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The Supreme Court may overturn the individual mandate or the whole of Obamacare, but neither of those actions will restore a free market in health care.

Originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation on October 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

"Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." ~ George W. Bush, address to the nation, September 11, 2001

"They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." ~ George W. Bush, address to Congress, September 20, 2001

Of all the lies of the Bush administration used to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this one has proven to be the most enduring – and the most wrong.

According to a 2004 report on strategic communication prepared by the Defense Science Board Task Force, "a federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the secretary of defense":

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack – to broad public support.

A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism rather than reduced it. "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" points out the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks and describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism.

According to Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999: "In the long run, we’re not safer because we’re still operating on the assumption that we’re hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we’re hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There’s our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies."

Peter Bergen, who produced the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997, says "that in all the tens of thousands of words uttered by bin Laden, he was strangely silent about American freedoms and values. He didn’t seem to care very much about the beliefs of the ‘crusaders.’ His focus was invariably on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East."

Political scientist James Payne, in a review of twenty-four official pronouncements of Osama bin Laden from 1994-2004, found that 72 percent of the content amounted to "criticism of the United States and other Western countries for their aggression against Muslim lands and the need to defend against and punish this aggression." Only 1 percent criticized American culture or the American way of life.

If we really want to know why American is hated by terrorists, insurgents, jihadists, militants, and Islamofascists, then we should just ask them. Actually, we don’t even need to ask, just listen.

Listen to Osama bin Laden, the late leader of al Qaeda. First, from his 1996 fatwa:

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn’t respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its’ allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places – the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims – by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies.

Second, from his 1997 CNN interview:

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet’s Night Travel Land.

A reaction might take place as a result of the US government’s hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.

And third, from his 1998 Fatwa:

The Arabian Peninsula has never – since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas – been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million … despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Because of the many undocumented statements that have been attributed to bin Laden since 9/11, I have deliberately not included any of his purported post-9/11 statements.

Listen to Ramzi Yousef, convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993, and now serving a life sentence. From his January 8, 1998, court appearance:

You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years.

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.

Yousef and his co-conspirators (Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin) sent a letter to the New York Times after the bombing that spelled out their motive:

We are, the fifth battalion in the LIBERATION ARMY, declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.

OUR DEMANDS ARE:

1 – Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.

2 – All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.

3 – Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs.

IF our demands are not met, all of our functional groups in the army will continue to execute our missions against the military and civilian targets in and out the United States. For your own information, our army has more than hundred and fifty suicidal soldiers ready to go ahead. The terrorism that Israel practices (Which is supported by America) must be faced with a similar one. The dictatorship and terrorism also supported by America) that some countries are practicing against their own people must also be faced with terrorism.

The American people must know, that their civilians who got killed are not better than those who are getting killed by the American weapons and support.

The American people are responsible for the actions of their government and they must question all of the crimes that their government is committing against other people. Or they – Americans – will be the targets of our operations that could diminish them.

LIBERATION ARMY, FIFTH BATTALION

Listen to Richard Reid, the convicted "shoe bomber." From his 2003 court appearance:

With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. OK? If you want to think about something, 20 against 2 million, I don’t see no comparison. OK?

Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. OK? I don’t know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the 2 million children in Iraq. OK? So for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions.

I am at war with your country. I’m at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah. This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It’s the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It’s the only reason they back Israel. OK?

Listen to Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square car bomber. First, from his June 21, 2010 court appearance:

I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking US, and I plead guilty to that.

Well, I am part of that. I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks, because only – like living in US, the Americans only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.

And second, from his October 5, 2010, court appearance:

My statement should take about five minutes to ten minutes, and I hope that the judge and the Court will listen to me before they sentence me. In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, this is but one life. If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system. We Muslims don’t abide by human-made laws, because they are always corrupt. And I had a firsthand experience when on the second day of my arrest I asked for the Miranda. And the FBI denied it to me for two weeks, effecting harm to my kids and family, and I was forced to sign those Mirandas. The sentence by the judge will not mean anything to me, for how can I be judged when the Court does not understand the suffering of my people. They don’t understand my side of the story, where the Muslim life of is no value. Therefore, the only true judgment will be on the day of resurrection when Allah will judge between me and you as to who is fighting for the just cause. So decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree regarding the life of this world. The crusading U.S. and NATO forces who have occupied the Muslim lands under the pretext of democracy and freedom for the last nine years and are saying with their mouths that they are fighting terrorism, I say to them, we don’t accept your democracy nor your freedom, because we already have Sharia law and freedom. Furthermore, brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow me. And only this time it’s not imperial Japan or Germany, Vietnam or Russian communism. This time it’s the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah. So let’s see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah, which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order. Soon the bailout money which is holding your fragile economy will run out and soon you will not be able to afford the war costs.

So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our, people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace. But if you don’t, then I remind you that we have watches and we have time. We will defeat you with time.

Listen to Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty to conspiring to undertake a suicide attack on the New York subway system. From his 2010 court appearance: "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving other souls."

Listen to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen. From his 2010 "Call to Jihad":

We the Muslims do not have an inherent animosity towards any racial group or ethnicity. We are not against Americans for just being Americans. We are against evil and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil. What we see from America is the invasion of [inaudible] countries, we see Abu Ghraib, Baghram and Guantanamo Bay, we see cruise missiles and cluster bombs and we have just seen in Yemen the death of 23 children and 17 women. We cannot stand idly in the face of such aggression and we will fight back and incite others to do the same.

I for one was born in the U.S., I lived in the U.S. for 21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent Islamic activism. However, with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim.

And finally, listen to a statement from al-Qaeda’s American-born spokesman, Adam Gadahn, released last year:

The fact is, Barack, if you ever decide to get serious about improving America’s security, protecting the American people and preventing a sharp rise in the number of American casualties at home and abroad and in the air, at sea and on land, then there are a number of simple, sound and effective steps which you can take which can go a long way towards achieving those goals. The Muslim Mujahideen defending their faith and brethren against your nation’s evildoing have repeatedly made clear these steps, but because I suspect you have been living in the ivory tower and information vacuum in which arrogant Washington insiders like you often live, I shall summarize these steps here. I strongly suggest you heed and implement them, for your own good and the good of your people.

First, you must pull every last one of your soldiers, spies, security advisors, trainers, attaches, contractors, robots, drones and all other American personnel, ships and aircraft out of every Muslim land from Afghanistan to Zanzibar.

Second, you must end all support – both moral and material – to Israel and bar your citizens from traveling to Occupied Palestine or settling there, and you must impose a blanket ban on American trade with the Zionist regime and investment in it. Your security will not be improved by empty threats like those your special envoy made about the possible suspension of American loans, in and of itself a largely meaningless gesture. As Shaykh Usama told you, if you don’t heed our warnings and stop your support of Israel, we will have no choice but to continue to use other ways to get our message across.

Third, you must stop all support and aid – be it military, political, economic or otherwise – to the hated regimes of the Muslim world. This includes the so-called "development aid" which your secretary of state recently identified as being one of the most important elements of future American efforts to combat the Islamic renaissance and Jihadi awakening sweeping the Muslim world.

Fourth, you must cease all interference in the religion, society, politics, economy and government of the Islamic world. This means putting an immediate stop to the deployment of your economic hit men, CIA jackals, Peace Corps volunteers, USAID employees, and UN-and-US-sponsored non-governmental organizations, all of which, put together, represent the vanguard of American interference in our region and the world.

Fifth, you must also put an end to all forms of American and American sponsored interference in the educational curricula and information media of the Muslim world, and you must end all broadcasts targeting our region, especially those designed to alter or destroy the faith, minds, morals and values of our Muslim people.

And sixth, you must free all Muslim captives from your prisons, detention facilities and concentration camps, regardless of whether they have been recipients of what you call a "fair" trial or not. As our heroic brother Abu Dujaanah al-Khorasaani told you with his words and actions, we will never forget our prisoners.

Instead of listening or asking questions, the reaction of the United States has been bomb first, don’t listen or ask questions, and then bomb later – and invade, occupy, torture, maim, kill, incarcerate, rendition, assassinate, and destroy property and infrastructure.

And as Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out:

The fact that victims of American violence over the last two decades have easily outweighed, and continue to outweigh, those of the Dictators and Terrorists whom we so vocally despise is nonetheless an extremely important fact that should shape our understanding of 9/11.

The cry of the Muslim masses in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in the Middle East was not for Islamofascism, global Islamic conquest, a global Caliphate, the worldwide establishment of Sharia law, a new holocaust, suicide bombers, and terrorists attacks, but for more freedom – something they supposedly hate us for.

Muslims seem to be more interested in killing other Muslims than in killing Americans who aren’t bombing and occupying their countries – just look at the history of Sunni versus Shiite violence since Muhammad died in 632 and a disagreement ensued over whom should be his successor.

The U.S. government has learned absolutely nothing since 9/11. Instead of the occasion being a time to reassess a century of bad foreign policy, it was used as an excuse to start two wars against countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and accelerate the destruction of American freedoms. And now, ten years later, the anniversary of 9/11 will be used to lionize the police state, the warfare state, and the national security state while justifying even more wars.

U.S. foreign policy is an abomination in the sight of God, and I don’t mean Allah.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on September 10, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Why They Hate Us

This differs from military doublespeak.

To really understand these defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, one needs a warmonger’s lexicon. To get started, I propose the following entries:

Just war: any war the United States engages in.
Good war: any war in which the United States is on the winning side.
Defensive war: any war the United States starts.

George Bush: the Messiah, but especially when he was fighting against Muslims.
Barack Obama: Satan, but not when he is fighting against Muslims.

Insurgent: anyone who dares to fight against U.S. troops occupying his country.
Militant: see insurgent.
Enemy combatant: see militant.
Freedom fighter: an insurgent, militant, or enemy combatant supported by the United States when he fights against some other country.

Weapons of mass destruction: weapons that foreigners can use to attack Americans.
Advanced weapons systems: weapons that Americans can use to attack foreigners.

Allies: countries that support U.S. foreign policy.
Enemies: countries that don’t support U.S. foreign policy.

Patriot: any American who supports U.S. foreign wars.
Traitor: any American who opposes U.S. foreign wars.

Hero: any American solider who fought in any war against any country for any reason.
Coward: any American who doesn’t support U.S. soldiers fighting in senseless foreign wars.

American: supporting large defense budgets.
UnAmerican: opposing large defense budgets.

Threat to American security: see unAmerican, coward, and traitor.

Veteran: God’s chosen people.
Non-veterans: second-class citizens.

Muslim: terrorist.
Terrorist: Muslim.

Soldier: public servant.
Civilian: freeloader.

Isolationist: any American who opposes U.S. wars, empire, and/or foreign policy.

Zionist: someone who favors U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Anti-Semite: someone who opposes U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

Pacifist: enemy of the United States.
Draft dodger: see pacifist.

Dead U.S. soldier: fallen hero.
Dead foreign civilian: collateral damage.

Torture: torture of Americans by foreigners.
Enhanced interrogation techniques: torture of foreigners by Americans.
Extraordinary rendition: U.S. supported torture of foreigners by foreigners.

U.S. interests: anything the United States wants to be interested in.

When it comes to defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, learn their language so you won’t be intimidated or deceived by them, but don’t waste too much of your time with them. There is nothing more frustrating than discussing the finer points of something like just war theory and then finding out thirty minutes later that the warmonger you thought you were having a meaningful conversation with and in basic agreement with believes that all the wars the United States has engaged in are just wars.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on July 4, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Warmonger’s Lexicon

As I have maintained whenever I speak about Christianity and war, if there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, empire, militarism, the warfare state, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government war propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.

I have also maintained throughout these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, even though it is Christianity above all religions that should be opposed to the evils of war and militarism, in the Church will be found some of the greatest supporters of the military and the current wars.

The "criminality of war," as Howard Malcom, president of Georgetown College, wrote in 1845, is not "that tyrants should lead men into wars of pride and conquest," but that "the people, in governments comparatively free, should so readily lend themselves to a business in which they bear all the sufferings, can gain nothing, and may lose all." That people would act this way, Malcom says, is an "astonishment indeed." "But," he continues, "the chief wonder is that Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system."

I have heard and read many Christians criticize Obama – and rightly so – for his horrendous policies, but I have heard and read little or nothing from Christians of how Obama has continued the war in Iraq, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and expanded the bogus war on terror to other countries.

The above sign from a church in Maryland can unfortunately be seen almost anywhere in the United States. Although some Christians have begun to criticize Obama and the Democrats for the things that only a short time ago they were silent about when perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, support for the military among Christians – no matter where it goes, why it goes, what it does, how much it costs, how long it stays, and how many foreigners it kills – is so entrenched, so sacrosanct, that I am at the same time bewildered and embarrassed, angered and ashamed.

The result of this mindset is a perversion of the very Scriptures that Christians claim to believe and follow. So, just as Christian warmongers would, if they were honest, recite The Warmonger’s Psalm (Psalm 23), assent to The Warmonger’s Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), and pray The President’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), so they would acknowledge that they manifest The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

In contrast to the works of the flesh (adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, and revellings), the Apostle Paul in the Book of Galatians mentions the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.

But in place of these virtues, warmongers have substituted pride, indifference, vengeance, ignorance, malice, arrogance, lust, foolishness, and blasphemy.

Christian warmongers have pride in the U.S. military – the greatest cause of terrorism and instability in the world. They are indifferent to the tremendous suffering of foreigners who get in the way of the U.S. military. They want vengeance for 9/11 now matter how many innocent Muslims have to die. They have a tremendous and willful ignorance of the true nature of U.S. foreign policy. They have malice toward foreigners who never harmed Americans until the U.S. military starting bombing them. They have an arrogant "USA, USA" patriotism that supports an interventionist and militaristic foreign policy. They lust for the blood of foreigners by supporting bombing, drone attacks, torture, and indiscriminate killing. They make foolish statements like the military is defending our freedoms by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They blaspheme God by asking him to bless and protect U.S. soldiers.

I realize that I am making some serious accusations, but the truth is simply that most Christian warmongers don’t care whether there are Predator drone attacks against Afghan and Pakistani peasants as long as a Republican-controlled government gets to conduct the attacks.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on June 23, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit

The quote that drove me nuts:

They [the bankers] are already getting richer because of our taxpayer bailout, and now we’re giving them more tax breaks and estate tax bonanzas. There is socialism in America, but it’s only for the rich. Risk has been socialized for some of the very richest people in the country, and then, the “free market” pain is distributed to all the rest.

How on earth is this man even taken seriously!?!

Good question, Doug, good question… If only the Republicans (or the Dems for that matter) would start working on massive SPENDING cuts as well. But Wallis would probably be irate…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Jim Wallis Hates Tax Cuts