World War C

The most important news last week was not the election results, since all that was accomplished was to replace a few Welfare Socialists with Warfare Socialists. The big news was from the economic master of the universe, Dr. Ben Bernanke, by whom the next round of quantitative easing was announced. QE2 is the latest euphemism for the monetary fraud of inflation, and will have lasting effects that will haunt our economic well-being for many years to come. It is economic warfare and will likely mark the beginning of the next world war, World War C, the currency war.

In this economic disaster, every nation wants to increase their own exports and minimize their imports. Obviously this is not possible for every country, and overlooks the fact that the division of labor inherent in free trade makes the whole world, both rich and poor, much better off. But if a country’s currency were to be devalued relative to the rest of the world, that country’s exports would tend to increase for a time due to their price advantage. Of course, when labor and material prices adjust to the presence of newly created unearned money, the advantage would disappear, but QE3 would fix that, and on it goes. So, when one rather large country devalues its own currency (and make no mistake, that’s what QE2 does), then every other country will try to follow suit so that their own currency is equally devalued. Central bankers must believe that if their currency is circling the toilet faster than the others, they win.

Obviously, this tactic also cannot work. So, round two will begin with increasing accusations of currency manipulation and price fixing, leading up to trade restrictions through tariffs and quotas. Then as free trade becomes a distant dream, regional shortages of commodities will appear, and so will the shooting part of this war.

When trade restrictions are proposed, you should think “this means increasing poverty”. When the drums of war begin, you should think “this means death to millions of innocent people”.

Stop the Central Banksters by using only gold and silver coins as money.

Seeking Rent & Restitution

According to the FBI, rates of violent crime in the US have been falling across the board since 1990. In spite of that fact, we see increasing reports of citizen abuse by Law Enforcement at every level. Those who have sworn to serve and protect look more like military every day, with black uniforms, heavy weapons, and Swat Teams proliferating. And they act like military, treating our own citizens like the enemy in an increasing number of cases. Productive citizens are beginning to fear Law Enforcement because any encounter could lead to being tazed, beaten or shot. There are many likely reasons for these developments, but the one I would like to address is “rent seeking”. In case you’ve never heard this term, it is the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity. Usually this occurs when private companies pursue government protection or benefit rather than trying to better satisfy their customers. But Law Enforcement can fall into this same type of behavior when enhancing traffic fines and asset forfeitures unjustly. These punishments for violations are negative incentives to the violators and of course, people modify their behavior to some extent because of the disincentives. But every monetary disincentive creates an equal incentive somewhere, because for every fine paid, someone receives payment. Now, who benefits from traffic fines and asset forfeitures? Why, the government does. You might say, well of course government receives the fines and confiscated property. They need the revenue to fight crime. That may be true, but let’s consider the incentives created by this revenue. Let’s say that society responds so well to the disincentive of a certain speed limit that no one speeds in that area anymore. What happens to government revenue? It goes down. So, government will seek to replace that revenue with a new or higher tax. If the tax hike works, the net result will be that public obedience to the law has led to higher taxes. But what if the voters reject the tax hike? Theoretically, government could lay off the now unneeded traffic officers, but in practice, they tend to find ways of enhancing the traffic fines in order to keep all officers employed. So, what can be done in response to an ungrateful public that has rejected higher taxes? Well, in this area, there is great creativity: They could lower the speed limit to ridiculously low levels. They could change the speed limit frequently and lurk at the lower limit areas to nab the unwary. They could enforce the existing limit more strictly, giving large fines for 1 mph over the limit. They could throw a few cones on the side of the road and double the fines for a construction zone. If you drive, you’ve seen all of these, and you’ve seen them because the monetary incentive is working. And by the way, lower revenue from fines can result from many causes other than civic virtue, like for instance the current economic man-made disaster.
The problem can be stated like this: as traffic law violators and criminals are impoverished by the loss of their property, government is enriched, and has every incentive to maximize revenue even when crime rates are falling. What to do? Well, I propose the following: All traffic fines and property confiscated as a result of criminal activity shall be donated to private charities which benefit the victims of the public roads or any of the crimes involved. This removes the incentive for any unwarranted “crackdowns” and at the same time revives the concept of restitution for victims, who are currently very badly neglected. DUI fines will go to DUI victims, and drug related asset forfeitures will go to victims of drug crimes. Ok, it’s not a perfect solution. Maybe the charities would also become rent seekers, but if so, at least they would not have the means to oppress the public, so it would be a more benign abuse, and could be handled in the courts. As long as traffic fine and asset forfeiture revenue flows to those with violent means of revenue enhancement, there remains the possibility of violent abuse of the public.

Immigration

The lawsuit brought by the general government in Federal Court against the State of Arizona is puzzling to say the least. Arizona's SB 1070 (the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act") is meticulous to stipulate that every aspect of the bill will comply with the United States Code regarding illegal immigration. So, how will the solicitors argue the case of the general government against Arizona? Will they object that Arizona has elected to enforce federal laws where federal agencies have chosen not to do so? It's difficult to imagine how any substantial part of Arizona's law could be found to be in violation of Federal Statutes in a fair court hearing. But in my view there is a problem with the Arizona and the Federal Immigration Statutes, both.

How can it be ethical to enforce by threat of violence, any law where the basis of that law is "legal status" rather than a violation of person or property? The existing immigration law can prohibit our citizens from inviting a non-violent person who might have the wrong "legal status", on to our property or to engage with them in mutually beneficial commerce. Sounds like the "land of the free" may have migrated from reality to wishful thinking.

The implication of our immigration law is that every person regardless of their status, age, etc. must consent to be a resource to be plundered by every level of government and that only those who allow themselves to be subject to government theft are worthy of being allowed to physically occupy any point in space that government claims as its jurisdiction. How else can this be interpreted but that government claims ownership of all property and all people within its territory? And since government claims to be the ultimate owner of everything and everyone in their jurisdiction, a logical objection to "illegal immigration" is that the immigrants will try to receive government benefits without paying into the system that provides them. So, naturally our citizens believe that "illegal aliens" are encroaching on benefits that they could have received otherwise. This is like the slave who objects to the beggar because the slave might have received the master's gift to the beggar for himself. We are in a bad way when we argue over the benefit of goods that were stolen from us in the first place. One solution to our current immigration difficulty is to stop all government theft and transfer payment schemes. Then with no dole for anyone to lust after, we could honestly welcome every peaceful and productive person to join us in a free market and create an increasingly prosperous and peaceful society. Our immigration policy could then be "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", as it once was.

But, until we the people of the united States begin to resist the culture of public theft and redistribution we will accelerate in circling this toilet, and proceed down the sewer to socialism.

Census not forgotten

I'm still angry about the census. The federal government had no right to ask most of the questions that were asked on the census forms, and if anyone were to refuse or, heaven forbid, not tell the truth in their answers, he would be subject to the full body slam of the King Kong Code of Federal Regulations. I, for one, answered all of their questions, even the illegal ones, but noted on each one that was not explicitly authorized by the Constitution that the question was illegal and they had no right to ask that question.

I have no intention of sacrificing myself before the runaway freight train of the general government, but I did write to my State Congresswoman and State Senator. I told them that they had a responsibility to defend the civil rights of the citizens of our State and to defend us from illegal encroachments by the general government. I got a 50% favorable response, which is very encouraging.

Then today I read an article by Michael Rozeff (here) and I had an idea:

What if the following were sent Fed Ex Overnight to the Congress of the United States from every State in the Union?

Were-as, the general government of the States united in the North American Union has violated the terms of the Constitution forming that government by forcing the citizens of the States to answer unauthorized questions in pursuit of the decennial census, and

Where-as the States retain their right to refuse their consent to actions by the general government which violate the agreement by which the general government was formed by the States,

Therefore, the States of the North American Union withhold their permission for the general government to conduct the census of 2020 and all census thereafter, and

The States pledge to conduct a legal census in compliance with the Constitution which formed the North American Union, asking such questions as the several States shall decide to be appropriate for their own purposes, and

The States shall withhold annually from the general government's tax general levies an amount adequate for the purpose of conducting such legal census.


What a delight that would be:
1. The States would be standing up for the Constitutional rights of their citizens
2. The general government would be slapped down by the only ones capable of doing so
3. The States would exercise their right to resist illegal acts by the general government and
4. The precedent would be set that the States could control the general levies (Income Tax) to the extent that they believe the general government has violated the Constitution.

And if you didn't like how a State treated you, you could move to a better State, at your preference.

The Colorado State Petition is here.

Feel free to create one for your own State!

Baseball Umpires

07/16/2010, Rockies vs. Cincinnati Reds. Top of the ninth, Batter hit by a pitch (not called) and two obvious balls called strikes. Seriously, they were inside by a good foot.

Umpires in professional baseball are either incompetent, or they are on the take.

Choose your poison...

And I hate when the officials decide the game with bad calls, either way.

Apple's App Store

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but can someone explain to me why I am badgered by Apple's App Store to validate my credit card number and validation code so I can download a FREE APP?

The aggravation factor of owning Apple hardware is making me rethink the total monetary and non-monetary cost of ownership.

Knowledge

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and although I will not wax philosophical here today, it is interesting to read what Wikipedia has to say on this subject. One important aspect of knowledge is "how do we know what we think we know?".

As simple as knowledge might seem, it's not simple. There are numerous ways of obtaining knowledge, some of which are more reliable than others while some sources are outright propaganda intended to deceive with false information. And there can be false knowledge, even self deception. People also tend to become invested in what they think they know to the point where contradictory information is routinely disregarded because they already "know" the truth. Mass delusions are common in human history and these delusions are the foundation of despotic rulers, empires, cults and a host of evils throughout history; all perpetrated by people with knowledge of the truth and accepted by the masses who believed the lie.

Give some thought to what you "know" and be willing to debate it, to listen to contradictory evidence, and if you can't defend what you "know", find out how to do so or change your mind and accept the truth no matter how heavily invested you are in the alternative.

Wealth

I have said before that wealth is not money. The wealth of a nation is the goods available for consumption, and it is the producer of goods that creates wealth; government creates nothing good. Consumption is necessary, but it always destroys wealth. Savers on the other hand are a great blessing to any nation because they do not consume all that they could, and the goods they save are available for someone like an entrepreneur to borrow, allowing him to develop new or improved lines of production. The result of saving is an increase in goods and in prosperity. When any nation produces more than it consumes, its prosperity increases. Why is this simple truth so difficult for the pinheads in control of the economies of this world to understand?

When the glorious leaders hand out counterfeit money to encourage consumption, they encourage the destruction of wealth and an increase in poverty. When savings are squandered, there are fewer saved goods for the entrepreneur to borrow, and production declines. The enemies of real wealth and prosperity disguise themselves as our saviors and benefactors, but they are like an all consuming fire devouring the future for the sake of pleasure today.

Look to the ant you sluggard! Save, and prepare for the winter ahead, and when winter is over your savings will be a blessing to the nation.

Don't ask about don't ask don't tell.

This is a non-issue. The real question is "Should we have a standing army?"
George Washington said no. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/revolution/banister.html
Thomas Jefferson said no. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm

Whether it's an army of men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals or eunuchs is irrelevant. When they invade your home, you won't care.

The Christian and Taxes

First, let’s define our terms. Taxation is defined as a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). Since the State is the single public organization that has a monopoly on taxation, the authority spoken of in this definition must be the State. But what is this thing called money that is demanded by the State for their exclusive use? Webster says money is: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment. (ibid.) Money is a medium of exchange which is legitimately obtained only when we exchange it for something of value that we rightfully own, such as our labor (undeniably our property) or some other real property that is rightfully ours. In free commerce, each individual decides according to his own preference whether to exchange his property for money or vice versa. If both parties in the exchange agree, then the exchange takes place and both are better off since, by definition, both value what they have received more than what they have paid. In taxation however, the individual need not value what he receives as his property is confiscated for taxes because the State has a geographical monopoly on taxation, power and justice. So taxes are not usually paid because the taxpayer values what he receives in return for turning over his possessions, but are usually paid for protection from the power of the State, or more accurately to avoid the unsavory results of not paying. Because taxation is legalized by the State it is best described as legalized theft by force. So what does the Bible say about this kind of taxation? There are several passages in the Bible which mention taxes and the governing authorities. Let’s take a look at a few of them.

In Mat 17:24-27 (NASB) we read of Jesus’ teaching on the subject of taxation:
(24) When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?"
(25) He *said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"
(26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt.
(27) "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

The two-drachma tax mentioned in this passage was not a Roman tax; it was a Temple tax and was voluntary, as all taxes should be. Jesus paid the tax by a miracle that only God could perform, but not without a comment that the Son of God should be exempt from taxes paid for The Father’s Temple. Nevertheless, this passage says nothing about a coercive tax by the State.

A second passage often cited is Mat 22:15-22: (NASB)
(15) Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.
(16) And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.
(17) "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"
(18) But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?
(19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.
(20) And He *said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
(21) They *said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He *said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
(22) And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

Of course the Pharisees and Herodians were trying to force Jesus to say yes or no to their question of whether to pay the Roman tax, but he confounded them by saying neither. He noted that the coin used to pay the tax had the inscription and likeness of Caesar on it, but did not say that therefore all such coins belonged to Caesar and should be given to him. He also did not say that they must pay this particular coin to Caesar, but that they should “render” or deliver it to him if it belonged to him. Again, this passage is not an endorsement of coercive taxation by the State nor is it a requirement under God’s Law that such taxation be scrupulously adhered to in the same way that our tithe to God should be.

So what should be our attitude toward the legalized theft of the State called taxation?

Rom 13:1-7 (NASB) says:
(1) Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
(2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
(3) For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
(4) for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
(5) Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
(6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
(7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

According to this passage, we should voluntarily pay taxes to governing authorities who bring wrath upon those who practice evil (such as theft and aggression against others), and who are servants of God. Judge for yourself whether the state in which you live conforms to this description. But what if the State is Godless? What if the State practices stealing from one person and giving the spoils to another? What if it adheres to the absolutely wicked plan of universal plunder for universal benefit, with the State as the only real beneficiary? And what should the sons of God do when their goods are taken by force and used for things that God has forbidden? This passage certainly does not give carte blanche to the State to collect any tax unless it is to be used according to God’s precepts.

So what should a child of God do about taxes, according to the Bible?

1Pe 2:13-20 (NASB) says:
(13) Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
(14) or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
(15) For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
(16) Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
(17) Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
(18) Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
(19) For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
(20) For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

To a certain extent, we are called to endure, but not to participate in, the evils of this world where it is possible to do so. Our Savior suffered for us and He promised us that we would also suffer, but there must be a limit to the evil that we are called to endure. The Jews resisted Pharaoh, Joshua fought to remove the evil men from the Promised Land, Gideon resisted the Midianites, David resisted Saul, etc. All of these were human institutions, authorities ordained by God. We are called to suffer, but we are also called to stop injustice both for our own sakes and for the sake of those who will inherit the horror of the Leviathan State apparatus that we have allowed to take form. Shall we wait until we are not just sheared like sheep but also slaughtered and our life blood devoured by that which claims to be our benefactor? As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Declaration of Independence.

This is not scripture, but was written by a wise man who also claimed Christ as savior. And I believe that Mr. Jefferson was correct on this point. In my opinion, and based upon what our Lord taught and what is also recorded elsewhere in scripture, Christians should pay the protection money called tax to the State while its evil is bearable, always acting to limit that evil through works of Christian love and charity. But we have a duty to resist any State when it becomes an abomination to God and to us, the people whose consent the State must have to exist. When we are reduced to spiritual and material poverty and surrounded by evil works on every side because of the State, may God help us to withhold that consent.

Pact with the Devil?

Pat Robertson is quoted as saying that "a long time ago in Haiti ... they got together and swore a pact to the Devil". Mr. Robertson said that because of that pact, the nation of Haiti has been cursed by various problems ever since.

First, Mr. Robertson does not know that every person in Haiti made such a pact. Maybe some did, maybe even a majority did. But to blame a specific disaster on specific sins of the past is an error. Nothing in creation can happen apart from God. He either causes events or He allows events, but the real God is really in control. Speculating on why He causes or allows certain events to happen is very dangerous business. We can say (because He said) that death is a result of sin. And while we know that God is Good, and we have His Word to guide us, we must be careful: the terible events happening in Haiti could happen anywhere that sin abounds. People of God, have mercy on the poor victims of this disaster and repent before something worse happens to your nation.

Roe v. Wade

37 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that it is a woman's right to sacrifice her children to Molech. So, if we now pass a law saying that a woman can only sacrifice her children to Molech under certain conditions or only if her physician approves, how does that help the situation?

The problem with abortion and all other sinful activities of mankind is not that there are insufficient laws to restrain us, but that laws are not enough to restrain us. There are stringent laws against prostitution and drug use, and yet they continue to be practiced.

One ancient idea is that a Strong Man (or government) will be able to make us into upstanding citizens and return us to being a great nation. This was the dream of Hitler and Stalin. It always ends in disaster.

Our need is not another law or the overturning of a law, and it is not more or stronger rulers.

We need a change of mind.

Don't be foolish, men and women of the united States, rule yourselves or you will be progressively crushed with tyrannical laws and rulers. This is the natural consequence of the habitual violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God. By the way, you can read about Him here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

Experience is an expensive school, but the fool will learn in no other.
(Paraphrase from Benjamin Franklin)