A libertarian answers Reason Magazine’s “conservative” case for gay marriage

A. Barton Hinkle has written an article found at Reason Magazine contributing reasons he believes conservatives have for supporting same-sex marriage, other than the old boiler-plate equality argument:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/07/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage

Being of libertarian persuasion myself, I think the government should not only get out of the business of telling people who to marry or not to marry, but get out of the business of “licensing” anybody at all to marry. There should be no benefit to marrying or not marrying, at all. Or any government-with-guns favored behavior at all.

But some of these things deserve answering in the context outside of that, because too many libertarians mistakenly think that supporting such a thing in general is a libertarian cause. I say that because their arguments show it.

(1) Gay marriage is good for “the institution of marriage.

Just because you’re under the illusion that “gay marriage” means more marriages does not make it so. I say illusion not because it necessarily means the opposite but because this assertion is a facile kind of argument, along the lines of the superficial supposition that anything government does for a group is good for them. That’s not an analogy to the argument, it’s just to say that this “reason”, at least the reasoning, does not take into account the unintended consequences, which is something libertarians are supposed to specialize in.

In fact the author recognizes some of this anyway when he admits that marriage between cats and mice would not strengthen the institution of marriage.

And one more thing, simply saying that “gay marriage” gets gay people to buy into a “(conservative)” value set (parentheses his), presupposes that a “conservative” value set including marriage with commitment would include the idea of same-sex marriage, something that a great many conservatives of course sharply disagree with.

In fact, gay marriage is another big blow to the institution of marriage and of the natural family. Not to mention intellectual honesty and common sense. The first one was easy divorce, which I view as a symptom rather than cause. Gay marriage is the second. Some groups advocating “gay marriage” already –quietly of course– include polygamy in their list of demands. After that will be group marriages.

But what this movement is really about is not about equality. It is driven more by powers and shadowy groups that seek to end the institution of marriage altogether, and absolutely fits what I used to support as a college-age Communist, full-blown. It’s part of the platform of the Communist Party, as listed by Karl Marx himself in the Communist Manifesto, right alongside central banks and dictatorships.

(2) Gay marriage fosters virtue.

Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul – that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable – just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons.

Muy bonito, as they would say in Latin America. “Allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy” is desirable. Listen, A. Barton, not one person is America is preventing any “gay couple” in America or anywhere else from “entering lifetime monogamy”. Any gay couple can do that without pretending to be wed in what you called “holy” matrimony.

In fact, it would do the opposite in a number of ways.

One Christian speaker tells about a time when during Q&A, a “gay couple” arose to tell him they were engaged in a monogamous relationships. He asked this “gay man” for “how much” they were monogamous. Say, 100%, 90%, 60%? And the young man answered, “about 80%”. This young man did so apparently without even thinking.

The speaker of course highlighted the difference between “gay marriage” monogamy and heterosexual monogamy in the answer. He said his wife would never tolerate such a “monogamous “marriage”. In fact, almost all Hollywood movies recognize that one “infidelity” breaks the monogamy.

(3) Gay marriage benefits children.

Oh really?! Wow. Almost every social study on the subject has shown that by almost any objective criteria, in general, children raised in a home with both a father and a mother do better later on than those raised in any other family configuration.

In fact, the ACLU argument quoted here, mitigates against their own position, saying that denying same-sex “marriage” is to deny those children “the protection and stability of having parents who are married.” One of the most repeated points made by advocates is that heterosexual marriage is already broken, and they are right.

That’s because there’s so much selfishness, self-centeredness in the culture, and so many more people today than before who have grown up to think they have to claim all their “rights” and so cannot see another’s perspective. (Right here some are thinking I should consider another’s perspectives, but I have and it is irrelevant to the point. So read it again).

The point is, the reasons homosexual marriages are breaking down are part of the same phenomenon that drives the reasons argued for “gay marriage”.

The statement quoted there that “There is no evidence that gay parents are any less effective or loving than heterosexual ones” is actually and factually incorrect. Every relevant study shows a father and a mother in the home is best for the child. The words “less effective” cover a lot of ambiguity. “No evidence” probably means the speaker has avoided seeing it, and when pointed to it, just issues the mantra chant of “bigotry” as if using the word without addressing the issues raised would counter every argument.

(4) Banning gay marriage injects government where it doesn’t belong.

I agree with this, but it’s because marriage itself is something where the government does not belong.

As a matter of fact, demanding the government issue licenses for “gay marriage” is to recognize that government in fact must determine what is the optimal role for a family. Traditionally the entire culture, in fact almost all cultures for millenia, have considered gay coupling as something way outside of marriage, because marriage has always been seen as a natural institution that was best for raising children.

Even demanding “gay marriage” is in a way a demand for the “right” to simulate heterosexual marriage.

Now this really intellectually dishonest argument:

Conservatives content they want to protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples. First question: Show me where the Constitution says that is any part of government’s job. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Yeah, wait all you want, because this belies the obvious, and the use of phrasing “protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples” is a misdirection that avoids another strong argument against the “constitutionality” of forcing “gay marriage” on the body politic.

First, I don’t know of even one conservative who points to the Constitution when they say that, so that’s disingenuous. To knock down the argument, you need to address it, not misdirect it like an illusionist.

Second, libertarians do not generally point to the Constitution for the basis for their arguments. Ron Paul has indeed used the constitutionality argument against many things, but he wraps it with the real reasons for his constitutional positions.

Third, SHOW ME ONE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN ONE, WHO SAID ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST that they considered a marriage to be anything other than between a man and a woman, and the natural institution for raising children.

I dare anybody to show me evidence for any founding father of the nation or anyone who voted to ratify the Constitution, that might suggest they would think of marriage as anything else. In fact we all know that even marriages without children, after many years, would be considered a marriage that is missing something.

We all know this. We also know that this is why it is not explicit. It would have laughed out of the first draft, along with calls for repealing the laws of gravity, or motion, or biology.

Fourth, procreation has always been understood implicitly as part of the package in marriage. That’s why many states (most?) have required blood tests before issuing a marriage license, because incompatible blood types made a dangerous Russian roulette game for the babies.

So there is a great cost to society in same-sex marriage, and Dennis Prager has shown in detail how this works. They are a minority among “gays”, also, but there is a significant minority among currently practicing “gays” that strongly argue against “gay marriage”, I have heard them.

In fact, if government had not gotten involved in the first place with “licensing” and now we have pastors marrying people by the power vested in them by the state of so-and-so, then there would have been so such clamor, and the idea would have been seen in general with some humor.

Related articles

• Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage (theblaze.com)
• ‘Will Computers Replace Teachers?’ – Editor of Reason Magazine Says ‘Dear God I Hope So’ (theblaze.com)
• ‘If Anyone Wants to Call Me a Bible-Thumper, Go Ahead’: Blaze Readers Respond to O’Reilly (theblaze.com)

Advertisement

Socialism hurts a lot More than it helps

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

SFF Madman wrote a long comment on my blog post “Socialism Cannot Save Anything”, found here: https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/socialism-cannot-save-anything/

It is so long it deserves another blog post. Whence this one.

But NOTE: “SFF Madman”‘s comments (that’s his handle) are prefaced by SFF. Mine are prefaced by “ttt”.

Trutherator: “Community owned mortgage banks, and credit unions, are helpless and hopeless against the power of the Federal Reserve Bank.”

SFF: Are they? I’m willing to bet they are helpless and hopeless against all the big banks, too (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). Or do you think it was right to bail them out instead of breaking them up?

ttt Of course I opposed bailing them out, I am against ALL forms of welfare that robs Smith to give to Jones. I definitely prefer community banks over the big ones, and credit unions even more, and I support them over the big ones. But then you still have the problem of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the main bad guy here, because all their policies favor the biggest ones over the smaller ones.We all saw that when Ron Paul finally got the Congress to force the Fed to tell us who they secretly gave the money to in that bailout, in fact. It was the big banks.

The government and the Federal Reserve, with TARP and the secret looting, robbed you and your neighbors to give to Wall Street heavyweights favored by government, both executive and legislature. You cannot trust the politicians to make it “fair”. Government is based on force.

ttt: “By the way, the Fed is one of a couple hundred central banks around the world, and establishing such central banks was part of the COMMUNIST platform. Why did Karl Marx want to help the most devious of the bankers?”

sff Personally, I don’t care. Not all socialists are Marxists. As I have said before, there are different kinds of socialism, revised forms of previous ideas, which were obviously needed (“democratic socialism,” “social democracy,” and many more). We need to rethink our “representative democratic republic,” too. Not because it’s a bad idea, but because we have allowed big money to subvert the democratic process.

ttt You’re missing the point about why Karl Marx supported Central Banks at all, and why socialism keeps popping up everywhere in memes pushed by oligarchs in their organs, like corporate media. Socialism refers to state ownership of the means of production, and then there are self-dubbed socialists who push lesser forms of state ownership of production. The Fabian Socialist Society for example pushes for “gradual” implementation of socialism. This came up in the “progressives” of the earliest 20th century, a word used today for the same idea: take by force of government from those who have, and give to those who have less.But the fact that the Fed is the institution that controls the money in your pocket, it is Wall Street-on-the-Potomac, and that a foremost socialist, advocated it, should raise alarm bells.

Look at America’s favorite Fabian socialist in the White House and their attitude toward the uprisings in the Middle East. Not even a whisper of support to the Iranian outrage against the tyranny of their rulers, as opposed to telling Mubarak to get out and a full-scale war in Libya. Something is not right here, ey?

Don’t like Wall Street? Look at the very first thing that the new Libyan government did, it created a central bank with the “help” of Europeans. Go figure.

sff  I would prefer that we scrap the monetary system altogether and try something new. But we know no one will go for that. Most of us peasants in the U.S. really believe we have a chance to become billionaires, not even considering the imbalance in political equality having all that money creates. Not even considering that very imbalance makes the probability of becoming a billionaire very low indeed.

Any bank is a bad idea, at least the way they are set up now. The entire banking system needs a serious overhaul.

ttt If you don’t understand how money works, and the effects of one monetary policy and another, you can do worse than even the mess we have now. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” is good laymans’ terms explanation of money and how it works. He’s written another about gold.

The monetary system is the one thing that is impoverishing us. Even the “progressive” Dennis Kucinich wanted the Federal Reserve audited. Monetary policy is important. Keynesian monetary policy is disastrous. Stimulus only goes to favored cronies and patrons. It’s the law of politics, the law of political power: It corrupts.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are better than the central fiat money of the Fed, but one should understand it before deciding what to do.

ttt “County or City Owned Power Companies — Oh yeah, that’ll help, There are already a bunch of them, known for cronyism and corruption, because now the political bosses are in charge. They’re not magically made more pure just because they get to boss the lighting utility, but now they don’t have to worry about saving the owners money, because they’re government!”

sff I’m a bit confused about what you mean here. If you’re saying Verizon is corrupt, I agree. If you’re saying politicians eat from their hands, I agree with that, too. But that still shows who the real boss is in this picture: Verizon. Politicians are their cronies, and the cronies of any big corporation or bank willing to wave around huge wads of “corporate free speech.”

ttt You’re right of course in the general in what you say here. You just need to consider that political deciders only eat out of Verizon’s hands because they sell “rent-seeking” policies to them that smaller companies do not have. They have political power to sell. Don’t let them have it!

If you dissolve Verizon and give the telephone utility to that same politician or anybody else, the cronyism doesn’t go away. His family, or the politically appointed boss, gets the best phone service, his family gets the best jobs, his cousin runs it into the ground.I saw this every time in Latin America when I was a full-time missionary. Phone service by governments is beyond awful, and the poor are the worst off. Power companies are the worst. There are now blackouts again in Tegucigalpa the capital, because the company bosses rake it off the top, at each layer of boss. When I was in Santo Domingo is was every day. Take your bath quick when the water came, it didn’t last past noon.

Allende in Chile nationalized the copper mines. Goodbye Anaconda. In one year, production had plummeted, workplace accidents doubled, and Allende’s government had to subsidize the mines instead of getting taxes from it. Today, under economic policies adapted from Milton Friedman‘s “Chicago School” of economics, it’s thriving, but it could do even better if the free market principles of Austrian economics were implemented over the long run.

ttt “The Millionaires Tax — Oh yeah, that’ll help jobs. The guy doesn’t even try to pretend taxing 50% over a million has anything to do with helping the poor, except the proposal for a referendum. Never mind the ethics involved in all socialist and fascist proposals, of stealing money from somebody. Like the bloody Bonnie and Clyde, they “go where the money is”, except it’s less noble than Bonnie and Clyde because at least the robbers want it for themselves, whereas socialists just want to pull them down here to poverty with the rest of us!”

sff I see. Helping the poor does constitute a social program. However, what I really want is for the people building the cars, the skyscrapers, standing on the assembly lines, sacrificing sweat, blood, and time with their families to earn a fair living wage, and decent health and education benefits for their efforts. They shouldn’t have to fight for it. It should already be theirs. This is why I contend that corporations are stealing the most, because they are stealing it from their employees.

ttt Nobody should “have to fight for” anything, but they should indeed reap the benefits of the “fruit of their labor”. It’s a temptation to legislate righteousness, to emit decrees, and it’s easy to see the benefit that one supposes benefits the lowest-paid workers in particular.

What is not so easy to see are the “unseen” effects. Sometimes they can be measured. Allende took the corporation out of the picture when he nationalized the mines, took out the profit motive from the equation. But were they angels from heaven that took control? Nah, political cronies. Corruption goes up because now neither the crony appointee and the “appointer” have to account for either profits or taxes or workers’ safety to anybody.

The “fair living wage” sounds all nice and pretty, but if you put on your infrared X-ray eyeglasses, you’ll were just looking at the lipstick, but the ugly pig it’s on is all the teenagers that find it harder to get a job because the pay is not worth their work. The mentally slow ones have a hard time finding anything at all or don’t last because the productivity is not there.

I just read about a blind technologist working on handicapped-friendly interfaces. He said 80% of the blind in America are unemployed. The “minimum wage” is a barrier to employment for them. They can be productive at lower pay, even as family, friends, and charity works help them. (One such private charity work trained an uncle of mine in darkroom work)

But I don’t “owe you” a job. You don’t owe me a job with a “living wage” either. Forcing you to pay me more than I’m worth to you, kills your productivity as a manager, it robs you of the fruits of your labor, and robs the economy at large of that productivity too. That’s lost production that could have gone to raising the standard for others.

ttt “How about let them use that money to give a raise to their workers, hire more workers, invest in more productive activity?”

sff Great idea! It makes good sense and I would like to see it happen. So all these corporations with record profits lately, why aren’t they doing it? See: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10287

ttt That’s a question I think you should really ask yourself. I could just give you a list. But then it would get bogged down in the details.Instead, ask yourself these questions instead:

#1. Corporations just want to make more money right? So it’s not a matter of greed. If you’re saying they’re doing it just because they’re evil or just to punish us and “rob” potential workers of the new jobs that “belong” to them, they could do this better by just shutting the whole thing down.

In fact, that was the big socialist complaint against companies in the 1970s and 1980s that moved their factories to Japan and to China. Nobody bothered to point to their own neighbors for buying stuff made in Japan and China.

#2. If corporations want to “make more money”, and they could expand by investing in more jobs, and they’re not doing it, you have to ask why. If you had money to invest, why wouldn’t you?

#3. Maybe instead of moving the money by the force of the gun of the law from one grubby-fingered greedy corporate hack to the grubby-fingered greedy government hack, how about let’s look at what is causing companies to think there’s no safe investment? Why do they think there is risk in the future.

–One thing in the big long list of disincentives to investment is Obamacare. My son got his hours cut drastically from 40 hours plus lots of overtime (they love him there) to 35 max, because of Obamacare, a pet socialist program that isn’t going to work as promised and has already broken a lot of its promise.. It’s happening by the thousands in small companies across the nation. The big ones are waiting for some of the small ones to fold under the burden, to pick up the slack, I’m sure.

#3. Are there corporations or venture capitalists that indeed are investing and putting their money to use? Yes, there are, and plenty of them.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/vc100
Is it enough? No, because the USA does not have a free market.

ttt “So what if they sit on it? If it’s in savings, it’s getting loaned out to others doing much more productive activity than for warfare or for agents to spy on us.”

sff I say it’s being used for exactly what you say it isn’t.

ttt Why? Does the CEO have all those millions stuffed into mattresses?

Even the dumbest executive keeps his cash reserve in the bank. (Note: Of course Warren Buffet has quietly put about a third of his assets into metallic gold, I hear)

If a bank doesn’t lend out the savings, it dies. Mortgages on industrial property, credit cards, even treasury bills for the “safe” investment. Property of any kind.

ttt “25% solution — Finally, a good idea, cut down military spending. Better yet, Obama or the president could just order them home immediately, like Ron Paul said he would.”

sff Yay! I like this, because it appears there are some points on which you and I are in perfect harmony. But Obomber will only do what his corporate masters pay him to do, and I wouldn’t trust Ron Paul, either. I don’t trust any of them.”

ttt The only one who has proved himself in 30 years is Ron Paul. You should have noticed how they treated him in Iowa. Ron Paul 2nd, but “We now have three new front-runners: Romney, Perry, Bachman”. Abramoff said none of the lobbyists bothered to do anything with Ron Paul.

In the libertarian philosophy, nobody gets a government-guaranteed advantage and the fruits of your labor are respected as yours. No big corporation has any advantage over another. The Internet has proven that given a free market area, upstarts can make hay. If you take government’s regulations out, for example, anybody could sell anything from their home itself. Walmart would have ten million neighborhood competitors. I could sell you my beer. My wife could sell you her fine cooking, without having government snoops all over the place.

The corporations write the laws that regulate them. If you don’t let government make the regulations, the corporations don’t get to write them.

ttt “Public funding of all elections — The worst idea yet. Let government determine who gets a chance at forming part of the government. The most radical election year was 1968 when McCarthy got five millionaire backers to challenge the warfare machine. Those donations would be against the law today, because we already have too much campaign finance reform.”

sff No, we don’t. We now have the ridiculous “corporate free speech” reform: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2001844,00.html

ttt The McCarthy example disproves that. The Vietnam War would have had no serious candidate to champion opposition with McCain-Feingold. Incumbents went from using their built-in advantage to get some 80% re-election, to about 90 or 95% of them re-elected. That’s why it’s the same faces.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-campaign-finance-reform-never-works

And now there is an irony of saying the CItizens United decision was wrong is based on the big monetary firepower of big corporations, and Obama even warning about foreign corporations. This by the one whose campaign is documented as having received foreign contributions.

The irony is that it is corporate entities like Citizens United that give a voice to citizens who by themselves cannot afford to produce a slick ad like the Demican or Republicrat Party candidates, who cannot individually express themselves with a broadcast ad, now they have a way to put a mouth to their message, by contributing to such a like-minded advocacy group. They don’t own megacorporate media empires like General Electric and Microsoft do.

So why let the big mean mega-corporations that own lots of media reach be the only ones that can contribute billions of free air time to candidates.

ttt “But the real headline of the term was the court’s decision earlier this year *giving corporations and unions sweeping new rights to spend money to elect candidates to office*. It is not an overstatement to say that the 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was handed down in January, could permanently change American democracy.” (The Supreme Court and Corporate Free Speech, Time.com)

sff Corporate free speech actually makes bribes legal, and it drowns out all other voices–those that do not have wads of money to throw at politicians. It definitely has “changed American democracy”: it has practically crushed it.

Besides, the government has always decided who would be in the government. There’s this little old thing in fine print in the Constitution called the “Electoral College.” Now, however, it isn’t the government deciding. It’s corporate money.

ttt First, corporate free speech only provides a way for individuals to pool resources in something they believe in. Not talking about incumbency protection schemes like McCain-Feingold, which big corporations also like, because it provides long-term return on investment into incumbent campaigns.

LBJ’s wife gets the broadcast spectrum and CBS affiliation he set up for her with his legislation, and with incumbency protection laws, now LBJ would not have to worry so much about a well-financed opposition campaign. He did, though, that was McCarthy.

The electoral college is not “the government”. It only elects the president anyway.

Presidents in Latin America and everywhere, America too, have always used their power to try to limit opposition candidates. It’s like gravity. Incumbents have lots of built-in advantages in campaigns. Letting opposition candidate get financing wherever they can get it helps balance the equation.

Plus the big profitable corporations have a built-in PR disadvantage, but they are able to hide it in the Old Media. For example, Wall Street gave millions more to Obama’s campaign in 2008 than to McCain’s. But Corporate Media did not report this at the time, not a whisper. Goldman-Sachs contributions were so lopsided it would have capsized and sunk an ocean liner.

ttt “Medicare and dental care for all — except for the ones denied by the one gatekeeper with no recourse and no competition. Better to get government spending out of it altogether and nix the corporate deductions for it –they still today don’t let individuals get the deduction– so the prices will drop to affordable. Instead we got hikes in premiums with the Unaffordable Act, companies are dropping coverage, and dictates all around and the people get less choice than ever. Doctors dropping out too, the best ones that have enough are retiring.. Now functionally illiterate “graduates” of government schools who can’t read cursive are going to take care of us. Thanks a lot, socialism.”

sff I can’t make sense of this. As for Medicare, some people need help. How are they going to get it? Denying them help is what fascists do. Some extreme fascists would even advocate “lining up all the cripples and shooting them” because they are an “unnecessary strain on the economy.”

ttt The biggest faction advocating any kind of euthanasia today are the more “socialistic” minded states like Oregon. And you can check on who was more likely to see Terry Schiavo as a vegetable, and who wanted to err on the side of letting her live.

And you can check on which side all the handicapped advocacy groups came down on. Planned Parenthood was born as a eugenics program, and Hitler’s eugenics chief was even invited to give talks in America at their meetings! And the Ku Klux Klan loved her, and she documented her visit once to a Klan meeting to speak.

Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin. National socialism = international socialism. The “political spectrum” that should concern us is “how much government?”

The spectrum goes from total government (tyranny) to no government (anarchy, or anarcho-capitalism, not the same).

I vote for more freedom. What’s your vote?

sff For the rest of it, I need more information. I can’t be sure I know what you mean about “functionally illiterate ‘graduates,’” but I know my own situation. I haven’t graduated yet, but I’m almost there. I’m using financial aid to go to school and I am far from illiterate.

ttt Obviously I’m not talking about you. You’re obviously very articulate, and express yourself. And I was using hyperbole, I thought it was obvious.

But as long ago as the 1980s I met a New York high school graduate that could not write a gospel tract I handed her. My two oldest sons begged me to let them drop out of high school because they were so bored out of their minds (they’re successful now, one is a music producer).

Get an elementary school McDuffy reader from 1905 or 1913 and look at it. There are high school entrance exams from those years that would stump the best Harvard grads.

sff I can also say with confidence that quite a few of the young students in my classes were skilled with the English language. Not all of them, of course, but several in every class. Their grammar and diction were often better than many politicians, that’s certain.

ttt The best hope is the education that kids can get from sources independent of government schools and government influence, and the ones who are self-motivated from their upbringing. Like the home schoolers acing the academic competition.Politicians are not selected for office for their academic credentials. Their masters like them more pliant. Obama knows economics as much as he knows how to do heart surgery.

At least Ron Paul knows what he’s talking about with economics. In one debate they told the candidates to ask any of the others any question at all. Ron Paul stumped McCain with a simple economics question.

If you read up on Austrian economics you understand more than any of the politicians about how an economy can thrive.

ttt “Nationalized weapons industries. — Oh great. Make them as efficient as the post office. By cutting corporations out of the loop for the dictator, it’ll get better? The “profit” in war will be the political cronies. That’ll work as good as it did for education, and that’s going gangbusters, right?”

sff No one should be profiting from war, corporations least of all.

ttt No one should be profiting from the looting of another, period.But understand. Today’s Godzilla corporations are government pumped. Small corporations are the Moms and Pops and partnerships, more like. We NEED them to profit from productive economic activity.

Without war, weapons industries will atrophy, but we need to push on them. Allowing the people themselves individually to provide for their own self-protection would be more effective for most of it. A government monopoly would be worse because of human nature, and for self-defense too, by the way.

Maybe at least nobody can show up if they give a war.

ttt “==> I’m not a “talking head” or politician or Old Media. I’m a Ron Paul fan, anathema to Shadow Government. We cannot be accused of shilling for the richest. But socialism is a downhill slippery path to tyranny. There are over 100 million humans sacrificed in the 20th century to the god of government.”

sff And I’m willing to bet that twice as many, at least, were sacrificed to Mammon. Corporatism is just as tyrannical, perhaps more so, as any “socialist regime.”

ttt Socialism is Mammon. Socialism defines society in terms of how many each person gets of it.

A completely and truly free market (not the false one socialists accuse the US of having now) is based on the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. In anarcho-capitalism, for example, the economic application of the non-aggression principle is based on the principles of “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”.

Socialist regimes slaughtered directly and deliberately over 100 million of their own subjects during the 20th century, and that’s not counting the millions of citizens who gave their lives in battle against them.

ttt “But. Socialist talking heads are indeed shills for the richest and most powerful clique of plutocrats on the planet. George Soros is no starving peasant, and he and his peers at the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and a lot more, they fund armies of writers and journalists to write articles that praise socialism on 100s of web sites all over the Internet.”

sff Wow. Real socialists would not be anything of the sort. They are pretenders, just like Obomber.

ttt Would not do what? Take money from them? Write the same things a “real” socialist would?

See Soros’ political influence (speaking about money influence!)
http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-george-soros-godfather-left
He has contributed mega-money for the Public Broadcasting Corporation to fund local journalists everywhere in the States. Nobody’s talking about what unwritten agreements were made but you can get an idea of what they’ll probably write about.

He funds “anti-corporate” interests everywhere, including big bucks for Media Matters, a very “progressive” tax-exempt non-profit. You’ll see their “education” on their web site. It’s a “watchdog”, it says but it only dogs the so-called “right”. See for yourself: http://mediamatters.org/

Here you can see how far big money goes to support fascism/socialism/control. It’s a false front racket, all about control:
http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-george-soros-godfather-left

I’ve been paying close attention. Remember I used to be a Communist. Leader of the Black Liberation Army came to speak at my college once. He said a “group of businessmen” offered him a million dollars. To cool it, one supposes, or “stand down”. He refused and the BLA is no more.

Former SDS members report that at one convention, the Rockefellers actually had a table there and they were offering support. In answer to the obvious question, the representative told one questioner that it was to make them look conservative in comparison.

ttt“I found that out when I battled the lies in 2009 when Honduras asserted its freedom and sovereignty against the socialist-orchestrated attack on it, when the Obama administration joined Chavez in trying to force that country to put the dictator Zelaya back in, who was running his own auto-coup against his own government and against his republic, using fraud for cover. And 80% of Hondurans backed Micheletti against that Chavez-puppet demagogue.”

sff  U.S. backing the oppressive dictator is nothing new. And the usual reason for it is money. The usual reason for just about any war after Korea was money (U.S.-owned opium fields in Cambodia, oil in the Middle East). In the past, the profits trickled down to average workers, stimulating the economy (which is why I say the average American should also accept responsibility for reaping the benefits of blood money). Now they don’t. Corporations are making out like bandits on the War on Terror, and the average American’s wages still are not going up.

ttt Like I say, you’ve GOT to understand even the basics of Austrian economics to know why. Like you said above, there’s not much that makes sense here.

Remember the Fed’s money-“printing” power makes it easier for the politicians to fund the war machine and the welfare state. The latter provides a cushion to absorb the deleterious effects of minimum wage laws and state-ordered union memberships, and the former creates its own circular effect.

And it also fuels inflation, devaluation of the dollar, which is a direct theft from the low wages they do allow, so it’s theft from the middle class and from their welfare subsidies to the poor, for a subsidy to the beneficiaries of money creation (Wall Street, big corporations, politicians)

sff It grieves me to see this. Everything you say is a problem in the U.S. (much of which I agree is accurate) still goes back to corporations and banks. Our “representatives” no longer represent the majority, they represent corporate money. This is “corporatism,” not “socialism.”

ttt And this corporatism only happens because people think the government can solve problems by just ordering it like some kind of divine king: “Make it so.” Government is not God, and a scheme based on robbing wealth and productivity from individuals is going to backfire on itself.

Keynesian economists gave their blessing to this racket, and the big bankers were glad to go along. The biggest banking interests in fact hatched the Fed at Jekyll Island in great secrecy, about to pull a fast one on the American public. And they did a double whammy on us in 1913 with the Fed and the Income Tax.

sff The U.S. has many social programs as you noted. I say we need social programs, but I will at least agree that the programs here are mismanaged and incompetently applied. The same goes for taxation. There’s no reason why we can’t come up with fair taxation rates for everyone. For me, I’d be willing to give up 60-70% of my income in taxes if I knew those taxes would guarantee me and my family a home, healthcare, and opportunities for education. People in the higher income brackets would not necessarily need that and should be able to opt out of taxes spent for that reason.

The sooner we learn that no government is so omniscient or even so benevolent as to be capable of guaranteeing anything for you in the long run, especially based on a monetary policy of fiat currency monopoly, enforced with laws that give you jail time if you mint a gold coin for example, the better.

The boom-bust cycle got worse after the Fed took over the money and the banking. It totally screwed up housing for the 21st century so far. Healthcare is a mess because of government pouring billions into it and propping up corporate insurance deductions. (Why didn’t they do that for individuals?)

The income tax does NOTHING to even “spread the wealth around”. Government actors write the laws and make themselves rich at our expense, and join the Old Boys Club where fashionable Harvard grad socialists sneer at the ignorance of the masses with their religion and their guns.

sff But at the very least, the workers in this country deserve better compensation and more respect from corporations. And corporations are much too large; they wield too much political power because of their billions, now even more so with “corporate free speech.”

It is very important to understand this. The problems here in the U.S. are not caused by socialism, they are caused by corporatism. A real social democracy would balance the power between corporations and workers, just as a real representative democratic republic would represent the interests of the majority (rather than a super wealthy minority).

ttt It’s frustrating I know and it looks that way on first glance and that’s why I was once a socialist myself.I was a missionary because I wanted to change the world, help the poor, and I did. Took food donations to distribute in poor barrios in Sto. Domingo. I saw distended bellies. Fellow missionaries told us about Haiti where the poor carry pans to the market to catch the blood flowing down the gutters at the meat market so they can get protein.

You’d be amazed at what people can do if you don’t make them learn to walk with figurative crutches.

There is no need to “balance power between corporations and workers” if you just quit meddling into people’s lives and let them work out their individual contracts as best they see fit.

Let me recommend Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”. It is a booklet written in the 19th century that clarifies the why and wherefore of socialism and government in general. It’s a good starter book to explain things, I think.

Others are Human Action and Socialism by von Mises, and Socialism the Road to Tyranny by Hayek.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/
http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com

Related articles

• Socialism Cannot Save Anything (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People (endtimebibleprophecy.wordpress.com)
• The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion Dollars To The American People (blacklistednews.com)
• Bubbles, Bubbles, Bubbles Bernanke (theburningplatform.com)
• IMF’s Lagarde: Fed Exit Talk ‘Wasn’t Sufficiently Grounded with Information’ (blogs.wsj.com)

Socialism Cannot Save Anything

Somebody wrote a piece at The Sleuth Journal, a web site magazine that usually runs interesting and informative pieces about oppressive practices of government:

Socialism Can Save Our Cities & Small Businesses | TheSleuthJournal
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/socialism-can-save-our-cities-small-businesses/#comment-1077

Socialism cannot save our cities and small businesses, since socialism/fascism caused the problems in the first place!

There’s already too much concentration of economic power in government and quasi-government hands, in lockstep with the very biggest bankers and corporate heads.

* Community owned mortgage banks, and credit unions, are helpless and hopeless against the power of the Federal Reserve Bank. By the way, the Fed is one of a couple hundred central banks around the world, and establishing such central banks was part of the COMMUNIST platform. Why did Karl Marx want to help the most devious of the bankers?

* County or City Owned Power Companies — Oh yeah, that’ll help, There are already a bunch of them, known for cronyism and corruption, because now the political bosses are in charge. They’re not magically made more pure just because they get to boss the lighting utiility, but now they don’t have to worry about saving the owners money, because they’re government!

* The Millionaires Tax — Oh yeah, that’ll help jobs. The guy doesn’t even try to pretend taxing 50% over a million has anything to do with helping the poor, except the proposal for a referendum. Never mind the ethics involved in all socialist and fascist proposals, of stealing money from somebody. Like the bloody Bonnie and Clyde, they “go where the money is”, except it’s less noble than Bonnie and Clyde because at least the robbers want it for themselves, whereas socialists just want to pull them down here to poverty with the rest of us!

How about let them use that money to give a raise to their workers, hire more workers, invest in more productive activity? So what if they sit on it? If it’s in savings, it’s getting loaned out to others doing much more productive activity than for warfare or for agents to spy on us.

* 25% solution — Finally, a good idea, cut down military spending. Better yet, Obama or the president could just order them home immediately, like Ron Paul said he would.

* Public funding of all elections — The worst idea yet. Let government determine who gets a chance at forming part of the government. The most radical election year was 1968 when McCarthy got five millionaire backers to challenge the warfare machine. Those donations would be against the law today, because we already have too much campaign finance reform.

Imagine that. A socialist proposing that legislators like John McCain make the rules for who gets money to campaign against them. Real smart.

* Medicare and dental care for all — except for the ones denied by the one gatekeeper with no recourse and no competition. Better to get government spending out of it altogether and nix the corporate deductions for it –they still today don’t let individuals get the deduction– so the prices will drop to affordable. Instead we got hikes in premiums with the Unaffordable Act, companies are dropping coverage, and dictates all around and the people get less choice than ever. Doctors dropping out too, the best ones that have enough are retiring.. Now functionally illiterate “graduates” of government schools who can’t read cursive are going to take care of us. Thanks a lot, socialism.

* Nationalized weapons industries. — Oh great. Make them as efficient as the post office. By cutting corporations out of the loop for the dictator, it’ll get better? The “profit” in war will be the political cronies. That’ll work as good as it did for education, and that’s going gangbusters, right?

==> I’m not a “talking head” or politician or Old Media. I’m a Ron Paul fan, anathema to Shadow Government. We cannot be accused of shilling for the richest. But socialism is a downhill slippery path to tyranny. There are over 100 million humans sacrificed in the 20th century to the god of government.

But. Socialist talking heads are indeed shills for the richest and most powerful clique of plutocrats on the planet. George Soros is no starving peasant, and he and his peers at the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and a lot more, they fund armies of writers and journalists to write articles that praise socialism on 100s of web sites all over the Internet.

I found that out when I battled the lies in 2009 when Honduras asserted its freedom and sovereignty against the socialist-orchestrated attack on it, when the Obama administration joined Chavez in trying to force that country to put the dictator Zelaya back in, who was running his own auto-coup against his own government and against his republic, using fraud for cover. And 80% of Hondurans backed Micheletti against that Chavez-puppet demagogue.

Related articles

• Socialism: Caught in the Political Trap (c4ss.org)
• Does this Hitler quote ‘We are socialists’ sound familar? (fireandreamitchell.com)
• Socialism as a Faith: A New Name for an Old Enemy (truth60.com)
• Obama Admits He’s A Socialist (patdollard.com)

Ethnic cleansing & Anti-Christian massacres– going on in Syria with USA help

Syria Militants Massacre Christian Village Population (Graphic Images) | Syria Report: http://syriareport.net/syria-militants-massacre-christian-village/

We have seen this before, with the annihilation of a town of 10,000 dark-skinned Africans in Tawarga:
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/13/disappeared-thousands-of-libyan-blacks-turn-up-missing-in-rebel-offensives/ Do you remember all those reports of “friendly fire” when United States forces fired missiles into caravans of refugees escaping from Kosovo during that war, resulting in hundreds of deaths of civilians?

It was well-known at the time that the “NATO” forces (almost all US military) were throwing their fire onto targets that the KLA were “marking” for them, coordinates that KLA forces on the ground were giving them. The KLA just months before had been on the USA official list of terrorist organizations.

What was criminally under-reported by international media then was that these were not actually “mistakes”. The KLA officers knew that those targets were caravans of people who were not just civilians, but mostly CHRISTIANS who were trying to flee from Kosovo Liberation Army governed areas.

So the USA helped the terrorist organization become the government in Kosovo.

We also know that the USA helped the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt, it was not all so spontaneous as reported, the same organization that is also Hamas in the Gaza strip, in southern “Palestine” (at the south end of “Israel”).

We also know that American Special Forces joined with smaller numbers of their counterparts from other European nations in Libya to wage a war that was unconstitutional for the USA, and aided and abetted the genocide there against their darker-skinned population, which had been treated with some fairness apparently under Gaddafi, who had won their loyalty.

We now know that the “rebels” in Libya had a habit of cutting crosses into the corpses of the blacks that they killed. We also know that the Libyan arsenals are now scattered into the hands of the rebels across North Africa that Obama’s State Department aided with even more heavy weapons that have joined the rest of them in al-Qaeda type criminal organizations. These are not “Muslims” per se, they are a Mafia meant to enforce their own hegemony, not a “consensus” caliphate. The Jesuits have their secret operations but apparently has not come close to the depravity of these “rebels”.

We also know that attention to the scandal of the week is turning attention away from the other scandals. It is difficult to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. That’s why the administration spokesmen are now talking about “metadata” instead of the practice of listening to any phone calls of Americans on whim. Don’t look there, look here.

That’s why the scandals all have to be put into the framework of the real problem. That is, citizens do not have control over their own lives or who is watching them.

We also know that the major international news agencies and the Powers-That-Be-Approved “mainstream” international media did a major cover-up of many of these facts, because they are real news. Why? I do not pretend to know the motivations of each one who might have decided not to make a story of it or mention it. It did get out to many, however, obviously, but through the alternative media, the “New Media”.

Now, a lot of us have lived with Muslims. “Preventive measures” are not necessary against a predicted evil, because then the warmongers win. I felt more rapport with a Muslim co-worker at one place, than I did the other co-workers. We both were good-natured in our conversations about our respective beliefs, and respected each other’s rights to say and do, and even tried to “convert” each other. Free speech is all about convincing somebody, so ALL laws against “proselytizing” are laws against dissenting from whoever is in power.

America is best off if she brings all her troops home from overseas, TODAY. One “executive order” would do it. Why aren’t ALL the leftists demanding this? Because all or most of them are FALSE FRONT organization meant to control the population in psy-operations. Started with Karl Marx. Not until recently did I realize the disconnect between (1) the rhetoric about the poor and the working class, and (2) the demand in the Communist Manifesto platform for a Central Bank in every nation in the world. That number two, is a demand that all nations’ economies, and currencies, be put into the hands of a few bankers.

We have to tell the warfare-welfare state that the gig is up, give it up already, we don’t like getting spied on, droned on, and we want the Constitution respected instead of “case law”, we want the governments out of our bedrooms, our living rooms, our light bulbs, our houses, our pocketbooks.

 

Related articles

• Obama Lies America Into Another War (frontpagemag.com)
• Are You Going to Give Your Terrorist Friends In Syria More Chemical Weapons? Obama (friendsofsyria.wordpress.com)
• Syrian Rebels Massacre Christian Village (intifada-palestine.com)
• U.S. Backed – FSA Rebels Massacre an Entire Christian Village in Syria? (deadlinelive.info)

National and International Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Are They Different?

Cover (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, they are all the same in the idea that an [ahem] “enlightened” [suppress guffaw here] ruling clique should rule over all of us, justified by the same excuse used by all tyrants and all dictators of all times: It’s for “our own good”.

National socialism and international socialism are based on one tiny gang of dictators.

Among those who are sincerely interested in doing good, central planning of any category  comes from a momentous hubris, albeit often unconscious hubris. They know what people should do, so they force us to do it. Claiming a majority vote is not a use of force is a cheap intellectual cop-out once we accept the reality, because all government relies on the use of force.

I once was one of those inflicted with that hubris, thinking that a Marxist revolution was the best thing for the peoples of the world. But Marxist revolutions were always ugly revolutions. But Marx’s idea of a transitional dictatorship bothered me until it broke out into “anarchism”, what libertarians would probably call “syndicalist anarchism” or  “left anarchism”.

If my neighbor John Doe takes something from the other neighbor Mr. Jones and gives it to me because I need it, it is still THEFT.

It is theft whether Mr. Jones is a billionaire, millionaire, or earns more than a quarter-million dollars, or not. If he stole it, he stole it. It is still THEFT.

If neighbor John Doe organizes the neighborhood, the whole city or county, and then the state, and gets a majority vote to take something from the other neighbor Mr. Jones by force of “democracy” to give it to me, it still does not make it okay. It is still THEFT.

To such theft, I DO NOT CONSENT. No matter how much good it does me or any other neighbor.

If you do consent, you are accessory to theft, once your sin is exposed.

I gave nearly twenty years of my life to missionary work, and helping others, helping them. Against such love there is no law.

Against theft, there is: Thou shalt not steal”

 

Some Encouraging Contrasts by Butler Shaffer

Gallery ~ The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (Photo credit: erjkprunczýk)

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer270.html

Hurray. Good article… Society misses the children..

In my opinion the forced march toward feminism covered the separation of women from the nuclear family. The nuclear family —husband and wife and children– is in my opinion, the best bulwark against state control and long-lasting tyranny.

It was a basic point in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto platform, a platform I once rallied for in college days.

Now we get women “liberated” from pregnancy worries by both the pill and abortion. We get women shipped off in the military from their babies. We already got the divorce of children from marriage a long time ago with all the Hollywood romantic movies, family caricatures like “Married With Children“, and now ridicule of the very idea of an Ozzie and Harriet family.

The whole idea is to separate children from their parents and dissolve the natural, nuclear family, so the state can control the next generation, that is, the ruling class state, greedy for power.

Related articles

• The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons” (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Jacob Shaffer ‘Mini Trial’ Begins Today (whnt.com)
• The New Babbleon by Butler Shaffer (johnnyangeladvocacygroup.net)
• More background on the persecution of Fr. Greg Shaffer by campus tolerance activists (gwhatchet.com)
• A Brief History of Political Correctness and Its Origins (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

Michelle Shocked – Yes God is Real – michelleshocked.com – YouTube

Cover of the Communist Manifesto’s initial publication in February 1848 in London. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJq11taAJgY

 

..just sharing…

 

But in an interview later, she backed off earlier comments because she was inundated by accusations of hate when she shared that members of her church were afraid for the country because of the lifting up of homosexual marriage in the nation. She was subjected to so much hate speech that she sort of recanted.

 

But take note. I heard the video (or audio) of the first comment that caused the firestorm. They were mild and did not carry the weight of conviction or authority.

 

The flood of hate that awaits anyone who has anything positive about the natural nuclear family as even an ideal, means that anyone who is going to make such a statement should know what he is talking about, know his subject, and have the firm conviction of being right.

 

Christians need to remember we are sinners and it’s not even just the soul of our nation that concerns us, but the harm that homosexual behaviors invite by the behavior, a vector for unwelcome effects. And the children of the next generation. Every child has a father and a mother who have a responsibility and obligation to the child. And every relevant study shows that by almost any measure, a child is best protected and cultivated if he has the benefit of a father and a mother who raise him together.

 

The attack on the institution of marriage got full steam ahead with Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. The promotion of homosexual practices, with the demands for official same-sex marriage, abortion, these things were politicized in the 19th and 20th century by secularist leaders who of a truth are fighting marriage itself. This is something they are starting to feel safe now in saying out loud for an audience.

 

Karl Marx’ intent was to dissolve it. He called it a “bourgeouis” thing, although in fact it is a universal thing. Karl Marx had his own (neglected) wife and his children came to sorry ends, in fact. The real purpose is to make future generations safe for tyranny. They do this by having the state claim ownership of the children.

(By the way, the Kremlin has a bunch of writings by Karl Marx that are still kept hidden away in secret. What kind of dark stuff is it, you ask? We do too.)

 

Jesus loves the little children. God is love, and Jesus is his love manifest to us. If anybody “owns” the children, it’s God, regardless who has the blessings of raising them.

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

• Understanding Karl Marx: Hoisted from the Archives from Four Years Ago May Day Weblogging (delong.typepad.com)
• Karl Marx lived in his mom’s basement, ate fish sticks (iowntheworld.com)
• Today Is National Stomp On Marx Day (hennessysview.com)
• Marxism: Philosophy and Economics by Thomas Sowell (wanderingmirages.com)
• Your Rights As a Parent Are Now Gone (thisnannythatnanny.wordpress.com)
• The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons” (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Homosexual activist says gay ‘marriage’ isn’t about equality, it’s about destroying marriage (lifesitenews.com)
• Homosexual activist Masha Gessen admits her true purpose is to destroy marriage (destroyzionism.com)
• Homosexual Activist-Journalist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage (joemiller.us)
• Homosexuality, Marriage, and Matthew 19 (southernreformation.wordpress.com)

The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons”

Do Cochran’s blog inspired a reaction:
http://gregoryccochran.com/2013/01/04/77-non-religious-reasons-to-support-traditional-marriage/

His blog was a reaction to the Ruth Institute’s list of “77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage”:

One of the loudest advocates of same-sex marriage claims discrimination based on, so he says, 10,000 specific benefits that man-woman marriages get. Usually unspoken is the fact that those are *government-granted* “benefits. Why should *any* of us think government should give us permission to get married or to warp the land of marriage culture with it?

Marriage was always considered, including in pagan societies throughout history, as part of a natural family.

Same-sex marriage advocates always come back with this bogus “what is a family” anymore, and point at “non-traditional” families like mixed marriages (step-children all around, all that) as if the Ozzie and Harriet “ideal” is dead. That was even a Hillary Clinton reference circa 1992! But it’s not dead, she and other opponents of the NATURAL FAMILY, they just want to kill it.

Remind them that the supposedly new “non-traditional” families that *seem* successful are the ones that best emulate the *natural* family. Their own studies even show that the best adjusted kids are those that grew up in natural families, with a father and a mother. The worst thing that happened to especially the poor in America (not just black families) was the breakup of so many families.

It was in the Karl Marx “Communist Manifesto” after all. The main purpose behind this same-sex marriage noise is to push the idea that the children of any natural marriage belong to the state. The Powers That Be that have pushed almost the entire platform of the Communist Manifesto down our throats little by little and largely unnoticed, they HATE the natural family because it interferes with their indoctrination of the little ones.

Hillary Clinton once wrote a paper in college that denounced marriage as slavery. Some sharp reporter ought to ask her if she still believes that. (She’ll have to “kind of” renounce it, wink wink). I was a Communist youth myself, but facts, logic, truth have dragged me to where I am now. Marxists might call it slavery on a bad day, but they see no slavery in the fact that we are *forced* to labor for whoever commands the government du jour, for more than a third of our year, for them to decide who gets to have what.

So they are using the fact that Christians and others accepted the state taking over control of marriage as quite the Trojan Horse to try a Newspeak Dictionary tactic of making people forget the purpose of natural marriage, which has always been rearing children with the natural protection of the natural nuclear family of man, woman, and offspring.

Getting government back out of the business of controlling our lives by controlling marriage, and other collectivist ideas, is not an easy path, since state recognition has become in our minds apparently the definition of “legitimacy”.

Where Christian leaders have erred greatly was in using, or accepting, government license (control) over our lives in the first place. Mandating alcohol abstinence did not work at all, and other enforcement by the force of the gun of the law of religious doctrines will not work, other than for the protection of natural rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, property (Thou shalt not steal).

Can IBM’S Big Blue Or Watson beat THIS?

Animation of the structure of a section of DNA. The bases lie horizontally between the two spiraling strands. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

DNA is a biochemical analogue of a memory chip with programming. mRNA, RNA, is like the hardware that interprets the machine-language instructions for the epigenetic environment and the cellular machinery.

The DNA itself is a recording of a written coded language. Computers today store all information in bits, charges of “zero” and “one” in magnetic or optic media. A gene is stored in a DNA molecule in a medium of the arrangement of nucleotides linked in a chain. The A, C, T, G nucleotides are the ONLY letters in the completely digitized SYMBOLIC language to store the data.

The clincher for me is that the language in the DNA has NOTHING to do with the eventual effect it has in the cell. Run source code through the CPU and the machine does nothing, or freezes, or stops. Source code has to be translated. So does DNA.

It’s mind-boggling. A computer has to have a programmer. DNA indeed has one:

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.(Psalm 139:16)

That verse actually exposes the modern counterfeit translations. One guy once asked me why I changed the words in my quote of the verse to make it “look like” DNA. I didn’t. The other modern versions DO change the words to make it NOT look like DNA.

Darwinian evolution is nothing new though. It’s a very old idea that Satan used Darwin to cloak in modern lingo:

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

That verse in Jeremiah 2, part of the introduction of the book of prophecies of the judgment coming to Israel for such beliefs, actually shows that (1) the beliefs, that life “came forth” from rocks that were eroded and scorched and melted into the primeval ooze, are NOT a “discovery” of the 18th and 19th centuries, but were there way back in the effort to avoid God searing their conscience, and (2) the belief that humans are evolved from lesser animals like “stock”, is also an ancient myth.

They modern academic ruling class censors this history, along with the history of unions, the Roosevelt statist policies that made the Great Depression much worse and longer than it had to be, the criminal actions of the Federal Reserve and its traitorous passage in 1913 in the US Congress.

They hide the fact that Karl Marx included a “Graduated” income tax in his Communist Manifesto platform, plus a “central bank” in every nation of the world. This is the anti-capitalist? Sneaking in a policy of private-sector Wall Street types and international banksters to control the world’s currency, interest rates, mortgages, and economies?

But did Mao Tse-Tung push economics or even Communist Party doctrines into the first things he pushed into his schools after taking over? Nah, he pushed evolution as the first priority in education in China.

Jesus believed in the six-day Creation, too:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

So did Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Related articles

• Beautiful DNA explainer video does Watson and Crick proud (geek.com)
• Translating Shakespeare Into DNA (theatlantic.com)
• IBM’s computer cooks up big-data treat for Wall Street analysts (mercurynews.com)
• BBC Animation Gives A Fun Rundown of DNA [Video] (medicaldaily.com)
• Gardasil: New study brings more safety questions to light (sott.net)
• IBM’s Watson supercomputer has a new job, as a lawyer (digitaltrends.com)

Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. central bank, money changers, and Andrew Jackson

English: Andrew Jackson – 7 th President of the United States (1829–1837) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Central banking was NEVER a good idea. Andrew Jackson had flaws, but at least he apparently was not in their “pocket” (pun intended). No partisan of individual liberty –natural individual rights– can condone a force-subsidized centralization of control over a nation’s financial activity, or government-enforced privileges for a selected cartel of private bankers.

I don’t know enough about the Federalist Papers to know what Alexander Hamilton said in them about central banks, but it’s rather obvious that he and Justice Marshall hid the “whole truth” from the public. Many of the other founders, including Thomas Jefferson, were very explicit in their condemnations of centralized banking power.

Central banks are the Trojan horse of usurpation of power leading to more power-grabbing. This is one reason Jesus Christ himself showed by example what his followers should do with money changers. Keep watch on them, they cheat and lie and turn the houses of God into dens of thieves.

This is EXACTLY what happened with Alexander Hamilton’s central bank. It’s a very bad mark on Washington’s presidency, in fact. The bankers began using federal government money to expand their control over all the banking in general, which was one reason Maryland tried to stop them in Maryland.

And the fact that many of these central-banking-advocates signed the Constitution shows they were not all being honest. That includes later Chief Justice Marshall, who headed the Supreme Court decision to declare the charter for the central bank constitutional.

So when Andrew Jackson got his chance to veto the central bank charter renewal passed by Congress, he most emphatically put his VETO on it. He had his flaws but this is one of the best things any U.S. president has ever done for the American people. ALL the American people.

Think about why  Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto advocated for a central bank that would control the monetary system in every country in the world. Most socialists, Communists, and “progressives” roll right over that –except the ones that do and think about it do not remain such for long– but they should consider it. Why would an anti-capitalist push for giving capitalist bankers complete control over a nation’s economy?

 

Related articles

• Nation’s founders and the banks (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• All Wars Are Started by Bankers (secretsofthefed.com)
• Re: Who is the enemy? (forum.prisonplanet.com)
• Anti-bank Rally Held in Sofia amidst 2 Other Protests (novinite.com)
• Central Banks Discussed Nominal GDP Targets at G-20 – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)