Alphabet Soup: News Agencies Are Supposed to Suspect Intelligence Agencies Not Shill For Them

Alphabet Soup

Somebody needs to tell these ex-CIA (and current…. nobody leaves the agency) yahoos on all the cable news channels that the President is the “boss” of the Executive Branch, which is the branch of government that the CIA is a part of. The Legislative Branch created them too in case they have forgotten, and has, as the people’s representatives, a role in their oversight. What is President Trump supposed to do now? Trust the DOJ? Trust FBI? Trust CIA? What evidence can they now provide that proves they can be impartial?

Ex-CIA Phillip Mudd Warning Trump on CNN

John Brennan Says Nunes Abused His Office

Over the last year or so we’ve learned that Loretta Lynch met with a presidential candidate’s husband on a tarmac to talk about his “grand kids.” That the FBI interviewed Mrs. Clinton without putting her under oath while her subordinates were practically in the the next room smashing devices with hammers. That her team had her hard drives acid washed the day after their contents were subpoenaed   Across the hall a perjury trap was being set for Trump’s man Michael Flynn, while other agents were busy rifling through Paul Manafort’s financials from more than two years previous. The FBI wrote Clinton’s exoneration letter before the investigation was anything near complete. Over at the DOJ Bruce Ohr was shoveling his CIA operative wife’s (Nellie Ohr) research through Fusion GPS into the hands of the FBI. Who then used it to get a FISA Warrant. While getting the warrant the FBI quoted from a Yahoo News story that was written based on the very Dossier they were using to get the warrant. That’s right, confirming the Steele Dossier’s contents with an article written based on the dossier itself. A Dossier that turned out to be pure trash that was paid for by the DNC that Hillary Clinton, according to Donna Brazil, was running at the time. If rank and file agents in the CIA and FBI are pissed, let them be pissed at the politicization of their beloved agencies by their leaders, as they OBVIOUSLY were pulling for Team Clinton over Team Trump and let their bias and political friendships get in the way of doing their jobs.

The CIA, which is not suppose to be operating domestically without an attaché (the FBI provides this service sometimes) is not a branch-less unaccountable group of black operators. They have a mission and should get back to it or get fired. It is scary and UNHEARD OF BY THE WAY, in our Republic to have the CIA in front of the cameras engaging in political influence peddling. This is a psychological operation being run on the American people being allowed by the blind hatred of the so-called Fourth Estate. Things are really out of control if secretive agencies feel free to walk around in the daylight to blather on nightly news shows. Journalists are supposed to be suspicious and objective, but these “news entertainers” are eating out of the hands of the intelligence services. Hands that write narratives, deceive, and kill for a living. 

Just to butter this bread a little more, Rob Reiner, Meathead, and hippy from the 60’s and 70’s came out today with a tweet that I’ll quote in full below. Folks it is unbelievable what these people say. You just can’t make this stuff up. Real life is truly stranger than fiction.

“When you libel James Clapper and John Brennan you libel America. The desperate attack on men who have given over 90 years of dedicated service to our country is clear evidence of a conscientiousness of guilt.” – Rob Reiner

Reiner, who was once rabidly opposed to the CIA run Vietnam War, now wraps himself and the CIA in the American flag, and tells us they are untouchable moral angels. But we know better. Remember that Brennan worked for the agency when they were selling crack on American streets. When they destroyed poor Gary Webb, the journalist who uncovered their untoward deeds and wrote about them, to the point that he was so ruined that he took his own life. The recent Tom Cruise film, “American Made” is about CIA drug running and is based on a pilot’s real life account of his activity with the agency.

So come now Mr. Reiner, Mr. Mudd, Mr. Brennan, and Mr. Clapper, stop trying to sell the idea of innocence to us. It is rotten, and no one is buying it. Or haven’t you noticed that the channel you love to talk on the most has the worst ratings. If no one believes you look no further than a mirror to find the reason why. I mean, Mr. Clapper in March of 2013 was asked point-blank while under oath testifying before congress whether his agency was “collecting any type of data at all?” He said, “No sir.” But of course Edward Snowden proved that was a lie. So let’s get back to party-less intelligence work shall we, and out of our governing processes. We like it better when it is as it should be… when we don’t know that you are there.

 

Advertisements
Crock Pot In The Coal Mine

Crock Pot In The Coal Mine

My wife watches the show “This Is Us.” I usually lay there and watch Youtube videos, but for some reason, this week, I watched along with her. At the end of the most recent show *SPOILER ALERT* Jack Pearson places a kitchen towel against an old Crock Pot with an electrical short and inadvertently starts a house fire. This solves, at least in part, the mystery of how Jack dies. Every fan of the show, which is overwhelmingly female in demographic, has been waiting to find out how the fire that took Jack’s life got started. As the Pearson home was engulfed in flames on my screen I leaned over to my wife and jokingly said, “Welp Crock Pot stock will drop tomorrow.” She wasn’t amused. I, however, should have traded stock on my hunch. The next day crock pots all across the country went into the trash can. NBC and Newell (the company that manufactures Crock Pots) had to issue statements about their safety. Newell’s stock went into a tail spin. It is irrational. It is overly cautious. It is a pure fear-based emotional response. It is also a canary in our coal mine.

Miners, for those that don’t know, often died of silent noxious gas exposure. So they took canaries with them as they delved ever more deeply. The smaller biology of the canary caused it to succumbed much sooner to the gas. If the canaries died, it served as a warning to the miners that their own death was imminent. Crock pots being thrown into trash cans leading to a company being nearly destroyed because of a television character’s death is a canary in our collective coal mine. It is a clear demonstration of the underlying effect of being over-informed, and over-entertained. Subtly and slowly, we have become a culture that lives on fear based emotions. The once proud and courageous men and women who loaded up covered wagons, crossed the Mississippi river, and went to settle the western lands among Apaches are no more. What happened to our strength of constitution? Our fortitude? Our rugged love of risk taking? What happened to the American spirit? They appear to be in the trash can under our Crock Pots. We’d all still be huddled around kitchen fires in Boston if our generation was expected to settle the West. Except, there’d be no fires in the kitchen anymore because those are dangerous.

We need to stop living in fear. We need to stop allowing our government and the entertainment complex to control us through fear. We need to break our addiction to fear-porn. All day long every day all we hear is that the sky is falling, literally. Global warming is going to kill us all. We need the Environmental Protection Agency. Terrorists are coming to behead us all. We need to send government troops to dominate the rest of the world so we can “feel” safe at home. Sexual predators are everywhere just waiting to sexually assault us. We need Hollywood and the music industry (two notoriously corrupt industries that objectify women for money all day every day) to tell us how to live healthy sex lives. Guns are dangerous and randomly kill people. We need lots of S.W.A.T teams and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Children should be leashed like animals and never get out of our sight. We need the Consumer Protection Agency. Ecoli is in our greens and Salmonella in our meats. We need the Food and Drug Administration.  Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, so we need a protective wall and protective tariffs. Racism is on the rise so we need hate crimes legislation. Supposedly, according to the best and brightest on college campuses across our land, the U.S. is full of white, patriarchal, misogynist, racist, homophobes trying to impose their mathematics, high school education, monogamous marriage, and child-rearing culture on everyone else. This above all else should be feared. They are so afraid of these boogeymen that they must retreat to safe spaces with coloring books and hot cocoa to soothe their tender feelings.

You can now cease to wonder how these young people turned out to be such emotionally weak crybabies. We did it to them. We wrapped them in bubble wrap and sent them out to play in a 10 square foot space, in our postage stamp-sized, fenced-in back yards. We hovered over them. We threw our crock pots away. We abandoned bravery and calculated risk. We became addicted to fearporn. We are all like college football coaches in the fourth quarter playing not to lose. As any football fan will tell you, playing it safe in a football game will get an “loss” hung on your team (ask the University of Georgia). It will also get a loss hung around your neck in life too. When enough of us get that dreaded L, then the nation gets one too. And that my friends, is how civilizations fall.

So ladies, primarily I am speaking to you here, defy the government and its crony media complexes. Show your sons and daughters that you are not afraid. Go and dig those Crock Pots out of the trash can, and, in as non a misogynistic way as I can say this, “go make a pot roast or something.” Send the kids out to play and don’t watch every move they make. When they come in crying from a skinned knee, tell them to suck it up, slap a band aid on it, and tell them it is a battle scar. Tell them you don’t want to see them again until the street lights come on. Tell them to go build a ramp for their bikes out of plywood and brick-o-blocks. Tell your schools to let them play dodge ball… on the monkey bars. Refuse to take a participation trophy home. Throw that in the trash if you must throw something away. Or, if you are itching to throw something away, how about their Xbox or their handheld device? We’ve got to cross a new Mississippi river, a cultural one. If you keep throwing away Crock Pots because an imaginary character on a television show died, we’re not going to make it across. We need men to step up and be men again and take off those stupid looking skinny jeans and face the world as it really is, a cold and rugged place. We need men and women to understand that they need each other again. We need our young ladies to be at least as fearless, if not more, than our young men. And if you think this is all just toxic masculinity, let me suggest that perhaps you are engaged in a toxic form of femininity. You’ve turned our children into weak-hearted and emotionally stunted victims. The noxious gas is rising. The canaries are all dead.

The War On Drugs: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

The War On Drugs: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

If you enjoy the article please remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. 

war-on-drugs

All the so-called “wars” on ideas like, The War on Poverty (LBJ), Drugs (Reagan), Terrorism (Bush 43), etc. are ridiculous. They never have an end, continually expand the government’s scope and power, while at the same time they reduce the liberties of  U.S. citizens, and never actually solve the problem they were created to solve. In reality, they make them worse. Don’t think so? Go to a border or an airport. If you are too young to remember the U.S. as she was before September 11th, 2001, the historic point where we chose to embrace fear over courage, I’m sorry. I really am sorry. That you have not known a world without permanent military intervention, weaponized politics, and a militarized domestic police force is truly, truly sad. Let’s take a look at the The War on Drugs and its effect on our society.

I believe the The War on Drugs has been one of the worst polices in the history of the United States. Domestic drug laws create the climate for black markets and crime. Drug users are obviously not deterred by criminalization, else there would be no arrests, or at least very few. I don’t have to tell you, this is not the case. The War on Drugs has filled our prisons with people who were originally non-violent criminals. But after serving lengthy prison sentences, they emerge from that caged-climate less human, with a network of prison relationships, and a place on the employment blacklist as felons. Now, with their new morally wounded consciences, received from the sexual and physical violence inherent in U.S. prisons, compounded significantly by reduced employment opportunities leading to poverty and disenfranchisement, they are far more likely to become life-long violent criminals. I don’t throw the word “disenfranchisement” around lightly. There are thousands, possibly millions, who are forever closed off from gainful employment other than self-employment, due to youthful mistakes. The truth is, self-employment is more than most sober, well-connected people are capable of sustaining. Many of these people never committed another crime. Yes, many states have written laws that allow non-violent felonies to be removed, that is, if you can afford it. After paying thousands at the time of trial in court costs and lawyer fees, and then serving a prison sentence, the now productive law abiding citizen is told anew they must pay more in court costs and lawyer fees just to file a piece of paper. For a person closed off from employment these financial hurdles remain insurmountable in most cases. One should look no further than the permanent felonization of people, men especially, to explain why millions of men are not in the work force, and why male labor participation rates are near great depression lows.

We should ask ourselves, if we are Christians anyway, “why God did not institute prisons in Old Testament Law?” All crimes, not punishable by death (Murder and forms of Sexual Assault aside), were dealt with through fines and personal restitution. Could God himself not be showing us that there are better ways to structure your society and deal with non-violent crime? Are our modern “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws and heavy handed prison sentences that feed the coffers of private prisons better than the biblical ideal? I don’t think so. And no Christian, especially an evangelical one, who claims to believe in the inerrancy and THE SUFFICIENCY of Scripture, should think so either.

With the amount of money being spent on enforcement agencies and prison complexes, we could engage in free or low cost voluntary rehabilitation, a much more humane and culture building activity. This is also a space that Christianity can inhabit, and do what it was meant to do, what the state cannot do, which is transform human lives. I know this will not be a popular opinion among “law and order” conservatives, but I think we can all admit that what we are doing ain’t working. More people have died via The War on Drugs than have died from the drugs themselves. That especially applies to marijuana which has never in the history of the world produced an overdose, and is currently proving medically useful. Yet, the opioid crisis that has enveloped the nation is largely built upon legally prescribed drugs, not black market substances. Proving beyond all doubt that the FDA and Congress cannot protect us from drug use no matter how much power we give to them, or how many drug laws they make.

Remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. You can SUBSCRIBE to the blog too and get Christian-based, liberty-oriented, and occasionally snarky content sent directly to your inbox. 
Ask The Evangelical Libertarian Abortion: After 45 Years, Is It Libertarian?

Ask The Evangelical Libertarian Abortion: After 45 Years, Is It Libertarian?

If you enjoy this article as always remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. You can SUBSCRIBE to the blog too and get Christian-based, liberty-oriented, and occasionally snarky content sent directly to your inbox. 

ultrasound

Today is the 45th Anniversary of the landmark court decision known as Roe vs Wade. It allowed abortion to become a legal practice in the United States. With that in mind, I thought it would be a good day to answer the question, “What is the Evangelical Libertarian’s position on abortion?”

Abortion is a clear case of aggression. It is a violent act against the most defenseless of persons. The hallmark of libertarian thought is the Non-Aggression Principle. Children, within the womb or without, have all the natural rights of life and liberty afforded to other moral persons. “You shall not murder” is the bedrock of human society, and any society that abandons it will soon devolve into violence. If in-utero children can be dispensed with because of inconvenience or financial strain, then the next persons to be placed on the list will be those born with special needs and the infirm among us.  Iceland has already nearly eradicated Down Syndrome through abortion, believing that it would be better if those children were spared existence. This type God complex has no real limits, only temporary social taboos that eventually fall to corrupt and inconsistent reasoning. We often think of Jewish persons being gassed to death in Nazi Germany, but so were those with special needs, and the infirm. The difference between aborting unwanted children for reasons determined by the mother, and murdering unwanted people for reasons determined by society, is a difference only in degree, not in principle. Humans have many liberties, this however, is not one of them.

The Libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, who had many good things to say in regards to property rights and economic principles, was incredibly wrong on this point. He treated the child, who made no moral choice, as the aggressor, and the mother’s womb as her private property. The child in his understanding was an invader. This is why we need a biblical filter for Libertarianism, and human freedom in general. His view of abortion is monstrous and should not be looked to as a standard for Libertarians.

A child in-utero makes no moral choice. She is not an aggressor, but a neutral party that was brought into being through the procreative sexual act. Now the government has no right to tell the mother how to use her sexuality, this is the Church’s role. She is to be convinced through truth and encouraged to surrender her sexuality for the good of others voluntarily. The government does have a right to see that human contracts and covenants, like marriage for instance, are enforced. They can place civil fines and punishments for violations and should expect full cooperation from the community to aid in enforcement of those rulings. But once the truth (guarding sexuality for marriage and family) is ignored by the mother and procreation has occurred, a new and separate life has been created, altogether distinct from the life of the mother. Women possess no special “right” to murder for convenience, or any other reason that maybe put forward. It is her body, but the violent act is being committed against another person, her unborn child. They are separate persons, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Which brings us to the difficult question. What about conception by sexual assault? All previous principles apply. Whether the life came into being voluntarily or involuntarily, it still exists separately from the life of the mother. The child feels pain, responds to stimulus, has a beating heart and brain function within days of conception. She is a miracle of miracles. Adoption should be the choice of just societies. We should recognize the innocence and goodness of the life, separate from both its sources, as it is truly separate from them. Difficult as that may be to apply in principle for women who have undergone terrible and traumatic experiences. Obviously to cherish and nourish these unfortunate mothers is paramount as well. Providing comfort and aid, giving to them the space and resources for healing are equally important. But murdering an innocent life will not heal their soul, but will most likely only deepen the moral wound. Often abortion alone causes a psychological crisis in the mother. When combined with rape or incest, it becomes part of a complex and compound moral wounding that can bring a woman to the edge of her sanity, and affect her mental state for the rest of her life. Abortion is the murder of a child. It is not good for the mother, leaves a trail of mental illness in its wake, and is therefore bad for society as a whole.

Abortion runs contrary to the virtues of generosity and self-sacrifice that are the hallmarks of free peoples that intend on remaining free. Without the protecting and cherishing of life, the most basic of protections necessary for human civilization, nothing lasting, or in fact even worth building, can be built. Murder is not a liberty, but an act of aggression, and therefore abortion should fall outside of the bounds of an authentic expression of libertarianism.

Remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. You can SUBSCRIBE to the blog too and get Christian-based, liberty-oriented, and occasionally snarky content sent directly to your inbox. 

Helicopter Colonialism and Trump’s Valid Question

Weekend Reading

helicopter

In a recent meeting between the President and a bipartisan group of lawmakers trying to broker a new immigration policy “deal”, President Trump, in a response to part of that committee wanting to reserve open immigration status for Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries, said something to this effect, “Why do people from #$%!hole countries want to come here?” This has ignited a firestorm in the mainstream press, and among keyboard warriors on social media that firmly believe in the narrative that the author of “The Art of the Deal” is essentially a xenophobic, racist, white supremacist.

Now, I firmly disagree with his choice of language. I do not use such language myself. I especially do not use such language to refer to people and cultures. For sure, The Donald is no statesman, and I wish we had a person in the Whitehouse with stronger moral fiber, or at least a deactivated Twitter account. But his question, if we change the language, is a valid one. Let’s ask the question that he asked in another way.

Bipartisan Lawmakers: We want to reserve the status of Haitians, El Salvadorans, and multiple African nations to come here easily as part of the new immigration deal.

The Donald: Why do people from ”under developed” countries come here?

The point he is making by asking such a question is that if we continue with our loose immigration policy as it is, then those underdeveloped countries will continue to lose many of their citizens to us, leaving them perennially underdeveloped, and also perennially in need of our assistance. The phrasing of the question was bad, but the question itself is valid. We have to stop yelling racism at everything. If you think somewhere would not be a good place to live, it does not necessarily follow that race is the reason. Perhaps his comment was aimed at the murder rate per 100,000 persons in those countries.

Haiti has a murder rate of 10 persons per 100,000 persons. That is nearly double the international average, and it has doubled internally since 2008, when it was 5 persons per 100,000 persons.

El Salvador has the #4 highest murder rate in the entire world at 41.2 persons per 100,000 persons. African Countries make up a considerable number of the top 25 worst countries as far as the murder rate per 100,000 persons is concerned. Botswana is #24 in the world with a murder rate of 18.4 persons per 100,000 persons. Nigeria is #20 in the world with a murder rate of 20 persons per 100,000 persons. Rwanda is #17 in the world with a murder rate of 23.1 persons per 100,000 persons. The Democratic Republic of Congo is #14 in the world with a murder rate of 28.3 persons per 100,000 persons. South Africa is #10 in the world with a murder rate of 31 persons per 100,000 persons. Swaziland is #8 in the world with a murder rate of 33.8 persons per 100,000 persons.

Clearly these are places that people would not choose to immigrate to if given the choice. I’d venture to say that most people that read this piece, outside of missionaries and aid workers, would never even willingly choose to travel in these countries. Why? Because they are xenophobic racists, or because they are sensible? The average murder rate in the world is around 5 persons per 100,000 persons. All these nations are significantly more dangerous, some of them many times more dangerous than the rest of the world. They can accurately be described as terrible countries to live in.

Of course, this ignites feelings of compassion, and it should. We are a very compassionate people. Americans do a lot of good in the world. But there are real questions surrounding our immigration policy and its impacts. “Are we really helping those countries in the long term?” Also, “Are we enabling their immediate national neighbors to avoid their responsibility in the region?” And finally, “How does this effect our own nation? What are the challenges that we will face domestically due to our policies?” Immigration is good, and a necessary part of U.S. economic policy. But, we are under no obligation to be the destination spot for immigrants from those countries. And our immigration polices maybe hurting not only Caribbean, South and Central American, and African countries individually, but possibly entire regions and continents over the long haul. Sustainability is a word often thrown around in environmental contexts, but what about immigration policy? Is our current policy financially sustainable?

It is unfortunate that it takes human beings enduring difficulty to form them into better persons, but such is the truth. Suffering goes on for much longer than we want it to or think that we can bear. This can be said of people groups too. In order for a nation to grow and reach its potential they often must endure difficulty. In ancient Greece there was the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. In Europe there was the Black plague, The Hundred Years War, and countless other difficulties including serfdom, dictatorships, ethnic wars, and famine. Our history in the U.S. directly precedes the English Civil War and the English Bill of Rights, which greatly informed the founding generations view of how to keep civil peace through religious toleration. The short march to our own Revolutionary was caused by taxes put on us by the British to refill their coffers after they emptied them in the bloody frontier war we call the French and Indian War. A war where women and children were as apt to be victims as men.  We learned our lessons in hardship. And while, yes, it is easy for me to sit behind my keyboard and suggest that immigrants in difficult places in the world might need to stay and make things better for their nations in the face of escalating murder rates. Nevertheless, it might just be the truth. I am the beneficiary of sacrifice and civilizational building through the dreaming and suffering of my ancestors. Nations are not built in any other way. I wish there was a Staples type easy button. The fact is, there isn’t.

Take a look at our pie in the sky view of democracy. We leveled the country of Iraq, wrote a constitution for them, and erected voting booths. George W. Bush naively stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and announced “mission accomplished.” Was it? No, because democratic institutions are, like Rome, “not built in a day.” Democratic Republics are forged in the fires of history, not whipped up like so much instant pudding. You can’t add milk and stir. Our civilization goes back thousands of years to the Greeks themselves. Early American documents quote their works more than any other source outside of the Bible. We came to societal order, republics, rights, and self-governance through millennia of trouble and failure.

We often confuse love with feelings. I am afraid our immigration policy has become like our parenting philosophy. Instead of “helicopter parenting” we engage in “helicopter colonialism.” We won’t admit it, but the U.S., especially those on the left, view everyone else in the world as over grown children who need our beneficence. A lot of what they say sounds like love, and I’m sure it feels like it too. Just like it feels like love when we help our children at times when we should let them fail because it makes us feel bad to watch them fail. We have ruined the character of many through “helicopter parenting.” Having raised a generation that will not grow up and move out of our basements, it is clear that the wisdom and moral clarity required to raise healthy children has largely departed. We no longer know love when we see it. Perhaps our sound-byte culture with its shallow platitudes and virtue signaling are insufficient to form parenting philosophies or immigration policies. Perhaps our children and the people of the world are not chess pieces to be moved around at the whim of our tender feelings. Perhaps there are things we cannot see, and unintended consequences we are not wise enough to foresee. Perhaps we should ask, “Why do people from ”under developed” countries come here?” I would suggest we follow that question up with, “What are our REAL motives for wanting them to come here?” “Helicopter colonialism”, I believe, can be as dangerous and debilitating to those we are trying to help as “helicopter parenting” has been to our own children. And we should take care to think soberly and judiciously about our immigration policy before we ruin the moral character of other noble people by transforming them into dependent victims in the same way that we have our own children.

Ask The Evangelical Libertarian: What Is An Evangelical Libertarian Anyway?

If you enjoy this article, as always, remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. You can SUBSCRIBE to the blog too and get Christian-based, liberty-oriented, and occasionally snarky content sent directly to your inbox. 

First we must define what a Libertarian is?

A Libertarian is someone who believes that coercion and/or violence cannot be the basis of a political compact, business, or personal relationship. This is called the Non-Aggression Principle. For the rest of this article, we will just refer to it as NAP. The NAP in business and personal practice means that we should keep our word. If we enter into a contract together to perform certain tasks for one another in exchange for a set price, then both of us should keep our word… our contract. Government, which most Libertarians accept as needed in limited ways, therefore exists to make sure that contracts are enforced. If one does not keep their word, then they are liable to civil suits, fines, and judgments as a means to rectify the broken contract. Libertarians that believe in limited government are called “Limited-Statist Libertarians.” They believe that one submits oneself voluntarily to a government, and that in fact all good government is voluntary in nature. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, “Limited-Statist Libertarians”, and the Constitution of the United States is a document written to secure the rights of man by forming a very limited state, or government. The Founding Fathers believed, for the most part, that the role of the Federal Government should be very small, and the liberty of the individual should be very large.

What does a Christian Libertarian believe and why the designation Evangelical Libertarian?

A Christian Libertarian then is one whose understanding of the NAP is informed by nature and Scripture.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 

A Christian Libertarian believes as all Christians believe, that there are two books of revelation, nature AND Scripture. While standard Libertarians of all varieties lean heavily on natural law theory in regards to discerning ethics and crime, Christian Libertarians filter their understanding of natural law through God’s Special Revelation to human beings in the Bible. As an Evangelical Libertarian then I am just more specific in what I believe concerning the nature of Scripture. I believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and all sufficient, providing everything that I need to understand, giving me sure a foundation for what I should believe, and how I should live in and interpret the world that I inhabit.

Not all professed Christians place the Bible on such a pedestal. This understanding of Libertarianism brings me close to paleo-Conservatism on many fronts. But, in my opinion, the conservative moniker has been so tarnished by neoconservatives that I can never wear that badge again. The modern Republican party is made up of as many aggressive statists as the modern Democratic Party. The difference being that Republicans make some attempt to hide their real plans and Democrats do not. Generally, when neoconservatives do use the term smaller government, what they really mean is slower rate of growth. So I choose to place myself among Libertarians, since they are at least not public liars, and make some attempt to be honest about their views.

Another name I will often use to describe myself is, “Limited-statist Libertarian”, as used previously in this article. Meaning that I believe that there is a very limited sphere in which the state should operate. Ludwig Von Mises and Fredrich Hayek, the two most brilliant economists of the twentieth century, are claimed by both paleo-conservatives and right leaning libertarians as heroes. The reason that they are claimed by both camps is because they were economic libertarians but tended to be social conservatives. Both believed the state had a limited role to play in public life. They were not “anarcho-capitalists”, who believed in a state-less world without borders, that is made up of unfettered individuals, and absolute free markets. I often state in my blogs the distaste I have for Utopianism. Anarcho-capitalism and libertinism are Utopian ideals, pure fiction in my estimation, and I do not dabble in fiction. The world is as it is, and so we must meet it as it is, not as we wish it to be. The three questions I ask myself often are,

  1. What is the proper sphere of the State?
  2. What is the proper sphere of the Church?
  3. How can human liberty be properly maximized in the individual in order to benefit human flourishing economically, culturally, and spiritually?

Look for my new weekly segment, “Ask The Evangelical Libertarian“, that will be posted on Thursday evenings for your reading pleasure, where I will provide a liberty oriented view of major topics from a Christian perspective.

Blessings!

 

 

Razor Wire Fence

Remember to FOLLOW us on FACEBOOK, LIKE the blog, COMMENT, and SHARE it with others to get a conversation going. You can SUBSCRIBE to the blog too and get Christian-based, liberty-oriented, and occasionally snarky content sent directly to your inbox. 

After “The Last Jedi”

Kylo and Rey

WARNING!

If you have not seen “The Last Jedi”, I would not read any further unless you are ok with spoilers. Everything that you are about to read are my guesses about the future of the franchise. It is all conjecture. I don’t have any inside contacts over at Disney. I’ve not seen any scripts. I am just a casual fan of the Star Wars franchise that also loves to analyze films, especially their use of foreshadowing and cultural themes. I’ve already done a general critique of what I didn’t like about the “Last Jedi.” Read it here So, without further ado, I present to you the Evangelical Libertarian’s predictions concerning the future direction of the Star Wars franchise.

First, I believe Disney is bringing the original storyline to an end in order to begin multiple new story lines. After Kylo Ren and Rey join forces to defend themselves against Snoke’s version of the Imperial Guard, they have an important, albeit brief verbal exchange. Kylo Ren’s words to Rey in that scene, along with their conversation on the way up to Snoke’s throne room in the elevator, I believe, give us the basic seeds that will blossom into the future of the franchise. Paraphrasing here, Kylo Ren tells Rey, “Let it all die. the Jedi, the Sith, the Empire, the Republic, all of it, let it all die.” I believe Disney is spelling out for us their intention. They are killing the original story line. After this series of films, I believe the Skywalker dynasty will end, as well as most of the links to the original films, except maybe legend references. These movies are Disney building a bridge out of the past and into the future. They are going to expand the franchise and create multiple story lines and merchandising opportunities. I’ll get into that next, including how I think the new story lines will come about.

Rey’s origins I believe were only partially explained in the “Last Jedi”. I think Kylo Ren’s vision of her past was accurate but incomplete. Rey, I believe is like Anakin, a force conception. In the cave, when she looked into the glass, she only saw herself. The people Kylo Ren saw in his vision and assumed to be her parents, will turn out to have been only her mother, likely being forced to sell her child in order to get drinking money for her husband because she was not his child and he knew it.

Here is the whopper prediction everyone. I believe Rey is the new Anakin and Kylo Ren is the new Vader. Wait, Kylo Ren the new Vader (sarcasm), everyone knows that EL. Hang with me a second here. Rey and Kylo are two sides of the same character, or the Force if you will. Rey is born on a desert planet into difficult circumstances, lonely, afraid, and different from everyone else because she is Force conceived. In her early years she will be, like Anakin, the hero and display fantastic powers. But, in the end she will become the villain. I think this will happen in the next film. Both Rey and Kylo’s visions of each other’s futures were accurate. He will turn back to the Light and she will turn to the Darkside of the force. When she first used the Force, she went straight to the darkside. Luke was shocked that she did not even resist. In contrast, Kylo could not kill Leia, and I believe he saved her by using the Force when she should have died. This will come out fairly early in the next film as well. The first two films, “The Force Awakens” and “The Last Jedi” have gone out of their way to focus on Kylo Ren’s moral conflict. Rey tells Luke as she leaves to go to confront Kylo Ren in an attempt to turn him that he (Kylo Ren) is the Rebellion’s best hope now.

Though the original storyline is being ended, multiple new story lines are going to be established. I believe Rey is not the only force conception. This was foreshadowed at the very end of “The Last Jedi” when the orphan child that had helped Rose and Fin reached for the broom and drew it to himself without touching it. We are watching Disney let the old Jedi Order die to give birth to a new one. It is time for it to die, Luke tells us several times in “The Last Jedi.” Yoda confirms it by destroying the Tree that contained the ancient Jedi texts. He also confirms that it is time for the Jedi to die when speaking with Luke. Luke points out the arrogance of believing that the force would vanish with the original Jedi Order while training Rey. He tells Kylo Ren that “every word that he had just spoken was wrong,” that he, Luke would not be the last Jedi. The old Jedi Order will die and a new order will arise from force conceptions throughout the galaxy.

Lastly, I believe Rey and Kylo Ren will possibly kill each other as the climax of the next film. I think Rey will turn and do what all Sith do when they turn. Like Anakin and Kylo Ren before her, she will plan an attempt to kill all the young Force conceived Jedi in order to wipe out the new order before it can begin. I think Rey and Kylo Ren’s final fight scene will be Kylo Ren’s redemption scene, and it will involve him stopping her from hunting the new force conceived Jedi down in order to kill them. Rey and Kylo may join forces briefly in the next film, but in the end, she will be the villain and he will be the hero. Both will die to make way for new story lines that will involve all the new force conceptions. Also wherever there is light there is dark. We will also see some of these Force conceptions birth a new Sith order. Snoke tells us in the film that he knew that as Kylo Ren grew in strength, that there would be one among the Jedi who would rise with more or less equal power. Snoke assumed it was Luke, but it turned out to be Rey.

Another theory I have is that only Kylo Ren dies, slain by Rey’s hand, but in doing so he saves the Rebellion and the new Force conceptions. Rey, a non-Skywalker, lives on to train a new Sith Order to match the rise of the New Jedi Order.

That’s all I got. I hope you enjoyed my theories. Hit the FOLLOW button on the Facebook page, LIKE the blog, SHARE it with family and friends. You can also SUBSCRIBE to the blog theevangelicallibertarian.com. When you do, unique, cultural critiques, snarky blogs, and liberty-oriented content magically show up in your inbox.