Archive for October, 2013

Evangelicals are not trying to bring on Armageddon, just protect Israel

October 30, 2013

This is in reaction to the article written by one Dr. Manion, just a comment about your reference to dispensationalists. In general I agree with his criticism of the warmongers among Christians, but have one small “correction” on one point in the interest of understanding them:
http://www.fgfbooks.com/Manion/2013/Manion130901.html

I’ve been irritated by the crazy dispensationalist doctrines since I became a Christian again as an adult. Some of my blogs about it, in case you have interest in such things:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/tag/dispensationalism/

You wrote this:

During the Bush years, Thomas served as a critical intellectual intermediary between the president and American Evangelicals, especially the Dispensationalists. This curious group supported war not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

Why? Because Dispensationalists thought that war would bring on Armageddon, and thus the Second Coming, in their lifetimes — allowing them to rule over all the Earth with Jesus Christ for a thousand years in the Millennium.

But this is not the case, in my opinion, and many people misunderstand them, just like your statement about misunderstanding the MIddle East when people say they “hate us for our freedom”.

But it is also a mistake to say Muslims do suicide bombings just because they want those 72 virgins!

Along the same lines, evangelicals are not just interested in hastening Armageddon, although you might think so from some literature if you don’t try to understand them. I’m a Christian, but such labels do not fit me, I was against the Vietnam War in the 1960s as the young Communist I was, but ever since I came back to Christ in 1971, I have been against every single war the US has engaged in to date.

Most evangelicals in the pews are more motivated by thinking they are supposed to be friends to Israel, help protect Israel against the world. This is indeed due more to the dispensationalist influence than anything else, and “dispensationalists” will agree with this, but most people in their pews in church do not understand this well.

It’s all about helping Israel right up to the pre-Tribulation moment (another false doctrine) when they are raptured out of the Earth, and the world is left behind for the Antichrist to take over.

The main historical devil responsible for “dispensations” getting a false interpretation is Cyrus Scofield, and then there’s his own mentor, Charles Darby in England. Scofield’s notes gave special twists and turns to scripture, made many of them seem backwards from what they were. In other words, he hated the Bible but knew that Americans would not be so easily fooled as to new false “translations” like Darby’s, so he just wrote copious notes that did the job.

Gullible Christians;

Luke 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

I wrote more about Scofield here:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/208/

Thanks for listening

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

This is an argument against trademark law – Part 2

October 27, 2013
Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the ...

Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently posted this:
https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/this-is-an-argument-against-trademark-law/

Somebody asked me:

What is the difference between my owning land and owning unique knowledge?

I’ll try to explain the main differences. Starting with the one that I think is most significant.

For Smith to acquire any land that belongs to Jones, Smith has to harm Jones in some way to de-facto “possess’ it, and Jones loses his own property to theft.

But if Jones “owns” a piece of “unique knowledge”, Jones loses absolutely nothing of what he already has if Smith acquires the same piece of “unique knowledge”.

If we apply the principles that support free trade among nations –they do– consider that the free trade means for sugar that we get net positive effect on the average. End the tarriff on them, domestic producers lose but everybody else gains a LOT more.

Ending the “intellectual property” monopolies might mean a loss for the former patent and copyright and trademark holders, but it means great benefit for the rest of us. Not only in that the monopoly royalties hit us all and drain resources from other productive areas, but it means an end to a completely artificial industry in legal services that support such monopolies as a specialization, supplemented in turn by all the bogus “defensive” patent filings. Defensive patents are taken out on ideas that are so obvious anybody and even everybody knows them, but if somebody is awarded by these clueless patent officials then suddenly they have to pay royalties for the obvious.

An example of this waste is a patent Microsoft was actually awarded for an algorithm that recognizes what country corresponds to a high-level domain suffix in the DNS string!!

Information doesn’t want to be free, it just exists, but punishing people for knowing something or telling it gives too much power to government cronies that have a “For rent” shingle hung in front of their office.

Besides, consider Courtney Love‘s rant that the big corporate monsters of Hollywood control the market and pay pittance to the real true originators of ideas, the original writers, the originators of the “intellectual” product.

Consider also that we have recent outstanding examples that disprove the premise in the US Constitution and in the laws of most countries. The idea was stated as to provide incentives for innovation in science and the arts.

Consider also that a lot of new good ideas come from government-subsidized research. Hey, even IBM got its start with the government employee Hollerith who was told to design a system to count the census faster in the late 1800s. He did, and then went private to produce the punched card machines. I don’t know who got the patent for it, but if he did, is it “fair”? We paid for that research. The government couldn’t do it without robbing us first.

(Before the people who love to be told what to do and say and spend on what react, let us point out that the gigantic advances in calculating and computing have been from the private sector).

But now we have the World Wide Web, using a protocol and algorithms that Tim Berners-Lee gave to the world. Open source is taking over! In the words of one Red Hat developer I recently met, “We won!” (meaning Open Source). Android has more devices running it than Apple has sold, Linux took over the Internet server space lightning fast, open source browsers are crowding out the Microsoft browser on Microsoft machines running Windows.

Open source inspired open document, the commons license, wikipedia (in part), wikis in general. An open source office suite. There is open source bios!

Google Facebook. Yahoo. The most important Internet companies run open source. Brokerage companies on Wall Street that gain and lose millions sometimes in seconds, prefer Linux applications.

And the most creative research in computing is in open source code.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Blinking lights project: Set your city on a hill….

October 27, 2013

Blinking lights project, sounds good..
http://www.fee.org/publications/page/blinking-lights-project#axzz2iw8RMPvP

It stems from an experience Lawrence Reed had back in 1986, when he took a trip behind the Iron Curtain to visit freedom-fighters in communist-run Poland.

There he met with Zbigniew and Sofia Romaszewski, two brave dissidents who had just been released from prison because of their work to spread the word of liberty.

They had run an underground radio station that communicated the truths that the state-controlled media wouldn’t let their people hear. They could only broadcast eight to ten minutes at a time before moving their location to stay ahead of the police.

Lawrence asked them “how did you know people were listening?” So they told him something he’ll never forget:

“One night we asked people to blink their lights if they believed in freedom for Poland. We went to the window, and for hours, all of Warsaw was blinking.”

Those blinking lights were a harbinger of freedom to come for Poland, as just three years later the Iron Curtain fell and Eastern Europe was freed from communist oppression.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. — Matthew 5:14

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

The Internet and the Obamacare and a Controlled Net?

October 27, 2013
The bitcoin logo

The bitcoin logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Daily Bell covers another phenomenon with another way of looking at things:

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/34692/Facebook-Changing-the-Face-of-Mercantilism/

Events are tending to consolidating into a setup for the infamous Mark of the Beast government. Everybody is using plastic, they’ve nationalized the ID already (done long ago almost everywhere outside the USA), and the Internet is a perfect vehicle for a buy and sell medium. IP6 Internet, I believe, they say anyway that it’s “more secure” than IP4. Don’t know enough about it yet to say, but “more secure” can mean anybody you transact with could identify you positively (as much as is possible).

Bitcoin can get traction in the stealth side of the Internet, somewhat, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be an attempt to use it to control the entire world’s economic activity. They could even let go of the current dollar disaster, no problem, they’ve already got some of these international units in place, euro-units, whatnot.

In fact, they could just criminalize all transactions done outside their scope.

Lots of readers are jumping in on this and thinking there are too many problems for this to make it work. Obamacare is a good warning on that, as central planning is always eventually doomed anyway. No matter with all that stuff they’re feeding the popular mind to scare them (us) with what their secret agents will do to bad guys (“Oh, and he owns an anti-government web site”).

No man shall buy or sell save he that hath “the mark”. But eventually, it all crumbles on the head of the dictator and dictators who get this thing going. During the plagues, a “grievous sore” falls on those who do have “the mark”, and eventually, “he [The Beast] shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

Homeland Security: Going after reporters again to get at whistleblowers

October 26, 2013

This blog is turning into a weekend report. Thank you for listening.

It’s supposed to be illegal to persecute whistleblowers, but there they go again, and the Washington Times is preparing a lawsuit:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/?page=1

Maryland state police and federal agents used a search warrant in an unrelated criminal investigation to seize the private reporting files of an award-winning former investigative journalist for The Washington Times who had exposed problems in the Homeland Security Department’s Federal Air Marshal Service.

Reporter Audrey Hudson said the investigators, who included an agent for Homeland’s Coast Guard service, took her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act during a predawn raid of her family home on Aug. 6.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/?page=1#ixzz2iqRt0rei
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

They took notes that had nothing to do with the specifics on the warrant, but everything to do with the reporting she had done exposing the Federal Air Marshall’s Service.

They didn’t even bother material that pertained to other investigations she had done.

President Ronald Reagan used to say “It’s morning in America!” Now we see the sunset in America, slowly taking the light of freedom with it. Dark comes the night, bringing a kind storm that Americans alive today have never seen before. A great many other voices are warning you to prepare physically and bodily. But are you ready spiritually?

This is an argument against trademark law

October 26, 2013

Chick-fil-a has one a round in its retort at the Patent office against a guy who wanted to trademark the phrase “Eat more kale”.
http://consumerist.com/2013/04/23/eat-more-kale-guys-trademarking-attempt-denied-in-battle-against-chick-fil-a/

The fast food chain is famous for its catchy trademarked “Eat Mor Chikin”, which they magnify in its humorous image of a cow in a pasture above the phrase as a caption, misspelled and all. Remember that ads, trademarks, names, often include misspellings as a trick to get literate folks to notice it more and remember it more easily. See, I’m a victim of it, right here in this paragraph.

I dunno, but the government has made mental midgets out of most of us. We expect cases like this, and most of us go along with the decision and don’t think much about it.

Where does that leave advocates of healthy eating? “Eat more healthy foods” in an organic-foods article probably will escape unscathed, but who knows what craziness lies ahead? Or behind? Maybe we forget things like Xerox battling the use of its name as a synonym for any kind of photocopier or photocopy.

Eminent domain robbery

October 26, 2013

The Freedom Foundation has blogged about the City Council of Seattle, Washington, voting –unanimously!– to seize the parking lot that belongs to a 103-year old woman, to turn it into another parking lot!

You can’t make this crazy stuff up!

Read it:

http://myfreedomfoundation.com/blog/liberty-live/detail/city-of-seattle-abuses-eminent-domain-so-a-parking-lot-can-become-a-parking-lot

Seattle’s City Council voted unanimously Monday to use eminent domain to take private property. They say they must seize the private property, which is currently being used as a parking lot, in order to turn it into … a parking lot. (Here is the link to the original notice). Local Station Q13Foxnews discussed this story here.

In addition to eminent domain abuse, the City of Seattle has recently been in the news for hiding public records, and sinking the farm boat. The common thread among all three of these stories is that, in Seattle, central planning takes priority over people. In this case, they decided it was critically important to seize a parking lot from its 103-year-old owner so that it can be a parking lot. At least this is their stated justification.

http://watchdog.org/112499/seattle-uses-eminent-domain-turn-parking-lot-parking-lot/

Someone on a discussion forum defending this seizure, and I was startled when I came across this startling statement:

“She was fairly compensated:”

I kid you not.

So I say, who are you to say that? How do you know what’s fair for her? How can YOU place a dollar value on what SHE values? How much is the principle of freedom worth? The report says she plans on donating this property to some worthy charity in her will. What disadvantaged group that LEFTISTS love so much will be deprived of help by this grand theft government?

How much is it worth to you to live without fear of some “greedy capitalist” robbing your house, getting good government lawyers paid for by taxes stolen from people like her to convince the judge they’re giving her “fair” compensation? How much is it “worth” it to die in peace?

Where is the old LEFTIST rage at fat cats buying up local politicians to confiscate the poor widows’ lands? Where is the old LEFTIST rage at politicians who sell out to fat cat capitalist pig developer corporations who want to build a mall, or a parking lot, or just flip it for more profit?

Yeah, are we safe yet? What a relief, now we can sleep at night, because somebody in government did not let a little old 103-lady “hold the city hostage for a ransom”, when she did not even demand a “ransom”. She just wanted to be left alone and live out her life and die in peace.

I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for the federal government to take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted:

Amendment 5: ….nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

But look at the rest of that Amendment 4.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment makes clear that not only should their lives be protected from government legal and executive (and court) abuse in general (recognized, by the other provisions in the Bill of Rights), but that they should BE secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

Note how the Supreme Court wiggles around the plain English language of the US Constitution. In the Kelo v City of New London, the Court amended the Constitution by (1) ruling that “public use” did not mean “public use” but “public purpose” instead, and (2) implicitly again availing itself of the power that the John Jay court arrogated unto itself in the Marbury v Madison case, in which it ruled on the constitutionality of a law.

That’s a power that was not specified for them, and it’s one that pairs up with the very unconstitutional legal principle of court rulings and precedent trumping the actual law, including the “Supreme Law of the Land”, which is the Constitution, by the way, it’s does not mean whatever the federal government (or any other) tells you is constitutional.

The Constitution, even with the Bill of Rights, conceded WAY too much power to the federal government, even before all the modifications that came later. But at least the subjects of the new D.C. Imperial Realm can demand they return to within its bounds…

The famous guy that chased the money changers out at the painful end of a big bad scourge that he took deliberate time making as painful as possible, also said this:

Matthew 23:1 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widowshouses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

“Reproductive rights” — Orwellian Newspeak — because it’s about the BABY

October 26, 2013
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a "King o...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a “King of abortion”, would later be an active member of a pro-life organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This goes out in reaction to Tibor Machan‘s opinions as expressed in the following link:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34690/Tibor-Machan-Communitarianism-and-Reproductive-Rights/

I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.

How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.

So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)

CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…

That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.

Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.

The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.

An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.

The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.

We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.

In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.

This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.

You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.

So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.

Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.

But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

www.silentnomoreawareness.org/‎

Robot Liability Issues? Space Internet with Lasers

October 25, 2013

ROBOTS

 

Robots are getting better, and some people are already talking about the liability issues. I’ll bet there are a few corporate lawyers and litigation specialists helping drive the talk:

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169024-legal-issues-with-robots/fulltext

 

They’re worried about open source robots. Who to blame when something goes wrong?

 

Much worry about nothing. Who sued Microsoft for all the time and money lost to the Blue Screen Of Death?

 

Nobody died, but….

 

It’s simple anyway. If you build a robot and sell it and it is to blame in some hypothetical situation, it’s a deal between them and you. Linux proved more reliable than Microsoft, more stable and generally less vulnerable to attacks, but Microsoft gets liability protections when it sells its stuff. Disclaimers tell you that by using it, you can’t blame them for the results.

 

Some computer academics want to roll that back. But do businesses really want that? For a fool-proof computer system, for all contexts and uses that you might imagine, free of glitches, you’d have to pay double.

 

Look, you want a car that will resist damage in an accident to that extent? Get an 18-wheeler. Otherwise, get what you can pay for and what you think is worth it. Or if you’re a business, of course it’s the same thing.

 

Of course, I’m glad Open Source is invading the robotics space. It’s already practically taken over the 3-D printing space, from what I can see.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

 

SPACE INTERNET?

 

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169004-nasa-says-first-space-internet-test-beyond-expectations/fulltext

 

NASA was (is) testing laser communication systems as a medium for a space-based Internet.

Cornell says the laser communications system could form the building blocks of an outerspace Internet. “This is the beginning of that,” he says. “I think we could have that with delay tolerant networking.”

NASA hopes to use similar systems for faster satellite communications and deep space communications with robots and human exploration crews in the future. Two-way laser communications systems can deliver six times more data with 25 percent less power than the best radio systems currently in use today, and weigh half as much, Cornwell notes.

“Oh, it’s going to enable a lot of things,” he says, “but the big benefit is you can send back more data from wherever you are.”

It will require line-of-sight, right? But then there’s not as much clutter in space as there is on the ground here, except for near-Earth orbiting space junk and useful stuff up there.

 

 

Christ is Anti-War

October 25, 2013

Way to go, Paul! I’ve been preaching against the state of war and especially the American version ever since before I became a missionary. Went from Vietnam-era anti-war Communist to anti-war Christian preaching against the fiat money changers. It’s a gospel message, and this looks like a “mission field” I fell into, like Wilberforce with slavery.

The books of Moses that so many atheist voices use to make their warrior accusations actually says the opposite. In fact God told Abraham he could not have the promised land because their “cup of iniquity” was not yet “full”. Only when they were past the point of no return in their violence against each other, against their women, and raising the next generation worse than ever, and sacrificing the babies to their gods, THAT is when he said to “wipe them out”, by which he ordered them explicitly and specifically in the same mission to leave the women and the children alive.

There was one exception to that, and only after they had defeated the Amalekites THREE times, only to find that the women had raised the next generation to attack the Hebrews again.

When they demanded a government (a king by any other name) from Samuel, God said they had rejected HIM. Preachers misconstrue Romans 13. The 501(c)3 status has a lot to do with them muzzling themselves, they even admit it outright, demanding a change it that very law, and the IRS attitude toward enforcement.

Romans 13 denotes more of a contract and describes what a government does when God allows one to continue extant. If they don’t “bear the sword” for good, they broke the contract. When they “[touch] the apple of [God’s] eye”, warnings abound and judgment.

And hey! Jesus paid taxes? Yeah, read the rest of Matthew 18. By way of a question, he said the people that collect taxes are corrupt. “Do their children pay tribute?” he asked. “No”, answered the disciples, and we see that today with the exemption Congressmen give to themselves, to the President and his underlings, and the Courts. And we see that also in the Federal Reserve.

Remember, the only revolutionary violence Jesus Christ did was to beat the money changers out of the temple at the end of a very nasty whip, and he overturned their tables in a fierce anger. (“Be ye angry and sin not.”- Be angry at the proper targets of same but don’t ride it into sin.) You can imagine what he would do today to the money changers of the Federal Reserve. After all they believe in that old joke: “Got change? Thanks. Yeah, I meant change from your hand to mine.”

I have written a e-booklet on the subject of how Christianity demands a libertarian type stance toward government. I’m just looking for an editor first. I’ll put it up on my blog at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com and/or http://www.truebook.wordpress.com. The latter is more on Biblical and doctrinal issues when I post there less often than the other. This subject is voluminous.

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? —James 4:1