Most people believe that this commandment represents sound morality, even if they are not Christians.  Nonetheless, it seems that this moral precept is forgotten once we start talking politics.  And no wonder:  Americans have been making up ‘right and wrong’ for themselves for quite a while.   Obviously it was only a matter of time before it seeped into our national mindset.

A good example of this in action is the current attempt by the Democrats to extend the payroll tax cut, ‘paying for it’ by having the ‘rich’ pay their ‘fair share.’

That we are talking about theft becomes clearer when one considers exactly what the ‘payroll tax’ is.  We are talking about the portion of one’s income that goes directly into Social Security.  Your contributions, in turn, ensure that when you retire, you will be able to draw a steady check.

Now, the liberals tend to target the rich to fund a variety of their favorite programs, and many of those times there ostensibly is some ‘public’ benefit of them.  For example, we might put public infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, in this category.  Usually, though, the program favors smaller, special interest, populations.  The appearance of a socialistic transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor becomes more profound the more targeted the program.

But the funding of the payroll tax cut by the rich really takes the cake.  It is one of those few instances of a government service where the individual directly benefiting from the service is also the one funding it.  Heck, it might be the only example of such a thing.

To have the rich pay for the payroll tax cut is to ask them to directly fund the retirements of the rest of the population, in a direct and transparent manner.  The ‘99%’ are demanding that the ‘1%’ pay for a service that only the ‘99%’ will benefit from, without themselves contributing a dime.  There is no ‘public’ benefit; the ‘special interest’ group just turns out to be exceptionally large.

This is stealing.

Stealing is wrong.

Therefore, this is wrong.

The real kick in the pants here is that while the ‘poor’ and ‘middle class’ are getting behind the highway robbery of their ‘richer’ countrymen, they are actually robbing their future selves.  Since the amount of your contribution is correlated with how much you receive in your retirement account, by continuing to not pay the payroll tax, you are decreasing the amount you will ultimately receive.

Our Democrat Robin Hoods want us to steal from the rich to give to the poor, and in doing so are actually stealing from both!  It’s almost funny.

This hilarious, but sad, situation could be avoided by making the contributions by the rich go directly to the ‘accounts’ of individual Americans.  Then, the retirement distributions of future retirees would continue to grow, since ‘their’ contributions would be continuing in the meantime.

That, of course, would be an even more blatant example of outright theft than the current scheme. To my knowledge, though, it has not been suggested.

But it should raise this question:  if the rich are not being asked to subsidize individual contributions, what is it exactly that they are being asked to pay for?  In a sane universe, reducing contributions would reduce distributions, and that would be the end of it.   That would go over like a lead balloon, however, so clearly the idea is to reduce the amount of contributions Americans make while maintaining the same distributions.

But shouldn’t the current level of distributions already be readily payable from the Social Security ‘trust fund’?  And if that is the case, there isn’t a need to pay for the payroll tax cut at all, right?  Right?  That money is there, right?

This whole notion of having to pay for the ‘payroll tax cut’ represents a tacit acknowledgement that Social Security is nothing more than the largest Ponzi scheme… ever.

Many people feel that they are entitled to their Social Security payments because ‘they’ve paid in all these years!’  In reality, their ‘contributions’ were fundamentally never any different than any other tax.  You ‘paid’ into your Social Security ‘account’ like you ‘paid’ into public roads, the Department of Education, and the National Endowment of the Arts.

When the money is gone, ‘services’ must be cut, and it was gone fifteen trillion dollars ago.  ‘Social Security’ turns out to be no exception.  The money we are assured is ‘there’ is not there, or else there would be no need to ‘pay for’ this ‘cut.’  Are we perhaps closer to complete insolvency in the Social Security program than anyone has let on?

The Democrats are turning once again to the ‘rich’ to try to postpone the inevitable collapse of this program, but in doing so, have been forced to come perhaps the nearest ever to advocating for direct, unambiguous theft.

Stealing is wrong, but the truth is that the theft has been going on for decades.  The Federal government has been stealing all along, extracting most of the cash, ironically, from the very people the money was supposed to help.  To get away with it, they had to tell people what they wanted to hear.  That is, they’ve been lying… something else that the general populace tends to view as wrong, for governments and for people.

Lying is necessary, because despite the moral carte blanche that pervades our society, we still aren’t comfortable calling something we’re doing what it really is; in this case, stealing.

Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The fact that the ‘payroll tax cuts’ needs to be paid for is proof positive that they’ve run out of the money given to them by the ‘poor’ and ‘middle class.’  It is now necessary to take it from the ‘rich.’  After that, who is left?  It would appear that we’ve picked the bone clean, and that can only mean boiled-bone soup for everyone!

By stealing from the rich, we’re stealing from our future selves by decreasing our distribution amount, but the mere fact that we are in this situation at all reveals that we’ve been stealing from our past selves, too.  And we’re running out of folks to steal from…

That’s the sort of thing that happens when you dispense with right and wrong.  Stealing was wrong, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows, and so does a society.

Always.

Anthony Horvath is the executive director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  He blogs on apologetics, politics, and pro-life issues at http://www.sntjohnny.com.

by Don Hank

Pat Condell has a unique way with language, as a recent video shows.

Look at this delightful phrase: ” [the EU]…will collapse under the weight of its own illegitimacy.”

It occurs to me that, due to their opposition to tyranny, atheists like Pat are actually in the same boat as biblical Christians, though seemingly at opposite poles, and our plight –  as well as our tragic inability to grasp it – is as described by Martin Niemöller in that famous quote

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist…[etc]“

A sincere and questioning mind will, absent bias and external obstructions, come round to the truth. Atheism can be a painful first step in questioning received wisdom, but it may never be the last.

National unity means joining in common cause with everyone who opposes the common enemy, at least in the opposition to that enemy and until he is vanquished. There are no superiors or inferiors in that struggle, just people yearning for their share of the rights and voice that are rightfully theirs. Their God-given rights as we say. The term “God-given” may offend some people with claims to “higher enlightenment,” but consider that it was precisely the notion that man can create rights out of thin air that gave birth to the despotic EU – just as the corollary notion that central banks – part of that same entity — can create money out of thin air contributed mightily to our current financial malaise. Those perverse ideas are twins.

I doubt it has ever occurred to Pat that his militant atheism is part of the cultural Marxism that has been foisted on Europe for generations by the very elites he rails against. After all, the Fabian Society was founded (in London) for a twofold purpose:

1. to spread socialism, and

2. to eliminate Judeo-Christian culture.

Today’s elites are the spiritual and ideological heirs to that agenda, and yet, many of their putative opponents are unwittingly assisting them in their quest to destroy our Western culture and heritage by assailing Judeo-Christianity.

Pat is part of our landscape, his words are too powerful to ignore, and he is absolutely right that the EU has stolen from Europeans. But he needs to understand that opposing only the political agenda of the Imperial Powers he rails against is an incomplete task — even a futile one — unless we oppose their social agenda as well. Opposition to the enemy’s destructiveness is a vital first step. Railing against constructive faith that ultimately can replace what that agenda has torn asunder negates that opposition.

This is because a vital second step is restoring what the enemy has destroyed, and the will to restore it comes in no small measure from our inner spiritual resources invested in a common vision of national health and prosperity.

The myth that atheism was a vital component of the Enlightenment is false. There were in fact two Enlightenments, one that sought to reconcile the thought of Aristotle, for example, with Christianity, as Lawrence de Medici had done in Florence, and the other Enlightenment – embodied, for example, by Voltaire, which taught that religion itself had held back progress and needed to be abolished. Devotees of the latter branch cite, by way of support, the difficulties that some scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, have encountered with the Vatican. Yet they seem unaware that Roger Bacon’s pioneering work on the scientific method was in fact sponsored by Pope Clement IV.

Those spiritual resources we will need to rebuild our civilization once the enemy is overcome are, to paraphrase Pat, like the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We can’t afford to throw this baby out with the bath water.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2011/11/dose-of-cold-hard-truth.html

by Don Hank

My mom used to give me haircuts, but she was always a little nervous and often nicked me in the ear with the scissors. That really hurt.

This haircut on the Greek bonds will hurt a LOT MORE.

Quote (see link below):

In essence, the haircut on Greek debt [haircut: partial default, in this case, decreed by law. DH] is a signal to investors that they should require a much higher rate of return on the debt of all of the PIIGS.  This is going to make the financial collapse of all of the PIIGS much more likely.

Absolutely. Not only that, the Greek government officials and Greeks benefitting from government largesse have lived high on the hog for years, and for them, that is an unalienable entitlement. Many of them get nasty when someone touches their entitlements. They burn tires, wreck vehicles, throw stones through windows, etc, breaking things they can’t afford to replace.

Now that Europe has given a 50% haircut on their sovereign debt, many will figure they can continue to live like kings and the next time around, good old Germany and the ECB and EFSF will just bail them out again, with more “haircuts” for their bonds and more leverage. Dream on. The German people are already PO’d! And with good reason.

As this author points out, the party can’t go on forever. They are tightening the noose around Europe’s neck.

“Leverage” in this context means that the banks will be able to lend 4-5 times more than before simply by issuing more credit — NOT MONEY, because they have no money at the bottom line of the balance sheets, only debt. Now even before this re-leveraging, they were leveraged to the max and already issuing loans against nothing but hot air. That’s the same as printing money, as they did in the failed Weimar Republic. Weimar failed BECAUSE they did this, but the money printing was sold as a “solution” to their problem. Now they’re trying a little — no a LOT — of hair of the dog that bit them in the butt before, except not just Germany but most of Europe. How short their memories are.

This money the banks are lending is money they don’t have. It is debt, the opposite of money. They are dealing in red numbers, paying off red numbers with more red numbers. That is like climbing higher up the mountain to reach the bottom. GUARANTEED it won’t work and when the crash comes it will be dramatic, people will get hurt and Greeks will be back burning tires again.

Maybe someone will hire them to do that. They’re getting pretty proficient at it.

by Don Hank

The site linked to below (The Economic Collapse) had predicted just a day or two ago that the “haircut” on Greek debt would increase the chances of recovery of the PIIGS. It didn’t take long for that prophecy to be realized, as they report today.

Here are my 2 cents, incl a prediction of my own. I hope it turns out to be wrong:

According to the Greek language online newspaper “Express,” the European “leaders” met with the bankers before this “haircut” edict was handed down. They had originally spoken of a 21% hiarcut, but they were faking. They knew it would be 50% but they had to soften up the bankers.

It is my humble opinion that they made these bankers a deal they couldn’t refuse. First they TOLD them the haircut would be 50%, at variance with what they had said (they had lied, to put it nicely).

According to this Greek article, the rip-off to the European banks amounted to 67.5 billion euros, or 20$ less that the Greek government would have to pay.

My prediction (I truly hope I am wrong):

The European powers (remember, this is the group that exported “democracy” the the Arabs, but they won’t give their own people democracy. THEY make all the decisions) will eventually get around to utilizing one of their many financial tentacles — e.g., the ECB, the EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility) or other, perhaps one to be created — either to BUY PIIGS bonds outright or to financially assist private buyers to buy them (using both European and US public funds — see last link below!), in order to circumvent the market. This is because no private person or entity will eventually touch a Greek bond, for ex, with a 3 meter pole, unless enticed with promises of public money.

I say this because I know:

1–the past behavior of the European elites

2–their Marxist philosophy underlying that behavior.

The real raîson d’être of the European Empire (European union) and its tentacle agencies has always been to redistribute wealth. Unlike the Soviet Union, they no longer can do that — for political reasons — openly, from one group to another. But by pretending to “stabilize” Europe, they can distribute the wealth from northern countries with a sound work ethic to southern countries with no palpable work ethic at all. [Footnote: this is analogous to the way the US government orchestrated our current financial crisis by first forcing the banks to lend to the insolvent under the infamous CRA, another wealth redistribution scheme].

By allowing the fiscally irresponsible Greece to join the Euro Zone, they knew they would ultimately be able to transfer billions of euros of wealth to that country under the pretext of “stabilization.” They won’t quit even now that they have literally destabilized the whole continent by their so-called “stabilization measures.”

They have all the power and they will continue to rob the citizens of each member country until they — and we — are dirt poor or until the people rise up and throw off their yoke.

It will be a true European Spring and the elites will not be in charge this time.

Don Hank

How the US will pay for the scam:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPMFMxuhHAM

Answer: only if you let them

I received an email from a friend, incl several warnings about the Occupy [somewhere] movement, written by well-known conservative authors and exhorting conservatives to shun the Occupy Wall St. [or wherever] movement because it is linked to Obama groups and pals like ACORN and Van Jones and is a false flag movement.

Now I agree that we must be careful whom we stand with, because we may be suggesting to people that we agree with the Left – unless we are perfectly clear where we stand!

Consider this: The Left has been pretending to stand with good people ever since day one, while in fact standing with Satan. Stealth is their middle name.

I believe it may be time to turn the tables on them.

Yesterday, I got an email from a TX friend with an attachment showing a pamphlet on the “Occupy Houston” movement.

His point seemed to be that their literature was not well written and that it wasn’t clear what their goals were, so maybe they are bad guys to be avoided.

Ya know what? To me, that is a perfect opportunity for us to go to work. Because they can’t control the sidewalks and there’s no way they can control me.

If I lived in that part of the country and had a few extra hours, I’d make up a large poster reading “BRING BACK THE FREE MARKET” or “NO MORE SOCIALISM, MR. PRESIDENT,” or “SOLYNDRA, THE FRUITS OF ‘STIMULUS’ ” or the like, and I would unabashedly bring it along to the rally and hold it high. Look, if this is a false flag movement and they are just pretending to be on our side, then who would dare to stop me?

This morning I was listening to NHK News from Japan, and they had an international segment featuring the Occupy Wall St. movement in the US.

Unsurprisingly, the people they interviewed said nothing remotely suggesting they were socialist sympathizers, quite the opposite.

I almost fell off my chair when one lady said:

“When Barrack Obama was elected, we assumed that because he was a black man, he would do all he could to help the poor and underprivileged. He has done none of that.”

Yes, yes, I understand Van Jones and ACORN may have ties to the movement.

So what?

When I was in Lancaster, I attended a Tea Party rally and there were some people there who obviously were trying to infiltrate. I suspect they were from ACORN.

Here is what I don’t get: The LEFT infiltrates us all the time and we can see it happening and take it for granted.

Yet if a conservative wants to do the same back to them, all of a sudden, that “taints” us. Funny thing. The Left isn’t “taintable,” but conservatives are? Are we really that weak minded that getting too close to a lefty will rub off on us?

Well, look, if being around a bunch of lefties taints you — that is, influences you — then you are not well enough grounded in your conservatism and your Christian faith to leave your home.

As for me, I say with Paul: I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.

I mean that with regard to both my Christian faith and my political views. They are intertwined. Jesus’ view on socialism is clearly enunciated in John 6: http://laiglesforum.com/the-religious-left-in-bible-times-part-1/57.htm.

But if you are so timid in your faith and politics, and afraid of being misled by some half-baked Marxists who don’t know even a tenth of what the average conservative knows about history and economics, here is what you need to do:

Don’t ever have anything to do with a leftist. He’ll rub off on you.

Don’t go to town hall meetings and express your views. These meetings are full of lefties. It might rub off.

And don’t take part in surveys, online or off. The other respondents may be leftists. Ooooh, creepy!

Don’t write letters to the editor. The publication in which they are published is probably left of center and you might be thought of as a lefty. What would your conservative friends think of you?

Don’t go to the polls to vote. The polls are full of lefties and might persuade you to pull the wrong lever.

On the other hand, if you know what you believe and why, then go right ahead and attend any meeting or rally you darned well please and let people know how you think. Go ahead and listen to their misguided statements but be prepared to counter them – without fear, without anger, with love. You are dealing with the lost – with the weak, the ignorant. They’re in a much more precarious position than you will ever be. You can be their lighthouse. Why would you want to miss that opporunity? So, assuming you are educated on the issues (don’t try until you are), don’t be afraid to speak your mind and don’t be afraid to hold a poster advertising your view of why America is in a mess. These misguided lefties are the very ones you need to minister to, lovingly, compassionately and in God-given faith and wisdom. The chances are, many, maybe even most, will agree with you by the time you have told them what you think and why.

Consider that one of the main reasons they are in the dark is that conservatives have left them there.

We are the ones who have failed America. It’s time to grow a spine and do our job.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence

The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul.

So, this leads to another important observation which I think is critical in fueling the push towards Christian conservatives leaning libertarian: it is clear that the form of government we have at present is chock full of the secular humanists, progressives, etc, etc. They didn’t elect themselves. They were voted in by a mass of Americans who saw no harm in that worldview, or worse, didn’t even think it was relevant. Once elected, folks like this appointed other like minded individuals, and these folks tend to stay on in government in one way or another, no matter who is in the White House. In short, John Adams didn’t mean only that the populace needed to be ‘moral and religious’ but also those in the government. In his day as in ours, the latter draws from the former; therein lies our current predicament.

Unfortunately, this is as often true of our Republican representatives as the liberal ones.

But I said that I was a ‘Constitutional-libertarian.’ Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be gangbusters about the Constitution? Why shouldn’t I just be a Republican?

As it happens, there are two basic kinds of Republicans. There are the ‘limited government’ sort, who believe that the government shouldn’t go further (or very far from) what is laid out in the Constitution. If I could count on Republicans to carry that out consistently, I might be one today. But there is another kind of Republican. This one we often dismiss as a RINO, or a Republican in Name Only, but in point of fact, this person also abides by the Constitution. No, really.

Let’s take an example: Mitt Romney. Here is a man who is a man who put Massachusetts under the thumb of Romney-Care, a close precursor to Obama-Care. His justification for why this was an ok thing for a Republican governor to do? Many claim that Obama-Care is unconstitutional but Romney-Care gets a pass, and Romney defends it. Why?

the judge clearly explained that Mitt Romney’s health care did not violate Federal or State constitutional principle because a state can regulate health care on the basis of a state’s police power. Link

And strictly speaking, the judge is correct. Romney is correct. Under the auspices of the state, one has all sorts of flexibility in heaping on layers and layers of government. So, Romney is able to walk around taking the name of Republican- rightly- because he acted within the parameters of his state’s and the federal Constitution. Do you see the missing ingredient?

A Republican like Romney doesn’t really buy into the whole ‘limited government’ thing. If a particular measure or activity is not specifically precluded from the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), they don’t see anything really wrong with it. Why, they’re perfectly happy to go along with it, provided it is done so ‘responsibly,’ that is, it doesn’t put us into huge amounts of debt.

Take away the Constitutional part, and I’m sure that loads of Republicans could go along with ObamaCare- they may have to, since they’re also willing to accept the premise that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Thus, I don’t feel like merely calling myself a Constitutionalist is sufficient. I add the ‘libertarian’ modifier in order to make clear the principle that I believe was shared by the founders. They believed that people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business by and large but if there was an extremely compelling reason for the majority to inflict its will on the minority, there would at least be a process that would protect the minority’s rights. Certainly, times change, and new circumstances manifest that weren’t dreamed of by the framers, but they built into the Constitution a way to handle such things that makes a great deal of sense to me today- not that anyone these days actually uses those mechanisms. They’re just as likely to ram it through to the Supreme Court, bypassing the legislative branch altogether, ala Roe vs. Wade.

We are now so far away from the Constitution- including at the hands of Republicans- that it is hard to see how we can make our way back. I think this is what people are seeing. Christian conservatives are coming to this conclusion, if they haven’t already. The ‘limited government’ Republicans sell them down the river all day long and the pool of available freedoms grows shallower every day. Where does one turn? Self-preservation.

A very common criticism of ‘libertarianism’ is that it essentially reduces to, “And everyone did as they saw fit.” Judges 21:25. This passage notes that this was in the days when Israel had no king. The implication of this line of argument is that apparently ‘government’ is the great plan of God- there must have been something awfully wrong with the anarchists in ancient Judea! There was! They were not ‘moral and religious’!

Those who argue in this fashion forget two extremely critical points: 1., the people in Israel during the time of the Judges were living under a system of governance that was established by God. It was not anarchy at all, but theocracy. Everyone did as they saw fit, but they ought to have done as God saw fit. Judging from the very loose human governance imposed by God on the Israelites at the time, one may guess that God didn’t think as highly of the need for ‘big’ government. But there is a second point to add to this one: 2., when finally the Israelites demanded a King, God was really, really, really, really, really, really mad.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’” 1 Samuel 8

Now, this is interesting to me, because many of those seeking the continuation of the Republic, only on purer, ‘limited government’ lines, view the Libertarian casting off of the constraints of the Republic, as a violation of God’s plan for government (and one can see why, see Romans 13), but one might imagine the passage reading, “When they said to them, ‘Give us a president to lead us.’ … it is not you they have rejected, but me they have rejected as their president.’” To the point: government is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever- and I mean NEVER- to be deemed as God’s replacement on earth. A steward, perhaps, but never a replacement.

Now, I have said all that to say this.

Let us say we do go back to the pure foundations of the Republic. We cite Romans 13 and similar passages as all the more reason to dispense with notions of ‘anarchy’ (for that is what many think when they hear ‘libertarianism’) and attempt to reinvigorate the values of the founding fathers and the Constitution they erected. What then do we find when we begin such a process? This passage in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Has anyone given any thought to the first section I bolded? One of the values of our founders was that the government derives their just powers from the ‘consent of the governed.’ Does this jibe with Romans 13 which says that God has established all authorities? So, Governments have their just powers from the consent of God, not the governed. No? In the book of Judges, did God rule through the judges by the ‘consent of the governed’? When the monarchy was established, was this by the ‘consent of the governed’? Quite the opposite! (see 1 Samuel 8:10-18) And the second section I bolded raises issues that need little elaboration.

Now, as it happens, I am inclined to believe that it is possible to reconcile these statements from the Declaration of Independence with Biblical principles. Indeed, it is because I take them very seriously that I feel like I need to add the modifier ‘libertarian’ to my self-label.

Do you know why libertarians from the right are ostensibly on the rise? It is simply because of this: on a grand level, individual by individual, moment by moment, imperceptibly, but definitely, removing their consent from this present government.

They are doing this unconsciously. It isn’t a deliberate decision. It is a movement along a spectrum, and I don’t even think that they themselves know what they are doing. But they are doing it. Confusing the matter, they aren’t alone. There are people of many diverse political and worldview stripes that likewise have decided (for different reasons, I’m sure) that they don’t like direction the ‘Republic’ has taken.

Now, as for those coming to Libertarianism from the left, I don’t think we need to dwell on them. Nor should we conflate them with those who come to it from the right, for those that do are (I think) an entirely different animal, even if some of the positions look similar.

Say what you want about those coming from the left, but rather than chastising ‘libertarians’ coming from the right, we should be willing to recognize that they are merely exercising their rights as laid out by the framers. They have read the writing on the wall, engraved deeper and deeper each time a new Congress enters session. They are slowly and deliberately withdrawing their consent to be ruled by this corrupt and invasive political system. By saying they are ‘libertarian’ they are only protecting themselves, essentially advocating for a position that says, “It looks like both sides are going to screw with me, rob me of my rights and fleece me of my wealth. I don’t trust the lot of them to act morally or with religious virtue; indeed, I expect the opposite. Perhaps I can insulate myself and my family from their overreach by urging them to leave me the heck alone in these areas…”

No one is disputing that this would only ‘work’ if lived out by those with a working moral compass. Likewise, the Republic. The difference is that there is no chance that the Republic can be restored. The clutching at libertarianism is a stop-gap position before the consent is fully and finally withdrawn (many decades from now, I expect) and the second section of the Declaration of Independence that I bolded above becomes the next, natural step.

In the meantime, we may wish to take the positions of ‘Christian’ ‘libertarians’ seriously and acknowledge that they have legitimate grievances. Indeed, it may be that the ‘Christian Libertarian’ is exactly the same as your standard genuine limited government Christian conservative Constitutionalist- the only difference being in outlook. The latter believes a restoration to our founding principles is desirable and possible, while the former also believes that a return to our founding principles is desirable… but as for possible? Not so much.

The below-linked video did my soul good. I hope it will benefit you likewise.

When it comes to that old “lesser of 2 evils” thing, I always keep 2 things in mind: RINOs are out to destroy America by stealth. Democrats are out to destroy America straightforwardly.

The RINOs and false conservatives will take her down with the approval of weak-minded conservatives.

The Democrats will encounter more resistance from all conservatives — just as Obama is encountering resistance today for doing the same things Bush did with “conservative” approval in his day.

Therefore, the RINO is the more dangerous of the 2 enemies, because he is wearing camouflage and won’t be spotted as the enemy until it is too late.

Hence my motto is as follows:

If America is to be destroyed, better it be destroyed by someone I didn’t vote for.

Don Hank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBXe3Kvg-qU&feature=player_embedded

by Don Hank

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for the US and NATO interfering in the internal affairs of Libya, the US and the rest of the West interfering in Egypt, the UN taking sides in an election dispute in the Ivory Coast and using deadly force to install the Muslim candidate, while doing nothing to stop the slaughter of 1,000 Christians, etc.

There is the old knee-jerk accusation that it is all about oil. Yet Egypt has almost no oil. Neither does the Ivory Coast.

Remember that the EU has been importing Muslims into Europe at the rate of almost a million a year and a realistic estimate forecasts a Muslim majority in about 15-25 years in that continent.

Also recall that the Fabian Society (of which Bush pal Tony Blair is a member) was founded in the 1880s for the purpose of spreading socialism worldwide, and one of their immediate goals was to eliminate Christianity. Now do you suppose engineering a Muslim majority may help achieve that goal?

Also recall that every major conflict in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion has resulted in the murder, exile and/or persecution of indigenous Christian populations that were protected until the West got involved!

This is all circumstantial evidence, you say.

But for many years, an expansion of the EU into Africa has been in the works, and now a high-ranking EU official is recommending “deep and broad” integration with Africa, ostensibly to expand the EU “market.” This means, long-term, that African nations are now to be integrated into the EU. Which in turn means that eventually the Schengen agreement (open borders) would be extended to Islamic Africa.

Remember that the EU started out as an innocent little agreement (the EEC, European Economic Community – with the emphasis ostensibly on the market), then morphed into the EC (European Community — note that “economic” is no longer the focus, not even part of the name), and now is a supranational government whose top ranking officers (the European Commission) are not even elected. We used to call that kind of arrangement a dictatorship. We also used to call the kind of wealth redistribution policies this government practices communism.

My, how times have changed. Good thing communism is “dead.”

The EU’s William Hague wants to “broaden and deepen” ties with N. Africa:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/william-hague-argues-for-broad-and-deep-economic-integration-between-the-middle-east-and-the-eu.html

Sarkozy has wanted Mediterranean Union:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10iht-france.4.5656114.html

Guy Leven-Torres

20^th April 2011

I detest and despise the ‘Left’. The word for ‘Left’ in Latin is Sinistro. The Romans made no bones about it, the Left was the side of evil, bad luck and ill omen. The left side of the legionary was the shield arm, tasked with protecting the body from harm, while his right held the sturdy gladius. Right was the strong- good side. Our word sinister also comes from the Latin sinistro.

I have been fighting the ‘Left’ since my youth, ever since I saw them in Grosvenor Square as they tried to break in and destroy the American Embassy in the Summer of ’68. I was barely 15 years old, yet that experience was to stay with me for the rest of my life. I had never seen or experienced such violence and insane, pathological hatred. It was the time of the Czech attempt to cast off the Soviet occupier. As President Dubczek tried to negotiate, the Russian tanks moved in. Hundreds died, probably thousands. The creatures that rioted in London that Summer tried to impose the Soviet system upon us as the brave Czechs tried to expel them. I also noticed a ‘quality’ the rioters seemed to possess- a type glazed look in their eyes and speech that seemed to come from elsewhere, not the body or person itself- almost as if the body had been taken over by some outside force. I have noted this ‘quality’ in most, if not all Leftists I have worked with. Most are angry, very angry people but it is not anger at the state of the world, or some injustice and the desire to do good on behalf of another less fortunate being but about themselves. The only other place I observed this phenomena was in an institution I was assigned to in 1990 after a breakdown, when my business collapsed. The majority of patients were involved in academics or some other related field. I recovered- most of them apparently were regular patients.

The anger I perceived was due to an over keen sense of personal entitlement, in that the world was ignoring them and that it had no right to but also, most importantly they had been made to suffer through being ignored and that the world, had no right to do this. They and their desires came before everyone and everything else. The world had no right to ignore them whatsoever. Also plainly clear, was their desire for personal revenge, against a world they thought owed them everything, including a living and they were none too particular how they achieved it. I came to know many ‘Leftists’ and I met not one, who had not suffered during their upbringing from some form of abuse or other, ranging from dysfunctional family backgrounds, as in incest, paedophilia, alcoholism, drug dependency, physical abuse, adultery and divorce or simply a warped sense of self -importance, whether or not it was to compensate for the lack of warmth and love in their families.

Most of them went on to suffer major trauma themselves in their adult lives and spreading their chaos to the rest of more balanced society. I can declare in quite objective terms, that I do regard Leftist ‘politics’ the haven of mentally defective, often severely immature (arrested development), amoral, socio-psychopathic individuals and my findings are supported, by official studies into so called ‘Liberal’ politics by famous and respected US and Canadian psychologists. Look at any Leftwing political type today, delve into their family background and one will find the usual litany of abusive relations and dysfunctions. In short we are dealing with thousands of assorted psychiatric cases. Many are in and out of lunatic asylums, suffer from sexual deviation, fear of women and family and chronic incurable psychosis. This is why our society in the West on both sides of the Atlantic resembles an asylum. They also have a pathological fear moral authority, especially Christianity unless it is their own amoral version.

In order to achieve their desire for absolute power, they will coalesce into like-minded groups of similar misfits, usually with an overall-overarching political creed or ethos that saves them from having to think original thoughts and feelings of chronic insecurity and worthlessness. A strong political ideology is therefore very attractive to them. Whether it be Marx, Islam or Hitler, it supplies the missing ‘moral’ framework in their lives. Also of great importance, is the ‘grouping’ of like minded dysfunctional individuals. They are usually dominated by A type, charismatic individuals, both male and female, in a kind of vampiric relationship, in which the dominant Alphas feed off the chronic insecurities of the Beta personalities within the group hierarchy. The group becomes all important, in order for mutual support of dysfunctional, often immoral-amoral thinking, activities and intentions. The group or ‘hive’ acts as a safe house of delusion, governed by the super glue of political ideology, usually Socialism and so called revolutionary ideas. Most of this ideology is inhuman, incredibly destructive of both wider society it infects and the individual that succumbs to its siren call.

A woman I know, now in her sixties and a confirmed Leftist all her life, who used to work as a senior librarian in a University I attended, suffers appallingly from personal guilt, loneliness, rejection and almost total inability to form lasting friendships. Her father was a practising homosexual and Professor and she took this as a rejection of her. She has spent many years trying to ‘find herself’ and is in and out of mental institutions. She is not alone. Try to discuss logically, matters like ‘climate change’ and one is immediately and viciously attacked with an armed verbal assault about whom she knows, who told her, ‘they are never wrong!’ etc, etc. The expert ‘opinion’ she often quotes, is not only nothing to do with scientific opinion but have no academic background in the subject whatsoever. Her reasoning went as far to justify their conclusions and expertise in the fact they read the Guardian, the well known leftist journal of all leftist journals. She also quoted the BBC as an ‘informed source’. This is ‘group think’ in practice or ‘They say it, so it must be so, because that is how we want it to be!’ This is incredibly childish.

Today we face the advent of Eurabia. I maintain that the ongoing actions and disturbance across the Moslem world, is the work of EU bureaucrats, intent on recreating a neo- colonial empire stretching from John O’Groats to the Persian Gulf. I last posted an article detailing its rapidly increasing consolidation, the effects of which can be glimpsed with deliberately allowed. or created mass immigration by thousands of males across the Mediterranean into Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus and the new open border policies of the Turkish Government, paid and encouraged by its EU paymasters, as prior condition to its formal acceptance into the EU. The Open Borders policy is the final preparatory step for the creation of the Euro-Med Union. Syria, Iraq, Jordan now enjoy open access and travel to Europe without visas via Turkey. Europe is also being deliberately and systematically Islamified with de facto sharia law, already in place to forbid all dissent on pain of arrest and imprisonment, and all criticism of Islam forbidden. In every country affected by Islamic migration, the UK, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, especially Sweden but also Germany, Moslems enjoy protected status and Islam will become the European religion, short of a miracle. Christians in the UK have increasingly been, persecuted, prosecuted, imprisoned, physically beaten, sacked from their jobs simply for speaking out or displaying their faith. I too have taken considerable abuse and threat to my personal freedom.

Moslems on the other hand are allowed to wear their religious clothing, spout hatred and violence and demand and given sharia law, in direct contradiction to traditional Christianity, which is now a fringe religion. Sharia law now rules most Islamic ghettos in the UK and Europe. I was recently informed by a British police officer, that ‘You are not allowed to criticise Islam! It is regarded as religious hatred and race abuse!’ I challenged him and asked him why he and his colleagues obeyed such injunctions? ‘Were they not ashamed of themselves?’ I continued. His reply was ‘It is the Law!’ I replied, ‘Not as far as I am concerned it isn’t! I used to be a lawyer myself! Can you show me the laws that apply?’ He accused me over the phone of ‘getting close to hate speech!’ This is the UK today and much of Europe. Every organ of state, every institution, and any and every official high and low, is subject to group enforced, inhuman ‘diversity’ training. Individuals are bullied into becoming self-censoring Leftist clones. The whole EU apparatus operates the same way through the tyranny of group reinforced, programmed diversity brainwashing dialectic. And this should come as no surprise, as the elite is the same as those I encountered in Grosvenor Square in 1968. They run the EU today and the White House in Washington and every government in Europe. They are creating a Global Soviet using sharia to halt dissent, and importing millions of Moslems to dilute and destroy the nations of the West but also, to eventually replace whole European populations. This is genocide plain and simple. I know this to be so because I have been told to my face by Leftwing activists. It is why I write today. The elite want you and I to simply die away. We are regarded as having failed in our revolutionary duty in the 1960s to 1980s. Therefore we must be destroyed or rather discarded as lumpenproletarii, to be replaced by better suited peoples to impose the Global Socialist Paradise of which mass migration and Islamism, is the latest favoured client weapon of choice. Islamism and Islamists, now dominates the disgusting psychopathic Unite Against Fascism and increasingly, New Labour and Tory parties in what was once Great Britain.

The Left feel there is nothing immoral or wrong with Islamifying Europe under sharia law. Both totalitarian ideologies rely on mass terror, both psychological and physical violence in nature, both employ thuggish Thought Police, both are violently anti- women, anti- Christian, pro- homosexual, even if it is a hidden facet of Islam but also, why they hate women and the family so much but above everything, they hate the West and its superior civilisation. Both Islamists and Leftists are psychopaths with megalomaniac dreams of conquest. Both are simply evil. I have seen and heard Leftists boast about how they will use ‘each and every means to destroy the West’. I have no reason to doubt them. Likewise many Moslems, through years of interbreeding, suffer like the Left, socio-pathic tendencies, irrational thought, illogical pathological hatred of anything decent, lower than average IQ quotients and endemic medically certifiable lunacy. This is no secret by the way. The Ptolemies of Egypt also suffered genetic weaknesses, ranging from still births, haemophilia, and other abnormalities, including amorality and murderous dispositions, that shocked the staid Romans of the day. Congenital idiocy and abnormalities are also common among many of Europe’s aristocracy too. Interbreeding, or incest is also rampant with Britain’s Socialist elite too, if reports in the UK’s papers are to be believed.

In summary we are run by people who are patently, quite certifiably insane!

by Don Hank

An interview with Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weather Underground, reports on a meeting with these his former associates. The group leaders discussed plans to set up re-education camps (concentration camps) in the South once they had taken over the US. When then-member Grathwohl asked what would be done with the approximately 25 million who could not be re-educated, the leaders responded “they would have to be eliminated.”

 “Meaning killed,” clarifies Larry.

Does Obama disagree with any of the dangerous, insane ideas brought to light in the below-linked video? He is close pals with William Ayers of the Weather Underground, who was involved in a bomb plot that killed people. Following his outrageous, politically motivated acquittal, Ayers said he only wished he could have killed more. Does Obama disagree? Really? It’s a vital question and no one is sure of the answer.

Consider this irony: William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn went to Egypt prior to the revolt that toppled Mubarak. They are believed to have had a hand in fomenting the revolution. After all, when 2 known friends of the president of the US say to a group of militants “the President will support you,” that carries a lot of clout. Now, to reiterate: William Ayers was one of the Weather Underground leaders who agreed that 25 million Americans would have to be killed if his group took over the US.

Yet, his close friend and ally Barack Obama said in his propaganda effort to support the Middle Eastern uprisings, that our intervention was humanitarian and that the dictators there (Mubarak, Ghadaffi) are killing citizens.

So, Barack Obama, who supports the homicidally minded Ayers, is trying to make us believe he cares about human life in Africa?

Do you believe him?

Brainwashed Americans simply don’t understand the far left. 

We witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union, which killed around 20 million there . We watched passively as Mao killed an estimated 70 million in China. Facts incredibly well guarded in America

Yet today, only a few decades later, by electing a president whose ideology is very much in line with the Soviets’ and the Chinese communists’, we are flirting with something possibly more deadly still than the ideologies of Stalin and Mao, who killed a total of up to 90 million between them. Let that sink in.

America has suffered a potentially deadly dumbing-down at the hands of the Democrats, the RINOs, the false conservatives, the controlled opposition (including many clergy) and the useful idiots.

The rest? We’re only a handful.

Say, 25 million or so.

Larry Grathwohl’s testimony on the Weather Underground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Wikileaks: US secretly backed Syrian uprising:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html?nl_headlines