In response to Ted Laven’s attempt at decoding Suzanne Collins’ literary symbolism, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Only Ms. Collins knows for sure.  It’s obvious that  we filter what we read through our own life experience and biases, changing the flavor of the “Cliff Notes”  entirely.
As one who has read all three novels in the amazing trilogy not once, but twice, who has been a life-long educator, who currently teaches our United States Constitution and American History as well as current political theory, I have an entirely different perspective.
Where I do agree with Mr. Laven, is that The Hunger Games is a political work of dire prophecy for our nation, if not the world.  As to the perpetrators,  I believe very differently.  When eventually, he reads all three novels, and rereads to sift through the symbolism, I think he’ll be in for a real surprise.
In my opinion, the Capitol represents the left-wing Democratic Party.  The rebels from the underground 13th district (which I believe Mr. Laven has not yet encountered),  represent the right-wing Republican Party.  In the end, our main characters Katniss and Peeta, find  that  the leaders of the Capitol and the Rebels are not so very different at all.  They both support war, torture, corruption, control of the media, absolute power and the sacrifice of innocent children and citizens.  Both leaders hunger for absolute power as often seen in our world today.
Although Mr. Laven blames the Republican Party, who has really perpetuated The Patriot Act?  Both parties  have, including President Obama.  Who passed and signed that frontal assault to our fair trial rights (NDAA sections 1021 & 1022)?  Both parties and President Obama signed it.  These sections declare all of the U.S.A. to be a battlefield, and “belligerents” may be locked up without fair trial rights. I agree about the loss of some of our personal liberties under George W. Bush, but I believe President Obama has far surpassed George W. as far as the disrespect of our Constitution and personal liberties.  Our current President has even taken us into several wars under the approval of the United Nations and NATO instead of Congress. He recently signed  another unconstitutional executive order to control search and seizure of any citizen’s property against their 4th Amendment rights.   We may be required to serve at the order of the government against our wishes. The last time I checked,  involuntary servitude was still unconstitutional by the 13th Amendment.  We’re on the road to becoming Panem, but I see entirely different culprits who are responsible.
The truth, which main character and Hunger Games participant Peeta reveals throughout the second and third novels, is a libertarian message.  He repeatedly warns Katniss, that both sides are corrupt  people who will use her to their own ends.  He encourages her to search deeper for the hidden agendas.  Without my revealing any details, Katniss finally realizes that she has been used and abused by both sides and that the leaders of both the Capitol and Rebels will have to fall.  What she fights for is a free society, free trade among the districts, the rights to the fruits of their labors, fair and simple government, that does not tolerate torture, or sacrifice of its citizens.  Katniss and Peeta stand for the “do no harm” philosophy, which states that what doesn’t hurt anyone else  should not be the business of government.  All these are part of  libertarian philosophy.
Suzanne Collins, I believe, has captured the essence of G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island , a non-fiction expose of the Federal Reserve system and its financial support of a United Nations New World Order. Former president George H.W. Bush was an outspoken proponent of this New World Order, where the wealthy elite globalists will rule just as in Collins’ Capitol.
Many Democrats and Republicans support this New World Order, through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.  David Rockefeller is a staunch supporter and openly wishes for the day that a sovereign U.S.A. is no more, and a U.N. flag flies on every continent.
John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, Bill and Hillary Clinton,  the Bushes,  most of our media moguls,  presidents, cabinet officers,  and some congressmen  from both parties, to name a few, are selling us out to a totalitarian socialistic world.
As far as Mr. Laven’s comments on Republican candidates for President, his descriptions don’t apply to one of the two remaining.  This candidate says that The Creature from Jekyll Island is a must read.  He understands this global New World Order threat and has sponsored legislation to remove us from U.N. membership.  He has  repeatedly tried to get a true audit of the Federal Reserve. He advocates for a sound money policy.  He understands the perfidy of the two-party system and believes with all his heart in our Constitution. He closes his door to all lobbyists, so they stopped coming.  He would end foreign aid and gifts to the International Monetary Fund. He would truly, as commander -in -chief, end our wars.   He would engage us in constitutional defensive war only, when called upon by congress to serve.  He would bring our soldiers home to defend us and close all unnecessary foreign bases worldwide.  These savings would enable our government to honor our contract with seniors and replace social security funds which have been spent and replaced with I.O.U.s.  He would advocate for opt-out programs for our youth so they have a chance at a future retirement.  He truly respects individual liberty and could save a sovereign U.S.A. from world-wide, global socialism.  He could stop Panem from happening.  No, I’m not talking about some fictional character like Superman.  He’s for real. His name is RON PAUL.  He’s stood the test of time and maintained his ethics in a sea of corruption.
While globalist powers from within and without the U.S.A., conspire to bankrupt our country, he has strategies to stop the drain.  New World Order advocates freely talk about their Keynesian Economic strategies that bankrupt us economically.  But they also have worked to bankrupt us morally, intellectually, environmentally and militarily.  Their plan is to redistribute our wealth globally to bring us down to the level of the rest of the third world nations,  thereby making an easier merge for us into a New World Order.  So far, they’re succeeding.  Check out agenda21today.com to see how our industries have been regulated out of business and our local communities are being controlled by the U.N. through unconstitutional presidential executive orders.  It all sounds like a fictional novel doesn’t it?  Unfortunately, it’s all too true.
I encourage every American to read Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy along with G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island and make up your own mind.

For those who don’t know what “constructivism” is, it is an educational theory that, in practice, looks like this in America’s classrooms:

It is students from kindergarten through high school “discovering” their own answers by using manipulatives, working in groups, contriving “real world” problems through “project-based’ activities, moving and talking –a lot, and surviving in a hierarchy of those students who can lead and those who must follow according to their skills.

 It is lots of colorful, jazzy pictures in books and on classroom walls that show many different ethnic groups, women, with gender-neutral stories, and with child-directed activities that only require teacher “facilitation.” Children rule the day.

It is feminized instruction that supports the goal of public education to provide egalitarianism or equity, especially to girls and minorities. That’s the priority placed over building excellence, since excellence smacks of cognitive exceptionalism. That ability is not appreciated nor encouraged where equity is to be the norm in classrooms.

It ridicules practice and repetition as “drill and kill” and believes anything that requires memorization is a waste of time that should be used for “creative” thinking.

It focuses on process, not results. “Process” is the actual “product” of learning.

It believes that if students are having fun, according to perceived “learning styles,” they will like going to school and they will learn the academics they need to prepare for the world of work.

No one will ever be able to determine how many hundreds of thousands of children, who came from dysfunctional, even chaotic, home environments and who entered the constructivist classroom with its lack of boundaries, no right or wrong answers, and the expectation to “discover” their own answers, were shuffled from the “feel-good, tolerant, and fun system” into special education programs. For some strange reason, these kids were declared “discipline” problems. Perhaps if they had be given structure and safety based on routines that established boundaries, along with consistency from adult leaders who taught them about individual responsibility, they would have learned the hidden “rules” of school. What they also deserved was the power that comes from learning proven strategies, true results every time, and a respect for the academic giants who came before them and developed universal lessons from diverse cultures.

Although I had taught journalism, English, and art for several years in the 1960’s and 1970’s, I returned to education in the 1980’s as a special education teacher after working 17 years in journalistic fields. I came to realize that half of my students should not have been placed in that program. Those students were there because of cultural deprivation and poor curricula, not because of organically-caused learning disabilities. Then through the 1990’s and until my retirement in 2006, I taught regular (traditional) math in grades six through twelve in mostly high-risk schools, was a middle school and high school counselor, and a K-12 principal in two very different school districts: One was an Indian reservation and the other in Seattle with a predominantly white, upper-middleclass population. No matter what the environment, however, I learned that my special education training was invaluable with all groups of learners.

For example, many exhibited, even if not diagnosed, the characteristics of ADHD, dyslexia, and SLD (specific learning disabilities). My under-performing gifted kids were in a separate category, although some states do put them under “special education.”

ADHD

This condition is apparent from birth and must be seen in at least two different environments, not suddenly after one month in kindergarten or shifts to the new puberty-driven warehouse of education called “middle school.” (A sixth grade teacher once asked me, “When do we get to call it just ‘bad behavior’?”)

Nonetheless, for those who were diagnosed with ADHD, and those who weren’t but who were as inattentive and wiggly, I used the same techniques:

· Act, don’t yak. The more you talk to an ADHD student, the more he gets lost. That includes working in group projects.

· Assign them to men teachers, if possible, because men are usually more goal-driven and less talkative. ADHD students want to know the bottom line.

· If you want to change behavior, change the academics. Make lessons and teaching structured, short, and frequently rewarded. (Even one sticker works.)

· Keep wall decorations to a minimum. One big, interesting poster is great for discussion and focus. Forget all the ceiling mobiles, color-drenched walls, etc.

· Give students permission to move their bodies, whether to lie on the floor, sit on a rotating stool, or stand at a bookcase as they write. The more they are in movement with others, however, they can become agitated as they “lose” their direction and perspective on what’s happening.

· In essence, be clear, direct, and honest (no phony praise). They’ll love you for it.

Dyslexia

While there are no studies to prove it, many of us in education believe the “whole language” fad of the 1980’s helped exacerbate a learning condition called dyslexia. This is an organic auditory problem where a child cannot hear the correct sounds of letters. Phonemic and spelling books were closeted during the 1980’s because they were considered too mechanical and boring in their purpose. Instead, children were to be exposed to great literature and discuss their own “personal” stories. (This made learning more “relevant” to them.) Somehow, they would absorb the rules of grammar and spelling. Instead, we produced a generation who could not spell, write simple sentences, and read. It was like teaching children to play the piano by ear rather than by learning the sounds of the notes and requiring practice to master those sounds. Since students weren’t taught phonics from a good phonemic awareness curriculum, they couldn’t read. They were then labeled “dyslexic” and shuffled to remediation/special education programs.

Most dyslexics, like ADHD students, reveal a high intelligence once they get past their processing “disability.” Interestingly, constructivists claim to focus on “processing.” Yet they have disdain for concrete, precise, and universal strategies that help correct episodic processing deficiencies.

Specific Learning Disabilities

When special education students are included in regular classrooms, they need structure, consistent rules and expectations, a sense of safety given by regular routines, and teacher-directed learning. This is not the atmosphere found in constructivist classrooms. Of course, the dynamics of a carefully selected, mixed ability classroom can indeed work with an organized and talented teacher. There are such teachers out there for mixed classrooms. Mostly, there are not because there are few “carefully mixed” classes.

Special Note: The move in 1989 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to bring equity to girls and minorities in math classrooms meant a giant move toward feminization of mathematics instruction. This would be a major blow to boys since the majority of special education placement was already for male students, particularly those with ADHD diagnoses. The NCTM president in 1996 explained in a radio interview that girls and minorities couldn’t learn math like “white males.” The 2,000-year-old discipline of mathematics, created by diverse cultures around the world, was now pronounced as destructive to girls and minorities. Its “traditional” approach of linear thinking, practice, and memorization of multiplication tables, was only learnable by white boys (and Asians).

This meant new materials and methods would avoid any “traditional” teaching methods. Basic skills that required memorization (which helps build memory capacity) were also seen as unnecessary because students could use calculators and computers for short term expediency. The result has been a hatred for math among all “sub-groups” of students, a $4 billion private tutoring industry mostly for math, and an unyielding failure rate of American students entering advanced math and science studies.

Under-Performing Gifted Students

The push for egalitarianism was also designed to ignore exceptional, or gifted, students. The all-inclusive classroom where special ed students were blended with regular and gifted students produced another fad called “differentiated learning.” This is a teacher’s nightmare to plan. It is, therefore, usually an unproductive environment for most students.

In the inclusive classroom, a teacher ends up focusing on the neediest children because that is the goal for egalitarians. The regular and gifted students are considered able to fend for themselves. They aren’t. They lose academic opportunities and growth. And they lose their patience, as most humans do when their needs are continually dismissed or openly ignored. A gifted student will shut down as much as any special ed student because he hasn’t learned basic and general strategies on how to approach a solution. Neither one wants to look dumb. “Better to be thought that way than prove it,” they say.

One of the saddest stories I heard was from Dr. Ruby Payne, who conducts professional development training for teachers who work with students and adults from poverty. She explained that third grade African American boys who showed signs of giftedness were often labeled “emotionally disturbed” and placed in special education. (ADHD children’s symptoms also mirror those of gifted children.) Part of that problem resulted from not knowing how to measure giftedness outside of scores on math and reading tests. Another part was in seeing giftedness as exceptionalism and that was to be downplayed. These children then became under-performing or major disciplinary problems as their own needs, often ones that saw them wanting to work alone, weren’t met in the highly interactive, noisy, motion-filled classrooms designed, teachers thought, to meet lower-performing students’ needs (girls and minorities, except Asians).

Summary

For almost three decades, I personally saw that when children were given explicit, step-driven instruction with consistent consequences of positive results, along with direct teacher support, they learned their required academics no matter what their gender, race, economic status, or intelligence level. This methodology has now been proven according to an article published this month in the American Federation of Teachers’ magazine, American Educator ( http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf).

I therefore believe the radical and destructive implementation of constructivist ideology in education has increased the numbers of students in public schools being labeled “special education” or in the development of characteristics of special needs students.

It is unlikely that anyone can ever tally the unbelievable human and financial costs of education fads in America, with constructivism being the Big Daddy of them all. Education decision-makers grabbed onto unproven and unproductive methods with which they trained and evaluated teachers. Government entities like the National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Education pumped almost $100 million into the new, unproven curricula and training materials in the 1990’s alone. Private businesses and more non-state government groups are now getting into the picture. Billions of dollars are at stake today, yet no one acknowledges the importance of weak and incoherent curricula on teacher training. Meanwhile, the same members of the leadership circle that have brought American students to their knees are still in charge. The question is “Why?”

Since removal of those leaders seems impossible, local districts can at least offer parents a choice within each school: Do they want their child to follow traditional, explicit curricula or that of the constructivist/reform model? Just once, it would be great to hear an honest answer as to why this can’t be done. And it’s not about money.

YOUR SILENCE GIVES THESE GROUPS POWER.

Nakonia (Niki) Hayes, author

Jose Lugo, editor, ddtv.org

lugo@ddtv.org

Speaking about the criminal justice system on his “700 Club” television program, Robertson remarked that it was a “shocking statistic” that the United States has “the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on the face of the Earth.” Then he said something few “law and order” conservatives – and especially Christian conservatives – would dare to say: “More and more prisons, more and more crime. It’s just shocking, especially this business about drug offenses. It’s time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can’t do it anymore…You don’t lock ‘em up for booze unless they kill somebody on the highway.”

This is not the first time that Robertson has come out for the legalization of marijuana. Back in 2010, he raised the same points:

We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences.

I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

Not everyone at the Christian Broadcasting Network, however, shared Robertson’s views. A spokesman claimed that Robertson “did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana.” He was merely “advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals.”

Pat Robertson is exactly correct on the subject of marijuana possession. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he favors the legalization of other drugs or even the fully legalized cultivation, sale, and distribution of marijuana, but it does raise the important question of whether Christians should support the war on drugs.

Although I am a theological and cultural conservative, and neither advocate nor condone the use of mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances, I believe that Christians shouldn’t support the government’s war on drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, obesity, dietary fat, cholesterol, cancer, and tobacco.

Not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else do so whether they are legal or illegal, I would rather see people use drugs than the government wage war on them for doing so.

As a believer in moral absolutes, I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, but I also consider the government’s war on drugs to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral.

As an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament, I regard drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should avoid even as they avoid supporting the government’s war on drugs.

As a Christian, I oppose root and branch every facet of the government’s war on drugs just as much as I oppose the use of drugs themselves.

Yes, I know I am being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. So let me make myself perfectly clear: drugs are bad. Smoking crack is evil. Getting high on marijuana cigarettes or brownies is a vice. Snorting cocaine is destructive. Shooting up with heroin is sinful. Swallowing ecstasy is immoral. Injecting yourself with crystal meth is dangerous. But none of these things means that there should be a law against doing any of them. And it is a myth that those who favor marijuana legalization or drug decriminalization just want to get high without being hassled by the police. Pat Robertson certainly doesn’t. And I certainly don’t either.

There are many reasons why Christians should not support the war on drugs.

Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate drugs, let alone criminalize their manufacture, sale, and use. Just like the government has no authority to control what Americans choose to eat, drink, smoke, inject, absorb, snort, sniff, inhale, swallow, or otherwise ingest into their bodies.

Philosophically, it is not the purpose of government to be a nanny state that monitors the behavior of its citizens. It is simply not the purpose of government to protect people from bad habits or harmful substances or punish people for risky behavior or vice. Drug prohibition is impossible to reconcile with a limited government.

Pragmatically, the war on drugs should be ended because it is a complete and total failure. As I have pointed out many times, the war on drugs has failed to prevent drug abuse, reduce drug trafficking, or reduce the demand for drugs. It has ruined more lives than drugs themselves.

Practically, the war on drugs should be ended because all it does is clog the judicial system, unnecessarily swell prison populations, foster violence, corrupt law enforcement, hinder legitimate pain treatment, and unreasonably inconvenience retail shopping.

Medically, the war on drugs is misguided. In a study by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, it was alcohol that ranked as the “most harmful drug,” beating out heroin, crack cocaine, and ecstasy. And then there is the fact that tens of thousands of people die every year from prescription drugs and reactions to over-the-counter drugs like aspirin.

Financially, the costs of drug prohibition far outweigh the benefits. According to a 2010 study by the Cato Institute, spending on the drug war tops $41 billion a year. What have we gotten for this except the militarization of the police, the erosion of civil liberties, and the destruction of financial privacy?

Theologically, and most importantly, there is no warrant in the New Testament for Christians to support a war on drugs by the government. And it is the theological reason that I wish to focus on.

Christian Inconsistency and Hypocrisy

It is unfortunate that many Christians – and probably most conservative Christians – are supporters of legislation to prohibit the doing of things like taking drugs that libertarians would consider to be victimless crimes and therefore not crimes at all. This support is inconsistent and hypocritical.

Getting stoned on crack or tripping out on LSD is, of course, not mentioned in the Bible. The closest thing would be getting drunk, which is definitely condemned:

Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying (Romans 13:13)

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (Ephesians 5:18)

Yet, every bad thing that could be said regarding drug abuse could also be said of alcohol abuse – and then some.

Alcohol abuse is a factor in many drownings, home, pedestrian, car, and boating accidents, suicides, fires, violent crimes, child abuse cases, sex crimes, divorces, and fetal abnormalities. The number one killer of young people under twenty-five is alcohol-related automobile accidents. Alcohol abuse is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. It can also be a contributing factor in cases of cancer, mental illness, and cirrhosis of the liver.

Although the manufacture and sale of alcohol is heavily regulated by the federal and state governments, anyone is free to drink as much as he wants in his own home without fear of reprisal. Except for a small number who want to return to the days of Prohibition, Christians are woefully inconsistent and hypocritical when they call for the government to wage war on drugs but not on alcohol.

Sin and Crime

We know that murder, robbery, and rape are both crimes and sins, but everything the state or the authorities brand a crime is not necessarily a sin. This has been true in all ages.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew midwives were commanded by the state to kill any newborn sons (Exodus 1:16). But because “the midwives feared God,” they “did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive” (Exodus 1:17).

In the book of Daniel, we read that King Nebuchadnezzar “made an image of gold” (Daniel 3:1) and decreed that when the music started, everyone was to “fall down and worship the golden image” (Daniel 3:5). The three Hebrew children – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – defied the king and refused to worship the golden image, for which they were cast into a burning fiery furnace (Daniel 3:18-20).

In the New Testament, the apostles Peter and John were imprisoned by the authorities for preaching and then brought before them and commanded “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). But instead of being in subjection, they replied: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20).

After this incident, some apostles were again brought before the authorities and asked: “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28). It was then that the apostles uttered the immortal line: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

No Christian could read these accounts and say with a straight face that everything the state labels a crime is a sin. The Bible is very clear about what sin is. Sin is “whatsoever is not of faith” (Romans 14:23). Sin is transgressing the divine law (1 John 3:14). Sin is knowing to do good and doing it not (James 4:17). Sin is “all unrighteousness” (1 John 5:17). But if not all crimes are sins, then why are some Christians often so quick to nod in agreement when it comes to the state’s war on drugs? The only explanation is that some Christians think that disobeying the state is itself a crime. They have made the state into a god. They have violated the First Commandment.

But taking drugs to get high is a sin, says the Christian drug warrior. Agreed. But should it be a crime?

Victimless Crimes

There is another side of sin/crime coin: not all sins are crimes. If they were, then everyone would be in trouble, Christians included, for the Bible says that “there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Saying that not all sins are crimes is just a Christian way of rephrasing what was said by the nineteenth-century classical liberal political philosopher Lysander Spooner:

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

No Christian would be in favor of criminalizing all sins. Not when the Bible says that “the thought of foolishness is sin” (Proverbs 24:9). Why, then, are some Christians so quick to applaud making some sins criminal just because the state happens to select them and not others?

There are two types of victimless crimes: the immoral and the moral. This is because God’s law never changes. What the state declares to be a crime one day can be declared not to be a crime the next day. Immoral victimless crimes are crimes that are sins in the eyes of God even if the state one day declares them not to be crimes; moral victimless crimes are crimes that have been labeled as such by the state that are not, in and of themselves, sins in the eyes of God. But either way, every crime needs a victim.

Christian Ignorance

The Christian’s ultimate rule of faith is the New Testament, not canon law, church tradition, church councils, papal decrees, creeds and confessions, the musings of televangelists, the opinions of theologians, the sermons of some popular preacher, denominational pronouncements, church covenants, and not even the Old Testament, although “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4).

There is no support in the New Testament for the idea that Christians should seek legislation that would criminalize victimless acts like taking drugs. Specific sins are mentioned that are in fact crimes, like murder (Romans 1:29), stealing (Ephesians 4:28), rioting (Romans 13:13), and extortion (1 Corinthians 6:10). But what we mainly see in the New Testament are admonitions about how Christians should behave:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. (Romans 12:17)

As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men. (Galatians 6:10)

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth. (Ephesians 4:29)

Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

Then there are the lists of vices for Christians to avoid: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, covetousness, anger, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication, effeminacy, idolatry, hatred, strife, reveling, witchcraft, evil speaking, envy, lying, and bitterness. Should people be fined or jailed for these things if they don’t result in harm to someone else’s person or property? Then why should they be fined or jailed for taking drugs?

There are no indications anywhere in the New Testament that Christians should seek or support making these things crimes. Where did the Apostle Paul, in his travels throughout the Roman Empire, ever express support for any type of legislation? When did he ever tell people who were not Christians how they should live their lives? It is unfortunate that many Christians who support the drug war would support legislation against almost anything they considered to be bad behavior – as long as it stopped short of their particular vice.

Christian Failure

It is not the purpose of Christianity to change society as a whole outwardly; it is the purpose of Christianity to change men as individuals inwardly. The Christian is in the world, but not of the world. He is to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11), not legislate against them. The Christian is to “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Christians are to pray for those in authority that they (Christians) “may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Timothy 2:2). The attitude of the Christian should be to mind his “own business” (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and not be “a busybody in other men’s matters” (1 Timothy 4:15).

I believe that Christians have for the most part failed to fulfill their calling. Instead of making converts and instructing them in the biblical precepts of Christian living, they turn to the state to criminalize what they consider to be immoral behavior. Instead of changing people’s minds about what is and what is not acceptable in society, they seek to use the state to change people’s behavior. Instead of being an example to the world, they want to use the state to make the world conform to their example. Instead of educating themselves and other Christians about what is appropriate behavior, they rely on the state to make that determination. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they want the state to assume those roles. Instead of minding their own business, they mind everyone else’s business.

Christian Folly

Christians are making a grave mistake by looking to the state to legislate morality. The state is no real friend of religion, and especially not of Christianity. Why do so many Christians defend, support, and make excuses for the state, its politicians, its legislation, and its wars? Why would Christians even think of looking to the state to enforce their moral code?

It is not the purpose of Christianity to use force or the threat of force to keep people from sinning. Christians who are quick to criticize Islamic countries for prescribing and proscribing all manner of behavior are very inconsistent when they support the same thing here. A Christian theocracy is just as unscriptural as an Islamic theocracy.

But instead of greeting with a healthy dose of skepticism the state’s latest pronouncement about what substance needs to be banned, regulated, or taxed, many Christians wholeheartedly embrace it. Instead of looking internally for funding, they look to the state to fund their faith-based initiatives.

Most Christians simply have too high a view of the state. They are too quick to rely on the state, trust the state, and believe the state. Sure, they may criticize the state because it permits abortion, but they generally fail to discern the state’s true nature.

Economist William Anderson has summed it up nicely:

Most conservative Christians abhor libertarianism because they see it as promoting a permissive lifestyle, from abortion to taking drugs. Yet, what they fail to understand is that the restrictive, prohibition-oriented state that they are trying to create (and also preserve) is much more likely to take away all liberties than a state that gives people permission to live as they wish.

Conclusion

Although drug abuse is a great evil, the war on drugs is an even greater evil. Christians should not compound these evils by supporting a war on behavior the government doesn’t approve it. If getting high is against God’s law. Then, as columnist Charley Reese once said: “Presumably God will enforce his own laws. You won’t find in the Christian Bible any passage that says the responsibility for enforcing God’s laws rests with the secular state.” And furthermore:

Christianity is a personal religion, not a tribal or state religion. If you wish to be a Christian, then you have a personal obligation to obey the commands of the Christian religion. Whether someone else does or does not is of no concern to you. You can be a devout, scrupulously pure Christian in the midst of the most outrageous sinners. Your obligation is to obey God’s commandments, not to compel someone else to do it.

It is simply not biblical to promote legislation or crusades to punish sin that does not aggress against person or property. The proper approach to the problem of drug abuse was wisely spoken by the late economist Ludwig von Mises:

He who wants to reform his countrymen must take resource to persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing about changes. If a man fails in his endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas, he should blame his own disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police.

That is the spirit of New Testament Christianity. It’s just unfortunate that it is a nonreligious Jew expressing such an opinion instead of the typical evangelical Christian.

Laurence M. Vance, author

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

They were wrong.

Socialism is alive and well today, and is in fact working on a comeback. This is really strange, because Socialism has a 100% failure rate everywhere it was tried.

And you thought your in-laws were thickheaded.

If anything, socialism can now be counted as a historical nuisance. The reason I say this is the obvious evidence of the “Occupy Wall Street Movement”, and  because of reports stating that the organizers are socialist or progressives or even outright communists. Oh, and I did actually see the Red Hammer and Sickle flag being carried in the Occupy Movement by the CPUSA (Communist Party USA).

But why is this? Most people agree that socialism failed everywhere it was tried, but yet it keeps popping up every now and then. But to look at this from a historical perspective, this has been going on since way before Karl Marx raised his pen.

For example, the Essenes who lived about 2,000 years ago near where the state of Israel is today; lived a life where there was no personal property, ate communal meals, had no slaves, had no money, they even shared the same clothes which were stored in a communal house. Karl Marx would have been proud of them; it was the perfect communist life, the workers utopia. But all the Essenes just disappeared around the first century and nobody knows why. Perhaps they just got tired of communal poverty and wanted a better life, or maybe they were conquered by an enemy. But either way they’re all gone– just  like all such communities.

Some scholars have said that the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 actually used socialist ideas to govern the colony. Some writers describe the governing philosophy of the pilgrims as:

 ”It was said that each person shall receive equal rewards, regardless of the work performed” — this is clearly a socialist ideal. 

Half of them starved to death that first winter. In the spring some Indians came to help them out and they also adopted new rules that allowed private lots of land for each Pilgrim to grow his own food. They then produced enough food for themselves and had a big party with the Indians that we now call Thanksgiving. In other words, socialism failed and free enterprise saved them.

So, Karl Marx was not the new kid on the block as far as socialism goes. But why is this, why does this happen all the time and then just fade away?

A more recent example was the Israeli Kibbutz movement. The basic founding principal was socialist, where everybody shared equally  in the work and the rewards of the communal labor. But, from 270 Kibbutz communities that started out in 1948, today they are all gone.

Other groups that tried the communal life-style are the Spanish Anarchist movement in Spain, the Paris Commune, the Bohemian movement of the 1950s and the Hippie commune movement in America in the 1960s. But, they’re all gone now.

Actually, it just may be that way back in the day, before we were civilized (some say we never were civilized, but whatever), we all most likely lived the communal life, like some communities still do in South America and Africa. And, there is a reason for this; mostly because when food is scarce and difficult to get, communal sharing is a survival strategy thats better than starving to death; but once people get past bare survival, they want a better more comfortable life, something better than communal poverty.

But since we were living in the wild longer (millions of years) than we have been living in cities (about 3,000 years) it may be in our genetic material to live a communal life. But drinking wine under a shade tree can get real boring real fast, there are better more exciting things to do in life. Or, to put this in a better way; the communal life of equal poverty is just not compatible with civilization where we have super markets for food and medical care for longer life spans. Civilization also developed things like the Internet, TV, cars etc. which are also nice; so people move on to the next step in evolution and a better life.

Despite this, Karl Marx invented a new kind of communal life that was forced on the people  by a powerful central government headed by the so-called most intelligent people in society, that controlled everything from the news organizations, industry, housing, medical care, pensions–everything; so that everybody can be equal and so not be exploited by rich capitalists. This of course established the most fertil ground for control freaks the world has ever seen. People like Joseph Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim. These people killed millions of people, Russia killed 20 million, China 50 million, Cuba 17,000, Viet Nam – Cambodia 2 million. A worst death toll than World War II. 

The system Karl Marx thought was better than Capitalism, turned out to be thousands of times worse than Capitalism. Eventhough capitalism produces scandals like the recent Home Mortgage scam where they sold home mortgages to people who could not afford them, or the adjustable mortgage rate scam that raised mortgage payments to levels that the home owners could not afford, and so they went bankrupt. The banks thought they could get a lot of houses cheap and so make large profits. This worked just too well and they were swamped with so many houses that they could not sell them all; so bankruptcies erupted and the whole housing market collapsed. But the Karl Marx plan to replace Capitalism with mass murder and communial poverty is certainly much worse. 

However, it’s the Mortgage scam that started the Occupy Wall Street movement;  but they don’t  realize that socialism is a throw back to the stone age that we left behind for good reasons.

Today the communist movement is promoting itself with slogans like income equality, social justice, tax the rich and spread the wealth, but if you look closely at these sayings, the communist meaning behind them is clear. Also, the communist movement is different today because it’s blaming America for its failures, instead of looking at its major flaw, namely its lack of incentive for working people: If a poor person is given all they need to survive, then they have no incentive to improve and educate themselves; if a well off person who works hard has most of their earnings taken away in taxes, they have no incentive to work hard; so all of society suffers because of this social rot that socialism causes.

Despite the flaws of communist forms of government and its basic philosophy, most communists do not want to hear this. They in fact self-censor themselves by thinking criticisms are the lies of the bourgeoisie, then there is also the before mentioned genetic factor.  So, this problem will remain with society for a long time to come, if not forever. The only practical solution for this is to have our schools stop teaching to the test, and start teaching our students to think and look at real history. Also, we have to realize that because of our genetic history, we need a sense of community.  That cut throat capitalism and our current system of over taxing half the population, while giving the other half, free cell phones and rent free housing is also not fair; this tears populations apart and destroys our urgent need for a sense of community.

A good idea as to the state of socialism in America today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said in a Congressional hearing involving the Oil Companies:

“This liberal will be all about  socializing ——–(long pause)——-will be about basically taking over and the government running all your companies”.

What Maxine Waters is talking about is communism because in a communist state the government controls all industries. So there are people in America today who are working to establish communism in America, and communists do have a long history proving that they are capable of taking over governments. But like I said before, communism always fails, the only question here is; how many times must humanity go through the trauma  and pain of communist experiments which always fail? Karl Marx was wrong.

When will they ever learn?

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

lugo@ddtv.org

www.ddtv.org

Iran has antagonized Israel for a long time now by saying “Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth” and their development of nuclear technology supports this. But will Israel attack first? Most likely they will, but not the way most people think they will.

Think about this. Iran is so far away from Israel, that its bombers will have to refuel in mid-air with aerial tankers over hostile territory with  lots of surface-to-air missiles everywhere. So,  mid air refueling is not likely to be successful.

It could be technically possible for a bombing raid to attack parts of Iran from an American aircraft carrier battle group from the Persian Gulf, something like the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Japan in World War II, but the dysfunctional government in Washington D.C. is not likely to allow this.

If you start thinking about a missile attack, this starts to make some sense, because Israel most likely has missiles with the range and a good load capacity. Also, a missile gains such speed that its something like an artillery shell that’s very heavy and travels at such high speeds that there’s very little that can be done to stop it. Think of it this way, if the missile is the type that separates from the booster rocket, the warhead  is about the size of a small suit case that travels at the speed of a bullet, then you can see why its so hard to defend against.

So, if you start thinking in terms of a missile attack, things start to look workable, but another problem pops up. Iran made the mistake of burying its nuclear research facilities deep under ground under rock mountains, the only type of bomb that may penetrate enough to do some real damage is the bunker-buster bomb that was developed by the American Army, but another problem pops up here. The bunker buster is so heavy that it requires a really big aircraft bomber to lift just one of them. To use a missile to lift it would require a Saturn 5 rocket of the type that was used on moon missions; these are no longer being made and Israel  does not have any of them.

But if Israel somehow overcomes all of the above difficulties and launches a successful attack on Iran; Iran will certainly not stand by, an attack on Israel is guaranteed. They will immediately attack Israel with the full force of its million man army with all of its modern weapons. Also, all of Iran’s allies will also attack Israel from all sides. Even if America defends Israel, its doubtful if America can defend Israel from the whole Mid East Muslim world. Israel will be wiped off the face of the Earth, just like Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad said would happen.

This is why Iran is being so arrogant about this, they are sure Israel can not attack their nuclear facilities.

This leads to the final conclusion, and I pray to God to make me wrong about this.

Israel does have the  option to launch a full scale nuclear missile attack on Iran and its entire army. In fact, if you consider all the problems involved in an attack on Iran; a nuclear attack may be the only way Israel can attack Iran.

Such an attack will cause so many nuclear explosions to occur that it will be the nuclear nightmare come true with radiation spreading over large sections of the world. Millions will be dead, millions more burned and smashed beyond belief. Hell on Earth will be a reality.

If anybody has any doubts that Israel would do this, remember that Israel has repeatedly said  :

“Next time, the Jews will not go quietly”.

Also, remember that Israel has a long history of doing what it thinks is necessary for its survival, and world opinion be dammed.

But as I keep hoping that I am wrong about this, there is the hope that Israel may just fire one or two nuclear warning shots, like America did to Japan during World War II with two bombs and maybe just take out only one or two cities. This did bring sense to Japan and World War II did come to an end because of this nuclear attack.

As for the worlds so called leaders, they are not talking about this, maybe they’re just not thinking right now, not that they ever think about anything. 

But if a nuclear attack does happen, will it have the same effect as the attack on Japan? It is sure that the entire Muslim world will be shocked into a chilling silence. Talk of killing the infidel will come to an end, because it will be realized that such talk has consequences that are the ultimate nightmare. Strangely, a sort of peace just may come over the world,  this may cause a stop to the mindless terrorist attacks launched by Muslim religious fanatics. Money diverted to war machines will be used once again for peaceful reasons. Will  good come out of mass slaughter?

This will be too horrible a way to achieve peace in the Mid East. But if Israel  realizes this at this time, it will only be another reason to attack. And remember diplomacy and sanctions did not work.

Peace could have come easily if Israel could just have realized that instead of throwing Palestinians out of their homes, they should have given them financial compensation for their loss; I do not recall the word “Compassion” or “Compensation” used in any of the so called  peace talks. And if only the Muslims could have realized that hatred is not the solution for anything, peace maybe achieved and war averted.

 But it may be too late for any talks now, unless the world can realize the position Israel is in now, then maybe peace can be achieved.

I pray to God to make this peace process begin now, before its too late. We are on the brink of a disaster the world has never seen.

Jose Lugo, editor DDTV.ORG

www.ddtv.org

lugo@ddtv.org

It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty.  Recently, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of “Separation of Church and State.”  Then it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens.  I attribute this to the dismal state of our education system.  We the people are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value.  Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence.  Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the “worthy” have really taken advantage of this gross negligence.  If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?

Our legal education system is not any better.  Rulings that fly in the face of our founders’ intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges.  In a recent example a US District Judge, Marco A. Hernandez has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not.   This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blogsites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the title of journalist.  After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corp or paid by top media corporations.  We definitely cannot accept someone who considers themselves a “blogger” and only prints on the internet as a REAL Journalist!

That is exactly what this federal judge has done.  Oregon statute reads:

“[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public”

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:

“fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

I am amazed at the focus of this Judge.  He has taken the examples in the statute as the litmus test for determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements “any medium of communication to the public” and “not limited to”.  Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink.  This stinks of motive.  But the Judge is not finished with his definition of media.   He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be “media” she must show…

 “evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.”

This time, however, the Judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition.  This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own.  I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard.  I know for fact that today’s “journalists” fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks.  I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media?  Because Ms. Cox does not fit this Judge’s internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.

 Would our founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards?  What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.?  These committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government.  Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth.  The committees of correspondence provided this truth.  They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.

I’m sure Thomas Paine would’ve landed on this federal judge’s chopping block, as well.  After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications.  We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny.  Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a “journalist” under this judge’s guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn’t interview “the other side” to get both sides of the story.  She didn’t have to, she was living it. 

But how did our founders intend to handle this “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press”?  The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton’s as he states in Federalist Papers 84.  

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very liberty that they hoped to protect.  He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the very excuse to do so through definition and regulation.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press.  He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty.  Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Fed 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.”  Madison continues to specifically list those powers as “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”  Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it. 

Hamilton’s greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty.   Here we are, fulfilling Hamilton’s greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration. 

Our Constitution and our Liberty is in peril because our legal professionals have no idea the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our founders put into its provisions.  Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning.  They cannot do as John Adams commanded, “have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it”, and ensure a “free republican government” when they are ignorant of the founder’s intent.  

We the people must fill this void.  We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support the Constitution.  Reading it is not enough.  Knowing case law is not enough.  Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be.  Otherwise we just end up pooling our ignorance.  In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

Embarrassingly for Washington’s hawks, two recent US national intelligence estimates so far support the ayatollah’s assertions that Iran’s nuclear program is strictly for power generation.

However, US allies on the UN’s Atomic Energy Agency continue to raise questions as to the intent of the Iranian program, without producing any hard proof of warlike intent.

 Israel is straining every muscle to push the US into war against Iran, as it did in 2002-2003 with Iraq, thus sparing itself the difficult task. The recent string of murders of Iranian scientists appears designed to provoke Iran into a retaliation that would set in motion a full-scale war. So far, Iran has refrained from any retaliation.

The powerful US pro-Israel lobby and its Christian fundamentalist allies (now 44% of all Republican voters) have gotten Congress to impose new sanctions aimed at sharply curtailing Iran’s oil exports – in effect, economic all-out warfare that could spark a shooting war. A war, like Afghanistan and Iraq, that the US bankrupt government will finance through borrowed money, not taxes.

Israel’s rightwing Likud Party is using the non-existent threat of Iranian nuclear attack to divert attention from the burning issue of Palestine, and from Israel’s own internal economic problems and protests.

America’s media is baying for Iran’s blood. We just saw Republican presidential candidates – Ron Paul and John Huntsmen excepted – vying to sound the most bloodthirsty over Iran.

Candidate Newt Gingrich got $5 million of indirect support from an American casino mogul who is a major financial backer of Israel’s West Bank settlers and expansionist Likud Party.

My assessment is that America’s military does not want war with Iran. Muscle-flexing yes to back up muscular diplomacy, but not a full-scale conflict involving repeated air and naval strikes against a minimum of 3,200 Iranian military and civilian targets, according to US Navy senior sources.

America’s warplanes are aging or nearly worn out after Afghanistan and Iraq. Falling military budgets will make aircraft, missiles, bombs and ships harder and harder to replace.

The US has been at war about every five years or so since the 1950’s. With 1,000 bases around the globe and 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, the Pentagon can no longer afford to project global power just as it’s getting involved into East and West Africa, now America’s leading source of non-North American oil. US military spending already accounts for almost half the global total.

 All wars are unpredictable; all carefully laid plans break down after the first shot is fired. The Pentagon rightly fears it will get sucked into a wider war against Iran – including ground operations in which Iran could effectively fight back against US forces.

The vulnerability to attack by Iranian special forces of US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and even Central Asia is of great concern to the Pentagon’s Central Command.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became a celebrated hero in the war against Iraq for leading deep penetration raids into enemy territory.

For its part, Iran seems to be foolishly going out of its way to goad and challenge the US and its allies. Last week, Tehran trumpeted that it was producing more 20% enriched uranium at a new underground plant at Fordow.

Few westerners understand anything about nuclear technology, never mind making weapons. To them, the Iranian announcement translated into “Iranian Nuclear Weapons!” Iran’s foes were delighted.

Iranian hardliners have told me they welcome war with the US. “The Americans will break their teeth on Iran!”

Brave words, but we heard similar foolhardy boasts from Iraqis in 2003.

Hot air, posturing and national egos can lead to disastrous real war – one that neither side wants, Israel excepted.

Fortunately, some wiser heads in Tehran – where figuring out who is really in charge is always a challenge – are letting in a new bunch of UN nuclear inspectors at month end and talking about more talks.

The Obama administration, showing more mettle than usual, has reportedly told Israel not to attack Iran without prior US approval.

A war over Iran is totally unnecessary and would be a major disaster for all concerned. But it could happen any day.

January 19, 2012

Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

Copyright © 2012 Eric Margolis

Still, I wouldn’t hire Ron Paul…

… to fix my car. He could be a backyard automotive tinkerer for all I know. But there is no public evidence to that effect. And I sure wouldn’t hire him to do eye surgery.

He’s not that kind of doctor.

Nor would I hire him to structure a leveraged buyout or manage a hostile corporate takeover. He’s not experienced in those things. In fact, for something like that, or to run a private equity firm that does corporate turnarounds, I actually might hire Mitt Romney. It seems he has both experience and demonstrable success in that area.

But I certainly wouldn’t hire Romney to be president.

Especially now.

With the global doomsday debt clock ticking down, the dollar’s world reserve currency status unwinding, and the American dream clearly beginning to fade, we desperately need someone knowledgeable about the economic principles and monetary policies that have gotten us into this mess.

Someone who knows how to get us out.

And that wouldn’t include Mitt Romney.

With all the demands of amassing his substantial personal fortune, Mitt has clearly been too busy to spend any time learning about the Federal Reserve and its role in our perpetual sequence of bubbles and busts, or studying Hayek to find out why state central economic planning must fail, or learning about money and credit from Mises.

It is unfortunate that people tend to confuse some of these financial and economic matters, imagining skills in one to be interchangeable with knowledge about the other. But they are not the same thing.

If Mitt Romney understood the key economic issues of our time, he wouldn’t have voted for TARP, Bush’s $700 billion bailout bill in 2008.

Did it do anything for the real estate market as promised?

No.

Did it do anything for employment or the debt crisis?

No.

After years, we still have depression era levels of unemployment and 45 million Americans on food stamps. And a national debt that has exploded from $9 trillion when the recession began to $15 trillion today.

Romney asserts the tired and the unverifiable: that if the Keynesians’ pump-more-money-into-the-popped-bubble crowd hadn’t done what they did, things would really be bad.

That’s a good self-exonerating line that the crowd plays over and over. But it is they themselves who did exactly what they have done for generations, blowing up one bubble after another.

Or, stated differently, they sold us the map that marched us into the swamp to begin with. And then they sold us another bogus $700 billion map that was supposed to lead us out.

Only it didn’t.

One could charitably say that Mitt understands none of this. Or cynically, that while TARP did nothing for homeowners in places like Kansas City, or for the unemployed in Modesto, it sure did something for Wall Street.

If Romney understood the Federal Reserve, he might not support its chairmen and its mission. But because Romney hasn’t devoted time to understanding central banking perhaps it needs to be described to him in a way that a corporate turnaround professional can understand.

What would Romney say about a hundred year old family-owned company whose outside management had destroyed 96 percent of the value of the company’s product?

Because that’s exactly what the Fed has done to the value of the dollar.

Would any self-respecting equity manager say, as Romney has said of the Fed, that such malfeasance doesn’t deserve his effort or focus? What if a closer look revealed just how much the company’s directors had prospered by their destruction of the family wealth? Would that be worth Romney’s attention?

It might be said that Mitt is altogether pleased that the nation’s monetary affairs are arranged to benefit investment bankers at the expense of the people. But if that is too cynical, it could be more charitably said that he just hasn’t had time to master the arcane world of central banking.

That’s fine.

But then Romney simply shouldn’t offer himself up as president.

Especially now.

Of course the very busy Mitt Romney seems to have given no more thought to American foreign policy than to the bailouts and the Fed. His glib call for a new American century of global military dominance has the anachronistic ring of someone who missed all the unintended consequences of our propping up sheiks and shahs and dictators around the world. And of someone who slept right through Bush’s elective war in Iraq. It sounds like someone who is completely clueless about the way the $1.2 trillion a year we spend on the national security state has bankrupted this country.

Romney says that if he knew then what we know now about Iraq, he wouldn’t have gone in.

That’s not good enough.

Because plenty of people knew then what we know now.

Ron Paul was clear that Iraq posed no threat to the security of this country. He knew that the war was being undertaken without constitutional authorization and that rather than an affair of days or weeks that we were told, he said that Bush’s splendid little war would be the biggest since World War II. He foresaw that the war would be accompanied by the growth of military and police powers along with the erosion of our civil liberties.

Having studied central banking and applied the insights of great economist like Mises, Ron Paul has described both in advance and in detail the cycle of bubbles and busts the Federal Reserve has plagued us with.

His 2003 description in Congress of the way the housing bubble would develop and the long-term damage it would do the U.S. economy was stunningly exact, a precise step-by-step preview of the calamity just as it unfolded.

The Federal Reserve may not merit Mitt Romney’s attention, but if the Fed had not been worthy of Ron Paul’s attention, we would not have learned the shocking truth about how the Fed had been acting as central bank to the world, secretly loaning trillions of dollars to the most politically powerful banks and companies. Not to mention foreign banks including Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and even one owned in substantial part by the Central Bank of Libya.

At this point it is not reasonable to expect that Mitt Romney has any idea what the economic consequences of these Federal Reserve policies will be. Since the mortgage meltdown the Federal Reserve has blown up its balance sheet, the adjusted monetary base, from $800 billion to more than $2.6 trillion. The cost of this policy is yet to be seen, but for one who understands money and credit like Ron Paul, that cost is entirely foreseeable. The consequences will be severe. It is America’s next big economic calamity.

Mitt Romney doesn’t know what the consequences of that will be. He hasn’t applied himself to understanding central banking and monetary theory. He hasn’t studied Mises and Hayek and Rothbard. He’s an equity raiser and corporate turnaround guy.

It’s a different skill set.

Mitt Romney might be a capable venture capitalist, but it would really be a serious mistake to hire him to be president. And that’s putting it charitably.

Ron Paul hasn’t spent his time structuring debt/equity ratios, thinking about mezzanine financing, or doing venture capital deals. But after a succession of shallow Romneys, following generations of failed Keynesian spend-our way-to-prosperity economics, and facing now the bankruptcy of the welfare/warfare state, for what ails this country Ron Paul is the doctor.

Let’s hire the right man this time.

Charles Goyette, author

Jose Lugo, publisher DDTV.ORG

Copyright © 2012 Charles Goyette

The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These principles were among the most fearfully guarded liberties among America’s founders.   If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government (not simply burdensome taxes) that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. Notice the words of these distinguished Americans:

Ø “Trial by jury in civil causes…trial by jury in criminal causes, [and] the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus…all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans.” ~Richard Henry Lee

Ø “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” ~Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Ø “The founders of our nation considered the right of trial by jury…an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a ‘safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign.” ~Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1979

Yet, here we are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental liberties.   Our government has passed  a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.

Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.”  No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative.   Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses.  This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military.  These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’.  The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country.  The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security.

Who wouldn’t want to stop terrorists? Don’t we all want to be safe?  Aren’t terrorist the very demons we should be fighting today?  If you don’t support this bill you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer simply because I believe that you shouldn’t have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job? Particularly considering the very job description these Congressmen swore to do was to “support and defend the Constitution.”   It is mindboggling that those with the power and responsibility to PROTECT LIBERTY are the very ones who will justify its destruction.  Here are the arguments put forth in favor of these dangerous provisions:

1.       These Sections Specifically Limit Actions Of The Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11

False.  This refers to sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

I suppose all would be well, if this were the end of this section.  However, the devil is always in the details.  Attorneys are trained to look for loopholes, and those who wrote this bill were attorneys, so they are either ignorant or inserting holes to provide doors for future activity.  Door No. 1:

…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Belligerent act? There you have it, the open door to include just about anyone.  Now don’t think these words are not well planned and don’t for one minute assume you know their definitions.  Remember John McCain and Joe Leiberman’s  “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010″?  This act failed, but that has not stopped John McCain.  This Enemy Belligerent Act defines a Belligerent as: an individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Hostilities? And the door swings wide open.

Next argument:

2.       Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.

False.  Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Sounds pretty limiting right?  Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government  determines a “national security interest”.  But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.

The next argument alleges:

3.       Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

False.  Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens?  Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous.  What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens.  That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to!  Open Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!

All this sounds a bit alarmist right?  Why do I think the language is cleverly crafted to be more than it appears?  Because those who support this bill do not WANT to protect the liberty of US Citizens.  They will, when cornered with the truth, tell you that any US Citizens who is involved with terrorists “DOES NOT deserve Constitutional rights.”  The idea that US Citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights is a very frightening statement.  But put that in conjunction with the understanding that it is the government, specifically this current administration, that gets to CHOOSE which citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights.

Still sounds alarmist right? After all we are talking about terrorists.  So you don’t like terrorist?  I don’t either.  But I do love Liberty and I do fear the power of unlimited government.  And what happens when the government determines you to fit the definition of a terrorist?  Janet Napolatano says that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion fit the bill. Which US Citizens DO YOU think should not have protections under the Constitution? Which one of our rights is a threat to national security and need to be curtailed or eliminated?  Remember William Pitt’s words, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.   It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”

Terrorism is real and we must combat it. But you cannot have peace without Liberty!  According to Benjamin Franklin, “Anyone who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security”. He specifically said, “temporary security” because he knew that being “safe” is a fleeting feeling.  You may think trading just a small piece of Liberty today is worth feeling safe.  However, tomorrow safety will fly away when a bigger boogey man turns the corner.  Then will you be willing to trade a little more? Remember, the funny thing about temporarily giving anything to the government is that you don’t get it back and they always want more.  Two words: Income Tax.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address in 1797, if “our Government can be influenced by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves.”  He was telling us that when the government operates under the motivating factor of fear, those that scare us rule us.  He continued with his warning by saying, “If we are to have a free republican government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.”  Our only hope of Liberty, our only hope of peace, is through the Constitution, not by circumventing it.

Congress took an oath to PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; they did not take an oath to defeat terrorism.  They must stick with their oath; because, the principles in the Constitution do not change; the definition of terrorist apparently changes based on political ideology.

Ronald Reagan called America the last bastion of hope.  He was remembering a statement by Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the republic for which she stands.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  Our Congress has an obligation to us, an obligation to our children, and an obligation to the world.

We must stand for Liberty today or our children will bow tomorrow.  I stand with Patrick Henry when he said, “Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

KrisAnne Hall, author

Jose Lugo, editor ddtv.org

for information email: lugo@ddtv.org