Cult of the State

I was just accused of being a cultist on a social media thread because I stated that I did not believe Jesus advocated the taking of people's money, by threat of force, and giving it to others as a proxy for the individuals taking care of the poor themselves.  Yes.  This is what we have come to.  People truly believing that the nameless, faceless, feckless mass of government bureaucrats are God's instruments on earth and without them, we would certainly all die.   And I am a cultist?

No, the true cultists are those who look to the State for their sustenance, comfort, and security.  Those who believe that without the all-mighty State, all forms of modern life are impossible.  Who excuse the State's misdeeds and criminal activity as necessary for our safety.  These cultists are so blind that they believe that the ever-broadening violations of our God-given and Constitutionally-codified rights actually somehow secure our liberty.  And the funny thing is, these same Statists would certainly look down their noses in disdain or pity at the citizens of countries like North Korea for believing that their leader is a god.

Look, don't many religious cults start with a twisting of the basic tenets of their religion?  Then, they build up individuals and groups of people as divine representatives.  Their leaders or dogma must not be questioned.  There is no thought or debate over these things, only calls of "heretic" for those who dare oppose the divine order.

How are these rabid Statists any different?  They have allowed the basic tenets of our republic, the Constitution and founding documents, to be twisted and tortured in ways that defy logic to accrue more and more power to the deified State.  While they may grumble about certain government representatives or individual agencies, they may never question the over-all necessity for government to sustain our "way of life."  I have yet to see one of these people answer objections with thoughtful, objective apologetics for their view.  You are only met with name calling...kook, racist, idiot, cultist...or changing of the subject. Many times I have prompted them to speak to just one specific point in my argument and tell me how I am wrong...They never do.

Then, to make the deification of the State complete, the true believers co-opt religion to justify their worship and eradicate any last resistance of the sheeple.  They twist sacred scriptures to make you believe that it is unrighteous to question the truth of their dogma.

In particular, Statists use the Bible to attempt to justify the theft by government of more-and-more of your wealth.  They say Jesus advocated taking care of the poor, the sick and the orphans...and indeed he did.  Since they have been so indoctrinated in the Cult of State, though, they can't imagine how this can mean anything other than forced redistribution of wealth.  In his book Biblical Economics, theologian R. C. Sproul, probably a cultist himself, I guess, begs to differ with the Statists:

"I am convinced that political and economic policies involving the forced redistribution of wealth via government intervention are neither right nor safe. Such policies are both unethical and ineffective…. On the surface it would seem that socialists are on God's side. Unfortunately, their programs and their means foster greater poverty even though their hearts remain loyal to eliminating poverty. The tragic fallacy that invades socialist thinking is that there is a necessary, causal connection between the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor. Socialists assume that one man's wealth is based on another man's poverty; therefore, to stop poverty and help the poor man, we must have socialism."

The evidence is overwhelming that the government is a failure at caring for the poor.  Trillions of dollars spent on the so-called "War on Poverty" and we have millions and millions of people who are  generationally dependent government hand-outs.  I am convinced that it is counter-productive and irresponsible to trust government with caring for the poor.  In his book Rollback, Dr. Thomas E.  Woods points this out about our so-called Welfare system:

"Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars."

Is this good stewardship of the wealth with which we have been blessed?  How would the master of the Parable of the Talents view this?  Even the foolish servant only buried the talents.  He did not waste them on some crooked scheme that had a long and continuous history of waste and failure.  Especially in view of the fact that the government has no money.  It continues to amass huge, crushing debts that will be pushed off to future generations not yet born to pay for its wonderful largess to the poor.

In his article Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus a Socialist,  Lawrence W. Reed provides this summary after an exhaustive study of the Bible:

In Jesus's teachings and in many other parts of the New Testament, Christians — indeed, all people — are advised to be of "generous spirit," to care for one's family, to help the poor, to assist widows and orphans, to exhibit kindness and to maintain the highest character. How all that gets translated into the dirty business of coercive, vote-buying, politically driven redistribution schemes is a problem for prevaricators with agendas. It's not a problem for scholars of what the Bible actually says and doesn't say. 

Search your conscience. Consider the evidence. Be mindful of facts. Ask yourself: When it comes to helping the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army or at gunpoint to the welfare department? 

Jesus was no dummy. He was not interested in the public professions of charitableness in which the legalistic and hypocritical Pharisees were fond of engaging. He dismissed their self-serving, cheap talk. He knew it was often insincere, rarely indicative of how they conducted their personal affairs, and always a dead end with plenty of snares and delusions along the way. It would hardly make sense for him to champion the poor by supporting policies that undermine the process of wealth creation necessary to help them. In the final analysis, he would never endorse a scheme that doesn't work and is rooted in envy or theft. In spite of the attempts of many modern-day progressives to make him into a welfare-state redistributionist, Jesus was nothing of the sort.

I am all for helping the truly needy.  I am all for defending the defenseless.  I just don't think Jesus will credit it as righteousness to steal your neighbor's wealth, through government force, to give it to the poor.  And, if we are going to look to the Bible, let's look at the whole of scripture:

" For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8

They never want to talk about these passages.

Related Links:
The Ten Commandments of the Federal Government
Godless Socialists
The Sin of Redistribution

You're not exempt from the math

This is a very simple and unemotional explanation on why Obamacare sucks.  Dave Ramsey does a great job explaining that regardless of how people may want there to be some kind of magic that will allow this monstrosity of a law to work as we were promised it would...you can't escape the simple math of the situation.

North Korea: The Mouse That Roared?

In 1959, a film starring Peter Sellers, called The Mouse That Roared, was released.  The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) describes the plot like this:

"An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose, but things don't go according to plan. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid. They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets."

This reminds me of current day North Korea.  North Korea is a country devastated by years of corrupt, centralized, communist control of the economy.  The CIA World Fact Book estimates the entire GDP of the country is only $40 Billion.  It further describes their economy:

North Korea, one of the world's most centrally directed and least open economies, faces chronic economic problems. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of under-investment,  shortages of spare parts, and poor maintenance. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Industrial and power output have stagnated for years at a fraction of pre-1990 levels. Frequent weather-related crop failures aggravated chronic food shortages caused by on-going systemic problems, including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, poor soil quality, insufficient fertilization, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries as well as aid from China has allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. 

This is a country on the verge of collapse...if it weren't for foreign aid, they would have already collapsed and starved.

There is no way they can believe that they can actually prevail in a military contest against the South...let alone the United States.  In 1990, I remember the media telling us all how dangerous Iraq was.  We were told that they had the fourth largest standing-army in the world...the largest tank force...and they knew how to wage desert warfare.  The war was, in effect, over in 100 hours.  And, at least Iraq had oil money.  North Korea has no chance what-so-ever.  Even if they do have a nuclear weapon...it is probably only one, or two.  Then they have to be able to deliver it and set it off.  I think chances are better than even that, as in the movie, the bomb could be nothing but a dud.

It would not surprise me if Kim Jong Un's current saber rattling and bluster is nothing more than a scheme to get foreign countries to make concessions, in the form of pay-offs, as an attempt to keep his regime in power. I cannot think of any other possible reason for such foolhardy brinkmanship by North Korea other than hoping to get bought off for "peace."

While I don't think we should take any threat of nuclear attack lightly...I also can't quite take these clowns completely seriously either.  What will their price be?  $40 Billion and Starbucks franchise rights?  Maybe a McDoanlds in Pyongyang?  Whatever it is, we cannot pay it...we cannot allow ourselves to be shaken down by this ridiculous boy dictator.

The best thing for a roaring mouse is a simple mouse trap.

Ashamed?

http://www.cato.org/blog/sequestration-cuts-perspective

On his March 21st show, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country." Audio can be found here.

Rush lists as his reason for shame the way we are having "our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being." The latest insult to our intelligence for which Rush has gotten so incensed is the maelstrom that is being whipped up over the so-called sequestration cuts to the budget.  As Rush said, it is only "44 billion dollars...that's the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year.  And, in truth, we're gonna spend more this year than we spent last year...There is no real cut below a base-line of zero."  But we are to believe that any cuts at all to the planned spending of our bloated bureaucracy will cause a collapse of all of our necessary government services.  It's as if the line from the movie Ghost Busters is about to come true:

"What he means is Old Testament...real wrath of God type stuff...Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!...Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave!...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! "

All this over a $44 B cut to the baseline budget.  As Larry Kudlow states, "According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one-quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What's more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget."  And remember, that is 1.25% of the proposed increased budget over last year...so no real cuts.  Kudlow also observed that:

"Federal outlays as a share of GDP peaked at 25.2 percent in fiscal-year 2009, fell to 24.1 percent in 2011, and came in at 22.8 percent in 2012. The long-term historical norm is about 19 percent, so spending is still way too high. But some progress has been made. And if the GOP sticks to its guns and implements the current sequester, a lot more progress will be made, opening the door to a stronger economy."

"In other words, lower spending and limited government are the exact right medicine for free-market prosperity. The sequester cuts are pro-growth. Finish the job, please."

So, should this make Rush ashamed of his country?  Well, it makes me ashamed.  I love this country and what it has stood for in the history of the world.  But there are many things I am ashamed of when it comes to the current state of our country.  I am ashamed that as a whole, through our votes and indifference, we have allowed our country to come under the control of unscrupulous, power hungry statists.  I'm ashamed that the majority of citizens have given up on the founding principles that made this the freest and most prosperous country in the world.  More than that, they don't even know what those principles are, other than a few platitudes, and worse, don't care.

I am ashamed that after once being the most prosperous, productive and innovative country on the face of the planet, we have become a debtor nation, owing more in debt than the entire GDP of our economy.  That we have fallen behind in education and manufacturing. And that those on the government dole nearly exceeds those who make their own way.  I am ashamed that we seem to have become a country of spoiled, irresponsible children with an entitlement mentality who would rather pass their debt to posterity than give up their government freebies.

I am ashamed that after so much progress has been made since the struggles of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, so many have abandoned Dr. King's dream that people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  Too many people follow the purveyors of multiculturalism and class warfare who seek to divide and weaken us...benefiting only the purveyors themselves.  I am ashamed that so many voted for a presidential candidate with no qualifications for the job, an unknown and questionable background with very anti-American associations only because of the color of his skin, or because they believed he would deliver the goodies...like free cell phones.

I'm ashamed that our First Amendment rights are under assault from political correctness....that our Second Amendment rights are being attacked so viciously by the Progressive statists...and most people just shrug and say, "What are you gonna do?"  I'm ashamed that no one can seem to recognize any more that if the government can take rights from those you don't like...they can take them from you.

 Yes, I am ashamed of many aspects of the current state of affairs in this great country.  I am ashamed and afraid that my generation and my parent's generation may have allowed the erosion of our liberties to come to a point where they cannot be reclaimed.  That we may be witness to the final demise of the great American experiment in freedom.

What about you?

Informed Mistrust

Thanks to my friend Rich for sharing the video below.

I do not trust centralized power, and in this sentiment, I stand with the Founding Fathers who strove to define a small, limited and decentralized form of government for the United States of America.

The gun control issue is about far more than guns.  It is about whether a small group of hypocritical, ruling-elite totalitarians in Washington can nullify our basic rights at their own whim.  It is about whether we are a nation of laws, based on the bedrock of a Constitution, or are to be ruled by the "tyranny of the majority," swayed by every wind of populist frenzy which would see every "good crisis," real or manufactured, as a reason to usurp our rights.

The participation of legal gun owners in crime has been characterized, from the FBI crime statistics, as statistically insignificant.  Gun bans will make no one safer since criminals, by their nature, do not obey laws.  But, if these usurpers can in effect nullify our 10th Amendment rights, they can also nullify our 1st Amendment rights or any other they choose.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it:

The Nazis confiscated guns from the Jews.  The Soviets and the Red Chinese confiscated guns.

John Adams effectually nullified the 1st Amendment through the Sedition Act, imprisoning many.  Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of people for the crime of publicly disagreeing with him with no due process...you were probably never told about that.  FDR imprisoned thousands of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese decent in internment camps.

No, I do not trust centralized power.  If you do, you ignore the whole of human history, and you do it at your peril and the peril of your posterity.  There are many, many examples of centralized power gone bad...and I would say none of it turning out well.  We have only lasted this long, because of the work of the founders, through the Constitution, and many others who fought to uphold it.  We are at a dangerous time, I fear...a time when too many are willing to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety."

So no, I do not trust them when they tell us that they don't want to take our guns.  I know from history, past and recent, that they do.

Aftermath

I'm a bit too shell shocked to go into any real analysis of the election, so I just wanted to get down some of my general thoughts:

• This is now the second presidential election in a row where the Republican party decided it was best to run a "nice" campaign.  They are so kowtowed by the threats of being called racist, that they would not deal directly and firmly with Obama's history and record.  They allowed the Democrats to continue to distort facts with very little response.  This is a complete lack of leadership and the Republican party deserved to lose.
• It seems to me that we have now become a country, as a whole, who is willing to follow Europe down the socialist debt hole toward insolvency.   Alexis de Tocqueville  is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  We seem to have reached this point.  We no longer ask what we can do for our country, but want only to know what our country can do for us.  We seem to be willing to sell our legacy for free health care, food stamps and Obama phones.
• The nation has reached a state of shallowness and vapidity from which I fear only truly hard times will shake us.  I saw polling information that said something like 43% of those responding to exit polling said that President Obama's handling of the hurricane Sandy disaster was "very important" to their decision.  This is absolutely astounding...and more than a little distressing...to me.  That someone could, after four years of broken promises, failed policy and nonexistent leadership, see the President acting "presidential" in a brief, staged photo-op after a storm and think that made him a good president is incomprehensible.  The fact that the response of the Federal government has been less than stellar since then means nothing to the Obama groupies with stars in their eyes.
• Half the country seems to be hopelessly invested in class warfare...just like the Russian people were before the communist revolution...or the Germans before the Nazi take over.  This has caused them to draw stark, black and white lines in their minds.  Corporations are always evil and Unions are always good.  Democrats always acts for the good of the people and tell the truth...Republicans are selfish liars who only care about what's best for them and their Corporate overlords.  The rich have stolen everything they have from the poor. They are blind to the fact that absolute power corrupts, absolutely...regardless of party, occupation or income.  They are easily fooled by 20 second sound bites and focus-group tested tag lines.
•  Facts and details mean nothing to many people.  They will not hear the truth that the largess they vote themselves is financed by trillions of dollars of indebtedness to our enemies.  They will not see that the policies of their chosen representatives have caused the financial woes we have been experiencing.   No discussion of corruption...no discussion of the rule of law moves them.  They mock, scoff at and ignore anything that does not agree with the approved party line...and this is on both sides of the political divide.  When confronted with hard issues, they do not answer them...they will only excuse, obfuscate or ignore them...but never deal with them.  If all else fails, they just blame Bush.
• There are no statesmen left...only power hungry politicians. 
• The Republicans are only marginally better than the Democrats...but we were unwilling to move even incrementally toward smaller, less intrusive government.
• I fear for our future.

Obamanomics

Andrew Klaven provides another humorous and irreverent look at Obama's policies and understanding...or rather lack of understanding of how the economy works.

Klaven refers to James R, Otteson's article, An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism for The Manhattan Institute.   In this article, Otteson points out that while Obama said that "the market" or capitalism "doesn't work. It has never worked," this flies in the face of historical facts:

"Since 1800, the world’s population has increased sixfold; yet despite this enormous increase, real income per person has increased approximately 16-fold. That is a truly amazing achievement. In America, the increase is even more dramatic: in 1800, the total population in America was 5.3 million, life expectancy was 39, and the real gross domestic product per capita was $1,343 (in 2010 dollars); in 2011, our population was 308 million, our life expectancy was 78, and our GDP per capita was $48,800. Thus even while the population increased 58-fold, our life expectancy doubled, and our GDP per capita increased almost 36-fold. Such growth is unprecedented in the history of humankind. Considering that worldwide per-capita real income for the previous 99.9 percent of human existence averaged consistently around $1 per day, that is extraordinary. "

"What explains it? It would seem that it is due principally to the complex of institutions usually included under the term “capitalism,” since the main thing that changed between 200 years ago and the previous 100,000 years of human history was the introduction and embrace of so-called capitalist institutions—particularly, private property and markets."

The article goes on to show that, contrary to socialist propaganda, capitalism is actually the system that benefits the most people and is, in fact, the moral choice.  Some of his key points are:

• "(M)arkets allow us to 'serve' one another even when we do not love one another—even when we do not know of one another’s existence."
• "(V)oluntary exchanges that take place in the free-enterprise system are positive-sum, not zero-sum—meaning not that one person benefits only at another’s expense but rather that all parties to the transaction benefit."
• "Even if we do not all get rich at the same rate, we all still get richer."
• Rescuing hundreds of millions of people from grinding poverty is, however, nothing to sneeze at—and nothing to take for granted."

Otteson admitts that, "Capitalism is not perfect."  But, he points out that, "The benefits of the free-enterprise society are enormous and unprecedented; they have meant the difference between life and death for hundreds of millions of people and have afforded a dignity to populations that are otherwise forgotten. We should wish to extend these benefits rather than to curtail them."

"It would be all too easy for us, among the wealthiest people who have ever lived, in one of the richest places on earth, to disdain the institutions that have enabled us to escape the strictures of poverty and disrespect that have plagued humanity for the vast majority of its existence. Our crime today, however, would lie not in our inequalities but rather in our refusal to uphold the institutions that give humanity the only hope it has ever known of rising out of its natural state of destitution. The great and precious blessings of freedom and prosperity that we Americans have enjoyed, and that some, but not enough, others around the world have also experienced, deserve nothing less."

Do you really want a president who is so completely ignorant of how the economy really works?  I don't.

Enjoy the video, but don't miss it's point.

The Sin of Redistribution

Professor Walter E. Williams makes the case that redistribution of wealth by government is theft, and therefore a sin.

"Stimulus" Doesn't Stimulate

Facts are facts.

Obama: Redistributionist

Who can deny that Obama is a communist?  You might play semantics about the definition of communist, or socialist, etc, but these all come from the same root philosophers and thinkers.  Karl Marx did not make such distinctions.  To him, communism was just one type of socialism.

Obama's own life and words point to his communist beliefs.  His near idolization of his Marxist, anti-colonialist father...His childhood mentoring by communist Frank Marshall Davis...his Grandfather's move to Washington state to enroll his mother in an openly communist school.  In Obama's own words, he sought out Marxist professors in college...he surrounded himself in adulthood with Marxists.

And now, in the audio clip below, he admits that he believes in redistribution of wealth.  Taken along with his background and another interview where he complained that the Warren Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."  I think it pretty obvious that, no matter what you call it, Obama is a communist/socialist/central planner.

Two cornerstones of communism/socialism are central planning and redistribution of wealth.  The central planners are the ones who can make all the decisions about how to redistribute your wealth...who to steal from and who to reward with that stolen wealth.  Obama believes that he is the one who is smart enough to make these decisions...though I would remind him that "there are a lot of smart people out there."  So why are he and his cohorts any more qualified to decide where our money gets spent than we are?