Using My Liberty

Why I Am Not a Christian Zionist(A Supporter of the Modern State of Israel)

2011-05-24T11:36:00.002-05:00

The state of Israel recently celebrated its 63rd birthday. Many conservative, American Christians marked the event again with joy, believing a Bible prophecy concerning the Jews and a return to their "promised" homeland was fulfilled in 1948 that signals the imminent return of Christ.

But I did not celebrate with my conservative brethren, although in previous years I was quite the Davidic flag-waver. Let me explain why.

I was raised in an Evangelical denomination that told me how to be a good, American Christian: I had to support my government and the modern state of Israel. Don't question orders to war; don't criticize Israeli hubris and its treatment of the Palestinians; don't snoop around for truth behind the facts--it'll only get you into trouble and God won't be pleased.

But two events in my life changed all that. Now, I know that asking questions should be normal for Christians and patriots. That's what really pleases God--when His kids work to discern the truth rather than swallowing every religious and political pill of propaganda that's handed to them.

As these events began to impact my life, I turned to independent study of both American and church histories, having first stripped myself of the presuppositions I had carried around most of my life.

As a result, I no longer support national Israel or its questionable alliance with the United States; nor do I believe the Church is in parentheses in God's redemptive plan until the Jewish race gets back on track with Him.

Yes, I am still a Christian and I'm not expatriating my country! In fact, my beliefs on foreign policy today are closer to the Colonial Founders, and my "doctrine" about end times mirrors what the universal Church believed from its beginnings up through the early 20th century. If anything, I believe I am a better Christian and American!

What two events contributed to such dramatic shifts?

1) I admitted my version of Christianity was the fairly new kid on the block in a faith thousands of years old. I had no clue as to what had already been established in faith and practice, then tested and refined in community.

After thirty-seven years of Christianity that was mostly wide on experience, but lacking in theological depth (I was part of the Charismatic movement beginning in 1977, and later became an associate pastor in a non-denominational church), I quit looking for the "newest revelation" and did a 360-- back to the early Church.

A spring is always clearer at its source. As the water travels, debris falls into it and is carried along in the currents. The refuse eventually settles to the bottom to become part of the riverbed (foundation) itself.

The journey back through church history was eye opening. Most Charismatics have no references to the history of their faith past "Azuza Street"--the great Pentecostal Revival in the 1920s in Los Angeles that spread throughout the world and birthed many large denominations.

Similarly, Evangelicals know very little church history prior to the beginnings of their particular branch of Christianity. The majority of Protestants are lightly acquainted with the Reformation, considering it the "do-over point" for the real church; consequently, they're not interested in anything "Rome-ish". To investigate what came 1,058 years before Rome--in the days when the church was undivided--has rarely been considered!

On my journey to find a faith not far removed from the feet of the men who sat at the Apostles' feet, I discovered that much of what I had been taught about the beliefs and practices of Christians outside my Evangelical/Charismatic box were distorted misrepresentations--lies based, at best, from centuries of convoluted hearsay and religious "wives' tales" designed to benefit the views of the talebearers.

Only after I dared to study for myself and ask questions, did I find out that most of what I wasted time ranting and railing against was simply not true.

That's why it was important for me to locate the ancient moorings of my faith--ties that could provide continuity within a historic, measurable community...not independent, storefront rogues that loved to lift anchor.

My search was no longer about "present truth", but lasting, foundational realities--the Apostles' teachings. I wanted to know how these truths were fleshed out in the lives of believers. What was "normal" Christianity in the early church? (Imagine my surprise when I found a very dynamic spirit-filled community! The modernists abandoned these dynamics, but every now and then one of their adherents will stumble across one and claim to have a "new" revelation from God!)

Along the way, I also found out that the universal Church prior to 1830 had never heard of an event called "The Rapture"--a two-stage return of the Lord--the first being a secret "snatching away" of the saints. The Church at-large had always taught a one-time, visible, and triumphant return of Jesus Christ to the earth, just as the angels proclaimed in Acts 1:11 after Jesus' public Ascension:

"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, Who was caught away and lifted up from among you into heaven, will return in [just] the same way in which you saw Him go into heaven."

Since the Rapture teaching hinges upon a large number of unconverted Jews remaining on earth and going through the Tribulation, it wasn't long after the men who had codified the "revelation" into what is known today as dispensationalism--Edward Irving, John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Clarence Larkin (among others)--that the Christian Zionist movement rose to prominence.

I use the word "revelation" because that's exactly how it started: the two-stage return of Christ, with the first part being a secret removal of Christians from the earth, was a "prophetic" vision given by fifteen-year old Margaret McDonald in a home Bible study in Fort Glasgow, Scotland in 1830.

Margaret scribbled her prophetic ramblings and sent them to Irving. John Darby visited her home, where she regularly would intermingle prophesying with visions for several hours. All of this is documented first-hand in the book (now out of print) The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets: In the Catholic Apostolic Church by Robert M. Norton (1861).

The Catholic Apostolic Church was founded by defrocked Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving (1792-1834). He believed that God was restoring apostles, prophets, healing, and the gift of tongues during the 1830s in the British Isles to prepare the true church for the return of Christ that he said would occur in 1868.

(Although I remain a believer in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I do not equate them with the return of Jesus Christ, but consider them the expected outworking of engaging people and their world systems with the living Christ! I do not care to set dates; the end of human history is known to God alone and none of our concern. I believe Jesus will return visibly to earth one day, but for now, He "arrives" every day for individual souls to enter eternity. That's my focus: are we ready for the abrupt, often unannounced end that is imminent for everyone--Christian or not?)

I find it interesting that the Evangelical Church readily accepts dispensationalism, despite it being birthed out of a "prophecy" from an un-churched, female teenager! The majority of Evangelical fellowships do not believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit genuinely operate in this age, nor do they allow women to "instruct" the Church on doctrine!

So you see, prior to the spread of dispensationalism into the Evangelical church, Christians believed that Israel had served Her prophetic purpose in the redemptive history of mankind; the Church was and would remain preeminent as the Bride of Christ--made up of believers of every tribe, nation, and tongue.

Most of the Church around the world still believes this today, but the well-funded voice and influence of American Evangelicalism has grown at home and abroad. Its chief American auctioneer is the skilled and boisterous Pastor John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, who brandishes a two-edge sword of politicized Christianity and Christian politics.

Christian Zionism is well defined by David Peterson is his review of the book, "Christian Zionism" by Stephen Sizer:

The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people (apart from Christ and his church) leads Christian Zionists to endorse and justify many of the current policies of the Israeli government, including the annexation and settlement of Palestinian-owned land. The return of Jews to Israel is actively encouraged and facilitated. Western governments are pressured to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem and to recognize this as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews.

Those who believe that Scripture predicts the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and a re-institution of the priesthood and sacrificial system offer varying degrees of support to Jewish Temple Mount organizations committed to achieving this end.

Since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate that Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those destined to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armageddon.

I highly recommend the works of Dr. Stephen Sizer, vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water, southwest of London. He has been in ministry for over thirty years, and is a respected expert on Israeli-Palestinian peace issues and Christian Zionism.

If you only read one book on Christian Zionism, I recommend Dr. Sizer's groundbreaking classic, Onward Christian Soldiers? The link not only introduces the book, but features audio presentations from each chapter to acquaint you thoroughly with this important work.

A notable article by Dr. Sizer for a quick read is The Historical Origins of Christian Zionism. It documents what the Church believed about Christianity's relationship with Israel, when the shift toward dispensationalism began, and who was responsible.

2) I became a libertarian.

Libertarianism's core principle is non-aggression--no force or fraud against anyone and his or her property. Civil relationships and contracts, between individuals to business to nations and their people, should be voluntary and mutually beneficial.

For years, I lived as a right-wing conservative who wanted to make everybody behave...even if I had to make it an oppressive law (because of course, my kind and I would not be affected). In other words, I was not "one of those people" that needed surveillance, monitoring, regulating, permits, ID cards, censorship, fines, or detaining.

When I gave up trying to create an American Christocracy according to Mary Diane's sect, I found libertarianism completely complimentary to the way Christ lived and taught. It was the most effective way to express my faith and freedom in a fallen world, and I had a lot of catching up to do (and apologies to make)!

The libertarian philosophy itself is amoral; in other words, it leaves morality to one's personal faith/conscience. All it dictates is that whatever you believe and do, you must exercise societal consideration and responsibility; otherwise, there should be no prohibitive laws--only criminal. That unchains the atheist and me to enjoy our inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we so choose.

It affords me an opportunity to live my Christian faith persuasively before others and speak freely in public without fear of legal suppression, as long as I am not enabled by government money or upon government property. The courthouse that won't let me put up a manger scene must also deny the atheist group from posting signs that say, "There is no God". It works both ways! The separation of church and state is a good thing.

Therefore, in examining agents of fraud and force, I didn't have to look far to see the biggest perpetrator is the federal government itself. What happens when we don't pay our taxes or get just the right permit to do our work (even around our own homes)?

What is the risk of having our children taken away by a government agency if we spank or even scold them in public? Christians register their children with the State upon birth (SS number), seek the state's permission to marry, bury their dead, and pay mounting taxes in between (Oh, yes--and one more time upon that demise with the estate tax).

So today, looking behind the curtain in the palaces of Oz has become the standard practice in my life; and that includes the multi-draped halls of the U.S. government. Not just as a Christian, but as an American citizen, I traveled back to study the intent of our Colonial Fathers (pre-Constitution). I saw the debris in the stream, and also what had quickly become our muddied bedrock.

Much of that mire is our Foreign Policy, despite Thomas Jefferson's admonition toward "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Much to my civic embarrassment, I discovered that the loyalty to the government that I so passionately promoted was tainted with innocent blood- covert regime changes, underhanded deals, "collateral damage", and wars fought in the name of national interests, not freedom.

I also found that very few Americans dared mention the nakedness of our Emperors and their courts--particularly Christians! That's why I wrote Cain and Nimrod: The Profane Beginnings of the Modern State.

In addition, I recommend the respected work of libertarian Christian Norman Horn here, and here for a more scholarly interpretation of Romans 13 and the "Rendering unto Caesar" passage. I suggest "Ordered by Sin, Ordained by Love" at the Libertarian Alliance as well.

Like so many others who were taught to equate civil authority in America with godly good, I had taken the ministry of propaganda's bait and continuously called for defensive behavior and punitive policies against nations, people groups, and followers of philosophies that the government considered unacceptable and a possible threat to their way of doing business. (Several years ago, a bulletin put out by Homeland Security to their agents listed pro-life Christians and returning vets as potential domestic terrorists)!

I never questioned the state's ability to know what's best for "we, the people"; that is, until I delved again into conveniently covered up history. Many Americans know the preamble to the Constitution and are quite familiar with the phrase "We, the People".

Would you like to know who "We, the People" were in the minds of the handful of men who were drafting that document behind closed doors?

Would you like to take a long, hard look as to whom the politicos in Washington continue to envision as "We, the People"? Drop in to my original on the Articles of Confederation and find out about the Hamiltonian Effect!

The gargantuan, federal government is the magnificent Oz to the American people. So, the key is to force your eyes off the mesmerizing demi-god surrounded by smoke and thunder and cast your gaze downward to the little barkers at the curtain.

It was hard for this conservative "darling-child of the GOP". At first, I felt like a traitor to God and country; but once I saw how the image was made and manipulated, I knew I could find my way out of Munchkin Land on my own.

Do I hate my country now that I'm a libertarian? NO, I love it more than ever!

Just as I know I've become a better Christian for pulling back the veil on the little ol' men who seek to deceive, I believe I've also become a far more effective patriot. I separate my country and its good people from the power brokers at the top who willfully usurp the Constitution and break the rule of law to pander to their own financial interests. They use your naivety and idealism as a good-natured Americans to launch their plans off the tax-supported platform called the "United States Government".

I no longer want to "force" you to behave according to my morality, nor will I lie to get you to comply. Is it too much to ask my neighbors and my government (on local, state, and national levels) to do the same?

I'm not interested in meddling into your affairs. You are a sovereign individual with inalienable rights. If I want you to respect me and leave me alone to live life as I see fit, then I must afford you the same courtesy. If we cannot live responsibly before one another, then we'll suffer the consequences in society as judicially determined (and, if one so believes, in the life to come).

Can we not insist our government do the same with us and other nations? A quick study of the Founding Fathers and even the questionably devised Constitution shows that the only reason for centralized government was to serve the limited commercial and judicial needs of individual states and defense. It was a small, rather silent servant (Look on my sidebar for links to the entire series on America's original and best "Constitution"--the Articles of Confederation.)

But let's get back to Israel. I want to share with you the truths I discovered on my way back to the tested anchors of liberty in both Christ and my country.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict today is wrought with complexities, but it all began with a broken promise.

When the British ruled Palestine, there was a move to establish a Jewish homeland. Initial agreements were to also give the indigenous Arabs (Muslims and Christians) a home since they sided with the Crown against the Turks. The promise was broken. (The documents were eventually unclassified by the British.)

Although Christian Zionists wrapped their urgent call for a Jewish state in Old Testament Scripture, they were mere political puppets whose cleverly concealed message gained an easy ally to protect Anglo oil interests.

The lion's share of the land was given to the Jews, although the population was overwhelmingly Arabic. Over the years, an influx of Jews needing more room caused non-Jews to be displaced from their homes and treated as second-class citizens--despite the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that said when a Jewish homeland was established, it was NOT to be at the expense of the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants.

It was much like the Native Americans who were displaced by broken treaties. Many fought back, only to be labeled savages (I guess we'd call them 'terrorists' today). Profiling them collectively as dirty, untrustworthy brutes made it easier for us to herd them into reservations and care little for the resulting squalor.)

(If we Americans were lied to about the Native Americans, could our perceptions and opinions about other "undesirables" in society today be shaped by crafty and well-positioned pundits? Think about the deliberate, systematic shaping of the German mindset that denigrated the Jewish race in the eyes of their Christian neighbors to the status of "vermin".)

After WWII, the United States joined forces with the British to continue to protect Israel in order to establish and maintain strategic, global dominance.

So there you have it. The original term "Palestinians" was not defining a race of people, but a place. Living in that region were Arabs, Jews, and Christians--and overall, far more peaceably among themselves than today.

Ever since its official emergence as a nation in 1948, defiant Israelis have been at war with denied Arabs.

Jewish Zionists claim modern-day Israelis have a God-given right to the land, yet only a small percentage (a little over 8%) embrace the Mosaic Law as a personal rule for life. 17% are secularists that publicly participate in the religious customs and traditions, but keep the separation between church and state; they also separate personal devotion (or lack of it) from outward ceremonies. As they see it, participation in a time-honored ritual makes one a good Jew.

55% are a diverse group of modernists. They will participate in religious customs that they agree with or find attractive, or "reform" them to suit their particular ideology. In other words, the participation is more cultural than religious. Most modernists drive on Saturdays, cook, and do other things traditionally forbidden. They consider that nationalism (national identity and pride) IS Judaism.

A remaining 20% are a mix of atheists or other religions.

As you can see, the modern--day Israeli is NOT the convenantal Jew of the Old Testament! Today, only 63% of Jews in Israel believe completely in the existence of God. The percentages drop when you ask if they: believe the Torah was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (55%); the Torah is God's command for living (47%); in the coming of the Messiah (39%), there is a next world (35%), and that those who don't adhere to the Mosaic Law will be punished (27%).

Ultra-Orthodox Jews worldwide, those who still faithfully abide by the Torah as a rule for life and redemption, have always been against the establishment of a modern Israeli state. They emphatically state that Jews were scattered off the land due to disobedience to God's Word!

They insist the Torah teaches that only at the coming of the Messiah will they be ingathered through REPENTANCE from the four corners of the earth--by a divine act of God (not man's political expediency). Indeed, they believe what took place in 1948 was man's striving to make an Ishmael, rather than waiting for God to bring forth an Isaac!

We mentioned earlier that evangelicals embrace the Rapture teaching, but have no idea how it came about or how its origin defies many of their current doctrines.

Similarly, the majority of conservative evangelical, Christian Zionists believe the most reliable text for translating Old Testament Scriptures is the Masoretic Text.

Although the Septuagint version in Greek was widely distributed by Jesus' time and even quoted by Him and used by His Disciples in the early Church, the Jews took issue over this hi-jacked "Christianized" version, and the Masoretic scribes brought forth what was to eventually become the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible.

Isn't it interesting that on one hand, Evangelicals are diligent to use only a version of the Old Testament that was preserved by orthodox men faithful to the Torah, but on the other hand reject the orthodox proclamation from the same Scriptures as to how Israel will be genuinely restored?

If you want to know more about these Jews who still believe in God and His commands as a standard for faith and morals, and what they believe about the illegitimate Israeli state, I recommend these two sites:

Jews Against Zionism (articles by Rabbis)

The Jews Not Zionists site is engaging and features an excellent article, "The Difference between Zionism and Judaism", which every Christian should read.

Another eye-opening article is "Judaism is a Religion--Not a Race" by Rabbi Moses Jakubowicz:

Judaism is a religion, not a race. Throughout history, whoever joined the Jewish religion was called a Jew, no matter what his race, and whoever abandoned the Holy Torah was not considered a Jew. In fact, the biggest names in Jewish history were converts or descendants of converts: King David, Zipporah, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Meir, Shmaya and Avtalyon.

The proponents of Zionism, for their own political and financial advantage, have transformed the Jewish religion into a race. Similarly, they have taken the Torah, a book of Divine law which teaches fairness, peace and piety, and transformed it into a vehicle for their political goals, a source for their claims to a piece of land. These claims took their latest form this week, when, to our sorrow, the Zionist falsification was brought to the world's eyes by the media."

In addition to Dr. Sizer's books, articles, and blog, I also recommend the Challenging Christian Zionism site for a wealth of resources on the subject by noted Christians. The ministry's theme is "Biblical Justice".

Gary Demar, Christian author and President of American Vision, adds additional insight into the dangers of Rapturist/Zionistic thinking from his article Why Some Dispensationalists are Like Evolutionists:

One of the biggest problems that even some dispensationalists take note of is the spiritual condition of Jews living in Israel since their return. Stanley A. Ellisen, who earned a Th.D. in Bible exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary, makes some significant points on this topic:

It remains to put the divine plumbline to the house of Israel claiming Palestine today. Has she met the biblical conditions for restoration? . . . To put it bluntly, she has no biblical right to the covenant land. She has never recognized the Messiah God sent, let alone mourned over his wounding. Though many in Israel admit to Jesus’ greatness as a Jewish teacher, they adamantly reject him as Messiah. They see him as but one of several prominent pseudo-messiahs.

Ellisen’s book includes an endorsement by John F. Walvoord who describes it as “must reading.”

If Israel’s entry into the land (Num. 13–14) and stay in the land were based on faithfulness to the covenant, and exile from the land was based on the rejection of covenant obligations, then how is it possible that the return to the land would not be based on the same standards?

The condition for returning to the land was a repentant heart and obedience to God’s commandments (Deut. 30), something that happened after Israel’s return from exile (see Ezra 9). To argue that the spiritual condition of modern-day Jews living in Israel is of little or no consequence and is somehow a fulfillment of Bible prophecy goes against what the Bible teaches.

Ellisen: "The State of Israel will allow nearly every deviation from Jewish orthodoxy in its policy of toleration and pluralism. Even Jewish atheists are welcomed as citizens—but not believers in Jesus.

Though the Law of Return of 1950 granted citizenship to anyone born Jewish, it was amended in 1970 to apply to anyone who is “born of a Jewish mother or has been converted and is not a member of another religion.”

(Note: That amendment has been clarified to state that..."The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh (one who returns) under the Nationality Law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew".)

"On December 25, 1989, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Messianic Jews “do not belong to the Jewish nation and have no right to force themselves on it. Those who believe in Jesus are, in fact, Christians.”

(Update: In 2008, that decision was reversed, and Jews who can prove they qualify racially for the right of return are candidates for citizenship. Messianic Jews insist they are not Christians!) (Watch this video.)

Ellisen concludes: "Judged on biblical grounds, the nation of Israel today does not pass divine muster. The promise of the land is directly tied to the nation’s response to Messiah."

Jews would be appalled to know the dirty secret to the Rapture doctrine as taught by Christian Zionists:

Two-thirds of the Jews MUST be destroyed!

Although most of the Body of Christ (past and present) do not hold to the Doctrine of the Rapture, noted author and theologian Gary North gives us an overview of what some Christians believe will take place soon, and the critical role an unconverted Israel must play in order for the Rapture to occur:

Tribulation and Rapture
Just prior to Jesus’ return to set up an earthly kingdom....there will be a time of persecution, called the Great Tribulation...The dominant premillennial view says that Jews will suffer the Great Tribulation. Born-again Christians will have flown the coop – literally. This is the doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture.

According to pre-tribulation premillennialists, who are known as dispensationalists, Jesus will come secretly in the clouds and raise deceased Christians – and only Christians – from the dead.

Immediately thereafter, every true Christian will be transported bodily into the sky, and from there to heaven: the Rapture event.

The passage cited to defend this view is found in Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessolonica: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up [harpazo] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thes. 4:16-17).

Throughout most of church history, this passage was associated with the final judgment, but beginning sometime around 1830 in England, it was linked to the premillennial, pretribulational Rapture – a word that is not found in the Greek text or in any English translation of the New Testament. Its Latin root word is in Jerome’s Vulgate, a translation of the Greek "harpazo" – seize, catch, or pluck.

This outlook on the earthly future became increasingly popular among fundamentalists, beginning in the 1870's. It was formalized in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909; revised, 1917). In 1930, it became the first Oxford University Press book to reach sales of one million. It has now sold over five million copies. C. I. Scofield’s system has defined fundamentalism for nine decades.

The Rapture-based escape from history is now universally believed by fundamentalists to be imminent. Generations of fundamentalists have believed that they will escape bodily death. They will be transported into the sky, like Elijah, though without benefit of chariots.

But when? That has been the great question. The answer: "Soon."

...but how can they be so sure? Because of the events of 1948. In that year, the crucial missing piece of the prophetic puzzle – the restoration of the nation of Israel – seemed to come true. Critics of the dispensational system could no longer say, "But where is Israel in all this?" The answer, at long last: "In Palestine, just in time for the Great Tribulation."

The Grim Fate of Israel
The source of the idea of the Great Tribulation is found in Jesus’ last words regarding Israel, which are recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Luke 21:20-24).
Throughout most of church history, this prophecy was interpreted as having been fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. With the rise of dispensationalism, however, the fulfillment of this passage was moved into the future.

Dispensationalism’s critics had long asked: "Where is the nation of Israel? Where are the Jews?" Not in Palestine, surely. So, dispensationalists tended to apply this prophecy of near-destruction to Jews in general – only symbolically residing in Israel – until 1948. This was one reason for their silence on Hitler’s persecution. Hitler was just another rung in the ladder of persecution leading to the inevitable Great Tribulation.

Nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel’s Jews...for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. (The total period of seven years is interpreted as the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel [Dan. 9:27].)

In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel.

It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.

The fundamentalists I have known generally say they appreciate Jews. They think Israel is far superior to Arab nations. They believe in a pro-Israel foreign policy as supportive of democracy and America’s interests. They do not dwell upon the prophetic fate of Israel’s Jews except insofar as they want to transfer the threat of the Great Tribulation away from themselves and their families. Nevertheless, this is the bottom line: the prophetic scapegoating of Israel. This scapegoat, not Christians, must be sent into the post-Rapture wilderness.

Evangelism in Israel
Their eschatology has produced a kind of Catch-22 for fundamentalists. What if, as a result of evangelism, the Jews of Israel were converted en masse to Christianity? They would then be Raptured, along with their Gentile brethren, leaving only Arabs behind. This scenario would make the immediate fulfillment of prophecy impossible: no post-Rapture Israelis to persecute. So, fundamentalists have concluded that the vast majority of the Jews of Israel cannot, will not, and must not be converted to Christianity.

This raises an obvious question: Why spend money on evangelizing Israelis? It would be a waste of resources. This is why there are so few active fundamentalist ministries in Israel that target Jews. They target Arabs instead. Eschatologically speaking, the body of an Israeli must be preserved, for he may live long enough to go through the Great Tribulation. But his soul is expendable.

This is why fundamentalists vocally support the nation of Israel, but then do very little to preach to Israelis the traditional Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Fundamentalists have a prophetic agenda for Israelis that does not involve at least two-thirds of the Israelis’ souls.

...The presence of Israel validates the hope of fundamentalists that Christians, and Christians alone, will get out of life alive." Read the full article: The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel

Now...who are the REAL antisemites?

Whenever I blog on this issue, particularly in light of the Flotilla tragedy, I hear from readers who infer I'm ant-Semitic. It's amazing, isn't it?

I'm Caucasian. I can be very vocal against certain extreme elements within my own race that expound--at times with violence-- a nationalistic, "white pride" agenda, yet very few readers would consider me "anti-white". Why, then, am I anti-Semitic when I address the bigoted beliefs and practices of Zionism by my mostly white brethren?

I'm also a Christian. I get big "hoorays" when I address issues of disbelief among the drug addicts, prostitutes, and politicians, but I cross the line when I take the state of Israel to task on its covenantal disobedience to God.

I am an American. I love my country and its people. Just because I criticize my government's policies and actions does not mean I an anti-American. When I call political Israel to accountability, I am NOT attacking the Jewish people!

I believe--as most of Christendom has and still does today--that Jesus Christ will return in one visible, glorious event to reign on earth. The Bible simply does not support a preceding secret evacuation of the Church at the expense of the Jewish people.

The geographical, natural nation of Israel is no longer a key player in end-time events. God wisely birthed the seed message of reconciliation into the earth empirically--into a particular time, place, and people--by sending His Son, Jesus.

However, the ever-expanding spiritual cannot be contained by the natural; neither can it return to its rudimentary elements once released. When the veil of the Temple was torn in two on the day Jesus was Crucified, that wonderful message shot out of its narrowly defined walls, destroying any and all barriers on its way to human hearts everywhere--Jewish, Arab, black, white--ALL tribes and tongues!

From Scripture, I am convinced that God deals with mankind exclusively through His new, covenantal nation and people--the Church, the Body of Christ. We shout the good news that Jesus removed every natural distinction found in earthly Adam--race, color, gender, status--in order to make reconciliation with God a matter of receiving a right heart, not having the right genealogy. (1 Peter 2:9)

To relegate God's preference and favor to the physical, national, and racial borders His Son surpassed in resurrected glory is heresy!

Of course, as a Christian I believe Jews today can be saved through a personal confession of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord...just like everybody else. God does not have one plan for the Church and another for natural Israel. His plan is Jesus--plain and simple. He recognizes only two distinctions of people in the earth: those who abide in the life of His Son and those who are without.

Yes, I love the Jewish people--past, present, and future. However, I DO NOT support the modern Israeli state. I also love the Palestinian people, but I do not support the socio-political parties of Hamas and Fatah.

Historically, believers who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land would stay in the homes of other Christians--Arab or Jewish.

Dr. Sizer recounts that Augustine (354-430), John Chrysostom (344-407) and especially Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) recognized the dangers of associating sacredness with particular shrines. Consequently, they actively discouraged Christians from undertaking pilgrimages to Palestine. Augustine and Chrysostom insisted:

'God is indeed everywhere, and he who created all things is not contained or shut in by any one place.'

'The task is not to cross the sea, nor to undertake a lengthy pilgrimage... both when we come to church and when we stay at home, let us earnestly call on God.'

Nevertheless, the visit of Constantine's mother (Helena) to Palestine toward the end of the fourth century ensured that a pilgrimage to the Holy Land became a fashionable as well as a religious duty. Despite the costs, hazards and arduous nature of such a journey, pilgrims increasingly traveled to the Holy Land to do penance, to obtain redemption from serious crimes, and to secure relics for their churches.

Many Christians are still obsessed with the 'Holy Land" today; however, now their loyalties on such pilgrimages lie with apostate Israel instead of their impoverished and imprisoned brethren.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew: 25: 31-46)

Most Americans assume that Christians in Palestine and surrounding Arab countries are converts from Islam. Not true! Most of them are the descendants of the Gentiles who embraced the Gospel after Israel rejected her Messiah! Churches were planted, and from these lampstands the good news spread around the world. Today, these anciently rooted families whose patriarchs received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been maligned, ridiculed, and rejected by the American Church.

Americans, famous for lazy, collective profiling, have lumped their Christian brothers and sisters into one of several ambivalent, bigoted piles: "all them Arabs", "all Arabs are terrorists", or "all Arabs are Muslims". As mentioned earlier in this article, some Americans also think the term "Palestinian" refers to a race or religion, but a Palestinian is someone who lives in Palestine, much as we would say "New Yorker". Remember, all of the land was originally called Palestine and its inhabitants--Jewish and Arab--were called Palestinians until it was geo-politically divided by the British.

Today, Israel's # 1 industry is tourism, supported by Americans who are graciously tolerated by Israelis because of the money, and because the U.S. is the # 1 enabler, protector, and excuse-maker for their regional bullying.

If the U.S. government were to withdraw its financial and political support, do you think the Israelis would remain so accommodating to American Christians? Is the invitation to walk the "blood-stained" Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem more about the color green than red?

Watch this video by comic Yair Shlein that aired on Channel 2 in Israel. After a flurry of protests, he publicly apologized for the content. I am not for censoring his opinions in the least, but American Christians need to see what airs on TV while they're out squeezing into the Garden Tomb and frying fish on the shores of Galilee. (WARNING: sexually graphic)

It is disturbing that while western Christians have their pictures made at various "historical" sites and cloddishly dole out the dough, their REAL brethren are increasingly marginalized In Israel and persecuted in Palestine.

In March of this year, former Alaskan governor and 2008 GOP Vice-President candidate Sarah Palin made a three-day trip to Israel. On one occasion, the Guardian newspaper (UK) reports that "she pulled up to the Bethlehem checkpoint run by the Israeli border police to the south of Jerusalem in a mini-van with her husband, Todd, her assistant and Israeli guides.

None of the occupants left the car nor did they speak to the police officers at the checkpoint, according to photographers at the scene. They then turned around and drove away. A spokesman for the Israeli police said there was no incident at the checkpoint and a spokesman for the Israeli army said that Palin's group had not coordinated a visit to the occupied Palestinian territory.

Tourists need to carry passports to cross checkpoints into the occupied Palestinian territory and Israelis are not normally permitted to enter areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, such as Bethlehem."

Palin has not been very vocal about the incident. Some people speculate that she didn't have a passport, but that's obviously not true. Others believe she may have left her passport at the hotel and could not return due to a tight schedule. Many reporters claim she did not know that Bethlehem was located in occupied territory.

(A 2006 poll shows that only 15% of Americans realize that Bethlehem is a Palestinian city with a mixed Christian-Muslim community, lying in the occupied West Bank).

Regardless of her reasons, Palin could have stepped out of her vehicle for a great photo op or even later back at her hotel. Even if she could not express herself as an American patriot, she could have taken a few moments to speak kind words of hope to her Christian brethren under occupation. Would she have not done so for persecuted Christians in any other country?

Dr. Sizer conducted extensive research into how modern pilgrimages to the Holy Land have affected the indigenous Christians in Israel and the occupied territories. Here's just one graph from the article:

The second survey was of Pilgrimage Tour Operators. Of the 25 companies investigated, none referred to Palestine or the Occupied Territories and five used maps showing the West Bank as part of Israel. The overwhelming majority offered itineraries that included visits to many places of Jewish significance.

The most frequently visited extra-biblical sites are Masada, Yad Vashem, the Wailing Wall, a Kibbutz and the Knesset, This evidence would appear to confirm the claim that itineraries are largely structured and promoted by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism to instill in visitors a positive image of Israel. In contrast, in 1994 only one Operator explicitly recommended pilgrims meet with Palestinian Christians. By 1997 there were two Operators known to do so.

(For information on groups and ministries that promote ethical tourism that focuses on fellowship with Christian communities in the Holy land, visit Living Stones.)

Here's a wonderfully honest video journal of American Pentecostal/Evangelical Christians who visited Palestine for the first time, and how they were changed by what they saw and heard. Visit the website: Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace and Justice.

Palestinian Christians living in the occupied territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) represent 2.1 to 3.4% of the population. In 1947, they comprised around 51%.

Christians began to emigrate from Palestine after the establishment of the state of Israel. Many Palestinian Christians emigrated to countries such as Australia, Jordan, Lebanon, the United States and Canada, and a larger number to Latin America (primarily Chile and Argentina).

In the aforementioned poll of Christians in Bethlehem by the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue, 90% reported having Muslim friends, 73.3% agreed that the Palestinian Authority treats Christian heritage in the city with respect, and 78% attributed the ongoing exodus of Christians from Bethlehem to the Israeli occupation and travel restrictions on the area.

That same poll revealed quite a difference in American perceptions of Bethlehem and its inhabitants!

Americans are more likely (45.9%) to blame Israel's blockade of the town on Islamic politics and are reluctant (7.4%) to blame Israel.

While four out of ten Americans believe that the wall exists for Israel's security, more than nine out of ten Bethlehemites believe it is part of a plan by Israel to confiscate Palestinian land.

More than two-thirds of Americans believe Bethlehem is unsafe to visit, while 80% of Bethlehemites consider their town safe for visitors.

While the US survey showed that Americans are skeptical about Muslims and Christians living contentedly alongside each other - only 17% thought they lived together peacefully, the Palestinian survey showed they do: around 90% of Christians said they had Muslim friends, and vice-versa.

US Christians, meanwhile, are likely to be shocked by the discovery that seven out of ten Christians in Bethlehem believe Israel treats the town's Christian heritage with brutality or indifference.

On the other hand that more than two-thirds (73.3%) of Bethlehem's Christians believe that the Palestinian Authority treats Christian heritage with respect.

T-shirts reportedly given to Israeli soldiers upon completion of training and deployment

One T-shirt, printed for a platoon of Israeli snipers, depicts an armed Palestinian pregnant women caught in the crosshairs of a rifle, with the disturbing caption in English: “1 shot 2 kills”.

(Source: Pakalert Press)

The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) call itself the "most moral army in the world", but questionable incidents, which are hard to keep quiet in a cyberworld, are routinely reported. The use of the "neighbor procedure"--a term for the use of Palestinian civilians, often children, as human shields to protect soldiers from suspected booby traps or attacks by militants--was finally ruled illegal in 2005.

Here's a video from last year that went viral on the net. It shows an Israeli soldier dancing around a blindfolded Palestinian woman after her arrest of suspected ties to terrorists. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the action and promised the incident "would be investigated". Nothing else has come of the matter.

Fortunately, some former IDF soldiers are courageously coming forward to tell the truth to the world, despite attempts from the Israeli government to discredit and suppress them.

Breaking The Silence is an Israeli Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) established by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and veterans who collect and provide testimonies about their military service in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem during the Second Intifada, giving serving and discharged Israeli personnel and reservists a platform to confidentially describe their experience in the Israeli-occupied territories.

The organization's stated mission is to 'break the silence' of IDF soldiers who return to civilian life in Israel and "discover the gap between the reality which they encountered in the [occupied] territories, and the silence which they encounter at home."

Since 2004, Breaking the Silence has run a testimonies collection project called "Soldiers Speak Out" They have collected several hundred testimonies from "those who have, during their service in the IDF, the Border Guard, and the Security Forces, played a role in the Occupied Territories." By publishing soldiers' accounts, Breaking the Silence hopes to "force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" and face the truth about "abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property" that is familiar to soldiers.

Breaking the Silence: IDF Soldiers speak out about the Occupation from Stephen Sizer on Vimeo.

Serving in the role of enforcer and the expectations it carries--stronger against weaker, winner against loser, greater against lesser--places tremendous strain upon the men and women in the military. American military history is dishonorably tainted with abuses as well, including Abu Graib and the more recent case of the soldiers who reportedly killed Afghan civilians and took dozens of photos showing their bodies gruesomely posed for sport. Given man's already existing sinful state, then adding the stress of being commanded day in and out to pitilessly subjugate other human beings, brings out the worst in us. An oppressed race proves nothing by becoming an oppressor itself.

Because of the United States' unequivocal support of Israel and its military/occupational might, Americans usually only hear and see one side of the news. I do NOT give tacit approval to violence from any quarter. However, understanding the dynamics of the hatred is important if we are to correctly address the problem on the world as Christians and as an ethical nation.

Secondly, we must confront the disproportionality of the ongoing violence. Again, very few Americans are familiar with the statistics! If Americans Knew is an important site for up-to-date reports on these troubling disparities.


124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,452 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)


	1,084 Israelis and at least 6,430 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)


9,226 Israelis and 45,041 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.)

Am I against the Jews having a homeland? No. They received what was promised to them, right or wrong. Now, the promise to the other Palestinians must be kept. But how, given all that has transpired?

The bottom-line focus should be on justice. Period. What actions, regardless of the costs, will genuinely right wrongs on both sides in the best way?

Some call for a "two-state" solution; others are more concerned with a Palestinian right of return with reparations and shared power. But until justice is done and covenants honored, there will remain an egregious breach in the earth in the Middle East. Terrorism on both sides will increase and innocent people will continue to suffer and die.

Am I against Israel as an ally of the United States? Not necessarily; however, there are major concerns in what has become, as Jefferson warned, the epitome of “a tangling alliance”.

Israel has enormous wealth, yet receives the most U.S. foreign aid than any other country. Unlike other nations, it is not required to account for how it spends the American taxpayers’ money ($8.2 million PER DAY in military aid!)

Israel does not have to provide a manifest of its weaponry, although we demand transparency from other countries or we'll inflict their masses with economic sanctions or drop bombs and call it "collateral damage".

An ethical solution can only work if first, the United States makes significant changes in its policy with Israel.

Israel heralds itself as a democracy, but flexes its muscles to pass the unbelievable Nakba Law to suppress free speech among its Arab population.

It allows the state to fine local communities and other state-funded groups for holding events that mark what the Arab community calls the Nakba, which means catastrophe, referring to the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. Fines, deducted from a group's operating budget, would equal up to three times the event's sponsorship cost; repeat violations would double the fines.

The current Nakba Law is a softened version of the bill approved in July 2009 by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which made participation in Nakba Day events punishable by up to three years in prison.

Can you imagine if Congress passed a law that states Southerners can no longer speak against the “North” in a derogatory manner in reference to the Civil War?

Although there have already been debates and controversies over the Confederate Flag and the singing of "Dixie”, can you imagine if these signs and symbol became illegal expressions under the threat of steep fines (and possible imprisonment)?

What if Blacks and Native Americans could neither express their opinions nor honestly portray their historic struggles for human rights?

Israel’s Loyalty Oath, which was passed by the Israeli cabinet, is equally disturbing. If the Kenneset formalizes it, the law would require non-Jewish immigrants to swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The slippery slope is obvious; such a mandate could easily be amended in the future. Already some members of the Cabinet have called for such an oath to apply to non-Jewish citizens already residing in Israel, with the swift revocation of citizenship for non-compliance.

At this time of this writing, President Barack Obama has just delivered a speech in which he called for a two-state solution based on the borders prior to the 1967 with mutually agreed swaps (Although the plan still rewards Israel for its illegal seizures of land.) The idea itself is not new around the beltway, but as Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler says, "It makes a difference when the president of the United States says it, particularly in a carefully staged speech at the State Department. This then is not an off-the-cuff remark, but a carefully considered statement of U.S. policy."

"He (Obama) did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.

Obama did not go all the way and try to define what his statement meant for the disputed city of Jerusalem, or attempt to address the issue of Palestinians who want to return to lands now in the state of Israel. He said those issues would need to be addressed after borders and security are settled. But, for a U.S. president, the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the Rubicon."*

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has adamantly rejected it, and Conservatives and Christian Zionists are calling it “treason", insisting that America will be cursed for abandoning “God’s chosen people”.

Yet the Scriptures make it very clear that God’s chosen people today are those of any race, color, or religion that enter into a covenant with Him through Jesus Christ—a covenant the Jewish people of old rejected nationally!

But you are a chosen race, A royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9).

And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” ( Rev. 1:6).

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Rev. 5:9,10).

The kingdom that shall reign on earth when Christ returns is not restored Judaism, but a new spiritual race of people made up of glorified believers from every earthly tribe, tongue, people and nations.

These believers comprise, as Peter proclaims, a new nation that was chosen according to Ephesians 1:4--from the foundation of the world. Offering salvation for a season to the Gentiles was not “Plan B” when Israel rejected her Messiah!

New voices and group emerge weekly in both Israel and Palestine whose goal is to reconcile and courageously work together for peace. Many are listed in this article, and I pray you will visit their links and get acquainted. Within these sites, you can also link to additional groups worthy of your support and prayers.

However, the most effective voice on earth for change in the Middle East will not be found in Palestine or Israel; the most profound source for revolutionary peace will not emanate from the White House. It will come from a church cleansed of politics and pride!

Again, visit Dr. Sizer's site and explore other groups to which he links. Additionally, I challenge you to set up a screening of "With God on Our Side" at your church or ministry event. It's receiving great reviews here in the states, and gaining endorsements from pastors. More importantly, the film is sparking bold, new discussions among Christians!

The Church in America must stop her ruinous, Zionistic rhetoric that shamefully supports an apostate political entity over parts of their own body in Christ.

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17: 20-23)

Christians, reject politicized Christianity and its Constantinian leaders who love the power of the state and empire building. Humbly return to your first love and put down the sword. Carry the Lord's message and ministry of reconciliation to the world instead.

Christians and patriots, stand unswervingly against the blind, nationalistic fervor of both the U.S. and Israel that allows for the persecution of innocent people in the name of religious and racial exceptionality!

*Indeed, just as this article was ready to post, headlines blare that President Obama has backpedaled. In his most recent comments at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Obama "clarified" his previous statement by reassuring the powerful pro-Israeli lobby that a return to the 1967 borders is not the only solution, and of course, any border changes would have to take into account the current "demographics" (growing illegal settlements in the West Bank).

Reportedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu has now settled down, and he and AIPAC are "pleased". Under the current conditions, it appears a bi-national government is more likely to emerge and struggle along, rather than two separate states. Regardless, Christians MUST have the same attitude toward Israel as the Angel who appeared before Joshua before a major battle (Joshua 5:13, 14):

"Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

“Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.”

The Angel came not to fight, but to deliver a word from the Lord, which the Bible tells us is sharper than any two-edged sword and penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow...and judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

Cast down high-minded, vain Zionism with its pious excuses for the mistreatment of others--even your brethren in Christ. Have nothing to do with the sword of any political state. Pick up God's sword, the living Word, and wield it for justice for all in the Middle East!

No Flat, No Fair, No Taxes, NO HOW!

2011-04-17T12:18:00.000-05:00

So far, we've learned the history of taxation in America. We've laid out the moral dilemma a Christian faces when the fruit of his labor is illegally confiscated by an "out of control" government that has to pay back the Federal Reserve.

Several alternatives to the federal income tax are on the table. Lawrence M. Vance wrote a great article comparing the popular Flat Tax and Fair Tax ideas, and he explains why both plans fall short of offering an acceptable, lasting solution to tax abuse:

"Two specific tax reform plans that some libertarians have fallen for are the Flat Tax and the FairTax. Both plans promise to invigorate the economy, increase employment, and raise everyone's standard of living. Neither one is true to its name; neither one is an incremental step toward overall lower taxes. Both are fraught with problems and contradictions; both are revenue-neutral plans that would fund the federal government at the same obscene level that it is now.

The Flat Tax

"Under a Flat Tax, everyone's income is taxed at the same rate (Forbes says 17 percent; Hall and Rabushka say 19 percent). And not only are there no tax brackets, there are generally no tax deductions other than personal and dependent allowances. Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain as they are now. The appeal of the Flat Tax is simplicity. You can do your taxes on a postcard-sized form says Forbes. Goodbye compliance costs.

"The problem with the Flat Tax is a simple one: the Flat Tax is not flat. And furthermore, no one actually pays 17 or 19 percent. In fact, taxpayers don't even pay the same percentage. The Flat Tax is actually a highly progressive tax. It is more progressive than our current system, and effectively has more tax brackets. Who said progressivity requires graduated tax rates?

"Under the Forbes plan, a family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income; a family of six would owe nothing until its income exceeded $65,930. And those figures are sure to have increased since they were first proposed back in 2005. But not only would many families pay no income tax, they still might get a refund anyway because the Forbes plan includes a refundable child credit and earned-income credit.

"If you want an example of a real flat tax, look no further than the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. Everyone pays 2.9 percent (split between employer and employee), on every dollar earned, no matter one's marital status, number of dependents, or income level. I am in favor of neither the tax nor Medicare, but if you are looking for a genuine flat tax, then the Medicare tax is your tax.

The Fair Tax

"The FairTax is a national retail sales tax of 30 percent on the final sale of all new goods and services. All new goods – from cars and houses to prescription drugs and food; and all services – from operations and funerals to rent and haircuts. Because it would replace the personal income tax, there would also no longer be withholding tax, capital-gains tax, the alternative-minimum tax, or taxes on interest and dividends. Even your gambling winnings would no longer be taxed. Of course, there would be no tax deductions either.

"The FairTax would likewise eliminate corporate income tax, estate tax, gift tax, unemployment tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. The appeal is obvious: no more complex tax code, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more 1040 forms, no more record keeping, no more compliance costs, no more IRS audits. And if that weren't enough, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities.

"But for a plan that promises such a utopia, the problems with the FairTax are legion. The stated rate of the FairTax is too low to achieve the promised revenue neutrality. The amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. There is nothing to prevent an income tax from being reinstituted, giving us a two-headed hydra of an income tax and a consumption tax. And not only would state and local governments have to pay a national sales tax to the federal government, the federal government would have to pay sales taxes to itself on all its new purchases. Since I have already written extensively about the problems with the FairTax, I will stop with its problems here and focus on why the FairTax, like the Flat Tax, is not true to its name.

So why is the FairTax not fair? Well, first of all, what's fair about a consumption tax? Why is it that people who rightly criticize the income tax are so quick to accept a national sales tax on consumption? The FairTax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered. This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income. As Murray Rothbard explained:

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

"The FairTax is also not fair because of the rate. What is fair about the government taking a 30 percent cut on every transaction? I know the FairTaxers claim that the rate is only 23 percent, but when I buy an item for $1.00 and end up paying $1.30, the basic math I learned in elementary school tells me that I paid a tax rate of 30 percent. But regardless of whether the rate is 23 or 30 percent, why should the bloated, pork-laden leviathan we call the US government get anywhere near this much of our income?

"Neither the Flat Tax nor the FairTax is a step toward the libertarian goal of substantially reducing or abolishing the income tax; neither tax-reform plan is an incremental step toward lower overall taxes. They could be, however, if their promoters recognized that the problem is taxation itself, not the tax code. All they have done is shift the debate from how much of the wealth of the American people the federal government confiscates to the manner in which the wealth is confiscated." Read the entire article.

Noted Libertarian Lew Rockwell has some additional insights into why a consumption tax would not end oppressive taxation:

"The tax shift is one of the great games of government. In the game, the government uses the prospect of lowering one tax in order to buy support for raising another. The proposal to move from an income tax to a consumption tax is a good example of the game.

"The essential key to understanding the trick is to realize that the government wants money and is going to get it one way or another. Zig zagging from one method to another does not change the reality. But it can fool the gullible. And it can raise a lot of money from affected groups during the transition period.

"One helpful way to understand this is to think of a robber who promises to stop coming through your front door if you promise to leave the back door open. So it is with the state that promises to stop taxing your income if you let it tax your consumption. The issue is not the method; it is the amount.

Far too much is made of the flat versus progressivity issue. Think of it this way. Would you rather pay a flat 40% tax, or finagle your way through a system with 20 different rates ranging from 1% to 39% (all else being equal)? If you knew that you would pay less under a progressive system, that is the one you would favor." More...

For over one hundred years in America, the federal government existed solely on revenue from tariffs. Economist Gary North lists ten reasons why he believes tariffs alone can support government operations:

First, tariffs are sales taxes imposed on imported goods. The key political fact about sales taxes is this: they are flat taxes. They cannot be used to extract more wealth from one taxpayer than another. This is what state-loving, envy-succumbing economists and politicians call a regressive tax. It sounds terrible; it in fact is quite wonderful. A regressive tax is a tax that is imposed equally on every taxpayer. Regression means that every proponent of the tax will pay the same percentage as the next guy. It keeps voters a bit more honest.

Second, tariffs are almost impossible to impose on services. A cross-border service is hard to trace. The main way that governments track them today is through corporate income tax returns. Imported services are deductible from corporate income taxes. But I am recommending a world with no income taxes. Anyone in such a world who reports a service purchased abroad is saying, "Come and get me!" to the tax collector. The experts say that we live in a service economy. I say: "Then let’s impose taxes on goods." As few as possible.

Third, tariffs are imposed on a narrow class of goods: imports. If we do not count services purchased from off-shore, imports account for well under 15% of the U.S. economy – probably under 10%. In a world of tariffs-only, most of the economy would get off Scot-free.

Fourth, tariffs are collected from commercial importers, not private citizens. In a world of tariffs, there would be no direct contact between me and a tax collector. Overnight, it would be 1912 again – America’s golden age: before the income tax and after indoor plumbing.

Fifth, tariffs on imported information would be almost impossible to collect. The Internet, coupled with encryption, would seal the doom for tariffs on imported information. We live in an information economy. This means that tariffs would apply to less and less of the productivity of most Americans.

Sixth, the U.S. is the richest free trade zone on earth. Geographically, China and Russia are larger, but not economically. Americans would prosper more than any other people in a tariff-only tax system.

Seventh, the U.S. Constitution prohibits internal tariffs: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State" (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 5). This means that national politicians would not be able to compensate for the loss of revenue by imposing internal tariffs. It would take a Constitutional amendment to legalize them.

Eighth, tariffs are not imposed equally on all goods. They are discriminatory. Some goods escape. This means greater freedom from taxes if we choose our imports well.

Ninth, because tariffs are never imposed equally on all imported goods, they would become a matter of intense political warfare. In a world where only tariffs generated revenues, this would keep politicians busy in allocating favors within a shrinking percentage of the economy. I call this the sandbox effect. Cats, toddlers, and politicians belong in sandboxes.

Tenth, hiking tariffs enough to increase revenues significantly would lead to consumer substitutions. Consumers would start looking for domestically produced goods. Unlike most taxes, tariffs are a tax that you can legally avoid paying, at some marginally higher price. Better to fill the coffers of some protected industry than to fill the coffers of the U.S. Treasury..." (source: The Case for Tariffs/Lew Rockwell.com)

The Fair and Flat concepts of taxation may bring short-term relief, but as we've discovered, any system of taxation is simply moving the same amount of money around--just less conspicuously. Both propositions remain wide open for increases and even greater abuse in the long run.

North's tariff proposal would at least allow Americans to "toss the tea overboard" if rates on imports increase beyond public tolerance; and, it affords them the freedom to purchase domestically generated alternatives.

But in truth, as long as our government has the power to tax, it will do so with increasing tyranny. That's the nature of a State.

Neither the Flat nor Fair tax is a viable solution. Only ending the income tax altogether stops unconstitutional tyranny.

Yet the people inevitably cry, "But how will the government survive?"

"Quite well!" is the answer.

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.” (Ron Paul)

I'm a big fan of the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution. The centralized government had only a few duties largely funded by voluntary contributions from each sovereign state. The States were like parents who gave allowances for well-performed chores. Conversely, the funds could be withheld for poor representation or usurpation.

An elite group of men, tantalized by the opportunity to seize power in a new nation, hastily drafted a new document that granted more centralized power. Although safeguards were ceremonially put into place, almost immediately these 'so-called restraints' were largely ignored or excused away by politicians and bankers.

Today, the roles are reversed; subjugated states pay homage to a federal government that monitors, regulates, and robs the citizens.

Do you suppose our government--much like a computer--has a restore point? Many who have seriously pondered this question say "no".

More liberty-loving Americans believe that ending the income tax is just the beginning of dismantling a gargantuan government. They're looking to return to a simpler way for free people to get along and prosper in peaceful communities and societies without federal interference.

As we've learned, the shadowy banking cartel actually "runs" the country, not politicians. One party--much less one man in the executive office--isn't going to clean up or bring lasting change to such a deeply rooted system.

Ideally, I'd like to step back prior to the Articles of Confederation into simple community charters that can network for mutual benefit. I probably won't see it in my lifetime, but that does not discourage me from educating the public about the reality of living as truly free, self-governing individuals within a community of reciprocal respect.

I don't deny that humanity is fallen by nature; therefore, there will always be a need for some type of community security. However, it should be provided by a private company that is authorized for direct encounters only when harm has been done to a person or property. Such a company should be strictly accountable--not to a state agency nor a union--but to the people. Also, justice can better be served through privatized courts, programs, and facilities.

When such services are removed from the State and returned to a free, competing market, quality will improve. The only "special interest" will be to make a profit, and that can only be achieved by providing excellent, yet cost effective service. If a company fails to meet their clients' expectations, they fail. It's that simple. The people that hire them can also fire them.

Wouldn't you love to fire some of the people in government? Well, although they technically work for you, you can't. Don't be fooled: voting the sorry rascals out of office is not the same as outright firing them. Politicians are only animated symbols of governing ideologies that compete with each other within a larger, centralized system. Both parties take turns being in charge, and a new "king" gets to sit on the hill every four to eight years.

The real problem is the State, not just the people that work for it. For Christians, an excellent analogy would be the story of Abraham and his wife's handmaiden, Hagar. (Genesis 16, 17, 18:1-15; 21:1-21)

God promised to give childless Abraham a natural heir; but as time progressed with no evidence that God was going to come through, the aging Abe and his wife, Sarah, took matters into their own hands.

Sarah gave the beautiful Hagar to Abraham as her surrogate. The plan worked, and the young slave woman gave birth to a male that legally qualified as an heir.

But to everyone's surprise, Sarah later became pregnant (just as God had promised), and at the age of ninety bore a miracle son for one-hundred-year-old Daddy Abe!

As the boys grew, so did the jealousy of the older brother who lived under the realization that he was not the child of promise. He was the result of works due to unbelief, the other child was birthed by faith--one came from the womb of slavery, the other from freedom. (Natural trumped legal, as do our rights today!)

The day came when God instructed Abraham to send Hagar and her son far away. God prospered them in another land, but it was clear that the two men could not live together and still accomplish God's purposes.

Many people over the years have been puzzled as to why Hagar also had to go; after all, Ishmael was a grown man at this time. But hers was the healthy womb that brought forth Ishmael in the first place. If she birthed one out of God's will, she could do it again.

Christian, a corrupt, centralized government--man-centered and driven by greed and a lust for power--is the prolific womb. Politicians and those that serve them are the "Ishmaels"--products that continue to mock and impede children born for freedom, not slavery.

Sending away Washington's devoted "children" is not enough. You must address what incubates and enables them!

How to do this? Well, most Americans are not against direct confrontation in town hall meetings and public rallies; they certainly call their representatives and write editorials.

Fewer support peaceful, civil disobedience, although I feel that number might change as our federal government becomes more oppressive. Perhaps re-instituting the draft will finally get grandparents, who once so freely protested ungodly wars in their youth, back into the streets.

Nonetheless, I want to introduce you to a quieter revolution that is taking place in ever-increasing numbers across the nation. Instead of a direct, frontal assault on the government, activists in this revolution simply withdraw their support and participation, primarily removing what the government needs to survive--money.

As a womb needs sustenance to produce, a government needs money. Without it, it will shrivel up...not right away, but a systematic reduction over time will either cripple its reproductive capacity (that's for you minarchists) or render it barren altogether ( that's for us anarchists).

Regardless of where you stand on the liberty perspective, either option is applauded over the system we now have in Washington that spits out compliant wards like rabbits!

If you've been investigating libertarianism, perhaps you've heard such terms as voluntaryism and agorism.

In my next post, I'll discuss how these lifestyle philosophies practically work in the various levels of society, and why more people every day embrace them as the logical course toward authentic freedom.

A Moral Dilemma: Should A Christian Pay Income Tax?

2011-04-15T16:01:00.000-05:00

Should a Christian pay income tax?

This is a question that demands a sober, honest response from those who desire to live accountable to God and before his fellow man.

Once a believer investigates the origins of the centralized state and finds it's against God's design for human government; and once the Christian discovers that the U.S. government has been illegally taxing the citizens' income to pay back the Federal Reserve, a decision must be made.

Our country is being controlled by a banking cartel of elite, powerful men. Because they manipulate the money, they manipulate both foreign and domestic policies. In other words, they're the REAL shadow government!

I am NOT telling you to quit paying taxes! However, these various articles re-shaped my worldview regarding taxation. I pray that you will also obtain a better understanding with which to posture yourself in belief and practice against wicked plundering.

Later posts will address legitimate ways to put more distance between you and Uncle Sam's wrongdoing. We'll also examine current tax alternatives, and how society can function quite well without the federal income tax.

First however, we must realize that centralized, man-centered government was started by Cain (and followed by Nimrod) in rebellion to his Creator, and that our Lord sees statist control today as nothing more than resurrected Babels.

Norman Horn at LibertarianChristians.com has a thorough, eye-opening article based on the observations of early Jewish historian, Josephus: The Origins of the State.

For a good look into how the State now reaches and regulates every aspect of society--including religion--I recommend Nothing Outside the State Part I and Part II by Robert Higgs, posted on The Beacon from the Independent Institute.
What of any consequence remains beyond the state’s reach in the U.S. today?

Not wages, working conditions, or labor-management relationsNot health care; not money, banking, or financial services; not personal privacy
Not transportation or communication; not education or scientific research
Not farming or food supply; not nutrition or food quality; not marriage or divorce

Not child care; not provision for retirement; not recreation; not insurance of any kind
Not smoking or drinking; not gambling; not political campaign funding or publicity
Not real estate development, house construction, or housing finance
Not international travel, trade, or finance; not a thousand other areas and aspects of social life.

"One might affirm that the state still keeps its hands off religion, but it actually does not. It certifies certain religious organizations as legitimate and condemns others, as many young men discovered to their sorrow when they attempted to claim the status of conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. It assigns members of certain religions, but not members of others, as chaplains in its armed services."

Even though Holy Matrimony was instituted before the state, Christians are conditioned to seek "permission" (licensing) from the state to get married. In exchange for this permission, a couple may delight in getting certain tax benefits, but they also unwittingly surrender, by contract, their children to the State. (Are Marriages Illegal?) and (Five Reasons Why Christians Should NOT Obtain a State Marriage License.)

After the Israelites begged for a king like the nations around them, God's prophet, Samuel, warned that choosing to be governed by men rather than God would lay two heavy burdens upon them--taxation and civil service.

What Samuel Said about Solomon is an excellent article from the Mises Institute. Author Frank Chodorov explains how the opening passage--"In those days, there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (17:6)--is not a disparaging comment, but stating a simple fact that self-government was the societal norm.

To be able to do that which is right in one's own eyes is to be free, and freedom was the way of life among the Israelites before the coming of the kings. Yet, they were not without government; they were not lacking in those social controls that are the essence of government. (The Torah)

The economy of the tribesmen demanded of the individual that he adjust himself to cooperative and regularized procedures; a man who indulged his caprice when the tribe was on the march in search of grazing land would be courting disaster; it was a case of hold together or die.

Tradition supplemented necessity in the orderly arrangement of life, for the tradition grew out of experience by the trial-and-error method and had proved itself beneficial. The laws of custom were sanctified because violation of them carried its own penalties, not only to the individual, but also to the group.

God allowed His people to be oppressed by other nations only when their ability to govern themselves responsibly under Him resulted in harmful, unchecked behavior that affected the community. It was NOT due to the lack of a strong, centralized government!

Chodorov's definitive classic from 1954, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, is available at Mises and can be downloaded in PDF. Take a look through these chapters:

Chapter 1 Solomon's Yoke
Chapter 2 Politically Speaking, What is "Evil"
Chapter 3 Yours Is Not Your Own
Chapter 4 How It Came Upon Us
Chapter 5 The Revolution of 1913
Chapter 6 Soak The Poor
Chapter 7 Corruption and Corruption
Chapter 8 A Possible Way Out
Chapter 9 Competition in Government
Chapter 10 Union Forever
Chapter 11 For Freedom's Sake

"As a result of income taxation, we now have a government with far more power than George III ever exercised. It is self-sufficient, independent of the will of the people. The elections do not alter that fact; these are merely periodic changes of the guard. Whoever is elected retains the power vested in the office and, as usual, tries to augment it. The end in clear sight is the liquidation of all social power and the advent of a regime of absolutism.

This, it cannot too often be repeated, was an inevitable consequence of income taxation. The citizen is sovereign only when he can retain and enjoy the fruits of his labor. If the government has first claim on his property he must learn to genuflect before it.

When the right of property is abrogated, all the other rights of the individual are undermined, and to speak of the sovereign citizen who has no absolute right of property is to talk nonsense. It is like saying that the slave is free because he is allowed to do anything he wants to do (even vote, if you wish) except to own what he produces.
The case for repeal )of the 16th Amendment) rests on this tradition. If there are still enough Americans who are of the opinion that that government governs best which governs least, if there is among us a group willing to risk their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor for freedom, then repeal has a chance. If, on the other hand, the habits of mind acquired under income taxation have completely obliterated the American tradition, then any effort to restore citizen sovereignty is futile.

It is never too late to put up a fight for freedom." (Chapter 8)

Mind you, he wrote these compelling words to a slumbering nation 56 years ago! Are we beyond slumber, America, re we comatose?

Where is the Church--those believers who are to be thermostats, not mere thermometers that reflect the nation's moral temperature! Do we understand the seriousness of blind tribute to Caesar?

Whenever we attempt to interpret a passage of Scripture, classical hermeneutics teach us to always look at the historical/cultural settings that surround it. The Tribute Passage, where Jesus tells us to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", is one of the most misunderstood passages of Scripture; consequently, it is one of the most misinterpreted. It is NOT a ringing endorsement by Jesus to pay taxes!

I recommend the scholarly article posted at Lew Rockwell's site by Jeffrey Barr: Render unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage. (The position of the Catholic church is worth noting).

Plus, LibertarianChristians.com has a great article by Christopher Bevis, Caesar and God in Context:

So, what does Jesus here imply belongs to a Caesar who tried to rival God for worship and loyalty? Financially speaking, the most that statist Christians can get from this story is an endorsement of a flat tax limited to a single digit percentage of a manual labourer’s annual income.

Furthermore, this money was used to finance local government, local security and road construction. It was never sufficient to prop up bloated international government agencies, failing businesses or indebted home buyers. But since Jesus implicitly shut Caesar out of the Temple with his answer, even this conclusion is debatable at best.

Morally speaking, though, Jesus was refusing much more than a coin for himself or his Father. His answer was a rejection of the blasphemous power of state-controlled money, issued by thieving moneyers at the behest of false gods. Even today, such money is backed by the ability to threaten and use state-sanctioned violence on a massive scale. Those who give such orders today shelter beneath the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”, and those who carry out the orders try to absolve themselves by pointing to “the chain of command”.

Caesar’s “power” (such as it is) entails appearing to reap without sowing, promoting or unmaking just weights and measures on a whim of public policy, taking or preserving the lives of others in the name of the “big picture” or the “greater good” – and reaping personal and national disaster in due course. No wonder Jesus, the Prince of Peace, rejected such power whenever it was offered to him.

It all boils down to this: Taxation is theft; it is a scandalous portion of the money we righteously earn that is taken by force--accompanied by a threat of fine or imprisonment for non-compliance. The State is run by power brokers building a Babel that delights in competing with God and acting as a god to its serfs.

We are told a lie when statists insist our stolen money helps run government services. First, the government itself no longer obeys the Constitutional limits set upon it, yet it commands explicit obedience from its constituents.

The government must pay for its excesses. The money borrowed from the Federal Reserve to enlarge its borders and gobble up more power is stolen from the people and returned--with interest--to the Fed.

Money to run government services, according to the Constitution, can be adequately earned through excise taxes, tariffs and other legitimate forms of revenue--not a tax on people's earnings!

In one of my earlier posts, I reported the arrests of former IRS agents Sherry Peel Jackson and Joseph Banister who boldly stood up and told the truth about the agency. In addition, they took highly personal steps against unlawful plunder. Yet, ordinary citizens are also being targeted by the IRS. Here's the story of what happened to a Christian couple in Florida who were LEGALLY trying to avoid personal income taxes:

Without warning, in the early morning on a day in 1996, Internal Revenue Service agents, sporting seizure papers and accompanied by police officers, towed away cars parked on Cummings Road in Pensacola, Florida. So began a long ordeal between a Christian ministry and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that continues today.

IRS agents seized the property in a claim for $10,000 of unpaid taxes. The alleged tax violators had mailed written responses to the IRS, but IRS agents chose to seize property without notice rather than write a reply to the accused. What would become years of intimidation had begun.

Today the accused, a man and his wife, convicted of tax fraud, are spending their time in separate federal prisons. He won't get out of jail until 2015. His wife just has now entered federal prison and will spend a year in jail.

What terrible crime did Ken Hovind commit?

Hovind, a retired school teacher, started a ministry to teach kids about creationism--Creation Science Evangelism.

Back in 1989, Kent Hovind officially took a vow of poverty, as Roman Catholic priests who belong to an "order" do today. Catholic priests who take a vow of poverty, which is recognized by the IRS, are exempt from paying Federal income tax.

For those who have taken such a vow, earnings are considered the income of the religious order, or in Hovind’s case, part of his ministry. In essence, Hovind owned nothing, had no salary, and all of his needs, housing, food, transportation, were met by the ministry.

He had no personal wealth, and he was not an owner of any real estate or other property, the ministry was. All of CSE’s real estate was put into a trust. Years later, newspaper reports nebulously reported Hovind failed to pay his taxes. It was a moot point. Hovind, like ordered Catholic priests, officially had no income.

Kent Hovind was arrested and charged with twelve counts of willfully failing to withhold, deposit, report, and pay federal income and FICA (social security) taxes for employees from March 31, 2001 until December 31, 2003. The only law he was informed that he violated was 26 U.S.C. § 7202. (26 U.S.C. § 7202 has a 5-year penalty and he is in jail for 10.)*

When their day in court arrived, 5 of 6 former and current employees testified they had paid their own taxes, so the IRS’ argument that the Hovind’s (or the ministry) owed the government hundreds of thousands of dollars was specious.

It appears that the IRS could not easily invoke fines and penalties upon Kent Hovind because of his vow of poverty. In fact, a 2005 Grand Jury declined to investigate Hovind any further after submission of his affidavit which explained his dedication to ministry work and how he began his ministry with a vow of poverty, which he adhered to religiously.

To the IRS, this was not a ministry but rather Kent Hovind doing business as Creation Science Evangelism. So let’s pretend, for a moment, Hovind really was a business like the IRS tries to make it appear. But the IRS didn’t follow their own rules here. Churches and ministries do not have to apply to the government to be tax exempt.

According to IRS Publication 526--Organizations That Qualify To Receive Deductible Contributions--You can deduct your contributions only if you make them to a qualified organization. To become a qualified organization, most organizations other than churches and governments, as described below, must apply to the IRS.

In the IRS’ own words a church "is automatically tax-deductible." Read the rest of the article about the Hovind case by Bill Sardis at Lew Rockwell's site.

Sardis' closing comments are compelling:

"Americans will hear of the Hovind case. They will say, "Ya, that’s that creation guy, got himself into trouble with the IRS. He should have paid his taxes like everyone else."

Yes, we should all be good citizens and pay into the government Ponzi scheme, and relinquish our privacy rights and not hide anything from the government, and make no effort to avoid (not evade) taxes. Americans aren’t likely to pay attention till the IRS is prosecuting them.

At the current writing of this report, the Federal government is covertly auditing small business bank accounts for any appearance of tax evasion. The Federal government assumes it has the right to audit every bank account in America because it is now an insolvent government that must look for new sources of income. It is possible the IRS will estimate taxes owed and withdraw funds directly from small business bank accounts rather than audit every small business.

The American people largely appear to be oblivious to a government that has slid past socialism to fascism. Americans might admit to the socialist claim, but they wouldn’t recognize fascism if they saw it. It is not in their vocabulary.

"In Nazi Germany, Christians were confronted with the Bible scripture to "render unto Caesar" to compel their cooperation. As the nation slides further into debt (another $12 trillion of public debt is planned by 2013) government will legislate more and more ways to raise taxes, pay fines, etc.

"The Hovind case was not about law, it was about a country that cannot distinguish the over-reaching arm of government, beyond what the 10th Amendment to the Constitution allows, from an all-authoritarian, totalitarian government, that often, but not always, operates under a dictator. The State has replaced God.

"The Hovind case was about a citizenry that cannot fathom that their country does any wrong.

"The U.S. Constitution serves as a perfect cover for American fascism. Constitutional limited government is gone. The fear of imagined terrorists produces a need for the public to rely upon an all-authoritative protector.

"America is a constitutional Republic in name only. Efforts to remove guns from potential criminals are a cover for negating the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The principle of "no taxation without representation" is negated by gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Government must strike down tax dissenters lest the populace rise up against unfair taxation.

"The greatness of America, its pioneer spirit and its standard of living, is about to come to an end. The Federal government hides the fact it spends over a trillion dollars a year on war making, or more than half of the U.S. annual budget, essentially robbing money from its future. Medicare and Social Security are aggregately under-funded by $75 trillion. There is no way Americans today are going to be provided the healthcare and pension checks they were promised.

"When the citizenry finally does wake up, the only way the State can maintain control is to quell all opposition, threaten imprisonment, keep the people financially impoverished and in bread lines, so they cannot mount up meaningful resistance. Searching for food on the table, they become more dependent upon a monster that the nation’s forefathers warned about.

"Oppressive countries imprison dissenters. Kent and Jo Hovind look out from behind bars, wondering when or if America will ever wake up."

As confessing Christians, we must ask for courage, not comfort as we seek to honor Christ and model truth before others. Sadly, our modeling today speaks of Solomon-like ungodly alliances with the State. Like the king of old who made excuses for pandering to his women, American Christians don't want to upset the statist "apple cart", so they compromise to accommodate those who have politically seduced them.

I also think of Samson and Delilah. Every time I read his story in Judges, I'm amazed that although he knew full well of his lover's attempt to uncover the source of his strength to aid her Philistine 'pimps'--the enemies of God's people--Samson could not bring himself to cut ties with her. (Judges 16:4-31)

One night, Delilah's charms finally wore down Samson's resistance and he revealed the secret to his strength--his long hair. He then fell asleep in her lap. When the seductress awoke her victim, he was bound in chains. The dazed Samson thought he could break them apart as before, but he soon discovered that while he slept, Delilah had cut his hair.

Christians keep trotting back to the State for grants, marriage licenses, tax exempt status, and more. The Church reclines comfortably, getting stroked in the lap of the seducer.

What is the state doing while the Church sleeps? Delilah takes her greedy "cut" from the fruit of the labor of God's people that leaves them weak, blind, and enslaved.

One less Christian knocking on the door of the prostitute State may not seem like much; in fact, we see that a few here or there who take a stand for righteousness are easy targets for persecution AND prosecution.

But what if Christians, combined with citizens from all walks of life and creeds, stood firm together to no longer keep up gaudy "Delilah" (the government)!

Indeed, would there be enough IRS manpower to prosecute thousands, even millions? Would Delilah be forced to change her ways--even shut down her illegal business activities? And what about her "pimps"? Would the Federal Reserve be forced to shut down altogether after nearly a hundred years of organized crime?

A groundswell has already begun. Let's remember the words of Benjamin Franklin when the Declaration of Independence was signed:

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Interestingly, the founding fathers did not hang at the tyranny of King George, but many did lose their homes and fortunes. Yet, look at their outstanding legacy.

Today, we face tyrannies that far surpass what our forefathers knew. What would they think of us today? What would they say to us? Are you of the moral fiber of a Samuel Adams or a John Hancock?

In my next blog, we'll critically look at some of the tax alternatives being put on the table across the nation, such as the Fair Tax and Flat Tax, and discuss why these are still forms of statist theft and enslavement that can be abused.

Again, each one of us must not be afraid to face the truth and assess where we are--asking God for His individual leading as to which path we are to take, and the distinct mark we are to leave in history. We are not to compare ourselves to others nor judge the paths they take.

However, we MUST judge ourselves, our citizenship, and yes--even what we call our Christianity if--after learning the truth--we choose to comfortably re-prostrate ourselves before the State.

*Christians appear to be paralyzed to oppose a wrong, their complicity with what appears to be a Biblical exhortation not to "cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning." (Book of Leviticus 19:13) The current Social Security system is going to cheat future generations out of trillions of dollars.

The Securities and Exchange Commission describes a Ponzi scheme as a system where one continues to put money into a system on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.

The Withholding Tax may be the law by prevailing practice, but that doesn’t make it moral or right. In fact, it may be unconstitutional because it interferes with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.

If somebody doesn’t begin to stand up to a government system that by all definitions is a Ponzi scheme, American society will crumble in economic insolvency, as we read in the daily newspapers now.

Until the laws and regulations regarding taxation are changed, the citizenry is obligated to pay taxes and employers are obligated to withdraw funds from employees’ payroll checks. But this makes citizens complicit in the crime.(Sardis)

In addition, here's a great article by Dann McCreary: Does the Bible Condemn Tax Withholding?

America: Freedom to Fascism

2011-04-14T07:07:00.000-05:00

Here it is--what I consider to be the most important documentary for freedom lovers. It's no "fly by night" amateur piece of work; the producer was no industry lightweight.

It's over a hour in length, but it was one of the best time investments I've ever made. What I received in return changed my life and made me a better American.

Aaron Russo was a gifted filmmaker and libertarian activist. His best known works are Trading Places, Wise Guys, and The Rose. He was a nominee for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 2004. After a six year battle with bladder cancer, Russo died on August 24, 2007.

Of course, anytime you produce a piece of evidence this clear and undiluted, you pay a price. One former IRS agent who spoke out in the documentary was jailed for taking a personal stand against tax theft. Russo was shunned by most of the Hollywood elite after the release of this documentary.

Be prepared! After watching this irrefutable evidence, you will know the truth, and truth demands a corresponding action.

In our next post we'll ask, "Is It Moral for Christians to Pay the Income Tax?"

The Terrible Truth about Taxation: Exposing the IRS

2011-04-13T04:04:00.000-05:00

"In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is
a Revolutionary Act."
~ George Orwell

Previously, we looked into the early history of taxation in America and the colonists' revolt against burdensome tariffs and excise taxes.

The first income tax was implemented because of the Civil War; both North North and South initiated it to be a temporary measure to pay war debts. However, a populist movement (the wishes and desires of the 'ordinary' folks) was gaining momentum after the war. It demanded an income tax on the rich. In 1894, under a Democratic President, Congress passed such a tax that looked to rich Americans to pay for the cost of running the government.

This first income tax was only 2%, and exempted 98% of the nation; but the government, which asked for an inch, took a mile.

Within the next two decades, the 16th amendment was passed. Progressive tax rates against the rich ranged from 1 to 7%. Did it work? Of course not.

Government expanded, but collections from the rich--who learned to find savvy tax shelters--did not. America began to lose her "millionaires on record", as entrepreneurs were fed up at being penalized for success.

The problem with trying to soak the rich, from an historian's perspective, is it doesn't work as planned. The rich, going all the way back to the Romans, have had the means to control and evade taxes that got out of line.

Howard Hughes paid no income taxes, and his tax planning was quite legal. In the final analysis, the middle class is the only dependable source of tax revenue--and that is a truism tax makers should not forget when they seriously need more revenue. As any tax practitioner will tell you, the richer you are, the easier it is to control taxable income.

John D. Rockefeller and Jr.

So, off we go with the income tax. It's supposed to solve all our fiscal ills, and it's supposed to make the rich pick up most of the tab. As might be expected, it didn't quite do that, and the more the rates were increased. Collections didn't go up for the rich, although they did go up for everyone else. In 1916, with a top rate of 7% the treasury reported 206 people with incomes over one million dollars.

Five years later, when the tax rate went up 1100 percent, from 7% to 77%, there were only 21 people with an income of a million dollars or more. What happened? Simple arithmetic shows that 9 out of 10 million-dollar earners had vanished, as if by magic. Well, maybe they moved to some low tax country...we don't know, but they obviously rearranged their lives or finances so they no longer had million dollar earnings that were taxable." A Brief Tax History of America

Today, the Internal Revenue Service is the most feared agency in America--virtually unaccountable and criminally abusive to the millions on its plantation.

America's "Tax Army" employs 1.2 million--more than the armed forces stationed in the United States (0.9 million)!

The total cost of collecting taxes is estimated at $63 billion, ironically just $4 Billion short of funding general government and law enforcement! Nolan Chart

However, now that the IRS may soon be monitoring Americans' insurance purchases and withholding tax refunds for non-compliance to Obamacare, officials estimate an additional 16,500 employees will be added. More IRS Agents Needed for ObamaCare Enforcement

Americans complain, but faithfully pay their taxes to a system that is constitutionally illegal--nothing less than a criminal organization that continues to exist because of successful deceptive and bullying tactics. Most citizens have been brainwashed to believe that it is their duty to support the government—right or wrong.

Let's expose some of these outrageous lies about income taxes:

Lie # 1: The filing of federal income tax returns is voluntary, and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required:

"The premise behind collecting the federal income tax is a complete farce. The IRS claims the tax is voluntary, whereas any sane American realizes that she or he will go to jail if the tax is not paid. This is evident from not only the legal code, but even from the latest 1040 instructions to the taxpayer!

"IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman writes that the American taxpayer willingly pays income tax "of their own free will" but laments "unfortunately, there will always be some that cheat their fellow citizens by avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes." Shulman then infers that IRS enforcement will be "prompt" and "strong" (read: 'swift' and 'merciless') for this voluntary tax.

The Treasury calls it "our voluntary tax system." The IRS claims it pursues "enforcement programs to promote voluntary compliance" and establishes "strategies to maximize voluntary tax law compliance by emphasizing customer satisfaction." Nolan Chart

Lie # 2: The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, legalizing the income tax, was ratified:

Mr. Bill Benson and Mr. M.J. "Red" Beckman traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature's historical archives. Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, "The Law That Never Was". The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. The Law That Never Was

No US court has ever determined that the 16th Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified. What the courts have said is that because the [then] US Secretary of State, Philander Knox, "certified" that the Amendment was properly ratified, the courts of the United States must consider it properly ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax "We the People" in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings!

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . . - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . . - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken…- United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution required that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In other words, the amount of direct taxes that could be collected from any State was tied directly to its share of the national population.

On the basis of this requirement, application of the income tax to income derived from real estate and specifically income in the form of dividends from personal property ownership such as stock shares was found to be unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states; that is to say, there was no guarantee that a State with 10% of the country's population paid 10% of those income taxes collected, because Congress had not fixed an amount of money to be raised and apportioned it between the States according to their respective shares of the national population.

The two types of taxation were intended by our forefathers to serve exclusive and separate jurisdictions in absolute, with direct taxation local and close at hand leaving no possibility of federal tax tyranny. Direct taxation carries the power to destroy, so our forefathers insisted on direct taxation for local government. The feds are only permitted indirect taxation so that private property would not be at risk to a corruptible central body and would, thusly remain sacred." Jeremiah Project

The Amendment essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income "from whatever source derived" without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population. As a result, after the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, as per the U.S. Constitution, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes).

As soon as direct federal tax was legislated with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, hundreds of bureaus and agencies, federal departments, sprung up, all of which cost money. All these organs, duplicated the function of the state organs and their jurisdictions and, thus, are illegal or at least utterly contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers, and the massive costs of this idiocy are the cause of most of our miseries, debts and deficits.

Because the payment of tax has been made compulsory and enforced by a coercive police and justice system, it can be viewed as institutionalized violence equivalent to theft. And, to add insult to injury, tax protester constitutional arguments that assert that the imposition of the income tax in the United States violates the United States Constitution, have themselves been deemed unlawful (or frivolous) by the IRS, punishable by a $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

In addition, under the United States Supreme Court ruling in Cheek v. United States, a defendant in a tax evasion prosecution who has made arguments that the Federal income tax laws are unconstitutional may have the arguments turned against him (or her). Such arguments, even if based on honestly held beliefs, may constitute evidence that helps the prosecutor prove willfulness, one of the elements of tax evasion. (Ibid.)

Don Cooper economist, says this is tantamount to paying 'protection' money to the mob:

"...The government says you have to pay these monies so they can look out for your welfare and if you don't then they can't guarantee your welfare because they will arrest you and throw you in jail.

"The logic of them looking out for my welfare is an illusion as well. How is my welfare improved when I am coerced into paying taxes to the Department of Agriculture who then pays farmers not to farm in an effort to prop up agricultural food prices for the farmers, consequently causing agricultural food prices in the markets to go up? I'd rather not pay my fair share to the DOA and let those farmers farm and compete against one another so I can have lower food prices. Then my welfare is improved.

"Regardless, Americans are not free to make these decisions for themselves. This is not opinion but rather cold hard fact. We also have no say when it comes to implementing new taxes or getting rid of old ones. Whenever the mob decides it wants to create a new tax it simply does it and everyone is forced (coerced) to pay it.

"The government will counter with the argument that without all the "necessary" taxation that it wouldn't have enough money to operate all its programs; to which we would say: correct, you need to discontinue all your programs because we don't want them, we don't need them."

"On the surface the government would like us to believe that they are our moral compass. That they know what's in our best interests better than we know ourselves as absurd as that is – and so they are going to look out for us despite our objections.

All we have to do is give them our money and they will do with it what's best for us. Of course underneath it has nothing to do with our best interests but rather with accumulating political capital and money for themselves and their party." Legalized Mob

Lie # 3: Income taxes are used to pay for daily government operations:

The income tax is mostly used for War-Making, the Welfare State, and the National Debt - not general government and law enforcement.

Out of every tax dollar, the IRS estimates we spend about a quarter on defense, a dime on the national debt, two pennies on general government and law enforcement, and the remainder on Social Security (a giant Ponzi scheme) and other welfare and social programs.

The $1.2 Trillion federal income tax is unnecessary. Cutting our overseas military empire spending of $1 Trillion per year would justify its elimination.

Instead of bailing out the banks for $0.8 Trillion in and $1.1 Trillion of the Obama stimulus plan, we could have bailed out the increasingly unemployed taxpayer for at least the 2008 tax bill.

(America did quite well for the 140 years without a standard income tax, from 1776-1916!!) Nolan Chart

Let's get to the nitty-gritty. Basically, the Government borrows money from the loan shark Federal Reserve in order to pay for gargantuan warfare/welfare programs. In turn, it plunders from "We, the people," to pay it back.

You cannot fully understand the awesome power to collect taxes from its citizens without understanding the inter-relatedness of the Federal Reserve System. When the government enacted the Federal Reserve Act, which gave total control of America's credit and currency to the independent Federal Reserve, it caused a 400 percent increase in the national debt within four years. The banking system now owns the trust companies, investment dealers, stockbrokers, and bond brokers and more.

The Federal Reserve Act has resulted in the creation of the most powerful monopoly that exists in the United States today. Not only is it powerful, but there is no greater nor more tyrannical combine (except possibly the IRS). They have powers that no other body in this country has in matters of bank trade within their jurisdiction. They have powers which are autocratic in themselves and in their exercise." Jeremiah Project

Attempting to decipher the tax laws in this country is a task beyond the ability of most Americans, and the elite statists want to keep it that way. But a few courageous men and women within the IRS have blown the whistle and surrendered their freedoms, as a result. One such patriot is former agent, Sherry Peel Jackson.

Sherry now sits in solitary confinement, imprisoned for tax evasion and for speaking out against her employer. Here's her story:

Sherry Jackson languishes as a political prisoner for exposing the fraudulent nature of the federal income tax system and refusing to pay her income taxes for 200-2003. She is detained at a facility in Florida, and is scheduled for freedom in 2012 (with one-year supervised release).

Sherry is not alone. Joseph Banister, former investigator and gunslinger for the IRS, came to the same conclusions as Jackson.

Joseph Banister

Banister was authorized to execute and serve search and arrest warrants, to make arrests without warrant, to carry firearms, and seize property subject to forfeiture. He eventually advanced to the position of asset forfeiture coordinator and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force coordinator for the Central California District.

Banister explains:

"I expected to spend the rest of my professional career as an agent for the U.S. Treasury, but my career was cut short when I encountered, investigated, and confronted IRS management with evidence indicating that the agency was illegally administering the federal income tax system and thereby violating the rights of ordinary Americans.

Over a two year period from early 1997 until the early 1999, I conducted a thorough investigation, off-duty and at my own expense, into claims made by various researchers and activists that the IRS was administering and enforcing the federal income tax beyond what was authorized by law, and that most Americans were not liable to pay the federal income tax but were deceived and intimidated into paying it.

Such claims would seem to be preposterous and unbelievable and I initially thought so, too. My expectation was that the falsity of such claims would be manifested quickly because false claims rarely withstand close scrutiny. However, I was as surprised as anyone that I ended up encountering and accumulating significant amounts of evidence indicating that what at first appeared to be preposterous and unbelievable claims was, instead, able to withstand my detailed investigative scrutiny.

When I had gathered enough evidence to convince myself that the IRS could indeed be administering and enforcing much of the federal income tax under "color of law" rather than proper legal authority, resulting in the wholesale violation of people's rights and fraudulent confiscation of their money and property, I met with my San Jose IRS supervisors to voice my concerns and share some of the evidence I had acquired.

I made it very clear to my supervisors that I had taken an oath to God to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and because of that oath, the 9th Commandment prohibition against bearing false witness against my neighbor, not to mention my general moral and ethical standards, I believed I had a duty to speak up about what I had learned through my investigation.

I thought that my exemplary performance in the agency would have merited a more congenial and meaningful response than the one I received but I was wrong. My duty firearm was taken from me and I was sent home for 7 days to consider whether I had a future as a criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service.

Given the suspicious refusal of IRS officials to discuss the concerns of one of their own investigators, I realized that the only way I could retain my integrity, abide by my morals, and comply with my oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution was to resign. I prepared and submitted my resignation letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti and resigned from the IRS on February 25, 1999."

After resigning from the IRS, Banister, a CPA, began to work as an independent consultant. He also went public with his research and appeared on radio and TV shows all across the nation. Not long afterward, he claimed he was under surveillance. The IRS filed a complaint in March of 2003, and began what Banister called the agency's "mission to silence and discredit" him.

Banister was later arrested by IRS agents. He was accused of telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified. He plead not guilty and was released on a $25,000 bond.

In 2005, after a laborious trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found Banister not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client. In 2008, however, the United States Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to pay his 2002 return and report income from a retirement plan. Although Banister appealed, the Court of Appeals ruled against him. Read more of his story here and here.

You cannot win on your own against the IRS!

Guys like the one in the picture below hope you know your place, good citizen. And just in case you don't, they'll be around to help you find it.

Don't despair! There are safer steps you and I can take--small, but important ones. Combined with the steadily increasing steps of others--America can end the tyranny of a king again.

In my next installment, I'll post the director's cut of the full-length documentary by Aaron Russo, "America: Freedom to Fascism". It's over a hour in length, but well worth your time. Every American who loves their country, covets freedom, and wants to be a good steward before God of their labor and profits, should see this film.

The Truth About Taxation: Where Are the John Hancocks of Today?

2011-04-12T07:32:00.000-05:00

April 15th is approaching--a day when Americans will fuss and fume about Uncle Sam's income tax round-up, but dutifully sign their names on the dotted line anyway.

I'll be posting articles all this week to show the history of taxation in America, the illegality of the income tax, and alternatives that can free us and our children from its expanding tyranny.

This information helped open my eyes and stir me to action. If you acknowledge your individual sovereignty before God, but are now convinced more than ever that the State has brazenly, systematically made you its slave...then you, too, will be galvanized by what you read.

When one views a copy of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock's signature stands out from all the rest. The story goes that he signed the Declaration in large script so that King George wouldn't miss his signature!

Hancock was also one of the wealthiest businessmen prior to the Revolution; yet, he was willing to take a profound risk with his fortune and ultimately (as indicated by his over-sized signature), his life.

Hancock had not paid H.M.S. Customs taxes for decades. Today, we would call him a tax dodger and a criminal; but Hancock’s bold signature is a clear reminder that America was founded by tax rebels.

Hancock presided over the Second Continental Congress and was the sole signer of the Dunlap-Broadside version of the Declaration. He was the first elected governor of Massachusetts, and was reelected eight times. He was reelected President of the Second Continental Congress after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

John Hancock

What do you think Hancock, his mentor Samuel Adams, and other patriots would say about the current income tax? After all, they were only standing up to abusive tariffs and excise taxes in their day.

More importantly, what do you think they would say to us, the American people?

Today, Christians apply to the State to start a church in exchange for a not-for-profit status and tax benefits.

Christian ministries covet monetary grants from the government to continue the good works of Jesus, yet stay bound by the rules and regulations of a godless state.

Christians even seek permission from the State to marry.

Americans' activities and pursuits are monitored, cataloged, defined,and restricted. To resist the State incurs harassment, fines, and/or imprisonment.

This is NOT the America for which Hancock so boldly signed! Is it yours?

The History of Taxes in America:

With the advent of income taxation in America, the relationship between citizen and government was inverted. Prior to the income tax, the citizen was sovereign by virtue of the fact that he was free to earn unlimited amounts of money and there was nothing the government could do about it. Like it or not, it was his money, to do with as he pleased.

With the adoption of income taxation, all that changed. In effect, the income tax nationalized income. While many people would undoubtedly prefer not to think about it in this way, under the federal income tax everyone’s income belongs to the government or, if you prefer, to “society.” The power to set the tax rate is essentially the power to decide how much of their income people are going to be permitted to keep.

Thus, the income tax has converted the relationship between government and citizen into one akin to parent and child. The portion of their income that the citizenry are permitted to retain has effectively become an allowance. Sometimes the government is good to the citizenry and lets them keep more of their income. Sometimes the government is not so nice and lets the citizenry keep less of their income. But what’s important here, in terms of freedom, is not the percentage that is being levied but rather the fact that it is the government making the determination. That’s obviously a far cry from a society in which there is no income taxation at all. (Jacob Hornberger, The Ultimate Tax Cut

The British government had serious tax problems at the time of American colonization.

The prolonged war with France had been costly, as all wars are, and to increase taxes at home, in 1764, taxes were introduced on hard cider, the beverage of the common man. Riots erupted in London, excise houses were burned, and the tax was repealed. The Crown then turned to the untaxed colonies. In the House of Commons the question was asked, "Do you think the Americans will resent paying their mite for the protection of the colonies?" No one objected. The Crown then passed the Sugar Act with no dissents.

Revenue was not anywhere near what was expected, so the Crown tried again with stamp taxes that would apply to all kinds of documents, newspapers, etc. No opposition was expected as there had been nothing of much significance to the protest over the Sugar Act. But this was a different kind of tax – it hit everyone, not just the smugglers in New England. Stamp taxes were in use in the colonies as a local revenue measure. They were popular most everywhere in Europe, having been invented at the beginning of the 18th century. It was this tax that prompted Adam Smith’s comment, "There is no act which one nation sooner learns from another than how to drain money from the pockets of the people."

To the surprise and shock of British tax authorities, and even local governors, the colonists reacted with a fury. Even Ben Franklin, at first, applied for the job of stamp tax collector, not anticipating a major rebellion. The colonists called for a meeting of protest, which met in New York, and called itself "the Stamp Act Congress," which was the real birthplace of the United States. Most of the colonies showed up. This congress brought together the squabbling colonies for the first time with a common goal – defeat British efforts to tax the colonies internally.

The British prime minister...proposed a new tax putting a duty on a number of goods coming into the colonies... The Americans immediately started to boycott the goods that carried the new taxes. The Crown had no choice but to repeal these duties, except for tea. This gave rise to the trigger for the Revolution, the Boston Tea Party. A Brief Tax History of America by Charles Adams

The Continental Congress of the colonies drafted the Articles of Confederation, which many libertarians today still consider superior to the Constitution. The government had NO power to directly tax the people--what it needed had to come voluntarily from the sovereign states.

To be monetarily at the mercy of the states was unacceptable to many men who wanted a top-down government. Behind closed doors, a new Constitution granting more power to a centralized government was quickly drafted and pushed through with questionable ratification.

Power-hungry men got their way, and stronger, centralized government began to steadily flex its ever-growing muscles as the task master over a new plantation of slaves.

Is taxation equivalent to slavery? Yes!

Slavery...is non-ownership of Person and Labor. In that case, sovereignty is ownership of Person and Labor. The basic contrast, then, is between slavery and sovereignty, and the issue is ownership. And there are two basic things one can own: one’s Person (one’s life), and one’s Labor (the fruits of one’s labors, including personal wealth resulting from productive labors).

The pivotal point is whether or not ownership is ceded through voluntary contract. Have you any recollection of any deals you signed with the IRS promising them payment of part of your income? If not, then if 30% of your income is paid in income taxes, then you have only 70% ownership of Labor. You are a slave from January through April – a very conservative estimate at best, today!

If one wants to stand on the U.S. Constitution as one’s foundation, then the 13^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be used as an ironclad argument against a forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being.

The 13^th Amendment says: 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'

The 13^th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or Constitutionally be forced into involuntary servitude. As such, we maintain that a human being has an inalienable right to own 100 % of Person and 100% of Labor, including control over how the fruits of his actions are dispensed. A human being has an inalienable right to control the compensation for his labor while in the act of any service in the marketplace – e.g., digging ditches, flipping burgers, word-processing documents for a company, programming computers, preparing court cases, performing surgery, preaching sermons, or writing novels.

A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13^th Amendment. If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude – slavery – for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30." Is the Income Tax A Form of Slavery? by Steven Yates and Ray E Bornett II

Interestingly, although the new constitution gave the government the power to tax...

...it was generally believed this should be limited to duties on imports. The right to tax without limitation was repudiated by even the most ardent nationalists, like Noah Webster and Hamilton. Hamilton argued successfully against limiting taxes to a single form. If great revenues were needed, as they may be at times, then a single form of tax would be excessive, fostering evasion and hurting commerce. Let Congress have the power to select many different forms of taxation and spread the burdens more equitably. So as you might expect, the first power granted to Congress was to tax.

When the matter of constitutional ratification came up in the many state legislatures, concern about direct taxing powers was expressed by the representatives. Without exception, it was almost axiomatic that direct taxation would only occur during an extraordinary emergency.

A delegate to the Maryland state convention, noted that the federal government must hold the power of direct taxation in reserve, "nothing but some unforeseen disaster will ever drive them [federal government] to such ineligible expedients." At the Convention, Luther Martin seemed to express the universal view that direct taxation "should not be used but in cases of absolute necessity." James Wilson, whom many believe was the primary architect of the Constitution, even eclipsing Madison, said that direct taxes were for emergencies only. (Adams)

But enter the Whiskey Rebellion:

Hamilton as the Secretary of the Treasury, persuaded the first Congress to adopt a tax on whiskey to help pay for the huge war debt as well as to run the country along with import duties. At that time, there was no tax more hated than excises by both the Americans and the British. It was an extremely unpopular form of taxation, as the ruling Federalist Party was to learn the hard way.

A revolt immediately erupted in Western Pennsylvania where whiskey was used as money, more than as drink. Any farmer who paid the tax, had his still shot full of holes by "Tommy Tinker," the name used by the rebels against the tax.

Tax collectors were tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail, as some of the fascinating etchings from this period show. Eventually the rebels capitulated and signed an amnesty agreement, promising to pay the tax. President Washington pardoned the few who led the uprising. Historians now know the military force called out to put down the rebellion was unnecessary as the rebels had capitulated beforehand. It was Hamilton’s idea of showing force to strengthen the support for the new national government. In the end, however, when Jefferson came to power, the tax was repealed and the Federalist Party disappeared from history.

When President Adams replaced Washington, he too as a strong Federalist, introduced the first direct tax, and like the Whiskey tax, it set off another tax revolt, this time in Eastern Pennsylvania. When tax assessors showed up in the various counties, an armed uprising followed. Some of the rebels were put in jail, and an auctioneer named John Fries showed up with a mob and got the men released. Adams called out the militia, Fries was arrested and tried for treason. His conviction and subsequent sentence to be hanged, was overturned by a pardon given by President Adams, against the unanimous advise of his cabinet. Adams felt it was not treason, but just a riot. That unpopular tax, along with the whiskey tax, added to the popular contempt for the Federalist Party.

Hamilton was behind this tax as well as the whiskey tax. Historians have often called him the right man, at the right time, in the right place, in American history. His firm policy to make the country fiscally strong, with sound credit and a sound currency, no doubt justify that observation. But to the Federalist Party, his taxes brought about the total destruction of our first political party. (Ibid.)

The Real Cause of America's Civil War:

The tariff became the primary tool to raise revenue for the federal government, and finally, in 1834, the national debt was paid off. It was long struggle, but with a frugal government, and only one short war, the finances of the federal government were slowly being put in good order.

The tariff had been used for some protectionist purposes in the beginning, but in 1828, northern industrialists pushed through a high tariff, greatly resented by the South. They called it the "tariff of abomination," a biblical term meaning the highest evil. In 1832, when this high tariff continued, South Carolina nullified the tariff as unconstitutional. There was a brief threat of war by President Jackson, but cool heads prevailed, the tariff was to be reduced, and the nullification ordinance passed away.

The hatred for the tariff was universal throughout the South. It made Southerners vassals of the North, being just a sophisticated form of tribute. The argument went like this: The tariff prevented competition from Europe, which meant that Northern industrialists could charge excessive prices for their goods sold in the South, thus shifting a large part of Southern wealth to Northern interests. If the South should chose to buy foreign goods with the high tax, this put Southern moneys into the federal coffers to be spent on Northern projects, in effect another form of tribute from the South to the North. Either way it was an injustice upon the Southern people and their economy."(Ibid.)

The nefarious beginnings of a "tax agency":

Few historians take note of Whiskey Rebellion #2 which began as the Civil War ended and raged for almost 40 years, in Appalachia – from West Virginia south to Georgia and Alabama. The heart of the rebellion was probably in North Carolina. To support the war, the North adopted a tax on whiskey, eventually up to $2 a gallon.

When the war ended, the tax naturally spread throughout the South and federal tax men, call revenuers, scoured this mountain region to collect the tax. Open war erupted and hundreds were killed, on both sides, as the IRB (Internal Revenue Bureau) came into existence and enforced this hated tax on what was a poverty area of the nation. As one moonshiner said, being led off to jail for tax evasion, "What did my granddaddy fit in the Revolution if it wasn’t to make a little corn licker." Others argued it was an assault on their liberties; they had just as much right to grind corn into mash as they did to grind it into flour to make bread.

The spirit of the assault on these mountain people, and the numerous death that resulted from trying to serve arrest warrants, indicates a kind of savage enforcement of a tax law that has survived to this day. The violence we see from time to time in enforcing federal laws, even misdemeanors, may well be traced to the spirit of enforcement of the whiskey tax in the South among the moonshiners. The Internal Revenue Bureau grew from this small paramilitary operation to enforce the income tax that came some 30 years later, eventually becoming the I.R.S. in our day.

The spirit of tax enforcement that characterized that early IRB seems to have infected not only the IRS, but other federal agencies with similar endowments of powers of enforcement. Resistance to the service of any federal warrant justifies deadly force today, as it did during the days of the moonshiners. Waco, Texas, is proof enough of this policy of violence to the disobedient, and Waco is not a rare exception to official policy." (Ibid.)

Think about the spirit and courage of leaders like John Hancock and common patriots who stood against unjust tariffs and taxations. Again I ask, what would they think of us today as a people who dutifully submit year after year to such an oppressive system of direct taxation?

No doubt they would be shocked and outraged; they would call for a massive revolt, assured that millions of people who stand united can prevail against government tyranny.

However, John Hancock's have been ringing the Liberty Bell on this issue for years, only to have the plea fall mostly on dear ears. These rebels appear strange to wards of the State today, although prior to the American Revolution, the opposite was the norm--people who defended the Crown and quietly complied to the increasingly oppressive taxes were on the "loony fringe"!

Would you have been a rousing freedom fighter back then? What are you today, patriot, and why is it any different?

John Hancock wants to know.

In our next installment, we'll continue with America's tax history and look closer into the Internal Revenue Service--an incredible, unrestrained agency with power to enslave an entire nation.

The Muslims Americans Next Door

2011-04-06T14:10:00.024-05:00

Source: KUED

It happens all the time. I peruse through social sites and find links that disparage Muslims. No other distinctions than "they're Muslims"--no limiting adjectives such as "radicalized" or "Islamic fundamentalist"--just "Muslims".

For instance, I recently came across a post from a conservative friend on FaceBook that screamed the headlines in all caps: "MUSLIMS NOW CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY"!

Before going to the link, I read the comments under the post. One man suggested we "deport them all". Keep in mind, these were not just conservatives spitting out venom, but Christians.

Whenever a headline takes on "National Enquirer" tones, I immediately dig a little deeper to see if I can discover the truth behind the facts.

Sure enough, within minutes I found it. The herd mentality so rampant in our country today grieves me. It's even sadder to find it alive and well in the politically conservative, Christian camps. They share information that validates their prejudices without further research. If an article inflames their fears, they won't stop to look into the possible motive of its author.

Here's what I found.

First, the man who's calling for the removal of the Statue of Liberty is none other than Anjem Choudary, a non-credentialed "cleric" who has been marginalized by his own people for years; yet, he is a frequent antagonist on Fox News.

If Choudary is a joke to his own people, why does Fox News like to have him on for provocative banter? That's easy. I spent over thirty years in broadcasting. In order to appear fair, you look for someone who will represent the other side of the story in the worst possible light.

You see it all the time on TV. The media will pick the most uneducated, dumpy looking Christian out of a pro-life rally to speak on behalf of the cause. They'll gravitate toward the loudest, brimstone throwing, country-bumpkin preacher to address strip clubs, gays, and a host of other perceived ills.

After becoming a Christian, I shared my testimony at an abortion awareness meeting. A local TV station covered the event. An abortion practitioner was among those scheduled to speak. Most people in attendance were decidedly pro-life; it was obvious by the signs they carried and the hearty applause that followed each pro-life speaker.

However, the clip shown on the late night news first featured my sound bite, then the doctor's. When he finished, it cut to a rousing round of applause from a standing crowd. The only problem is that the standing ovation came after I spoke, not the doctor.

You see? The reporter slyly got her point (and/or the unofficial company stance) across to thousands of impressionable viewers without using any words. Only the handful of people in attendance knew the difference.

Would you believe me if I told you this happens all the time? What if I told you conservative news outlets do it, too?

Ratings are at stake; and right now, the pulse of Americana is beating to a fast, conservative rhythm. The media is either benefiting from it or fighting against it (as in the pro-life example above). That's why I trust sources that are not agenda-driven by either conservative or liberal biases...non-politicized voices that have been consistently, courageously speaking the same message through America's mood swings.

But let's get back to Choudary. By the way, he's a London-based, self-proclaimed preacher. (Oops! I guess this ruins the commentator's suggestion on my friend's site for deportation.) Despite the impressive website of his newest escapade called "Shariah4America--featuring the White House with minarets and the Statue of Liberty wearing a veil--he's been largely ignored by journalists in Europe.

Mehdi Hasan, senior editor at the New Statesman, considers Choudary a "media whore". Adam Serwer has argued that Choudary is, for Fox, a "cartoonish buffoon who can be counted on to confirm every stereotype about Islam and Muslims."

In fact, in response to Choudary and others like him, a group arose across the pond called "The United Shades of Britain" to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims DO NOT support these radicals and their tirades.

When I first began to dig into Choudary's background and what other Muslims thought about him, I had to distressingly click past a handful of pages reporting the same story: "Muslims Want to Remove the Statue of Liberty".

I wonder if Christians would have been outraged if similar, generalized accusations had blasted across the globe after Westboro Baptist Church made the news:

"Christians loudly protest all military funerals, claiming deaths
are God's judgment against homosexuality."

Imagine the frustration of passing through page after page of similar headlines, and each story you check only uses the noun "Christians". You anxiously scan for phrases such as "fringe elements", "not aligned with mainstream Christianity", "rejected by other Christians", and "not faithfully representing Christ's message", but to no avail.

And what if the Westboro image began to fuel anti-Christian sentiments across America? What if the liberal media saw their chance to "prove a point" about Christians in general, and began to take full advantage of such an image to the disregard of all others.

Perhaps many of you trust the former Muslims currently traveling the circuit as authors and speakers. They are immediate experts because, after all, they WERE Muslims; and their accounts of Islamic world conspiracies, Qur'anic commands to violence, and hatred of America is compelling.

Christian, let me ask, How long have you been a believer? Although I'm sure you read the Bible, pray daily, and attend church, do you consider yourself an "expert" in Christianity?

Can you address on the world stage the complex, theological variations of your faith from Genesis to Revelation? Can you streamline it in such a way that accurately represents all branches and offshoots of Christianity that have emerged since the first split in A.D. 1054?

I can't, even though I've been a Christian for forty-seven years. I'm afraid I would misrepresent some aspect with which I'm not familiar. More than likely, outsiders would not get the full picture.

I think I've amassed a lot of knowledge over the years, but not all of it--certainly not enough to be touted as an expert on the entire religion of Christianity. (Neither is any former Muslim regarding Islam!)

Let me caution you again, not only as a former media insider, but also as a former twenty-five year, well-entrenched conservative who knew how to use my media training to an advantage:

No doubt many of these former Muslims are sincere, but face it: they're riding a wave that makes their testimonies immensely relevant AND lucrative. Conservative publishers, organizations, and churches are scheduling speaking engagements and book signings. These men and women are being courted by conservative radio and TV outlets for interviews.

Do you get what I'm saying? If not, let me tell you a personal story.

My mother was interested in psychic phenomena; as a result, I grew up surrounded by the occult. Although she put away her tarot cards and Ouija board after a near-fatal illness, I continued to dabble with them (with her permission).

Years later, after my religious conversion, I hosted a talk show on a Christian radio station. During one program on witchcraft, I happened to mention being influenced by the paranormal as a child, which I believed led me to investigate the darker realms of the occult in my teen years.

Afterward, invitations to share my story started coming in from churches. At first, I was excited to make the rounds; but a few months later, I was turning down requests. Why?

I realized I was being used...maybe not consciously by most pastors, but in me, they had found a vehicle--an "expert"--to dole out all the gory details of the occult and scare their young people. I saw it more as enabling people's voyeuristic tendencies to peek into the forbidden without really going there.

Despite my insistence that my involvement was dabbling at best, and regardless of my downplaying the sensational, I was always asked these and other morbid questions from the audience:

Did you ever cast a spell or hex on someone?

Have you seen a demon? Have you ever conjured up a spirit?

Doesn't rock music and marijuana open doors to demonic possession?

Isn't Christian rock music a tool of the devil?

Did you ever participate in a pagan ritual? An orgy?

Satanists steal babies and sacrifice them on Halloween, right?

Did you ever drink human blood?

I gave them what they asked for, but nobody seemed interested in getting past the titillating to discuss how we as parents and members of the Christian community can more effectively address teenage insecurities and peer pressure. The topic "Exploring Relational Parenting" wasn't a hit, but "Signs of Demonic Possession" always drew a crowd.

Honestly, I only had to turn down a few more invitations. I guess word got around that I was a "dud"--not quite what they were looking for in terms of a spine-tingling, anti-occult speaker.

I can attest that the pressure to "perform" is intense--the temptation to give your audience what they want to hear. If you're already committed by contract to a publisher and traveling the circuit, your livelihood depends on it. If you rise suddenly from obscurity because you've got the right background at the right time, the money and notoriety starts rolling in. You gradually bring your message up a few notches to match the fervor of your unique audience who've been looking for someone to confirm their worst fears.

Here's another example of herd frenzy. The day after the article that gave the impression hordes of American Muslims were ready to rush onto Liberty Island and pull down the Statue of Liberty, I saw this going viral on my social sites: "SHARIA BECOMES LAW IN FLORIDA".

When I clicked on the website, I read this sub-heading:

"Despite our dire warnings and the precedents set in Europe, Islamic supremacists reached a milestone in their malevolent goal to eliminate and destroy America."

I was then instructed to follow another link. It led me to a site that "watches" Muslims.

The headline on the 'watch" link was not as inflammatory as the first one:

"Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law."

Still, I wanted to find a true report of what happened--one that would pass for honest journalism. Again, I had to comb through several pages because the story was flooding the internet. Here are some of the headlines I encountered in my search:

SHARIA LAW HAS COME TO FLORIDA!

FLORIDA JUDGE ORDERS MUSLIMS TO FOLLOW SHARIA LAW!
JUDGE ORDERS USE OF SHARIA LAW IN FLORIDA!

Batten down the hatches and bar the door, Katy! Dear Lord, when did the Muslims take over Florida? All Floridians under Sharia Law? The rest of the nation can't be far behind!

Sadly, that's precisely the impression these "yellow press" writers wanted you to get; and many Americans (including Christians) fell for it.

It was difficult, but I finally picked out the facts from a few, unbiased sources embedded among the scaremongers:

A dispute arose recently in Tampa, Florida over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding. It was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002, and the dispute arose over who controls the $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.

Former trustees of the mosque claimed they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders disputed that claim. The current mosque leaders wanted the case decided according to Florida civil law, but the former trustees wanted a settlement according to Sharia law.

The judge rendered in favor of letting these two parties arbitrate their particular case under Sharia. He only validated the legitimacy of seeking a Sharia solution in this case since it involved Muslims, their mosque, and their money!

I finally located the actual ruling to gain a better understanding of the judge's decision: (Click to enlarge)

Let's back up and look at the facts.

Two Muslim groups in the Tampa area disputed ownership of mosque monies.

One group preferred for the case to be decided by a civil judge, the other group appealed to Sharia Law.

The judge ruled in favor of turning it back over to the litigants to seek a Sharia solution.

(In these circumstances, both parties must ultimately agree to submit to a Sharia court or the judge's decision cannot go forward. No one is being forced judicially in the U.S. to submit to Islamic law--not even Muslims!)

Sharia Law WAS NOT imposed upon the rest of the population.

This decision did not, nor will it ever apply to other disputes between non-Muslims.

I'm not an expert on Sharia, but I do know what the Bible says about Christians taking each other to civil court. I'm well aware that God's Word holds me to a higher standard of accountability for my conduct and is anchored in just restitution.

No doubt, the current owners of the domain knew they had a better chance to win the case under civil law because Sharia does not wink at the usurping of property or monies from a brother; it does not recognize many of the legal loopholes that exist in America's secular, contractual law. Sharia is not based on what is legal, but what is moral within Muslim business relationships.

You may ask, But how could the judge even allow a Sharia court to settle the matter? The idea of one existing in the U.S. is disturbing!

If these are your sentiments, then you need to know that Muslims in America have been practicing Sharia ever since they arrived on our shores. Sharia is a guide that addresses how the Muslim is to live before God and others. It lays out laws for personal purity and religious worship, followed by relational laws for commerce within Islam and without, and resulting punishments for disobedience.

Only recently have more secularized Muslims preferred having what was once kept within a private, religious court settled by the civil laws in their country of residence.

I'm the first to admit that Sharia is a complex set of laws whose precepts seem harsh and often abusive, much as the Old Testament Mosaic Law must appear to someone on the outside looking in. But are you aware that Jews have operated their own private, rabbinical courts for centuries--even here in America?

The court is called Beth din, "House of Judgment" (Other variations are bet din, beit din or beis din.) It is required or preferred among the stricter Jewish communities for the following cases:

Validation of religious bills of divorce
Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers
Examination and control of the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish dietary laws
Conversions to Judaism
Supervising the building and maintenance of the ritual bath
Determination of "personal status" (whether someone qualifies for legal identity as a Jew)
The authorization and supervision of circumcisions
Questions relating to burial practices and mournings

A beth din is also employed to resolve civil disputes between Jews using the Shulkan Arukh--a code of Jewish Law from the 16th century that includes laws of finance, financial responsibility, damages, and the rules of witnesses.

A Sharia court mirrors the structure and purpose of a beth din; that is, to settle disputes within the religious community with commandments that pre-date modern, secular codes.

I cannot over-stress that both Sharia courts and beth dins CANNOT trump the existing civil liberty laws of the country in which they are practiced!

Although abuses occur in all religious systems, from the pulpit to the private courts, forget what you've heard about stonings, floggings, amputations, and beheadings coming to America.

Americanized Muslims will never be allowed to decree such things from their courts (nor do they want to). Such punishments are carried out only in hard-line, Islamic states where there is no separation between religion and state. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the religion is the state and vice versa.

Conversely, if a beth din ever decreed a stoning (which was a prominent punishment required in the Old Testament), it would certainly be overruled by our judicial system.

Let me stress again, participation in these courts is voluntary and the decisions are not legally binding.

So, what did the judge really say in the Florida case? Go back and read it carefully!

The judge determined, obviously by testimony, that these Muslims had not exhausted all possibilities to first resolve their business conflict within Sharia.

Since the issue dealt with a mosque AND its money, he was encouraging the litigants to pursue it within the community that was to be affected the most--the people who built the mosque and were part of its congregation...those who sacrificed their finances for it!

Notice that he left the door open for a return to civil consideration; but it was his hope that the dispute could be settled privately.

Dear God! How many Christians wish for a judge with this kind of wisdom when it comes to government encroachments into church matters! Almost every day we hear of zoning laws forbidding Christians to hold Bible studies in their homes, and threats of legal action to censor the Christian's liberty to homeschool and publicly express the tenets and symbols of the faith.

Think this through. If the controversy had been between two Christian ministries instead, imagine the horror if a judge, representing the state, took church property and tithe money away from one group and gave it to another.

Religious organizations already have to get the government's permission to operate with non-profit privileges. In exchange for these tax breaks, they have to comply with increasingly restricting codes on federal, state, and local levels. We don't need to open more doors to government interference!

That's why even a private court of arbitration is commanded--yes, commanded--in the New Testament. I'm surprised that more Christians are not familiar with 1 Corinthians 6:1-6:

"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

"Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church.

"I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!"

The New Testament reveals that the use of a private, church court to settle disputes between Christians should be the norm, and scolds us for taking our cases to civil judges!

Non-believers who pick up a copy of the Bible struggle between reading about an Old Testament God who decrees strict dietary laws and stoning for certain crimes, and a New Testament Jesus who preaches peace and love. Since this article is not a defense of the Christian faith, I won't get into apologetics.

Suffice it to say, the history of God's interaction with man is progressive and relationally embedded. To lift out sound bites and excerpts for critique does injustice to such an ancient, sweeping faith that has been threaded through centuries of diverse civilizations.

However, Christians...have we not committed the same injustice with the Muslims and their scriptures?

Let me say right now that I do not personally believe that what is contained in the Qur'an is the revealed word of God. However, if most non-Christians find the Bible difficult to interpret and often take things of out context, then is it possible that non-Muslims are doing the same with the Qur'an--particularly if our motive is to bolster our bigotry?

Also, don't forget that Christianity has its fringe elements that bring dishonor to the Body of Christ. Their hate-filled interpretations do not represent the Bible or the people who cherish it. Whether it's Westboro Baptist, "Burn a Koran Day" pastors, an abortion clinic bomber, or a skinhead "white supremacist" who believes that the black race came from the mark of Cain, it's a challenge for Christians to separate themselves and the message of Christ from attention-seeking radicals.

Muslims in America are challenged, too. We'll see the convincing statistics later. For now, let's bring to light some important information about the Qur'an.

Mainline Christianity has raised a critical voice against some modern translations of the Bible that, in an attempt to be more socially relevant, have produced works that traditional scholars consider unfaithful to earlier texts.

For instance, look at Isaiah 7:14 in the King James Bible:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some of the other translations that use the word "virgin" are the Septuagint, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, and the Darby translation.

The word "woman" however, is used in other translations, including the Revised Standard Version (American), The New Jerusalem Bible, The Bible in Basic English, and the New English Bible.

This is a critical deviation, as the creeds of the Church for both Catholics and Protestants have unswervingly professed for over 1,800 years the virgin birth of Christ! Such textual corruptions seek to unravel the fabric of our faith as the divinity of Jesus Christ can be easily called into question by unsuspecting readers.

The Qur'an has been translated into other languages over the centuries and, like the Bible in regards to its original Hebrew and Greek, some works are more faithful than others to the complex Arabic language and its connotations.

Muslims believe since the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, it can only be presented without distortions and fully understood in Arabic. They consider translations into other languages inferior, for the sacred character of the Arabic original has been compromised. (Interestingly, this is a major point of contention with those who question the authenticity of the Bible in its modern form today!)

European Christians in the politicized, religious state were the first to attempt to translate the Qur'an out of Arabic.

In 1143, Peter the Vulnerable, abbot of Cluny, commissioned Robert of Ketton to produce the first Latin translation of the Qur'an in order to educate the Church about Islam, which he called a "detestable and damnable heresy". His version became required reading for preachers of the Crusades. Robert preferred translating scientific works rather than theological texts, but he finally succumbed to the abbot's pressure.

Experts in the Arabic language have since proven this medieval work flawed and full of exaggerations and distortions, but it remained the standard well into the 16th century. That was enough time, however, for the die to be cast that remains.

In 1543, three editions were republished with a forward by Christian Reformer Martin Luther. Luther is known for his virulent hurls against Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Protestant scholars today admit that Luther's knowledge of Islam at the time of these writings was second-hand.

All European translations of the Qur'an that followed were subsequently translated from Latin, not Arabic, including the questionable version by Catholic priest Ludovico Marracci. He asserted that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were similar to Luther and Protestantism--simply echoing Luther's bigotry in reverse.

We must note that none of the translators that followed Robert of Ketton were proficient in the Arab language or culture. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I, attempted the first English translation, but did so out of a previously existing French work. Reportedly, it was a language in which he was not well schooled.

The 1649 work was titled "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."

Today, one can find 22 translations on the internet. For an excellent, scholarly comparison of the various translations of the Qur'an throughout history, I recommend Khaleel Mohammed's article.

I have been following the work of Michael Ghouse, Muslim secularist, speaker, writer, and founder of American Together Foundation.

Ghouse cautions Americans that the most widely distributed translation of the Qur'an in the United States is a version that moderate Muslims have rejected as false.

It is called the Noble Qur'an, also known as the Hilali-Khan. It is given away free across the internet, at meetings, at rallies and on campuses, and it is the one usually sold in U.S. bookstores. As a result, it is also the version used by media and Christian critics of Islam in "proof text" fashion.

This version is funded and published by the Saudis. Not only have they poured millions into its publication in English, but they are also the ones craftily disseminating it across America!

Saudi Arabia remains the only country on the planet that enforces Sharia as the absolute law of the land. It has no constitution, no representative government, no freedom of the press, and no freedom of assembly. Churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia.

Eight-Five percent of Saudis are from the Sunni sect of Islam, which is characteristically dominated by a radical, Islamic fundamentalism known as Wahhabism. Its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, advocated purging Islam of "impurities".

(The remaining populace, mostly Shia Muslims, are subjugated, economically deprived, and treated as apostates.)

Therefore, many Americans remain puzzled as to the U.S.'s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Oil interests aside, no one in Washington seems concerned about our government's blatant hypocrisy to claim on one hand that we are concerned about human rights--even to the point of military intervention (Libya)--yet on the other hand appear eager to support an oppressive, Islamic regime.

Representative Peter King recently held hearings to investigate the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim Community while he and his pals in Congress continue to keep their longstanding relationship with the Saudis cozy.

The partnership remains strong, even after we learned that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Our government backed off investigating the backgrounds of the perpetrators when the Saudi government refused to cooperate.

"A Second Look at the Saudis" reports that The 9/11 Commission revealed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 plot, estimated that the vast majority (by his count 70%) of the recruits he saw being trained in Afghanistan were from Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Saad al-Faqih, considered a long-time Al Qaeda insider, collaborated that a full 80% of Al Qaeda’s members were Saudi nationals in an interview with the PBS news program Frontline.

The New York Times first reported on a poll of educated Saudi men between 25 and 41 years of age, taken by Saudi intelligence just weeks after September 11, in which 95% of the respondents indicated that they approved of Osama bin Laden and his agenda.

In virtually every major terrorist attack against the United States over the last twelve years, the men actually pulling the trigger at the end of the day have been Saudi Arabian.

Fifty-five percent of 400 foreign insurgents who died over a two-year period in Iraq were from Saudi Arabia.

Prof. Mohammed Hafez later conducted a similar review. He reported that of the 92 suicide bombers in Iraq, he was able to identify by name and nationality that 44 were Saudi Arabian.

Especially disconcerting is the fact that the vast majority of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq have been killed by Sunni insurgents, not the Shiites allegedly backed by Iran. For instance, ABC News has reported that more than 80% of the U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq during the month of October 2006 were killed in Sunni-controlled areas.

Despite this clear, damning evidence, our government recently struck a deal with the Saudis for $67 billion worth of weapons, including 84 F-15 jets, 70 Apache gunships, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, 36 light helicopters and thousands of laser-guided smart bombs – the largest weapons deal in U.S. history!

However, far more damaging that any military weapon is the religious bomb the fundamentalists are dropping over America in the form of the Hilali-Khan translation. In fact, the Saudis behind this translation are sending this absolutist model from their country into modern, pluralistic societies around the globe, hoping to incite peaceful, moderate Muslims to embrace a universal application of Wahhabism--an ideology foreign to earlier Islam.

Robert Hunt is presently Director of Global Theological Education at the Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, and teaches courses in World Religions, Inter-religious Dialogue, and Mission. In 1994, he received his PhD from the University of Malaya, focusing on Christian missions to and relationship with Muslims in Southeast Asia.

Hunt notes in his article "Is Islam a Political Ideology?"

"What we need to recognize is that modern Muslims do not agree on whether Islam should be considered an ideology, just as they do not agree on what constitutes and Islamic government or even whether there should be Islamic governments! Islam is a complex and multi-faceted religion, and realizing this is the first step to understanding the truth about Islam.

I emphasize that Islam as an ideology was being debated because many Muslims didn’t feel that their religion was an ideology. They just didn’t think it played the same role in human society as democracy, or fascism, or Marxism.

And let me explain why. All these ideologies were based on the human observation of human behavior and social progress. They had nothing to do with Divine revelation. For many Muslims calling Islam an ideology was demeaning, as it would have been to call Christianity or Judaism ideologies. Religion, in their mind, was supposed to play a higher, more exalted role in human life than just a political and economic ideology.

Still, Muslim debates about Islam as an ideology set the stage for modern accusations that Islam is an ideology and not a religion, because you can certainly find Muslims who assert that it is an ideology, not “just” a religion.

It is easy to find books on Islamic government and Islamic economics and Islamic family theory and Islamic human rights theory, Islamic international law theory, and even Islamic theories of knowledge and science!

All of these are efforts by some Muslims to assert that in every aspect of modern society their religion is relevant. They want to assert that Muslims don’t need to borrow anything from the West. But are they the true representatives of Islam? Probably not.

For over a thousand years, Muslims didn’t think of Islam as anything other than a religion just like Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, it informed all aspects of life – as did every other religion. But it also borrowed a lot.

Muslim governments were structured in ways borrowed from Greeks and Persians. Islamic theology, pursued by the falsafa or philosophers, borrowed heavily from Greek philosophical thinking. Indeed Islam preserved and transmitted to the West much of the Greek political and metaphysical philosophy that had been lost. A lot of supposedly Islamic law about government was simply ratifying existing forms of local government and translating Greek and Persian names into Arabic.

The last cohesive Muslim empire, the Ottomans, represented the most developed Islamic polity. But they didn’t control more than a fraction of the Muslim world at the time. And their empire ended officially in 1924.

In response to colonialism, and the imposition of what Muslims saw as Christian governments on Muslim lands from Morocco to Indonesia, Muslims in the 19th century began to ask if there wasn’t an Islamic alternative to Western political systems.

By the middle of the 20th century, Muslim intellectuals had fully realized that Western governments were not actually Christian governments. Rather, they were driven by a number of different political and economic ideologies that were also forcefully making their way into the Muslim world. These included democracy as an ideology, fascism, Marxism, communism, socialism, capitalism, and secularism.

Moreover, Muslims became aware of the concept of “secularism,” particularly in France where many Muslim scholars went in exile, or to study. They understood secularism to be the major ideology of the West, and that secularism excluded religion from any role in public life. This seemed to be directly opposed to the idea that religion should inform all of life, including political and economic structures.

Two reactions emerged. First, Muslims began to develop Islamic political and economic ideologies to compete with existing Western ideologies. Secondly, some Muslim scholars asserted that Islam itself should be seen as an ideology, and thus a direct competitor to these other ideologies. By the 1980’s this was a matter being debated intensely across the Muslim world."

America, please make the distinction between most and some; open your eyes and realize that American Muslims have readily embraced our Representative Republic, and are content to live and prosper in a pluralistic society while enjoying their freedom of worship.

They know the truth about the Hilali-Khan and its Saudi influence. Yes, some mentally disturbed, discontent, and disillusioned young Muslims will buy into the deception; but young people who often use religion or political injustices as a vehicle to act out their anger are not exclusive to Islam.

Michael Ghouse recommends Mohammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an. Asad was an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam. He was a well-respected writer, diplomat, political theorist, and scholar. Asad is considered one of the most influential European Muslims of the 20th century.

Because of Asad's knowledge of classical Arabic, his translation is considered by many to be the authoritative, English standard. However, due to Saudi influence, Asad's translation is often expensive and hard to find.

Notably, Asad has been criticized by Islamic fundamentalists for his Mu'tazili leanings. This school of philosophy advocates the use of reason and allegory (when applicable) to interpret the Qur'an.

Contrarily, adherents to the Saudi/Hilali-Khan insist on strict, consistent literalism when interpreting the Qur'an.

Look at these words from Jesus as recorded in Mark 9: 43-49:

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die and the fire is not quenched."

The majority of Christians know that Jesus is admonishing his followers to sever connections in this life to people, places, and things that habitually lead us to sin, even if they are intimately attached to us and deemed vital.

Muslim fundamentalists would take this verse literally. They would do the same with the New Testament references to "fight the good fight of faith", "put on the whole armor of God", and "share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ"...not to mention all the intense, imprecatory Psalms of David in the Old Testament regarding his enemies.

The Halali-Khan has many outspoken Muslim critics:

Khaleel Mohammed has taken the translation to task for "[reading] more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture," while Sheila Musaji complains that it "is shocking in its distortions of the message of the Qur’an and amounts to a rewrite not a translation."

Dr. Robert (Farooq) D. Crane states that it is "Perhaps the most extremist translation ever made of the Qur’an, and Khaled Abou El Fadl attacks what he calls "grotesque misogyny" in the translation.

The Hilali-Khan translation adds parenthetical comments into the text, and these added comments are the source of much of the controversy.

As an example, Khaleel Mohammed condemns the Hilali-Khan translation of the final two verses of the very first sura, Al Fatiha:

⁶ Guide us to the Straight Way

⁷ The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

These lines have drawn criticism, since mention of Jews and Christians is not present in the original Arabic; though there is a hadith in which Muhammad (ca. 570/571 – June 8, 632) is said to have made these connections; however, the hadiths were collected in the 8th and 9th centuries to fill in the details of the Prophets life.

This same problem convoluted Judaism. The early Sacred Text for Jews was the Torah (first five book of the Bible); but later the Talmud (Oral Law), a collection of Rabbinic interpretations and perspectives, became just as authoritative and binding on the people as the Torah...and in many ways, trumped it.

Jesus denounced the Pharisees, the purveyors of the Oral Law, for these perversions: "You are destroying the word of God through your rules that you have handed down. And you do many other things like that." (Mark 7:13)

This is similar to mainstream Christians rejecting what is known as the Gnostic gospels, written between the 2nd and 4th centuries--hundreds of years after Christ's Ascension. They were examined and repeatedly rejected as not being faithful to the teachings of Jesus and His original Apostles by a consensus of the early church.

These earlier Gnostics claimed to have had exclusive, divine revelations of the real life of Jesus, and accused mainstream Christianity of deliberate conspiracies to cover up the truth for political gain.

Gnostic sects teach that God reveals Himself and higher knowledge to only certain, worthy individuals. In their writings, they assert that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, and she was the "Holy Grail"--the true, eternal Mother Goddess and Head of the church--cruelly usurped from her role by a hierarchy of men.

Their descendants have supposedly been some of the world's most gifted, but misunderstood geniuses, visionaries, and humanitarians. These man-crafted, gnostic heresies continue to confuse many people today about the life of Christ, his divinity, and redemptive mission. (The DaVinci Code has helped these once-obscured "gospels" regain popularity.)

Similar myths are unfortunately shaping how Americans feel about Muslims and sadly fueling their fears.

By the way, I wonder which version of the Qur'an pastor Terry Jones' church, Christian Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned in public. (The name of the church is dismally ironic.)

It would be interesting to know if the version submitted as conclusive evidence in their "court" (and subsequently "condemned") is one that the majority of American Muslims have been summarily rejecting for years. That would make the whole spectacle pointless, wouldn't it?

But tell that to the families of the 12-plus foreigners that lost their lives in a demonstration against the burning in Afghanistan. At the time of this writing, protests over this sordid event continue to increase worldwide, so the full damage has yet to be assessed.

Local Afghanis claim the protest at the U.N. compound was peaceful until "security force" elements, which many believe to be al Qaeda plants, stirred up the crowd and began shooting. Additional reports claim fundamentalist Mullahs (clerics) also instigated the violence. (al-Qaeda never misses an opportunity to take advantage of Western ignorance and arrogance).

Am I defending the murderous mob? Absolutely not! But in setting aside the protesters' freedom of expression, I tell you that murdering people because someone burns one copy of one translation of a book you REVERE is ludicrous. It's just as asinine as staging an amateur production of Fahrenheit 451 to burn a book you DON'T hold sacred!

Now Jones claims the violence "proves his point" about Islam. NO! It proves a few suspected operatives used the heated situation to their advantage to spread further propaganda. But, now wait. Isn't that what you're also doing, Reverend?

Do Muslim radicals in the Mideast think Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation represent all American Christians? I hope not; yet, thanks to Pastor Jones and those of his ilk, we may have a lot of explaining to do.

Let's tackle another lie--"Muslims are taking over America"!

Robert Hunt provides some compelling information and data that sets us straight:

"Recently I’ve received quite a few emails citing a review of a book by Nonie Darwish entitled "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.” The review states (apparently from the book) that “In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Britain to elect the President by themselves!

Rest assured they will do so… You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. Is one… And there are others…Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims.”

In one form or another this assertion has been made by Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others. So perhaps we should look at the evidence.

First – cities taken over in Britain? Name one. Yes, Birmingham England has a Muslim major. How does that constitute a takeover. His city council isn’t Muslim. The laws that govern the city are not Islamic.

And is there another city with a Muslim Major? Not that I know. What about Dearborn living under Islamic law? Well a quick directory check shows dozens of liquor stores – and the sale of alcohol is forbidden in Islam.

Anecdotal I know, but strongly suggestive that Dearborn isn’t under Muslim control. (Birmingham is pretty well stocked with liquor stores and pubs as well – by the way) So part two of this assertion is false.

The most recent, and only neutral, study of American religious affiliation is found at: The Pew Charitable Trust Survey: http://religions.pewforum.org/report . It states that the total population U.S. Muslims is likely to be less than 1% of the population.

A larger figure is given by Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American Islamic Relations and is cited at (http://pluralism.org/resources/statistics/tradition.php#Islam) It dates from 1998 and is hardly trustworthy, as no source is given. The current population of the United States is just over 305 million.

For Muslims to have a significant impact on elections they would need to have far more than 1% or 2 % of the population, and there is absolutely no evidence that this will happen.

What about immigration and conversion? We need to remember that far more Christians migrate to the U.S. from Christian Latin America than Muslims do from other parts of the world. And conversion works both ways.

Unfortunately, we don’t have accurate reports on conversion either way, but my observation of local mosques suggests that there are no more than handfuls of converts to Islam in Dallas each year.

Let’s do the math. Let’s assume that in every 20-year generation the Muslim population doubles. That would make it 4% in 20 years if no other group grew at all. Hardly electoral dominance even if it were true. And it isn’t. So fact two is also false.

So, when you read things by authors like Darwish, Spencer, Gabriel, and other fear mongers, then turn up the B.S. detector, because mostly that is what they have on offer. And yes, I mean that about their other assertions as well.

Not grounded in fact, but the desire create fear. A recognizable political tactic."

Have you also heard that all (or most) terrorists are Muslim?

That, too, is a lie. Look at these charts from the FBI:


Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005

Despite a report showing that 40% of all extremist plots in the U.S. were thwarted with Muslim help, many people still believe the Muslim community in America is largely uncooperative with authorities, and secretly supportive of radicals.

Who are our Muslim neighbors in America? Before we look at their profiles, I must ask: Do you know a Muslim?

I don't mean the guy at the end of the block that you pass everyday on your way to work. Do you converse with any Muslims--on the job, at school or while serving in community projects? Do you have any Muslim friends?

Here is why I ask: Although 42% of Americans admit they don't even know a Muslim, polls report that 39% of them think Muslims aren't loyal to the U.S. The same percentage want them to have a Special ID. How can a person, especially a Christian, make these generalized judgments against a group of people they don't really know?

Are you aware that 63% of Arab Americans are Christians?

Muslims are not necessarily Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. A Muslim is a person whose religion is Islam, while the term Arab refers to ethnicity. Only 24% of Arabs in this country are Muslims.

I wonder though, how many Americans--gauging only by appearances and names--assume their Arab neighbors are Muslims?

For instance, according to a 2007 Pew Forum survey, only 38 percent of American Muslim women wear the hijab (traditional head covering) at all times when out in public. Another 13 percent wear it most or some of the time. Others fashion a scarf on occasion or go completely without a hijab.

American Muslims believe that when coming to the U.S., one should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Roughly two-thirds (65%) of adult Muslims in the U.S. were born elsewhere. A relatively large proportion of Muslim immigrants are from Arab countries, but many also come from Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Among native-born Muslims, roughly half are African American (20% of U.S. Muslims overall), many of whom are converts to Islam.

Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others.

Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified.

Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.

Sixty-five percent of Muslim Americans are first-generation immigrants, and 61 percent of the foreign-born arrived in the 1990s or this decade.

Seventy-seven percent of Muslims living in the United States are citizens, with 65 percent of the foreign-born being naturalized citizens.

As a point of comparison, 58 percent of foreign-born Chinese living in the United States are naturalized citizens. Just over two in five (43.7 percent) of Hispanic immigrants in the United States in 2009 were naturalized US citizens.)

South Asians constitute the fastest-growing Muslim community, perhaps accounting for a quarter of all Muslim Americans. The Muslim population of the United States also includes Turks, Iranians, Bosnians, Malays, Indonesians, Nigerians, Somalis, Liberians, Kenyans, and Senegalese, among others. In addition, there is a small but growing population of white and Hispanic converts, many of them women who have married Muslim men.

Immigrant Muslims are slightly more affluent and better educated than native-born Muslims. Twenty-four percent of all Muslims and 29 percent of immigrant Muslims have college degrees, compared to 25 percent for the U.S. general population.

Forty-one percent of all Muslim Americans and 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average).

Forty-three percent of Muslim-American women hold a college or postgraduate degree, compared with 29 percent of US women overall. They are as likely as Muslim men to hold professional jobs. (The group shows strong employment rates, including 30 percent in professional work and 25 percent self-employed).

The Muslim community includes by far the highest proportion of young adults (18 to 29 years), with 36 percent in that category, compared with 9 percent of Protestants, 17 percent of Catholics, 23 percent of Mormons, 16 percent of Jews, and 18 percent of the US population.

Thirty-eight percent describe themselves as moderate, with 29 percent saying they are liberal and 25 percent conservative.

Muslims are the most racially diverse religious group in the US: thirty-five percent identify as African-American, 28 percent as white, 18 percent as Asian, and 1 percent as Hispanic. Other religious groups surveyed are from 76 percent to 93 percent "white".

In 2001, an estimated 79 percent of Muslims were registered to vote, and 85 percent of those say they vote regularly, according to a poll taken on behalf of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Muslims share many of the same concerns as Christians: they are pro-family, pro-life, and fiscally conservative. That's why an estimated 65-80% of Muslim Americans voted for Bush in 2000 (exit polls vary). During his campaign, Bush courted their votes and a leading Muslim organization endorsed him.

However, that dramatically changed in the 2004 elections, when over 90% of Muslim American voters choose Democrat candidate John Kerry for President. It was the largest turnout of American Muslims in U.S. history, with a 20 percent voter registration increase over previous presidential elections.

According to one post-election survey, 21 percent of American Muslims voting in the 2004 election were first-time voters. This is consistent with data collected by University of Maryland researcher James Gimpel and others.

What accounts for the dramatic shift? American Muslims were troubled over Bush's ill-informed invasion into Iraq (Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 perpetrators came from Saudi Arabia). They were also concerned about Gitmo policies, and the increasing misinformation and persecution against Muslims in America.

(An article from 2006 by the Seton Hall University School of Law that draws solely on official Pentagon documents reports: "Only 8 percent of the detainees (at Guantanamo) were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.")

So again, despite differences on such important issues as marriage and abortion, nearly 90% of the Muslim vote in 2008 went to Obama, who had promised an end to the overseas wars, a closing of Gitmo, and financial reforms.

Interestingly, 95 percent of Muslims polled cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election—and first-time voters jumped another 14 percent from 2004.

While many Americans still believe the 9/11 events and all subsequent plots against our country were due to Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of our freedoms, the statistics simply do not back up those assertions. Don Emmerich reports:

After compiling a database of every suicide terrorist attack since 1980, the University of Chicago's Robert Pape concluded:

“What over 95% of suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common since 1980 is not religion but a specific strategic objective: to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists consider to be their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon to Chechnya to the West Bank to Sri Lanka to Kashmir and to Iraq and Afghanistan today, suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign military occupation.”

According to Pape’s database, the world’s “five largest Islamic fundamentalist populations without American military presence have produced al-Qaeda suicide terrorists on the order of 1 per 71 million people, while the Persian Gulf countries with American military presence have produced al-Qaeda suicide terrorists at a rate of 1 per million, or 70 times more often.”

"Since 9/11, America has drastically increased its terrorism against Muslims living overseas, thus fueling an increase in anti-American Islamic terrorism. Despite this, the number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim-Americans is still relatively low.

Last year, for instance, 10 Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks; of them, just one, Faisal Shahzad (aka the Times Square Bomber) actually carried out his plot, which failed. Last year, one Muslim-American attempted an act of terrorism on US soil. One. One attempt, zero deaths (Duke).

"By contrast, 20 non-Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks last year, including right-wing suicide terrorist Joseph Stack, who flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and an innocent bystander, a father and grandfather named Vernon Hunter.

Richard Cohen points out that, “when measured against ordinary violent crime,” the threat of Muslim-American terrorism “is slight” and that “the threat from non-Muslims is much greater” (Washington Post).

In spite of these and other statistics that point to a clearer truth, many of us will choose to hang on to our clouded bigotries that lie. We naturally feel safer when we can insulate ourselves against others we deem suspiciously 'different'. But what happens when fear compels us to look to the government for discriminatory measures?

It's easier to pass one-size-fits-all laws against a collective. It takes the burden off us as individuals to build relationships within a diverse society and work for the betterment of people we don't like--people we really don't want to see happily settle in and prosper. My dad felt that way about Blacks in our small, Southern town. Twenty years ago, I heard it again when the Hispanic population in our Carolina region was burgeoning due to a construction boon.

"But Mary, Blacks and Hispanics never attacked us like the Muslims did in 9/11"!

Okay, let's go back to 1942 after the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR's Executive Order 9066 authorized the formation of military areas called "exclusion zones", which forbid all people of Japanese ancestry from living freely along the Pacific Coast.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the order; but have they always been right? Back in 1857, the Court also determined that Black people--imported to the U.S. and held as slaves (along with their descendants)--were not citizens and thereby deemed chattel (property).

Although the government denied it for many years, it was finally proven in 2007 that the U.S. Census Bureau assisted in the roundup of Japanese Americans by providing what was supposed to be confidential information to the enforcers.

The road to internment was paved progressively. First, the military zones were designated, and the Japanese living in them were located and monitored.

Next, their assets were frozen. Some people were able to move out of the zones when the order was first issued, but others remained due to financial hardships, illness, or family commitments.

A curfew for those of Japanese ancestry was then set in the zones from 8 PM to 6 AM.

A travel ban soon followed, forbidding the Japanese from leaving the zones.

Finally, Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was issued on May 3, 1942, ordering all people of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers, where they would live until being moved to permanent "Relocation Centers".

Approximately 120,000 people were interned. Of these, 62% were American citizens and HALF were minors! Individuals with as little as 1/16 Japanese blood were interned, including Korean Americans.

Camps were primarily located throughout the pacific and western regions of the U.S. Hastily built, some of the frame barracks were covered only with tar paper and had no plumbing or cooking facilities. Three generations often lived in a single bare room, 20 by 24 feet, which comprised a "family apartment." It was not unusual for two or three families to crowd into such a single room.

Internees had to pack quickly and take only what they could carry. Small items boxed and placed into government storage were rarely retrieved due to theft and damage. The citizens who owned homes, land, and businesses had to abandon them.

Historians record a disturbing prejudice in America that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor. A wave of Japanese immigrants flooded into California in the early 20th century and settled there to work the land. The labor and farm competition fueled anti-Japanese sentiment that led schools to segregate "Mongolians" (ethnicities of East Asian ancestry) from Caucasians.

Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt administered the internment program. In part of his testimony before Congress, he said:

"I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map." (refer to footnote 2 in the link)

White farmers in California did not hide their racism. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:

"We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over... If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we'd never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either." (refer to footnote 12 in link)

During this time, even the media outlets cast off their commitment to journalistic ideals and stirred up suspicions and hatred. In fact, the first public call to intern the Japanese came from John B. Hughes, a prominent radio commentator for the Mutual Broadcasting Company. Along the same time, Henry McLemore, syndicated columnist for Hearst newspapers, wrote:

"I am for the immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior. I don't mean a nice part of the interior either. Herd 'em up, pack 'em off and give 'em the inside room in the badlands... Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them."

A Los Angeles Times Editorial trumpeted:

"A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched... So, a Japanese American born of Japanese parents, nurtured upon Japanese traditions, living in a transplanted Japanese atmosphere... notwithstanding his nominal brand of accidental citizenship almost inevitably and with the rarest exceptions grows up to be a Japanese, and not an American... Thus, while it might cause injustice to a few to treat them all as potential enemies, I cannot escape the conclusion... that such treatment... should be accorded to each and all of them while we are at war with their race."

Government officials on all levels were also joining in the anti-Japanese fervor. Reform Mayor of Los Angeles, Fletcher Bowron, "denounced the 'sick mentality' of those who worried about injustices to the Japanese living in the United States. He exclaimed:

"If Abraham Lincoln were alive, he would round up the people born on American soil who have secret loyalty to the Japanese Emperor."

"There isn't a shadow of a doubt," proclaimed Bowron, "but that Lincoln, the mild-mannered man whose memory we regard with almost saint-like reverence, would make short work of rounding up the Japanese and putting them where they could do no harm."

(Yes, Mr. Bowron--you're right. Your Messianic President abolished Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. He tossed 30,000 civilians without due process of law into prisons for criticizing his administration, and suppressed hundreds of newspapers that did not support his war effort.)

Read one of my articles about Honest Abe's REAL legacy.

In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, admitting the government's actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". They also approved more than $1.6 billion in reparations to internment survivors.

The fear experienced by Americans then is far more understandable than the racial prejudice, war hysteria, and leadership failure resurfacing toward a new 'enemy' today!

The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were frequently compared to the strikes on Pearl Harbor. However, we must never forget the distinguishing difference: On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by another NATION that subsequently declared war.

On September 11, 2001, the attacks in our country were carried out by a rouge group of terrorists of a particular race and religion, based out of a certain country. In other words, War was NOT formally declared upon us by another race, religion, or nation!

Nevertheless, we have erroneously announced a "War on Terror", when terror is nothing but a tactic--not a nation, race, or religion.

Terror is used by the IRA, environmental extremists, Timothy McVeighs, Ted Kaczynskis, Joe Stacks, Eric Rudolphs, and yes, the Mideast radicals of this world.

There will always be individuals and groups who use tactics of terror to get across their message. We will never eradicate them; but we can take the target off our backs if we pay attention to studies like Robert Pape's and dare to change our interventionist policies.

We must reject intellectual laziness. As Americans, we must choose better sources for our information that are not driven by political agendas. We can no longer label and judge collectives, but must return to the premise on which this country was founded--the recognition of and protection for individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No one should be judged by his race or religion, but by his individual character. (Where have we heard that before?) If we really believe that, it's time we put it into practice and stem the hysterical tide.

As Christians, we do well if we heed God's command in Exodus 22:21: “You shall not vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

I am keenly aware that in the context of this verse, God was establishing laws for a Jewish theocracy. Christians who try to apply such rules to America's Republic today make the same mistake as Islamic fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, I believe God's intent in this verse transcends a certain people, place and time; it speaks to how humans are to treat each other--in this case, settled occupants to newcomers in their midst.

The Hebrew word for stranger in this passage is GEYR, meaning: a guest, a foreigner, alien, sojourner. A dictionary definition expounds even further: foreigner, resident alien, outsider, visitor, intruder, new arrival, or a person that is unknown or with whom one is unacquainted.

We were once the reviled Irish, Chinese, Blacks, Italians, Japanese, Indians, Cubans, Koreans, and Jews who came to America with our unique expressions of Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. We were the Germans who had to change the spellings of our last names in order to be accepted. All of our ancestors had to carve out their piece of the American dream surrounded by the prejudices and racism of those that got here ahead of them.

One day the Hispanic communities from Mexico and other Latin countries will be added to the historical record, along with diverse ethnicities that bring their Muslim faith to our country. What will it say of our generation? Will we be indicted or celebrated? Will there be accounts of civil concord and courageous bridges across communities or will the history books chronicle horrific bans on personal liberties?

If we dismiss this idea as preposterous, we need a refresher course in how the German people were collectively led to turn on the Jewish population, and systematically reduce them--aided by state and media propaganda--to the status of "vermin". That's why they could calmly turn aside as the Jews were led to concentration camps. The Christian nation of Germany no longer believed them to be human beings.

You say it cannot happen again? I hope you're right; but you have to agree that after reading the above quotes from the 1940s, the climate of bigotry in this country is comparable--the words are strikingly similar; the fears, suspicions, and hatreds are registering the same fervor.

Will we make the same mistake? Where was the American Church in 1942 when the Japanese were herded into camps? Where was the church-at-large in Germany when the Jews were rounded up?

Where is the church in the U.S. today? To whom are we listening? Who shapes our opinions--political pundits and savvy talk show hosts or the character of Christ and His Word?

Almost daily, I run across examples of dishonest journalism. Time and space do not permit me to share all of what I've collected, but a while back I was sent a photo of Muslims praying on the streets of NYC.

The headlines screamed that Muslims were taking over and bringing traffic to a standstill as they brazenly took to the streets every Friday to pray! And yes, there was a large crowd pictured. In a few minutes, however, I discovered it was taken at a ONCE-A-YEAR event.

Another story was "Elementary School Forced to Abide By Muslim Dietary Laws"! A quick check told the whole story: A charter school in Oak Park, CA (in the San Diego area), with mostly Somali children, had closed and a nearby public school (Carver) quickly assimilated the 100 Muslims.

The school officials thought since the Muslim children were already following their dietary laws, it would be wise to try to accommodate them in order to make the transition easier. The only thing really noticeable? No pork. Now, turkey-based versions replace all ham and sausage items on school menus district-wide. Officials insist that a move was already underway to develop healthier alternatives to pork in school lunches before the arrival of the Somali students.

I remember having to eat fish on Fridays at my school in SC. I was told it was because Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on those days. I still HATE those square pieces of fish and fish sticks, but I don't hate Catholics. I wonder if the story would have gone viral if the children had been Orthodox Jews.

Carver also came under fire for supposedly teaching Arabic and allowing Muslim students to pray. Here's the truth behind what can often be "nasty" sounding facts:

1) Arabic was simply added to the list of second languages from which children can choose to learn while at Carver. NO child is being forced to learn Arabic!

2) Carver originally set aside fifteen minutes of non-instructional time daily in which Muslim students could formally pray; but the others students were also free to assemble in other areas on campus to participate in their versions of student-initiated, student-led prayer. Children had the freedom to opt out for a study period.

That initiation by Carver's administration drew so much heat from an uninformed public that now students can pray on their own during lunch, recess or other breaks. In other words, there is no "officially" set time for students to get together.

Recently, I saw on one of my social sites a comment about Muslims gleefully gloating over the Anne Frank Center moving next door to the proposed Mosque site at Park 51 in NYC. It didn't take me long to get the whole story.

First, Muslim representatives from the Cordoba Initiative (at the time of this writing) have yet to comment on the Anne Frank Center's location. In fact, the center itself released a statement indicating they were pleased with their new location. The museum is in a twenty-story building two blocks away from Park 51.

Nevertheless, here's what one blogger said in her opening statement:

"The latest sell on the Ground Zero mega mosque is that the Anne Frank museum will be going in next door in Mr. Rauf's neighborhood. Funny how the Islamic supremacists say the Ground Zero mosque is not near Ground Zero, but the Anne Frank museum is next door."

That said, she still linked to a report in the New York Post with this misleading headline: "Imam's Girl Next Door".

From what you just read, don't you get the impression that the Muslims at the Cordoba Initiative are strutting before the press?

Why, the blogger even insists the "Islamic supremacists SAY" the museum is next door. Really? I could not find any official press statement backing that up, even when I scoured the Cordoba Initiative website and other Muslim organizations.

The Boomerang Card

This notorious blogger accompanies her inflammatory introduction with an altered sketch of Anne Frank wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.

It was sent to her by one of her fans who found it posted on a box on a NY street.

Where did this artwork originate? Is it a Cordoba conspiracy? NO!

It's from Amsterdam--way back in 2008!

Now get this: the image started as the graffiti of a local street artist in the Netherlands. It was picked up by actress Birgit Schuurman while acting as editor-in-chief for Boomerang Publishers.

She decided to use the image on cards distributed throughout the Netherlands to show that Israelis and Palestinians can work together regardless of their past. Schuurman explained, "The card is about a desired image of the future, in which two oppressed peoples live side by side harmoniously."

Was the graffiti in bad taste? I believe it was. But is it now an organized attempt by NYC Muslims to make fun of Anne Frank and brag that their two centers are practically neighbors? NO!

Now tell me, what would you have automatically believed if all you had at your disposal was that blogger's information?

I know: Muslims are flooding NYC with this tasteless piece of Wahhabist-inspired propaganda to promote the ironic "closeness" of Park 51 mosque and the Anne Frank Center.

Keep in mind, these are just the reports I had time to examine. Ask yourself...

How many more reports are half-truths or even terrible distortions--just like these?

Am I getting the real story, or could I be the object of political and religious propaganda?

Am I contributing to the scaremongering in this nation by passing along such misinformation?

Do I do so because I really believe it's true or because it conveniently confirms my fears and feeds my prejudices?

Two closing thoughts:

Ignore them (you know who they are) when they bellow, "Don't look behind the curtain"! Pull it back anyway and see what's really behind all the hype.

Find the courage and contentment to just be an American; and likewise, so consider your neighbor.

Unstoppable? Our Runaway Union Trains

2011-03-20T05:39:00.003-05:00

USA Today Photos

Libertarians do not agree to the letter on many issues, but our core belief centers around what is known as the Zero AGGRESSION Principle--that physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property is wrong.

The ZAP applies to individuals, groups, and nations. That's why you'll find most libertarians ardent non-interventionists in regards to foreign policy and outspoken critics of the Nanny State.

With this axiom in place, I want to assure you that libertarians are not against labor or business, but we are for freedom...the freedom to work and prosper, the freedom to own property and profit from it, and always--the freedom to choose.

First, you own yourself, but you do not own your job. You enter into a contract with business owners, and you are paid for services rendered or skills performed. In other words, you are selling your labor. In a free society, you have a right to sell it to whomever you please. Conversely, buyers have a right to choose what they need from the labor market, and adjust their numbers of workers according to profit/loss.

A job is NOT your right, but the pursuit of one is (if that brings "happiness" and personal gain). As a member of the human community, you should expect a safe working environment, fair hours, and the ability to negotiate for reasonable wages and benefits. Contracts must be mutually beneficial, and entered into devoid of coercion and fraud.

Libertarians are not against unionism; that is, workers banding together for a common cause to improve work conditions and status. Free Association is another important tenet of true liberty. No one should tell you whom you can or cannot associate with in society.

Collectives only become a detriment to freedom when they rise up to assert themselves as superior to other groups, lobby for government intervention (legal rights), buy politicians to improve their status, and resort to strong-arming.

Unfortunately, this bullying behavior is a stubborn stain on union history in America, and the situation in Wisconsin is no exception. Formed on the premise to prevent the big man from taking advantage of the little guy, the roles are now reversed.

But let's discuss the private sector first.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. tells us how labor laws in this country once operated on the principles of freedom of contract and association.

In the 1920s, a laborer was perfectly free to reject any offer of compensation that an employer might make to him, and an employer was likewise entitled to reject any offer made by a laborer. An employee was free to withhold his labor services if unsatisfied with his employer's terms; likewise, a group of laborers jointly exercising this individual right were permitted to do so. No one, however, was allowed to prevent individuals who wished to work from exercising their right to do so.

Strikers — like anyone else — were forbidden to interfere with consumers' right to shop where they liked. And strikes could not obstruct suppliers from making deliveries, since to do so would again violate the rights of others. Finally, since the employer's plant was private property, the employer had the absolute right to decide who would be permitted to enter, and complete strangers who wished to enter for the purpose of agitating his employees could be lawfully excluded altogether." Read the rest of the "The Forgotten Facts of American Labor History" and discover when things began to change.

Labor unions would have you believe that their movement brought us shorter workweeks, safer working conditions, and better wages, but not so. Actually, capitalism is responsible for these improvements.

The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.

Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.

Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.

Unions also boast of having championed safety regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the past three decades. The American workplace has indeed become safer over the past century, but this was also due to the forces of competitive capitalism, not union-backed regulation.

An unsafe or dangerous workplace is costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference (higher wage) to attract workers. Employers therefore have a powerful financial interest in improving workplace safety, especially in manufacturing industries where wages often comprise the majority of total costs. In addition, employers must bear the costs of lost work, retraining new employees, and government-imposed workman’s compensation whenever there is an accident on the job. Not to mention the threat of lawsuits.

Investments in technology, from air-conditioned farm tractors to the robots used in automobile factories, have also made the American workplace safer. But unions have often opposed such technology with the Luddite argument that it "destroys jobs."

The regulation of business by the EPA, OSHA, FTC, DOE, and hundreds of other federal, state, and local government bureaucracies constitutes an effective tax on capital investment that makes such investment less profitable. Less capital investment causes a decline in the growth of labor productivity, which in turn slows down the growth of wages and living standards.

In addition, slower productivity leads to a slower growth of output in the economy, which causes prices to be higher than they otherwise would be; and fewer new products are invented and marketed. All of these things are harmful to the economic well-being of the very people labor unions claim to "represent." (Incredibly, there are some economists who argue that unions are good for productivity. But if that were true, corporations would be recruiting them instead of spending millions trying to avoid unionization.)

Ludwig von Mises also pointed out that as business becomes more heavily regulated, business decisions are based more and more on compliance with governmental edicts than on profit-making. American labor unions continue to call for more regulation of business because, in order for them to survive, they must convince workers—and society—that "the company is the enemy." That’s why, as Mises noted, union propaganda has always been anticapitalistic. Workers supposedly need to be protected from "the enemy" by labor unions.

However, the substitution of bureaucratic compliance for profit-making decisions reduces profitability, usually with little or no benefit to anyone from the regulations being complied with. The end result is once again a reduction in the profitability of investment, and subsequently less investment takes place. Wages are stunted, thanks to self-defeating unionist propaganda. The well-paid union officials may keep their jobs and their perks by perpetuating such propaganda, but they are harming the very people who pay the dues which are used to pay their own salaries." Thomas J. Dilorenzo, The Union Myth

Thus, in keeping with the principles of freedom, business owners should be at liberty to employ union and non-union employees at their discretion, and maintain a right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

In principle, an individual should also have the freedom to contract an employment package with the company on his own terms.

Again, in sticking to the principles of freedom, unions should not be allowed to force others on the job into the union (called a closed shop), force dues from non-union employees (agency shop), harass other employees, or attempt to block their access onto company property during a strike.

Workers have the right to organize boycotts. Still, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence in any form against anyone. The government should not force employees back to work, either.

No one disputes that labor unions served an important purpose in the burgeoning industrial age in our country, which redefined how we work. Union supporters have perpetrated many myths about oppressive working conditions in factories, but they fail to make an accurate comparison to life before the industrial revolution in a predominately agrarian society--the long, grueling hours for all family members, hardships, and unpredictable returns.

Henry Ford is famous for reforms, such as increased wages and shorter working hours. In 1914, the minimum wage was $2.34 a day. He began to pay workers $5 a day (equivalent to $110 today). Chronic turnover ceased, and the best mechanics in Detroit headed over to Ford. As a result, productivity increased.

Ford also brought us the 40-hour workweek. He explains why it was implemented:

"We have," he said, "decided upon and at once put into effect through all the branches of our industries the five day week. Hereafter there will be no more work with us on Saturdays and Sundays. These will be free days, but the men, according to merit, will receive the same pay equivalent as for a full six day week. A day will continue to be eight hours, with no overtime.

"The country is ready for the five day week. It is bound to come through all industry. In adopting it ourselves, we are putting it into effect in about fifty industries, for we are coal miners, iron miners, lumbermen, and so on. The short week is bound to come, because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.

"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.

"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad.

"Just as the eight hour day opened our way to prosperity, so the five day week will open our way to a still greater prosperity.

"The eight hour day law to-day only confirms what industry had already discovered, If it were otherwise, then the law would make for poverty instead of for wealth. A man cannot be paid a wage in excess of his production. In the old days, before we had management and power, a man had to work through a long day in order to get a bare living.

"Now the long day would retard both production and consumption. At the present time the fixing by law of a an five day week would be unwise, because industry is not ready for it, but a great part of industry is ready, and within a comparatively short time I believe the practice will be so general in industry that it be made universal.

"It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege.

"Nature fixed the first limits of labor, need the next, man's inhumanity to man had something to do with it for a long time, but now we may say that economic law will finish the job.

"Management must keep pace with this new demand -- and it will. It is the intersection of power and machinery in the hands of management which has made the shorter day and the shorter week possible. That is a fact which it is well not to forget."

(Source: Henry Ford: "Why I Favor Five Days' Work With Six Days' Pay", by Samuel Crowther, World's Work, October, 1926 pp. 613-616)

Labor unions today function too much like our out-of-control government. The Founders of this country envisioned a government to protect the rights of their citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. In other words, it was supposed to step in only when inherent rights were threatened or contractual agreements needed arbitration.

Our government has become a nasty bully, stopping at nothing to ensure its own, elite interests while usurping the Constitution and brazenly restricting the freedoms of the American people. Bureaucratic abuses are on the rise, as the media reports daily on corruption, cover ups, and pay-offs.

Now, substitute the word "union" for government. Clearly, unions no longer exist to simply protect workers' basic rights. They have become national bastions of greed and political power that revel in privileged immunity from prosecution, even if they order their members to commit violence.

Therefore, I am convinced that a Right-to-Work concept is the only view compatible with individual liberty that honors the freedoms of association and right to property. Currently, the U.S. has 22 "Right to Work" states.

Indeed, government interference, with its complex set of laws, coupled with mafia-like unions and their bosses, have crippled the American economy and the once-coveted dream of entrepreneurship.

Thomas E. Woods cites a startling report: "The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.

That is not a misprint. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects."

Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.

Many libertarians support a free market, called "laissez-faire" capitalism. In French it means, 'Leave it alone". We believe the government should stay totally out of business--from regulatory agencies to labor laws to bail outs.

A free market, driven by consumer needs in a competitive environment, is self-regulating and adjusting. It places a merit demand upon the worker and a reward demand upon the employer in order to keep reliable, competent people. The consumer, not the government, is the check on quality control that pressures both sides to provide an excellent, affordable product/service or risk failure.

Real risks are natural components for a healthy, unhindered economy. Government bailouts (safety nets) discourage personal responsibility (the "Too Big to Fail" mentality). Bailouts artificially prop up the economy. People are lulled into thinking they avoided a disaster; but in truth, they only delayed it.

The market doesn't have to flow in boom/bust cycles; such extremes are caused by what Murray Rothbard called "loose money and credit" generated by the Fed and distributed through the Central Banking system. But the quicker you let the economy fall, the quicker it rebounds to full recovery.

No, the U.S. does not have a free market. We don't even have true capitalism, but corporatism, which is the deformed offspring of big business and big government. It distorts the economy with protectionism and taxation. For a better understanding of the difference between capitalism and corporatism, read here.

So, back to how unions fit into all of this. Until we have a truly free market where government will not, cannot hinder or assist the marketplace, private sector unions will continue to bed down with prostituting politicians who sell their favors to the highest bidder. In return, the unions get government legislation on federal and state levels that keep them strong, companies weak, and the taxpayers broke.

It is no secret that Henry Ford hated unions. He was convinced that the workers were too influenced by powerful, politically motivated bosses who would end up doing more harm than good. While the union philosophy was to restrict productivity as a way to foster employment, Ford believed productivity was the means to economic prosperity.

Although gains in productivity would obviously make some jobs obsolete, Ford saw that expansive, economic growth would create new jobs within the company and its supporting businesses. He claimed that smart managers would do right by their employees in order to profit, and eventually, enough good managers would create a strong socio-economic system that shut out bad managers and bad unions.

Ford believed the UAW (The United Automobile Workers Union) was out to ruin his business, and he was the last automaker in Detroit to hold out against them, despite now-famous violence, work disruptions, and bitter stalemates. He was ready to close down the company, but his wife Clara threatened to leave him if he did. She said it was wrong to deny their son and grandsons their places in the Ford dynasty.

Almost overnight, Ford Motor Company struck a deal with the UAW and contracted terms more favorable to the union than any other automaker. (sources: Charles E. Sorensen with Samuel T. Williamson, My Forty Years with Ford, 1956, and Henry Ford with Samuel Crowther, My Life and Work, 1922)

We're all familiar with the auto company bailouts that earned GM the nickname "Government Motors". Back in 2006, George Reisman was just one of the economists sounding the alarm. His article, "Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?" reported these alarming facts:

"Over a year ago (2007), The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that "the United Auto Workers contract costs GM $2,500 for each car sold."

GM had to pay..."a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets."

GM had "healthcare obligations that accounted for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produced."

In 2008, GM had pension obligations that left it with a net worth of minus $16 billion.

No one listened, and the taxpayers were forced by the government to pick up the bandits' tab. Our children and future generations will have to live under the crushing debt. Now, after the big rescue I ask...

What has changed so that this atrocity doesn't happen again?

The companies, unions, and government's ménage à trois is tighter than ever, and it's back to business as usual.

Interestingly, union membership in the private sector is now at 6.9%--the lowest since the 1930s. But union membership in the public sector--government-owned, supported or regulated organizations--is 36.2% of the American workforce. It is expanding in size and employee benefits--even as other Americans face chronic high unemployment (8.9% as of 2/2011) under the shadow of another Depression.

Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.

Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour — $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.

The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. In one year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector did: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.

Note that federal employees in 2008 made on average almost $8,000 more than their private-sector counterparts. When you add in benefits, the gap spreads to about $30,000. (USA Today)

At least union workers in the private sector realize they are negotiating for limited, speculative resources based on what consumers are willing to pay.

If the wage/benefit package is too high and profits too low, the company will go out of business; therefore, this reality makes the unions more willing to strike an agreement.

But public sector employees work for the government; it doesn't have any competitors. Its "customers" (American citizens) are enslaved to its services from the cradle to the grave, and it has no plans to go out of business!

Public unions can therefore contribute money to the campaigns of sympathetic politicians, make unreasonable demands, and then get their pocketed cronies in government to raise taxes to cover the costs. Powerful lobbyists ensure that public jobs are protected, regardless of economic conditions or performance of the worker.

For example, just look at what it takes to "fire" a teacher in the Chicago school system: (thanks to the Chicago Tribune and Reason Magazine) See larger image here.

Scenarios are similar all over America.

Now, let me assure you I am NOT against unions in principle, nor am I against those who join them to seek advocacy for just working conditions, wages, and retirement benefits in both sectors.

But can we locate a common denominator in all union problems, private and public? Yes. It's the U.S. government.

Americans suffer across the board. First, as consumers, we pay higher prices for often mediocre goods, thanks to private sector unions. Then, as taxpayers, we are forced by the government to provide a living for its employees that exceed that of the average citizen, thanks to public sector unions.

I can't blame people for wanting to position themselves for the best benefits possible--that's pretty much the "American way". But it loses its luster when it's no longer a product hashed out of rugged individualism and mutual respect, but ignoble concessions to the scare tactics of a labor gang.

Unionism wouldn't be a problem if "we, the people" had maintained our vigilant watch on freedom's wall. Liberty is a dangerous thing, for it requires us to know the difference between what to courageously allow at risk and what to avoid at all costs.

Today, I believe we've confused the two concepts and human rights and liberties are in grave danger--not from without, but within. It's simple: we either make choices that benefit the individual or the group...choices that result in greater slavery or freedom.

Therefore, if we have to point just one finger, let's aim it at the government. Get it and its damaging interference out of the market and its labor, where neither business nor workers can court powerful, third-party favors. Make public unions and governments answer directly to the taxpayers!

We must slash the size of Leviathan on federal and state levels, thereby reducing the need for so many employees. (Private industry can deliver legitimate services much better...services not outsourced by the government, but INSTEAD of the government, such as a private postal service.)

Strengthen and deregulate the market; weaken and regulate the government.

I favor a return to a confederacy of states patterned after our original Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. (I have an extensive series on this site as to why I believe it is a superior way to govern that prohibits many of the abuses we have today.)

But big changes require small steps; and any reforms that reduce the State and restore individual liberties are good.

End collective bargaining for public sector employees, and return real, decision-making power back to the original employers of government--the taxpayers. We must call for genuine citizen legislatures, not professional ones.

We would do well to heed Switzerland's federalistic concept of direct democracy--similar to the Articles of Confederation--that runs on vibrant input from the people while safeguarding against a "tyranny of the majority".

In case you haven't noticed, our constitutional republic no longer exists. A form of government is not sacrosanct, particularly if the governing powers make a mockery of it every day and throw tokens--like national voting--to the naive to keep them happy.

If promoting a return to a confederacy of states akin to the Articles of Confederation scares you, then at least, get to really know your representatives and refuse to send union and big government patsies to state legislatures and Congress.

Demand competent management from your government and call leaders into accountability for spending. Insist they pay bills with extra money, not add a new program or promise (which is why the states can't pay employee pensions now).

If they don't, vote with your feet, if possible. Distance yourself as much as you can from dependency upon the state and its agencies. Take the initiative to save on your own and invest in hard money, such as gold and silver.

We've forfeited our power as consumers and taxpayers to brigands, and they're getting away with it. Government can't very well stop the train of union abuses when it's guilty by association. You know politicians won't, because they want their cut of the loot. And these companies? They're behind the controls at gunpoint!

The runaway train is headed smack into our children's future domestic peace and prosperity.

Who can arrest it? The American people who cherish individual liberty, and despise the ruinous mentality of a mob.

Seven Score and Eight Years Ago: America's First Dictator

2011-02-22T19:59:00.008-06:00

"The War between the States established . . .
this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts,
the final judge of its own powers." ~ Woodrow Wilson

Most Americans do not know the real history of their country. That's because federalist educators have systematically employed revisionists to depict its people and events from a statist worldview, ensuring generations of patriotic nationalists who never question the decisions of their government.

This carefully crafted propaganda is especially disconcerting when it comes to Abraham Lincoln, our sixteenth President. Esteemed by most Americans as the greatest man to ever hold the office, he is also known as "The Great Emancipator" and "Honest Abe".

Lincoln is admired by leaders all over the world, and our schoolchildren are encouraged to emulate his greatness as a model statesman. Even many Christians hold up Lincoln as an example of piety and godliness in the midst of trying times.

But history outside the classroom tell a disturbingly different story. These facts cannot be successfully airbrushed or explained away to discerning freedom lovers. As seen through the eyes of individual liberties and one's oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, Lincoln's shameful legacy is revealed.

Thomas DiLorenzo is a formidable Lincolnologist and author of the book Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe.

With DiLorenzo's help and contributions from other researchers,
let's delve into history and separate the myth from the man:

Myth: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.

Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), only the seven states of the Deep South had seceded. 1

There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

Myth: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.

His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." 1

William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."

Garrison and other abolitionists were keenly aware that the January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it specifically exempted all the areas that at the time were occupied by federal armies. That is, all areas where slaves could actually have been freed. 2

Secretary of State William Seward acknowledged that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.

Lincoln admitted in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original emancipation proclamation has no legal justification, except as a military measure."

In his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. writes, "On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race.

In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.' Who were ‘the inferior races'? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called mongrels . . ."

For his entire adult life, Lincoln was a member of the American Colonization Society. "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said in his 1852 eulogy to Henry Clay.. He held these views until the day he died. As Joe Sobran has remarked, Lincoln's position was that black people could be "equal" all right, but not here in the U.S. 3

Myth: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.

Lincoln destroyed the most important principle of the Declaration — the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. in 1860, and Lincoln put an end to that idea by having his armies slaughter 300,000 of them, including one out of every four white males between 20 and 40.

Standardizing for today's population, that would be the equivalent of around 3 million American deaths--roughly 60 times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.

Myth: War was necessary to end slavery.

"During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.

Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however. 1

It's time to face the truth and teach it to our children: Lincoln was neither honorable nor honest!

In "Beheading the Great Messiah", libertarian Karen De Coster writes:

Abraham Lincoln, as most of us were told in Mr. Smith’s 9^th-grade history class, was a God-sent savior, a brilliant, articulate, and diversity-loving individual, and the Messiah of the great "Union." Most of us were brainwashed on enchanting quotations from the "great man from the little log cabin."

Lincoln was a ruthless dictator of the most contemptible sort. A conniving and manipulative man, and a scoundrel at heart, he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe.

Lincoln has been transformed into the indomitable icon of the American Union. But yet, this beast ruled the country by presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and proceeded to wage war without a declaration from Congress.

Lincoln blocked Southern shipping ports, justifying his actions by saying "he would enforce all laws and collect all revenues due the North." The blockades were an act of war.

He set his Northern Army upon the South at Fort Sumter, and set in motion one of the most brutal attacks ever upon freedom by maneuvering the South into firing the first shot at their Northern aggressors.

Lincoln was the darling candidate of the moneyed industrialists of the North. At the core of his political tenets was a government of high import taxes, and his Republican party, whom he lead, passed the Morrill tariff into law soon after taking office...Lincoln even promised in his First Inaugural Address to "launch an invasion of any state that failed to collect its share of tariffs."

He was committing himself to collecting customs in the South, even if that meant they would secede. The free-market economics of the South were up for assault.

Lincoln signed ten more tariff-raising bills throughout his agonizing administration. He manipulated the American public into the first income tax, he handed out huge land grants and monetary subsidies to transcontinental railroads (corporate welfare), and he took the nation off the gold standard, allowing the government to have absolute control over the monetary system.

Then, he virtually nationalized the banking system under the National Currency Acts in order to establish a machine for printing new money at will and to provide cheap credit for the business elite. This mercantilist tyrant ushered in central banking, our greatest economic curse to this day.

Furthermore, his "New Army" and the slaughter effort on the South put into motion an unprecedented profusion of federal coercion against free citizens, both North and South. By way of conscription, he assembled a vast army by presidential decree, an act of flagrant misconduct, which drafted individuals into slavery to the federal government.

Additionally, any war dissenters or advocates of a peaceful settlement with the South were jailed, and, as even Mr. Smith knows, Habeas Corpus was abolished for the duration of the war. He then tossed into the slammer as many as 30,000 civilians WITHOUT due process of law for reasons of criticizing the Lincoln administration, and suppressed HUNDREDS of newspapers that did not support his war effort.

After his Army stopped secession in its tracks, Lincoln created provisional courts sympathetic to Northern aggression, invented the office of Military Governor, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which became a propaganda tool for historians in later years, though it did not free the slaves in Northern-controlled areas." 5

The dishonorable conduct of Lincoln's generals during the Civil War is well documented. The most famous example was General William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea".

Sherman wrote a letter to one of Lincoln's cabinet members, claiming that all Southerners—soldiers and civilians alike—were enemies of the Union and recommending that they be driven from their homes and treated as "denizens (inhabitants) of the land. Their holdings, he suggested, could be forcibly repopulated as the British had done in Northern Ireland.

The city of Atlanta, after its surrender, was burned to the ground. An eyewitness wrote, "The city's infrastructure was completely destroyed—railroads, foundries, shops, mills, schools, hotels and business offices—and "from four to five thousand houses" burned. A mere 400 homes were left standing. Sherman had watched the scene from horseback as he rode out of town and later remarked, "Behind us lay Atlanta, smoldering and in ruins." 6

Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel estimates that some 50,000 Southern civilians were killed during the war, and this number, even if it is exaggerated by a multiple of two, most likely includes thousands of slaves. In his March to the Sea, General William Tecumseh Sherman boasted of having destroyed $100 million in private property and that his "soldiers" carried home another $20 million worth.

In his memoirs, Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories.

Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants." 2

Sherman used Southern prisoners of war to clear minefields by marching them back and forth across land outside Savannah where mines were suspected. In his own memoirs, Sherman remembers trying not to laugh as the men stepped gingerly through the fields. 7

Southern prisoners were also herded in front of Northern troops under Confederate artillery fire in order to force Southerners to fire on their own men. 8

Alexandria, Virginia was occupied by Union troops immediately following the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the town remained subject to military occupation for the duration of the war.

Because the Episcopal prayer book service made distinct mention of both the executive and the legislative departments of the government, clergy who were loyal to the Confederacy were persecuted when they refused to pray for God to bless President Lincoln.

A notorious incident was the arrest of St. Paul’s interim minister, the Rev. Dr. K. J. Stewart, in the sanctuary in Alexandria, Virginia, on February 9, 1862. Union troops attended with the stated purpose of provoking an incident.

During the Litany, Dr. Stewart was ordered by an attending Union officer to say the Prayer for the President of the United States that Dr. Stewart had omitted.

Dr. Stewart proceeded without paying any attention to the interruption; but a captain and six of his soldiers drew their swords and pistols, strode into the chancel, seized the clergyman while he was still kneeling, held pistols to his head, and forced him out of the church and into the streets--in his surplice and stole--and committed him to the guard-house of the 8th Illinois Cavalry.

Dr. Stewart was soon released, but was not allowed to continue to officiate at services. Immediately thereafter, the St. Paul’s sanctuary was closed. 9

Benjamin Butler was another notoriously wicked Northern general. During his occupation of New Orleans, he was outraged when a Southern lady spit at a Northern soldier who kept making advances toward her. In retaliation, Butler issued his Order Number 28:

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women calling themselves "ladies" of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation. 10

This order was a "right to rape"!

According to John K. McNeill, Southern Historian, women could also be violated for the following reasons:

Leaving street cars when Union soldiers boarded them
Walking across the street rather than passing Union soldiers
Singing "Dixie" in public
Turning their backs when Union soldiers walked by

When the Mayor of New Orleans protested this order, Butler had him arrested.

Are we really to believe that Lincoln knew nothing of Sherman's and Butler's atrocities? The deeds were widely reported throughout Northern newspapers during the entire campaign. 8

In spite of this small sample of damning evidence, why do leaders, such as our current President Barack Obama, still admire Lincoln and seek to emulate him? The question also puzzles Carl Wicklander:

To listen to the epithets, one might think that Abraham Lincoln was a combination of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and this dispensation's messiah, Barack Obama.

Judging from the adulations heaped on him, Abraham Lincoln foretold the coming civil rights movement and the work of Martin Luther King, he was the savior of the black race, and his words of wisdom are constantly repeated to justify any government program or initiative, as if they were the words of Holy Scripture.

The words of praise are so over the top. I can't even estimate how many times I have read newspaper editorials and letters to the editor that find some way to incorporate both Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama. There appeared cartoons of the specter of Lincoln standing next to Mr. Obama while the latter took the oath of office. It is simply crass and beyond the scope of reality.

If only more people knew that Lincoln's war was not so much about slavery but about centralizing his power. If only more people knew that despite graceful anti-slavery rhetoric, Lincoln was just fine with the institution of slavery as long as he could prevent the southern states from successfully seceding. If only more people knew that Lincoln thought blacks were inferior to whites.

If only more people knew that once the slaves had been freed, Lincoln intended to ship them back to Africa because peaceful coexistence between the two races was an impossibility in Lincoln's mind. I cannot speak for dead men, but taking those considerations into account, I would find it hard for Lincoln to be deliriously overjoyed at the election of Barack Obama.

Abraham Lincoln was admired by Adolf Hitler. Why? Because Lincoln dissolved the Union as a compact of states and turned it into one unified nation under a centralized government.

Hitler valued Lincoln's crushing of the seceding states because it meant that the central government had power over all the other territories and states. Lincoln destroyed the concept of divided sovereignty, something that existed in America until that time, and brought every state under his control.

Germany, like the United States before the Civil War, was a country that before 1871 was decentralized whose disparate provinces and territories were sovereign over their own affairs.

Ensuring that divided sovereignty, the principle that each state was sovereign, was a thing of the past, Hitler could have dictatorial control over the Teutonic lands. It worked the same way 70 years before during the American Civil War.
The ultimate consequence of Lincoln's war was that it crushed the old republic, one that was a voluntary union, embodied in the 10th amendment, stating that the individual states were sovereign.

The Civil War, which itself did not end slavery (again, it was the 13th Amendment that accomplished that) but did end the concept of a voluntary union. The victory of the North over the seceding southern states made the federal government supreme over all matters, nullified the 10th amendment for all intents and purposes, and made the state governments little more than satraps for the central government.

There are many conservatives today who are wailing over the expansion President Obama is making regarding the federal government. They should know that Republicans have been among the greatest expanders of the federal government.

Whether it was the most recent Republican president or the first, Republicans have a lot of blame to put on themselves for the expansion of government.

Conservatives who bemoan that federal growth should keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln was one of the main movers and shakers of big government. And conservatives need to reconcile those ideas of loving Lincoln while hating big government because the two go hand-in-hand. 11

Here's a Lincolnian event in American history not widely known:

In 1851, the Santee Sioux Indians in Minnesota sold twenty-four million acres of land to the federal government for $1.4 million. By August of 1862, thousands of white settlers continued to pour into the Indian lands even though none of the money had been paid to the Santee Sioux.

There was a crop failure that year, and the Indians were starving. The Lincoln administration refused to pay them the money they were owed, breaking yet another Indian treaty, and the starving Sioux revolted.

A short "war" ensued, with Lincoln putting one of his favorite generals, General John Pope, in charge of federal forces in Minnesota. Pope announced that "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux . . . They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made."

(Similar statements were being made at the time by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who said that to all Southern secessionists, "why, death is mercy").

The Santee Sioux were overwhelmed by the federal army by October of 1862, at which time General Pope held hundreds of Indian men, women, and children who were considered to be prisoners of war. The men were all herded into forts where military "trials" were held, each of which lasted about ten minutes according to David A. Nichols in Lincoln and the Indians.

They were all found guilty of murder and sentenced to death even though the lack of hard evidence was manifest and they were not given any semblance of a proper defense. Most were condemned to death by virtue of the fact that they were merely present during a battle, during a declared (by the Indians) war.

Minnesota political authorities wanted the federal army to immediately execute all 303 of the condemned men. Lincoln, however, was concerned that such a mass execution of so many men who had so obviously been railroaded would be looked upon in a bad light by the European powers who, at the time, were threatening to support the Confederate cause in the War for Southern Independence.

His compromise was to pare the list of condemned down to 39, with a promise to the Minnesota political establishment that the federal army would eventually kill or remove every last Indian from the state. As a sweetener to the deal, Lincoln also offered Minnesota $2 million in federal funds. 12

Thomas Dilorenzo brilliantly removes the rest of the revisionist overpaint on the Lincoln portrait:

Every February...Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln's birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan State that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about.

When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832, he announced that he was doing so for three reasons:

to help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs,

provide corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations ("internal improvements"),

and develop a government monopolization of the nation's money supply.

"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank, the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff." He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called "The American System."

Lincoln once announced that his career ambition was...to become "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York in the early nineteenth century who is credited with having introduced the spoils system to America and supervising the building of the Erie Canal (which became defunct in a mere ten years because of the invention of the railroad). 2

Lincoln spent his 25-year off-and-on political career prior to 1857 championing the Whig project of centralized government that would engage in a kind of economic central planning. When the extension of slavery became the overriding issue of the day, he continued to hold the centralizer's position.

And as soon as he took office, he and the Republican party enacted what James McPherson called a “blizzard of legislation” that finally achieved the “American System,” complete with federal railroad subsidies, a tripling of the average tariff rate that would remain that high or higher long after the war ended, and centralized banking with the National Currency and Legal Tender Acts. 13

It was a revolution against: free-market capitalism; the principles of the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution; the system of states' rights and federalism that was created by the founders; and the prohibitions against waging war on civilians embodied in the international law of the time as well as the canons of Western Christian civilization.

After Thomas Jefferson was elected president, the New England Federalists plotted for over a decade to secede from the Union. Their efforts culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they decided against secession. The movement was led by George Washington's Secretary of War and Secretary of State, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering.

All during this time, citizens never questioned the right of any state to secede because this was the Revolutionary generation, and they revered the Jeffersonian dictum that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Senator Pickering announced that, because of this belief, secession was "the" principle of the American Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire. Lincoln's war destroyed this fundamental tenet of the Declaration.

There was also a vigorous secession movement in the "middle states" — Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York — in the late 1850s, as described by William C. Wright in The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States.

As H. L. Mencken sagely pointed out in an essay on Abraham Lincoln, it was the Confederates who were fighting for consent of the governed; they no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., and Lincoln waged war to deprive them of that consent.

Again, the U.S. Congress declared on July 22, 1861 that the purpose of the war was to destroy the secession movement (i.e., the voluntary Union) and nothing more:

Resolved: . . . That this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Lincoln knew that the Confederates had constitutional history on their side and so, as a slick trial lawyer, he decided to rewrite history by claiming that the Union was older than the states, and that there was never any such thing as state sovereignty over the federal government. He claimed that the government was really created by the Declaration of Independence, which of course had no force of law like the Constitution did.

The Declaration was a Declaration of Secession, period, which makes Lincoln's claim even more bizarre. It is also a colossal absurdity: It is impossible for the union of two things to be older than either thing that it is a union of. This makes as much sense as saying that a marriage can be older than either spouse.

Lincoln's rewriting of history also repudiated the constitutionalist thinking of James Madison and other founders, who held that "a more perfect Union" was created by the Constitution, not the Declaration. Lincoln "proved" his false history "correct" by force of arms, not by logic and debate. Generations of court historians have repeated this spectacular lie, so that it has become part of the Lincoln legend.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow for a dictator, but generations of historians have described Lincoln as such. In his book, Constitutional Dictatorship, Clinton Rossiter wrote that "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms . . . one man was the government of the United States . . . Lincoln was a great dictator . . . and a true democrat."

"Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution," Rossiter wrote, "was considered by nobody as legal." "Never had the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands," James Ford Rhodes wrote in his History of the United States. And James G. Randall wrote in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln that "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator." Why it "must be" was not explained.

The reasons why all these distinguished (and pro-Lincoln) scholars have labeled him a dictator can be found in the above-mentioned books, along with Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague, Fate of Liberty by Mark Neely, Jr., and Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Hummel, to name just a few references.

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus to be unconstitutional (only Congress has such power), but he was ignored by Lincoln as the mass arrests of political dissenters continued.

As described by Dean Sprague in Freedom Under Lincoln (p. 161): "The laws were silent, indictments were not found, testimony was not taken, judges did not sit, juries were not impaneled, convictions were not obtained and sentences were not pronounced. The Anglo-Saxon concept of due process, perhaps the greatest political triumph of the ages and the best guardian of freedom, was abandoned."

Thousands of political prisoners languished in Fort Lafayette in New York harbor, which came to be known as "The American Bastille."

Dozens of Northern newspapers were shut down and their editors and owners were imprisoned if they opposed the Lincoln administration.

On May 18, 1864 Lincoln sent the following order to General John Dix: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers."

All telegraph communication was censored, the railroads were nationalized, and federal troops were ordered to interfere with Northern elections to ensure Republican victories.

Lincoln won New York state by 7000 votes "with the help of federal bayonets," wrote Pulitzer Prize—winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered. Several dozen members of the Maryland legislature were thrown into military prison along with the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May of Maryland so that they could not meet to discuss secession.

The most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, was deported after 67 armed federal soldiers broke into his Dayton, Ohio home and arrested him.

He had been vehemently protesting the suspension of habeas corpus and other constitutional infringements on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Lincoln apparently could not tolerate such talk. The Ohio Democratic Party made Vallandigham its gubernatorial nominee even though he had fled to Canada.

The border states were systematically disarmed, and two "confiscation acts" were written into law in which any U.S. citizen could have all of his private property confiscated by the government for such "crimes" as "falsely exalting the motives of the traitors"; "overstating the success of our adversaries"; and "inflaming party spirit among ourselves."

Informers who turned in their neighbors could keep 50 percent of their neighbors' property; the other half when to the U.S. treasury.

Lincoln was the political "son" of Alexander Hamilton, who first championed mercantilism--the economic and political system that prevailed in Europe in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries under which special privileges were granted by kings and parliaments to merchant elite in return for their political and economic support.

It is the system that Adam Smith railed against in his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations. Many of the pilgrims who came to America fled this corrupt system. King George's attempt to impose this system on the American colonists, with all its state-sponsored monopolies and high taxes, led to the American Revolution.

There was always a group of ambitious politicians in America who wanted to bring this corrupt system across the Atlantic because, as corrupt and impoverishing as it was, it was a convenient tool for the accumulation of political power.

First, there was Hamilton and the Federalists, then Henry Clay and the Whigs, and then Lincoln and the Republicans. They all championed high protectionist tariffs that would plunder consumers for the benefit of manufacturers, corporate welfare for railroad and road-building corporations, and a central bank that could print money that was not redeemable in gold or silver that could finance all these adventures. They had almost no success at all until the entire agenda was imposed on the nation at gunpoint during Lincoln's war.

The Federalist/Whig/Republican policy of mercantilism was finally put into place during the first eighteen months of the Lincoln administration. The average tariff rate was tripled, and would remain that high or higher for decades after the war. The building of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad (in California) was commenced even though a desperate war was being waged.

The National Currency Acts and the Legal Tender Act finally created a central bank that could issue currency (greenbacks) that was not immediately redeemable in gold or silver.

An income tax was adopted for the first time ever, as was military conscription, pervasive excise taxation, and the internal revenue bureaucracy was created. It was the triumph of American mercantilism and the beginning of the end of laissez faire capitalism in America". 3

From 1789 until 1865 the citizens of all states, North and South, made periodic use of the principles of nullification, interposition, and even the threat of secession, to protect themselves from federal judicial tyranny (and federal tyranny in general).

They invoked the Jeffersonian judicial philosophy to oppose protectionist tariffs, military conscription, the War of 1812, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Bank of the United States, trade embargos, and other unconstitutional usurpations (See James J. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia).

Lincoln's war ended citizen opposition to federal judicial tyranny. As Forrest McDonald wrote in States' Rights and the Union (p. 224), one consequence of Lincoln's war was that:

[T]he [Supreme] court was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies. No longer could a Jefferson arise to insist that the other branches of the federal government had coequal authority to determine constitutionality. No more could a Calhoun arise to defend a doctrine of interposition or nullification.

Jefferson, Tucker, Taylor and Calhoun would not be at all surprised to learn that the consequence of this has been rampant federal judicial tyranny.

Indeed, generations of leftists have celebrated the fact that Lincoln did more than anyone to destroy constitutional limitations on federal power. In Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln the "progressive" historian James Randall wrote approvingly of the fact that Lincoln's trashing of the Constitution in the North during the war created precedents for "a living constitution" that, with creative interpretations by the federal judiciary, could become "a vehicle of life." He criticized "excessive reliance" on the ideas of "a by-gone generation". 14

I ask you, patriot, does any of this sound disturbingly familiar today?

Abraham Lincoln paved the way for constitutional usurpers and Big Brother builders such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Some experts, such as Ivan Eland, author of Recarving Rushmore, include LBJ, the Bushes, JFK and (oh, my!) Reagan as the worst Presidents (ranked on peace, prosperity, and liberty).

Here's who made the Top 10 List, based on Eland's rating system: (You might be surprised!)

1 John Tyler
2 Grover Cleveland
3 Martin van Buren
4 Rutherford B. Hayes
5 Chester A Arthur
6 Warren G Harding
7 George Washington (expanded central power but did refuse a third term)
8 Jimmy Carter
9 Dwight D Eisenhower
10 Calvin Coolidge

Not everyone will agree with Eland's rankings, but no one can deny historical facts and the distressing consequences we're living under today.

Lincoln was wrong. We remember what he said and did, and we still await a government "of the people, by the people, for the people"...seven score and eight years later.

"The possession of unlimited power will make a despot of almost any man.
There is a possible Nero in the gentlest human creature that walks."
~ Thomas Bailey Aldrich

1. Thomas DiLorenzo Lincoln Myths

2. Dilorenzo The Mythical Lincoln

3. Dilorenzo Lincoln's Second American Revolution

4. Ibid.

5. Karen De Coster Beheading the Great Messiah

6. Wall Street Journal The Torching of Atlanta

7. Southern Historical Society The Treatment of Prisoners During the War Between the States

8. John K. McNeill The Other Side of the Coin

9. Ruth Lincoln Kaye The History of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Alexandria, Virginia. Springfield, Va.: Goetz Print. Co., 1984)
10. Robert Werlich, "Beast" Buller: The Incredible Career of Union Major General Benjamin F. Butler (Washington, D.C.: The Quaker Press, 1962)

11. Carl Wicklander Abraham's Lincoln's Birthday

12. Thomas Dilorenzo America's Disgraceful History of Military Trials

13. Dilorenzo Was Lincoln a Tyrant?

14. Dilorenzo, Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny