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.

Advertisements
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.

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!

We Now Have A Little Something for Everyone

We Now Have A Little Something for Everyone

Looking for good alternative reads on culture, economics, history, and current events. Look no further than The Evangelical Libertarian. From contrarian economic sites like David Stockman’s Contra Corner, Bob Murphy’s blog, and Peter Schiff’s blog, to politics and culture oriented sites like Libertarian Christians.Com, The Imaginative Conservative, Front Porch Republic, and others. We now have something to tickle your Contrarian fancy. Even yours truly, The Evangelical Libertarian joins the fray from time to time with Biblical examinations of current events and economic principles to help give a twist to the brew. Like, Subscribe, set us as your homepage, or do all three.

 

Soli Deo Gloria

The End of Cuba’s Double Despotism

The End of Cuba’s Double Despotism: Communism Internally and Sanctions Externally” by Rev. Robert A. Sirico

This is a great response to the criticism heard generally from the right regarding normalizing relations with Cuba. Is normalizing relations with Cuba dishonoring to the memory of those who perished in the ocean attempting to come to the U.S.? Would it be better to allow people to board a plane to the U.S. or should Cubans be forced to continue to cross shark infested waters to come here? The author does a very good job of answering these questions delicately and frankly. A rare combination.

The Law of God: To Love Me Is To Leave Me Alone

What is the defining principle of Libertarianism? No, it is not approving of homosexuality and pot smoking, despite what many believe. The defining principle of Libertarianism is the “non-aggression principle.”  Simply stated, this principle means that we Libertarians do not believe that an individual should ever be forced through either violence or the threat of violence to do a thing. We believe individuals are created free, and the only way a society can be organized morally is through voluntary associations, not forced ones. When we say we believe individuals should be free from violence or the threat of violence, we include freedom from State violence as well. Wear your seat belt, or we’ll forcibly remove your financial property (fine you), is violence. Pay us a portion of your financial property (taxes), or we will send the police to arrest you, is a violent threat. Don’t sell raw milk to other individuals in a private transaction, or we’ll send a swarm of government agents (which may include an FDA SWAT Team), is violence. We believe that all violence, except that done to repel an aggressor, is wrong, and beneath the dignity of mankind.  And guess what? God agrees with us.

 

There are two great commandments found in Scripture. The first and greatest is, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is like it, you shall love you neighbor as your self.” (Matthew 22:37-40) How does the Bible define loving your neighbor? The best answer to this question is found in the second table of the Law of God, where we are instructed in our duties to our fellow man.

law of God

  1. Honor your father and your mother
  2. You shall not kill
  3. You shall not commit adultery
  4. You shall not steal
  5. You shall not bear false witness
  6. You shall not covet

 

First, when we look at the fifth commandment, we do see implied respect for those in governing authority. I am a limited statist Libertarian, which means I see a role for the state to play, but it is a very small role. We should honor those in authority over us. I want to expand on this more fully, but I will wait to do so in another article.  It’s important that Christians Libertarians learn to integrate Libertarian theory with the presence of governing Biblical authorities. It will suffice for me to say at this point, that the huge, regulatory, all encompassing state we currently live in, is not the “servant of God,” described in Romans 13 as, “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Governments do not create right and wrong. Someone who is a “wrongdoer”, is someone who has violated a moral law, hence they have murdered, broken up a home, stolen, defrauded, or conspired to do those things. The State doesn’t have the power to make up morality, and wherever the State violates or goes beyond the bounds of natural Law (moral law) its authority evaporates, then and there, in the eyes of Almighty God.

What about the rest of the commands in the second table of the Law? Notice there is something very distinct about them. What do they all prohibit? They all prohibit aggression and violence. You shall not kill. Don’t do anything to violate the sacred possession of a person’s body. Mankind possesses life, that which animates the body, it is a precious gift from God, and it shall not be taken.

 

You shall not commit adultery. Sexuality is also a gift from God, but we are not to use and manipulate one another for pleasure’s sake. Don’t damage families by stealing the affections of a mate. Adultery extends to fornication, and fornication is sex outside of sacred covenant. In other words, sons and daughters (unmarried) are not to try and sexually manipulate one another. Adultery and fornication are violent acts against the family, which is the basic building block of any society.  So much poverty and violence are the result of adultery and sexual license.  Prisons are filled with fatherless children, who are now men, with fatherless children themselves.

 

You shall not steal. God is in favor of private property. How can there be a prohibition against theft, unless there is the prior existence of the right of ownership? Once a man has mixed his labor with the natural resources found in the world, those resources, and the medium of exchange (money) gained from the sale of his labor, or the resources he creates with his labor, are his alone, no one else has a right to them. You shall not use violence or manipulation to remove a man’s property, it is his, and it is sacred and inviolable.

 

You shall not lie. You cannot aggress against someone to defraud, or to slander their character. A person’s integrity is also a sacred and inviolable possession. “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches”, and we shall not do any thing with our words to detract from a person’s good name and reputation.

 

Finally, we shall not covet. Restated, we shall not even nurse a desire in our heart to take what belongs to another. Whether we are the State, a private institution, or an individual, the Law of God is the perfect Law of Liberty (James 1:25). In order to obey it and love others, we must leave them alone. That includes the State. The State has no more right to violence and threats of violence than any other institution or individual. The only Biblically moral society, will be a Libertarian one, based on the principle of non-aggression, a non-aggression that is rooted firmly, as we have seen, in the Law of God.

 

The Evangelical Libertarian

leave me alone