Iowa Caucus’: What Did We Learn?

Iowa Caucus’: What Did We Learn?

From a political perspective, we learned a lot. First, we learned that all this so-called anti-establishment sentiment in the Republican party is a lot of bluster. Yes, Cruz won, but, as Carson and the gang fade, Cruz will likely not be the beneficiary of their exit, Rubio will. Rubio was the big winner last night for the Republicans. All the undecided, and I mean ALL the undecided, broke for him. He was in the low to mid-teens across all the polls, and yet in the end almost trumped the Donald. That is very bad news for the anti-establishment tea partiers. Rubio was the second tier establishment pick after Bush. Bush had more money, name recognition, and was from the dynastic family. So when Rubio said last night that he was told he needed to, “wait his turn”, the belt-way establishment that were all lined up behind Bush were who he was talking about. Look for that guy to sky rocket. Look for all the money to flow to him. Also look for Bush to pull out pretty soon too. If he goes single digits in New Hampshire, he’ll likely concede and endorse Marco in his concession speech that evening. Hucksters 2% will go to Rubio as well. Huck despises Cruz according to the political pundits, so he’ll likely do what he can to stop the Texas Senator he considers to be a grandstander. Carson’s people I think will go Rubio as well. Carson is not an articulate man. His supporters are not ideologues, their integrity people. Ted looks pretty greasy to them. He started running for president before he even moved into his senatorial office. Spatula Hands (Kasich), the Hugger (Christie), Gilmore (I know… who?), are all establishment guys. Their folks will migrate to Rubio as well. The wild card is The Donald. Strange that a progressive democrat holds the key to the Republican nomination, but such is the condition of the Grand Ole Party. Rubio’s violent rhetoric and Bible thumping will increase if I were a betting man. By the time we get to South Carolina and the southern states he’ll be “making the sand glow” too. So he’ll split Trump’s people, and I think that will be enough to put Ted down.

But what about Rand, what about Rand, Evangelical Libertarian!? Are you joining FOX and not mentioning him as a viable candidate? No, he’s the only guy on either of the two tickets for whom I could even consider casting my vote. He’s articulate, honest, restrained, pro-life and Constitutional. I don’t agree with him on every point, but he is miles, leagues, galaxies better than everyone else. For that reason, he won’t win. And it will be evangelical Christians that will see that the Republic falls into the wrong hands. Evangelicals have forgotten what it is to be any of the things I just listed about Dr. Paul. So has Ted Cruz. He is for “no fly zones” in other sovereign nations. Did you hear that? Enforcing no-fly zones in someone else’s sky without their permission. He is for carpet bombing entire countries, which means he is comfortable ordering the death of innocent women and children. He is for collecting all the data he can through intelligence agencies on American citizens. Edward Snowden is a traitor in his mind for warning American citizens that their government was doing some very unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical things to them. Of course in 2013, Cruz liked him. But that’s for another article. Henry Kissinger, one of the worst men in modern history in my humble opinion, got an open audience with Mr. Cruz just the other day. Kissinger never saw an intervention he didn’t like. He never saw a war he wasn’t willing to send your sons (and now daughters regrettably) to die in. These are Mr. Cruz’s influences? They sound eerily similar to George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama’s influences as well. Cruz is not an anti-establishment candidate. Like Rubio, he will be more, probably much more, of the same.

Everybody except for Rand wants to cure the American headache with a hammer. ISIS is a serious problem, but one we created with military adventurism and idealistic silliness about spreading democracy with the sword. We dropped tons of explosives on Iraq. Killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, and all those people had relatives and friends. They don’t hate us because we are free. They hate us because we have bombed them and killed their friends and neighbors. We have decimated their country. We have created the moral climate for ISIS to turn ethnic muslims into radical ones, all over the world. Whoever is elected on either side of the aisle, Paul excepted, will only make the problem bigger, us poorer, and further diminish our moral authority. It is going to take a full fledge financial crash to stop our imperial government from continuing the invasions. That’s what happened to Rome – imperial over-reach. It saddens me that evangelical Christians could stand behind these positions, which are neither Christian nor conservative.

It used to be that Christians understood the nature of man and the limited extent to which government power could be used to affect it. We used to understand how leaving power in the hands of the individual muted it, and kept it from amassing in the wrong places. It is as if we have forgotten that “all governments are inherently evil”, inhabited by sinful men,  and that power attracts the worst sort of people. Acton said it best, “power corrupts”. There is only one candidate that wants to leave power in the hands of the States and the people there of. Only one who is calling for restraint and recognizes the limits of the governments ability to affect real change. Only one who wants to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only one calling for sound money. Christians also often forget that “unequal weights are an abomination” (Deut 25, Prov 20). Only one man asking you to give him power so he can keep it from being used. His name is Rand Paul. And we will never elect him. Because we have become the people of Israel in I Samuel 8. We want a king. And God is about to give us one. A Saul.

How Has the Fed Caused the Stock Market to Sky Rocket?

There are a couple of answers to this question, but let’s just deal with it from one angle today. Interest Rates. When I was a very young man first opening my personal bank accounts one could open a savings account and get an interest rate of about 6%. It was a good deal. The bank took my money, placed it into an account, loaned mortgages at 8% and made a 2% margin or so, plus fees. I made a good return above inflation. Mortgage lenders were held to a tight borrowing standard because their margins of profit were tight and so the had to be correct, and borrowers didn’t borrow that much money because the rent of money, what we call interest rates, were fairly prohibitive, keeping consumers from generally over extending themselves.

So what happened was, savers generally pleased their monies not into the stock market but the banking system. Generally a long term savers used Certificate of Deposits or savings accounts to protect their wealth and gain growth above inflation. But once interest rates started to be artificially lowered based on Federal Reserve doctrine, rather than a free market banking system, savers began to be pushed out of more traditional long term investments. Why? Because the rate of returns, money made through interest on savings accounts and bonds were wiped out. So long term investors were forced to seek after yield, or interest on their principle else where. This has led to a series of what economists call bubbles. Savings and Loans in the early 90’s, Tech Stocks in 2000, Housing in 2007, and in my opinion world-wide equities markets now. Each of these bubbles is the result of Federal Reserve and U.S. Government (and other governments) intervention in the markets.

The Federal Reserve’s policies have resulted in the destruction of personal savings. They have removed the moral hazards that made it prohibitive for individuals and corporations to take on too much debt. At the same time it has made it cheap for banks to gamble and lower their credit standards. All of this debt, bad investment, and unsound banking is now built up in the world system. People do not realize how untenable and how fragile the system has become. Today I saw an article about how there were no ships in transit in the North Atlantic bringing goods to the U.S. for the first time in history. Oil is falling, and most talking heads just don’t know why there is a glut of the stuff. Commodities are through the floor. Manufacturing is slowing down at a rapid pace because inventories to sales ratios at retailers are rising quickly. The malinvestment, the bad decisions that are caused by artificially low interest rates are now coming to the surface. Once the traders figure this out. Once Wallstreet permabulls see the writing on the wall, it’ll be too late. It’s already too late.

Call your congress person and Senator and tell them to Audit the Federal Reserve. It’s the first step to making sure oligarchs never do this to us, the people of the world ever again.


The Evangelical Libertarian

Rand Paul The Only Non-Dystopian Candidate

Rand Paul The Only Non-Dystopian Candidate

Have you seen or read The Giver? The people don’t see color. Everyone is all the same. The have no choices. Bernie Sanders is The Giver. He seeks to limit choice. To make everyone the same. He believes that he has the wisdom to decide for you.

On that note, have you seen or read Divergent? Bernie Sanders is an Erudite. He believes he knows what is best what for you. What you should do. How you should live. How much things should cost etc, etc.

How about the Hunger Games? He is part of the Capitol. He believes that all monies and goods should be distributed through Washington DC. The Capitol decides who gets grants for education, farm subsidies, taxation levels etc. Everything the people make and produce goes there and the scraps are divided up among those who please and entertain the Capitol.

Bernie is not the only dystopian bad guy running this election season. Almost all of them fit the mold one way or another. I am just surprised that a group of people who have grown up reading dystopian novels and watching dystopian movies have not learned the moral lessons contained in them.

There is only one real candidate that is trying to end our 1984 like perpetual wars. Only one candidate trying end our 1984 like “Big Brother” domestic spying. Only one candidate committed to ending our massive over spending and debt problem. Only one candidate trying to end the “Pigs” (see Animal Farm) ability to change the rules and live differently from the other animals (citizens) on the farm. Only one candidate that has a consistent close to 100% Constitutional rating. Only one candidate that believes you are the answer to what ails this nation. Who wants plans by the many across this great land not plans by the few in Washington. One. There is no refuting that. There is only one non-dystopian candidate. So if you are a Millennial, Gen X’er or Boomer, vote for the Hero of the books. The one trying to take down the Capitol. The one trying to bring peace. The one trying to give liberty back to the people. That is Rand Paul and only Rand Paul.

The Foreign Policy Shell Game and Iran

First of all let me say this, “The Iranian leaders are bad people”. But that’s also my opinion of the Chinese leaders, Russian leaders, and frankly, the European technocrats too. I’m equal opportunity when it comes to central states and foreign policy. I do not like any of them. But a question keeps rolling around in the back of my mind, “Why does the United States hate Iran so much?” Really it doesn’t make any sense. I know, I know, they were chanting death to America the other day. But you’d be upset to if another country,

  1. Toppled your democratically elected leadership
  2. Funded your enemies in war and provided them weapons
  3. Isolated you in trade from the rest of the world
  4. Dictated the denomination and sale of your exports
  5. Kicked you off of the international financial system
  6. Spoke openly of toppling your current government
  7. Refused to allow you to pursue alternative energy sources
  8. Shot down one of your commercial air liners in your air space
  9. Meddled in your political affairs for over 60 years

We have done all of these things to the Iranians. We toppled the Shah, not a great guy, but their elected leader in 1951. I know that his election was not as pure as ours, and may have even been fraudulent, but he was their leader and we chose to remove him. Who did we install? The Ayatollahs. That’s correct, the very people we are railing against now, were our hand picked guys.

Remember Saddam Hussein? Well, he was our guy too once upon a time. During the more than decade long war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980’s, we provided weaponry, funding, and intelligence to the Iraqis against the Iranians.

After radical students took control of our embassy in Iran in 1979, precipitating a “Hostage Crisis” we confiscated 12 billion dollars in assets from the Iranians. Since that time we have engaged in a long protracted financial war against Iran. Which brings us to our next point.

Because the dollar is the world reserve currency, we tell Iran that they cannot sell oil in anything other than dollars without paying a heavy international price. Oil is their chief export. Therefore we attempt to control their trade for our benefit, damaging them financially at every turn. We also had them removed from the SWIFT System, which is the international wire transfer system, again, economically isolating them, and damaging them financially.

Just as frequently as they speak of death to America, we speak of death to Iran. Our language is a bit more sophisticated of course, but to threaten bombing is to threaten death. We, on many occasions have spoken openly of their governments over throw, and the death of their leaders. How do we think that is perceived by their population? Well, how would it be perceived by our population? The truth is that there is a very large group of people that would love to see democracy come to Iran, inside Iran. There are more than 300,000 Christians in Iran with more than 600 churches. But, when we speak of death to Iran, bombing Iran, and we attempt to starve Iran through economic sanctions, we create a monolithic distaste for the United States across the whole nation.

We have also accused Iran again and again of attempting to develop weapon grade nuclear material despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the claim. None. Iran has never been shown during any of the inspections to have violated the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement, or to be in pursuit of weapons grade nuclear material. In fact, they have a fatwa (an Islamic legal pronouncement prohibiting it). Here is what Khamenei said,

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

I am fully aware that in Islam it is fine to lie to infidels. But in this case it is true. They did have a religious ruling in place forbidding the development of nuclear weapons. And over all these long years they have never once been caught trying to develop them. Instead, what a nation their size needs is a sustainable source of power. Something nuclear power can provide for them. That is all (and this is fact), that they have been trying to develop.

Here are two articles, one in favor of the Iran nuclear deal and one opposed, that states the facts about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to this point in history.

David Stockman “Praise to Barrack Obama for Giving Peace a Chance”


Jewish Business News

Finally, we even shot down Iranian flight 655 on its way from Tehran to Dubai in 1988. All 290 people onboard died, including 66 children. The plane was in their air space and on a commercial route. The cruiser Vincennes, an American ship, had entered Iranian territorial waters after a brief clash with Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits. The crew mistook the plane for an Iranian F-14 fighter. The rest is history.

Instead of weakening the current Iranian regime, we have strengthened it. This long history of meddling and international malice toward Iran on our part has created a situation in the Middle East that has not served to provide for us any strategic advantage. Instead we are constantly being brought to the brink of unnecessary war, by men, who think the world is a big game of Risk melded together with a big game of Monopoly. If any of these actions had been taken against the U.S. by another nation it is highly likely that nation would now be a pile of rubble. All these actions could be construed themselves as acts of war. I’m not saying Iran is an innocent bystander. They have blame and there is enough to go around. What I am saying is that we have not acted as an international leader and an example to be followed on the international stage.

But what’s more confusing is our long-standing friendship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country ruled by a dictatorship. It is a country that regularly beheads dissidents, including Christians, for “proselytizing”. It is a country that regularly funds our enemies, such as ISIS. It is the country from which most of the 9/11 hijackers immigrated to the U.S. from. It is a country that has shown on many, many occasions, that it is not our friend. Yet Iran, we are told, is the greatest monster in the Middle East, or perhaps even the world.

Iran is a nation that follows the Shia branch of Islam. Most Shia dominated nations are relatively peaceful. The Shia branch seems to produce more stable countries. Shia nations do not generally produce radical Islamic terrorists. In general, Shia states lean or become more secularized over time. But that’s not the case with Sunni states like Saudi Arabia. Sunnis produce more violent factions. They are much more prone to radicalization. Al Qaeda and ISIS are bi-products of the Sunni faith, not the Shia faith. With all this in mind, why on earth are we not saying that Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Arab Emirates are the monsters of the World. They are producing terrorists and funding terrorism all over the globe. And, Saudi Arabia is planning to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. Why are we not screaming from the roof-tops about the possibility of their development of nuclear weapons in the future? ISIS is right next door to them. ISIS has a lot of sympathy inside of Saudi Arabia. Much of their population already believes the King’s family is way to cozy with the West and America in particular. They are much more likely to be over-thrown in the future by radical terrorist types than Iran. Why would we allow the Saudis to build nuclear reactors?

In contrast, who joined our fight in northern Iraq to turn back ISIS? Not Saudi Arabia, but Iran. Iran realizes that it is fighting for it’s life and it will not allow Sunni radicals to set up camp on it’s borders. Iran is ISIS sworn enemy. We have an ocean separating us from ISIS, but Iran does not. For Iran the fight with Sunni radicals is in actuality a life or death struggle. They, it seems to me, would be much more suitable partners to fight against radical Islam than our Saudi Arabian friends. So why so much amity for Saudi Arabia and so much enmity for Iran?

The answer is simple. Oil and money. The Saudis will only sell oil in dollars. Therefore they are our friends. But Iran bid the dollar farewell. After years of disagreement with the U.S., Iran asked all it’s customers to pay in a denomination other than U.S. dollars. They formed a “free trade zone” on the island of Kish in the Persian Gulf, and in 2008 successfully converted all their petroleum sales to currencies other than dollars. If you don’t understand international finance you may think “so what?” But when you realize that the reason the U.S. can print so much money and not suffer hyperinflation is because it exports most of its dollars to other countries that need them to purchase oil, this becomes a big deal. If the U.S. hold on the international currency monopoly is broken, then the U.S. will suffer economic catastrophe because all those dollars we printed that are currently chasing oil on foreign markets will come crashing back to U.S. shores. The U.S. cannot allow Iran to show the way out of the dollar. Therefore we must punish them, vilify them, and break them economically, in order to keep other nations from getting any ideas about trying to make a break with us too. In the end, if our sanctions and other punishments don’t work, you can count on tomahawk missiles.

Think about it. What could possibly cause the U.S. to have such a schizophrenic foreign policy? Take Syria for instance. Here’s Bashar Assad, bad guy, but our guy. He helped us quite a bit in the region after 9/11. After all, he is Shia. Taking out Sunni radicals is a priority for his government. But all in a sudden in 2008, the big Shia dogs (Iran) on the block say, “we’re going off the dollar, we’ll show the way”. After that all Shia run states come up for grabs and you get, “The Arab Spring” a few years later, which sweeps, with U.S. aid, Sunnis into power in several countries. We wiped out a bunch of secular Shias and installed a bunch of radical Sunnis. Now back to Assad. In Syria we will arm moderate Sunni rebels. But those same moderate Sunni rebels cross an imaginary line in the sand called the border of Iraq, and all in a sudden they’re ISIS. Assad is the enemy of our enemy (ISIS). Why would we arm our enemy (ISIS) to fight a guy who is not our enemy (Assad). That’s schizophrenic. Makes absolutely no sense. Unless it’s not about “human rights” and democracy and all that jazz but is instead about our global economic control and getting our guys into power in that region. It appears to me that we have chosen sides. We chose our enemies, Sunni radicals over Shias, merely because of their position on the dollar.

My point is that this is a shell game, keep your eye on the pea and forget about the shells. The pea is dollar hegemony, and Iran is side ways with the U.S. because they are trying to break free from it. This also explains the resurgence of the cold war, or the New Cold War as it has come to be called. Russia, with Iran and China are constructing their own SWIFT system for international banking and finance between themselves and the rest of the east. Russia’s return to the world stage has come with a call for the de-dollarization of the world. We’re also bickering with China over some rocks in the South China Sea, another nation that wants to de-dollarize the world. We are watching the world grow tired of our economic abuse, and we are out of financial options to deal with them. Our only recourse now is war. Hopefully the American people will eventually reject the sociopaths that run our government, and choose the way of peace, prosperity, friendship, and mutual exchange. My hope is that we will exhibit a leadership again that causes the World through admiration to want to follow our example, as was the case in the past. Until then just remember, the current news cycle is just a shell game. Iran has never tried to build a bomb, but the psychopaths in our Central State would like to drop a few on them as an example to what happens when you try and leave the Global U.S. Empire.

The Evangelical Libertarian

“Patiently” Killing Capitalism and America

“Patiently” Killing Capitalism and America

Wednesday morning I checked the DJIA, and it was down just over triple digits. It stayed underwater all the way through lunch too. Then, miraculously, about 1:30 pm, it took off like a rocket, swinging 350 pts to the upside, closing over 200 pts in the black. Now I knew what caused it. I keep up with such things. The FOMC (The Fed) had just released their vague do nothing statement. They removed one measly little word. They removed the word, “patient”, meaning that they want us to think that they are going to begin to increase interest rates in the near future. This was meant to signal that all is right with the economy and that there is nothing but sunny spring days and tiptoeing through the tulips as far as the eye can see into the future for the U.S. economy. Is this capitalism? Should markets be hanging on the every word of unelected bankers about whether or not they will arbitrarily raise interest rates? Why does the Fed play such a large role in the economy? Because free markets are dead in America, that’s why.

Gone are the days when we actually looked at hard data. You know, things like the labor participation rate. Instead of looking at the phony government numbers that are built on new applications for unemployment insurance (which tell us nothing) , why not look at how many available workers are working. This tells us a far greater tale, and the story is bleak. Near all-time lows. Great Depression era lows.   Or, how about they tell us how many of these new jobs being created are minimum wage and/or part time. Truth be told, we know for a fact that about 90% of the good full time jobs created since 2010 were in the oil fields of North Dakota and Texas. We also know that oil rig leases are down, and that shale producers cannot be profitable at 50.00 a barrel oil, and that lay-offs have already begun. We know that the fourth quarter 2014 Christmas sales were abysmal, and that first quarter numbers are down as well in retail sales, wholesale orders, housing, commodities (the stuff it takes to make stuff), etc. We also know that the big jump in GDP in the third quarter last year were Obamacare costs coming online in the market. In other words, all that new money changing hands was coming out of workers pockets and going into state and federal healthcare exchanges. So yes, Americans did spend more…. on healthcare, not cars, tv’s, and restaurants. No magical Keynesian aggregate spending boost. Just plain old fashion inflation. The kind not reported by the government inflation numbers, which exclude food, energy, healthcare, and everything else in the average American’s home budget.

If we were living in a real economy, we would see wages rise against inflation, not fall, as they have done for 40 years now. If we were living in a real economy, the free market would set the “rent on money” (interest rates) according to the rules of competition. Savers would be able to save and earn a decent return for the lease of their capital (interest on savings). Banks would loan out the money that they receive through deposits. Banks would have strict credit standards so as not to lose their depositors money in bad loans. Banks would go out of business when they were reckless, and businesses would too. The market would clear bad debts, reallocate capital more efficiently, and actually recover from bad decisions. Unlike today, where we kick the can down the road for our children to pay the piper. Where are the adults? Where are the responsible men and women in the halls of power? Drunk on it likely. Neutered. To busy scratching the itch of some group or another. Having cocktail parties joking about us sloped forehead, knuckle dragging, morons out here in the real world paying the price for their cowardice and avarice.

When markets swing violently on the words of Janet Yellen and a private banking cartel, know that the end is nigh. Know that capitalism is dead. And that it took government collusion with those bankers to kill it. So, when your family suffers in the near future, blame the whole lot of them. Democrats and Republicans alike. Politicians, bankers, and lobbyists. And if we get the opportunity to make a change, choose individual freedom and free markets over the “fatal conceit” of an economy planned in the back rooms of Congress, the Treasury Department, and international banks. Remember, that it was individuals unfettered and far removed from the King of England that allowed the colonies of the New World to become prosperous. Same for Australia. Criminals given the ability to work, own land, and save, far removed from the British Parliament and it’s many laws and taxes, were able to escape poverty and even flourish in extremely harsh environment. 50 years ago, Hong Kong and Singapore were impoverished nations, yet today they are the freest and most prosperous nations in the world. Just in case you still thought this was the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are the land of the 18th most-free, and bravery, if Washington is any reflection, is all but lost.

The Israel of God and American Foreign Policy

The Israel of God and American Foreign Policy

Social media has been ablaze over the last couple of days regarding Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress. I’m not going to address the content of his speech. To be honest, I didn’t listen to it or read the transcripts. I’ve glanced through a few articles, but even those I didn’t read with an eye of criticism. I was just taking in information. I’ll let political pundits fight over whether we are too hawkish or too dovish towards Iran. I have an opinion, but I’ll save it for another day. I want to address something that concerns me much more than momentary arguments over foreign policy. I would like to address Christians, specifically from the Bible, on two separate, but inter-connected questions. The first question I would like to attempt to answer is whether or not the current nation state known as Israel today is “the Israel of God”. In other words, is the current geographic nation-state that was established in the early 1950’s the same entity as the Biblical Israel?

The children of Israel, the descendants of the seed of Abraham, were first formed into a nation under Moses. They were given a 3 pronged law. A moral law to govern their behavior, which we call, “The Ten Commandments”.  A ceremonial law to instruct them in religious worship. And a civil law to instruct them in crime, punishment, and civil organization. They, as a people, were bound together in a single covenant with God. He was their God, and they were His people, the sheep of His pasture.** This covenant was preceded by the covenant and promises of Abraham (as referenced above), and Noah. It preceded a further development with David, and finally the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ appearance is the apex of God’s covenant dealings with men, and it fulfilled every aspect of all His covenant promises, so that Paul could affirm to the Church at Corinth that, “all the promises of God find their yes in Him.” (2 Corinthians 1:20) While in the Old Testament, God’s people were tied to physical ceremony, land, and heritage. The New Testament drastically improves and expands the borders of God’s Israel. Jesus comes and proclaims peace to all men, first, to the Jews, but then to the rest of the world as well. And all that believe on Jesus Christ are brought into a better covenant, with better promises. This is an important point. Not a different covenant with different promises, but a better covenant with better promises. Jesus improved upon the Old Covenant, he abolished the national and ethnic distinction that set his Old Covenant people apart as separate and distinct, and expanded the Israel of God to include Gentiles. Israel, according to Scripture is no longer a small geographic state in the middle east, but is now an international empire that will one day rule the entire globe. There are two passages in the New Testament that I would like to point to as evidence that the way I am interpreting the Gospel’s effect on our understanding of Israel is correct. The first has to do with the way Paul interprets the promise given to Abraham concerning the “land”. The second will be Paul discussing the inclusion of Gentiles into the Commonwealth of Israel.

Romans 4:13-18

[13] For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [14] For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [15] For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [16] That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, [17] as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. [18] In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”

This is a wonderful passage with more than one use for our purposes. First we see the great Gospel promise of inclusion. How would Abraham become a blessing to the whole world? How would the promised hope of salvation be brought to the world of men? Abraham would have a son, not Isaac, a greater than Isaac, Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16) But more importantly for our discussion is how Paul interprets the promise of the land. Verse 13 says, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” Wait. When did God promise Abraham that he would inherit the entire earth? He didn’t. Paul rightly sees that the covenant promise of “the promised land” has been expanded because it was too small to fit with giant nature of the person of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of all Lords. In giving His people the world, that tiny little dot in North Africa between two rivers is also included. So God is not breaking His promise to His people, He is giving them more. They are heirs to the world. This shows an expanded view of territory known as Israel, of which Jesus is King.

Now for the big discussion. One that may be difficult for you to receive at first, but I ask you to read the next passage very carefully. The Israel of God is made up now of both ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles… there is no distinction.

Ephesians 2:11-21

[11] Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—[12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [14] For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility [15] by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, [16] and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. [17] And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

This passage is written to a Gentile Church. Paul wants them to clearly understand their place before God in the New Covenant. He starts out by telling them that in the past, or, “at one time” “they had been separated from Christ”. That they had been “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel”. Note that phrase, “the commonwealth of Israel”. It refers to a specific political economy. And that they had been “strangers to the covenants of promise”. But now their relationship with the Father had changed.  And not just with the Father, but with the Father’s people too. The Jews, the commonwealth, covenant people of God, had regulations that separated them from everyone else. But Jesus “himself is our peace, who made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in himself one new man in the place of two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Jesus abolishes the civil and ceremonial law aspects of the Old Covenant removing all distinctions between Jew and Gentile. He writes the moral law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), which is the promise of the New Covenant, symbolizing the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the changing of the hearts of men. All men, Jew and Gentile alike. In verse 19 we have the clearest declaration in the New Testament that Gentile believers have been included in the Israel of God. There is no way to mistake Paul’s assertion unless we are just being willfully blind.


“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”


He uses the exact same language that he used in verse 11 to make the connection.


“remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (citizenship) and strangers to the covenants of promise”


So we see that the New Testament very clearly teaches us that, God’s promises have been expanded and improved upon. That God’s people will inherit the land that He promised them. But they will receive it when He gives them the world as their inheritance. Secondly, we see in a very clear and unambiguous way as well, that the New Testament teaches that the Gentiles are now included in the Common Wealth of Israel. They have been granted citizenship. All the covenant promises that God has made to His people are now theirs as well. On these two points the Bible is clear. The Church and Israel are the same entity, not because the Church replaced Israel, but because the Gentiles have been included within her. The Church is a part of Israel. She is catholic, which means she is not confined to a single nation, like the Truth was until Jesus came. She is apostolic, which means she was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the Jewish apostolic figures, Jesus Christ himself being that chief cornerstone.

I’m writing this because of the misguided opinion of some believers that to not defend modern national Israel is in some way to be disobedient to God. This is to ascribe to modern Israel a divine sanction that is improper. I’m not saying we should not be allies with Israel, I’m just saying it should have nothing to do with her being the Israel of God, because, as I just demonstrated, she is not. She, at the current time, is a socialist, atheist, state that does not even practice the minimum requirements of Old Testament religious life. She is a civil organization of people just like every other modern state. Better than some, worse than others, ordinary, and man-made in every way. U.S. foreign policy shouldn’t be based on a bad theological position.

But, let’s say I’m wrong about everything I have written here. For the sake of argument, let’s assume I am. Should we give Israel money and arms? Should we claim to be her defender and say that without us she will perish? If you believe the modern nation of Israel is the Israel of God, then you should be very opposed to us engaging in that type of relationship. Why? Because God forbids Israel to engage in covenants of defense and not trust in Him alone for their defense.


Isaiah 31:1-5

[1] Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! [2] And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity. [3] The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together. [4] For thus the LORD said to me, “As a lion or a young lion growls over his prey, and when a band of shepherds is called out against him he is not terrified by their shouting or daunted at their noise, so the LORD of hosts will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its hill. [5] Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it; he will spare and rescue it.”


I love the Israeli people, and pray that God brings them to see His love for them in the face of Christ Jesus. To them the prophets came, of them the Messiah was born. But that is where their advantage ends. God loves all men, and we should wisely follow His example, seeking peace and pursuing it. This does not mean we cannot justly defend ourselves, or offer defense to the defenseless. But it does mean we would be wise to not ascribe divine attributes to modern Israel. Or, on the other hand, if we do believe Israel to be the divine nation of God, that we not provide money and arms for her defense, tempting her to deny her God, and become the cause of her judgment. Interestingly, both positions should lead us to the same foreign policy philosophy, non-intervention.


The Evangelical Libertarian

Why the French Lost North America and Why Washington Eventually Will Too

Why the French Lost North America and Why Washington Eventually Will Too

My kids aren’t in the State Indoctrination Camps, we homeschool. I teach world history to homeschoolers every Friday as part of a local tutorial. I love history and firmly believe that even though history doesn’t repeat, it certainly rhymes. Which brings me to my point. Today I was teaching the future leaders of the free world about The French and Indian War. The book I use as a guide doesn’t give the real reason why the French lost that war, and were driven from the continent. It wasn’t because they were bad soldiers or bad military tacticians. They lost because their leaders were out of touch with reality. Louis XIV was a hard-working, brilliant dictator. Even though he began to sow the seeds of France’s destruction with the construction of Versailles by the blood and wealth of his subjects, nevertheless, he was available and attentive to the state of his country. He may not have cared much about his people, but he at least knew of their suffering.

In contrast, Louis XV was a lazy man. His father did not care for him much. As the leader of France he was hated. He died fairly young, but not until he had squandered most of what his father had built in the New World. When he died of small pox, they covered him in lyme, and chucked him in a hole in the middle of the night. While alive, he was suppose to be leading his people in The French and Indian War. Instead, he was absent, aloof, and uncaring concerning the plight of his people. While William Pitt, the Prime Minister of England, with whom he was at war, was making sure his men had money, weapons, food, and supplies to fight the costly war, Louis was lying in the lap of luxury disconnected from the reality of the day to day existence of his citizenry and soldiers. French soldiers didn’t lose because they were cowards, but because they were cold and hungry. French citizens weren’t hungry because they were lazy, but because they were being legally plundered. The French lost North America in the end because of corrupt and aloof leadership

Does this situation sound familiar? While I am thinking of the broader political class, President Obama is a great modern example of this type of clueless, aloof leadership. Many have called him “Vacationer and Chief”. While our soldiers have shed their blood in unjust foreign wars, he appears regularly to be playing more golf than governing. And when he is governing he is busy catering to lobbyists for green energy, attempting to destroy coal power plants and vetoing oil pipelines knowing full well that in the end these actions will drive up the cost of energy for his citizens. Like Louis XV, he doesn’t really care.. Republican leaders are just as aloof and clueless, just on a whole host of different big business lobby driven issues. Republicans are at war with their own conservative and libertarian base, choosing rather to cozy up to the Wall Street and the Country Club wing of their party. Passing omnibus spending bills, fully funding Amnesty, refusing to audit the Federal Reserve, bailing out “to big to fail” banks and car companies, etc. The political class is aloof and out of touch. While food prices go up and wages go down, they publish phony jobs numbers, knowing full well that the jobs being created are either lower wage, or part time, or both. While companies like Hewlett Packard fire 50,000 employees in order to create reserve cash to buy back their own stocks, driving the stock price up, and amassing huge bonuses for their executives. Congress and the President turn a blind eye to such unethical practices because, of course, this pushes up the stock market and allows them to take credit for a fake “economic recovery” so they can get re-elected and continue plundering the American people. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, misguided youth join Occupy Wall Street. Mandatory Minimum Wage movements gain steam. Tea Parties erupt. Libertarians start having a moment. What do all these things have in common? They are all anti-elite-political class movements. Let’s go back to France and Louis XV for a moment.

What happened after his death? The Enlightenment, “The Bloody Revolution”, and the end of Aristocracy in France. What fills the void when elitist, corrupt leaders lose legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens? Before we answer that, we need to ask, “What causes elitist, corrupt leaders to lose legitimacy?” Economic disruption, brought on by the actions and policies of those leaders usually does the trick. When Marie Antoinette supposedly said, “Let them eat cake”, France was in the middle of a desperate economic disruption caused by the constant wars, taxation, and luxuries enjoyed by the Aristocracy. What fills the void left by elitist, corrupt political leaders? Usually populist movements that claim the noble goal of returning the nation to it’s former glory, and promising never to allow a corrupt elitists political class to rule again. Think of Germany pre-World War II. The Treaty of Versailles had stripped Germany of her former glory. Years of punitive damages inflicted by the victors of World War I stunted Germany’s ability to economically recover. An unjust peace left hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed, Germans. This major economic disruption toppled the Weidmar Democracy, and led to the rise of the Nazi Party.

Russia at the turn of the 20th century was in a similar state. Years of aloof, corrupt leadership led to constant foreign wars, high taxation, a virtual caste system that was impossible to break out of, and an extremely prejudicial justice system where the poor simply could not get justice. What filled this gap? A populist movement known as the Bolsheviks came to power through revolution, and every member of the aristocracy that didn’t run was summarily executed. This began 70 plus years of rule by communism, which featured millions of deaths, via starvation, execution, Gulags, etc. Russia today is in the middle of such a movement. What is Vladmir Putin trying to accomplish? He is trying to return Russia to its former glory. This Ukrainian business and the Crimean secession is exactly the type of movement I have been describing. Russia needed a leader. A strong, charismatic figure arises and wins the hearts and imaginations of many Russians. Especially older Russians that remember, with nostalgia, Russia’s former place on the world stage. Russia is currently eyeing their former Baltic states as “economic partners”. But the Baltic nations know this partnership is an “offer they can’t refuse”, to quote Vito Corleone.

The U.S. is now showing signs of this process as well. We’ve had one major economic disruption after another since the 1970’s. All caused by the policies of a corrupt and aloof leadership that promise more than they can deliver and then print more money to cover their spending habits. Because we are the reserve currency holder in the world, we are able to print up a fresh batch of cash and infuse it into our economy. But all we are doing is kicking the can down the road a bit. Debt does not build wealth. The debtor is always a slave to the lender. The piper will be paid. Economic disruption is coming in the near future. With interest rates at zero and quantitative easing not working anymore, what’s the plan this time around? We have painted ourselves into a corner with no way out. These populist movements will gain strength. Eventually, Washington, because of aloof, corrupt leadership will lose it’s legitimacy. It is the way of history. Sure as rain, as we say in the south. What kind of movement will fill the void? This question remains unanswered. I just hope the Libertarian moment, becomes a Libertarian day. Of course, as the Evangelical Libertarian, I know that, “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1) My prayer is that the people of this wonderful land will peacefully return to the God of their fathers, not through government coercion, but because of the great love that He has shown to us in sending His own Son to die in our place. It is only the Gospel that can bring real peace. It must start between God and man. But when internal peace takes hold in the hearts of men, and the Holy Spirit permeates our homes and hearths, national peace will soon follow. That’s a populist movement to get excited about!