Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
James 1:16-27

Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?

So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Matthew 6:25-34

You have probably heard this story before, but it bears oft repeating:

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

You know, just in case I'm ever attacked by a side of beef or a car.

On Sunday, Breitbart reported:

Armstrong's wish is to combine universal principles of respect and compassion into a charter based on a "golden rule" she believes is at the core of every major religion.

The Golden Rule essentially calls on people to do unto others as they would have done unto them.

"The chief task of our time is to build a global society where people of all persuasions can live together in peace and harmony," Armstrong said.

Hmm... a universal religion that doesn't discriminate nationalities, languages, or backgrounds -- you know, a religion that says "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female," etc.

A religion that teaches everyone that "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Gee, that would be swell, wouldn't it?

But where would you ever find a religion like that?

Just jumping off at this point, I'd like to present for your consideration how a society might look if we really did follow the Golden Rule. (This is from one of Claire Wolfe's wonderful "Hardyville" articles) Enjoy:

Since getting rid of politicians, the people of the small, mid-nowhere town of Hardyville haven't had much truck with laws, either. In fact -- except for a few details about being nice to each other at the stoplight -- here's our entire law code:

TITLE I

A. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

(1.) When in doubt, leave them the heck alone.

B. Do unto yourself as you would do unto others.

We find this perfectly clear -- especially when compared with, say, the U.S. Code, or even the implementing legislation for the GATT Treaty or the specifics of the Clinton Ugly Gun Ban. But for the benefit of people just moving in from some coast, or who spent too much time in government school, we hand out an explanation sheet like this:

THE CODE OF HARDYVILLE

Dear Newcomers to Hardyville:

Welcome. We know you'll find our town a pleasant place to live and raise your family. We are very easygoing around here. You'll quickly discover that we don't ask you to live by many of our own rules; we just expect you live by your own. That's why one of our few laws says, "Do unto yourself as you would do unto others." You might wonder what this means in your own life. Well, that's up to you, but here's a sample:

Those individuals who wish to ban, tax or regulate the personal health or social habits of others will be expected to provide legal certification that they have absolutely no destructive or annoying habits of their own, of any nature. In the tradition of pure democracy, the definition of "destructive or annoying" may be determined by any two or more Hardyvillians, as long as they outnumber the person practicing the habit.

Anyone advocating the notion that all people have "rights" to housing, welfare, food, a job, medical care or anything else that has to be provided by hardworking people will be expected to provide any or all of the above, on demand, personally, to anyone making the claim for it. After all, to do otherwise would be denying that person his or her "rights." Of course, if you believe "society" is supposed to pay for these "rights," you are welcome to recruit all the parts of society who agree with you, pool your pennies, and guarantee any right you want to anybody who wants you to give it to them.

Anyone who advocates asset forfeiture without due process is expected to place an identifying sticker on his or her vehicle so that the Hardyville police will know who they can stop next time they're short on donut money. Our friendly officers will cheerfully supply you with an absolutely free new "I love forfeiture!" sticker for your next vehicle as they tow away your present one.

Anyone who believes guns are evil should be sure to request a response by an unarmed policeman during any 911 emergency. (Hardyvillians, please note: Out of respect for cultural diversity, neighbors are asked not to use firearms to defend the homes and lives of people who have philosophical objections to the possession or use of guns.)

Any Hardyville residents who want government to ban anything on the basis that "nobody needs" such and such, will be expected to submit to quarterly inspections of their possessions by the Ad Hoc (and yet to be established) Hardyville Citizens Committee, Subcommittee to Determine Personal Need. Any items the committee does not deem "needed" (to be determined solely by the committee's standards of the moment) will be surrendered. This includes, but is not limited to: sports cars, collectibles, excess cash, television sets, fancy stereos and other items not required for the basic maintenance of life. It's not really our idea of good government, but if you honestly believe everything people don't need should be confiscated or banned, we're sure we can find people to help you achieve this goal in your personal life.

Supporters of affirmative action are expected personally to surrender their jobs to any member of any government-approved minority who expresses an interest in the position, no matter the qualifications of the person making the demand.

Those advocating bans on any non-coercive recreation practiced by others (e.g. drugs, sex, gambling) will be expected to give up one of their own pleasures for each item or activity of which they wish to deprive other people.

Persons proposing or supporting projects "for the good of others" or "the good of society" will be expected to participate cheerfully in any projects their fellow Hardyvillians propose for their own good.

Anyone endorsing the view that all products of European, male-dominated culture are oppressive to women, people of color and people holding "intuitive," rather than "limited, linear" worldviews are expected to do the following:

1. Refrain from crossing all bridges, which are the product of the most linear, and therefore most limiting of sciences, mathematics and engineering.

2. Do not travel in any conveyance using either wheels or an engine for motivation.

3. Avoid entering any building whose construction is beyond the technological level of a brick hut.

4. Do not use iron or products containing iron, the most oppressive of white male metals.

5. Do not subject yourself to the use of modern medicines or medical technologies.

6. If taken to court, do not attempt to prove your innocence, as the concepts of logic and proof are inherently oppressive.

7. Most important, do not claim the protections of the Bill of Rights, including that of free speech. This document was not only composed by Dead White Males, but that most evil of all DWM classes, that of hypocritical slaveholders, and will naturally be shunned by all right-thinking persons.

Finally, anyone wanting the U.S. government to force American citizens to fight wars at which the defense of the U.S. is not at stake will be expected to volunteer for front-line infantry service. All of Hardyville will hold a party to celebrate your departure.

That's it. A few very simple, commonsense rules which we know you will find consistent with your principles. Welcome to Hardyville. And always remember: ideas have consequences.

President-Elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, co-authored The Plan: Big Ideas for America. This excerpt is from pages 61-62:

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

Just a little reminder, here. Amendment 13 to the United States Constitution reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The myth of good government
LewRockwell.Com
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

One of the great and most persistent errors of classical liberals is to believe in "good government," a government that does "what it is supposed to do."

There is nothing the state can do, which society needs done, that cannot be done far better by the market. Another point that is just as telling: no state empowered to do what is supposedly necessary will restrain itself to those things. It will expand as much as public opinion will tolerate.

Hillary at Foggy Bottom?
AntiWar.Com
by Justin Raimondo

In the tradition-bound world of U.S. foreign policy, innovation is frowned upon. How many times have we had that old establishment adage about how "politics stops at the water's edge" thrown at us? This cliché inverts the reality: the foreign policy of a country is in large part determined by the internal struggles of rival political factions, and nothing underscores this general operating principle more pointedly than the looming takeover of the State Department by the Clintons.

I use the plural because a Clinton appointment really means both of them: for all intents and purposes, we'll actually have two secretaries of state, like the ancient consuls of Rome.

Sooner than we thought
LewRockwell.Com
by Yuri N. Maltsev

The new Obama regime is taking shape in Washington and provinces eager to take power and secure the "change you can believe in" using humungous propaganda machine of both government radio and television and still privately owned, so-called "mainstream media." These private networks are competing with National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in praising Obama’s first choices from his new dog to his new chief of staff.

The thought scene in the US today resembles that of Russia in 1917, Cuba in 1959 or China in 1948. Incessant calls for "unity" and "fairness," attacks on "divisive," "toxic" and "hateful" language are nothing new – they resemble Germany of 1932 and Venezuela of 1996, today’s Putin’s Russia and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.

Blackwater busted?
The Nation
by Jeremy Scahill

After more than five years of rampant violence and misconduct carried out by the massive army of private corporate contractors in Iraq--actions that have gone totally unpunished under any system of law--the US Justice Department appears to be on the verge of handing down the first indictments against armed private forces for crimes committed in Iraq. The reported targets of the "draft" indictments: six Blackwater operatives involved in the September 16, 2007, killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

Dennis Kucinich investigates Treasury's blank check
Mother Jones
by Nick Baumann

It looks like the Bush administration can create its own reality after all. Just this week Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson turned the $700 billion bailout from a program to purchase toxic assets from troubled financial institutions to one that will invest in banks. Understandably, this abrupt change of course angered members of Congress, who were now left to wonder if they'd been led astray in supporting the stimulus package. At a hearing on Friday, convened to examine the Treasury Department's use of the bailout funds, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle vented their outrage. The question if whether their displeasure will make a dime's worth of difference.

Displaying the range of congressional discontent, both Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the chair of domestic policy oversight subcommittee, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), its ranking member, accused the Treasury of a "bait-and-switch" and questioned Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former Goldman Sachs banker selected by Paulson to supervise the bailout, about the sudden reversal.

The third way
Reason
by Anthony Randazzo

Given the Brooks analysis, here's the real problem for the Republicans: The Traditionalist defenders of capitalism wind up out of touch with America and grounded in rhetoric rather than political principle. Meanwhile, Reformers who want to "appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters" have to abandon the small government model and become the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

None of that spells long term success for Republicans. What the GOP needs are libertarians, those who believe not only in small government, but also in individualism and the truly liberating power of free markets. If the Ron Paul movement tells us anything, it's that the Republican Party can be more than a party of old white guys with bad hair cuts.

Washington, D.C. buses will be sporting the question, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" this holiday season. This is a new ad campaign from the American Humanist Association.

The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians, so this is obviously an attack on Christianity. (As if the timing didn't make that painfully apparent.)

Ok, on one hand, I would say that it is the AHA's money. If they want to spend $40,000 to purchase themselves a special place in hell, that's their business. But, at the same time, I have to wonder if the Washington buses would have sported an anti-homosexuality message or an anti-abortion message if purchased from the coffers of the Southern Baptist Convention or the local Roman Catholic diocese? After all, that's business, right?

But I do wonder what the Church's response will be? I'm sure one campaign will be to remind everyone of the "true meaning of Christmas." But, what is that exactly? Winter Solstice? The attempt of Pope Julius to incorporate the pagan Saturnalia festival into the Church calendar in 432 AD? Oliver Cromwell canceled Christmas when he and the Puritans took over England. (Captain John Smith was downing eggnog over in Jamestown in 1607, though). It was even outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681 - not by secular humanists, but by the pilgrims. Christmas was considered an English custom, so it was ignored by Congress after the American Revolution. Yep, they were actually in session on December 25th of 1789. It wasn't a federal holiday until 1870. Well, I doubt any of those are what is meant by the "true meaning of Christmas."

The "traditional" Christmas didn't start until 1819, when Washington Irving wrote The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, gent. In these stories, Irving invented some "holiday traditions" and showed a squire celebrating them in his home with the local peasants. Of course, the best loved tale of "traditional" Christmas is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens from 1843.

But, hey, don't think I'm a bah-hum-bugger myself. I've actually broken the cardinal rule at our house of not listening to Christmas music until after Thanksgiving dinner. I'm already listening. Of course, I've tried to explain to my wife that at my advanced age, time flies so much faster that I only experience the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas as if it were one week. So I have to start listening early to get in all 29 days of Christmas music. (And I really like the song "Christmas Cookies" by George Strait this year.)

And another favorite tactic is the ever popular boycott. Sometimes I think the church's official battle plan is retreat. Of course, the plan is not the ingenious strategy of retreating so the enemy will follow you as you wait in ambush. No, the Church just retreats again and again. As Bret Maverick said, "He who fights and runs away, lives to run another day." Yes, I'm sure that's what Jesus meant by being salt and light. Retreat from the culture and maintain a social impact of ZERO.

I think the real question here is, how can anyone be "good for goodness' sake"? How do you define goodness? Is there a goodness for you and a different goodness for me? How can I measure your goodness by my standard of goodness? What if I believe that eating meat is good, but you believe that killing animals to eat them is morally reprehensible? What if I believe that a baby is a blessing, but you believe that a baby is at best a choice and at worst a punishment? How could any law ever be established if no one could agree to it? Relativism only leads to chaos.

Oddly enough, the ad seems to imply that there is a general goodness to which we should all subscribe. Well, I'm sure there are things which all human beings can agree are absolute. I think we can all agree that torture is evil. (Presidential administrations and the CIA aside, of course. But they are the State and morality has never applied to the State, so they don't count as human beings.) Maybe we could limit it to just torturing children.

But if torturing children is absolutely evil, then that, at least, is one moral absolute. I can't just walk down the street, pull out a gun, and shoot someone at random. I think we proletarians can agree to that as well. So there are absolutes that exist outside our individual opinions.

Well, now we have a real problem with the ad, don't we? The sign admits there is a goodness that exists. This goodness that exists is outside individual opinions. This goodness is not a physical thing. It is not a rock or a tree. It is certainly not star stuff. You can't taste it, smell it, or scratch it. The ad said we should do it for "goodness" sake, but goodness cannot be proven empirically. Thus, by saying we should be "good for goodness' sake", they have disavowed materialism and strict empiricism!

So the bus ad proves that you can believe in something that you cannot see.

But what is the origin of the "goodness"? Did it just accidentally pop into existence? If so, how can it apply to you? If goodness is just an accident, how can it matter if you are good or not? Is there some punishment or reward that accidentally occurred simultaneously with the accidental occurrence of the "goodness"?

The only other option is that Someone made the "goodness." If Someone made the "goodness," then that Someone can reward you for being good or punish you for not being good. Is this Someone the God of Christianity?

Well, we know that this Someone could not be one of the millions of gods of Hinduism, because they make no distinction between good and evil.

It can't be atheism, because there is no Someone in atheism.

It can't be agnosticism, because there might not be Someone in agnosticism.

So, have a Merry Christmas. And think long and hard about where that goodness might come from and what that implies to you.

This article was too good to not post.

By Dr. Richard A. Jones
November 12, 2008
American Vision

Now that what some might call the “unthinkable” has actually happened, it’s certain that a vital remnant in the Church will wake up and realize that, “It’s time to start paying attention.” Had McCain won, the Christian Right likely would have given another overconfident sigh of relief, hoping that the other side would somehow not be able to advance its anti-Christian offensive in 2012. (It would have advanced anyway.) Either way, it’s folly to forget that the difference between the American Dream-killing, wealth-redistributing leftist, Obama, and the RINO McCain is negligible. A tip-off that both are operative socialists was made clear last primary season when mainstream media palmed off these two inexplicable “choices” onto us. Values voters never had a say. But that’s all spilled milk. It’s time to explore how it was that what was once essentially a Christian-leaning, U.S. voting populace was so easily set up for passive acceptance of a clear-cut socialist candidate in each party. Don’t be surprised by the major cause.

Dedication to Marxism by East Coast political, academic and media types goes back to the days of FDR and even before. But, it neared max toxicity in the 1960s with Viet Nam. By 1989 and 1990, Marxist devotion in the U.S. had not weakened in the least even though the Cold War had ended and the USSR folded. That’s because, as we’ve argued here, true socialism at its core is an intense, life-dedicated hatred of God and the Christian family. And hatred of God is ever-present. This passion is what keeps the fires of nihilism and Marxism burning on campuses nationwide (and eventually in the public schools) even though it waned (for a season) in the Soviet Motherland. Viet Nam era zealots like Bill Ayers never stopped pushing radicalism at ever-lower grade levels in the schools. So it’s no surprise that mind-programmed young voters (and plenty of church goers, per Barna polling) have slowly fallen for Washington’s “equality, compassion (and vote-buying) plan;” i.e., socialism. How did this catastrophe come to pass with nary a whimper?

Many think that a deceived Protestant Church in America was the key. It abetted the slippery slope to socialism via a century-long bad habit of effeminate pietism and its cave-in to an “it’s just about over,” irrelevance-guaranteeing, dispensationalism. (Both of which developed mainly because due to loss of the best U.S. men during the cynically contrived Civil War.) Once the shroud of pessimistic end-times resignation had smothered what de Tocqueville experienced as “pulpits aflame,” the soft undermining effect of passive church irrelevance in a fast-changing society was assured. By election time 2008, scores of feminized, liberal-leaning pulpits had been taken in by the Left’s vague slogan of “change;” a change that a “truly loving God” supposedly desires.

As 1960’s radicals like Ayers and company wormed their way into the teacher colleges, the plan was that children…especially Dr. Benjamin Spock’s permissively trained and spoiled victims…would be progressively dumbed down to accept humanistic, anti-Christian socialism. The zeitgeist of the age was one of busy Baby Boomer parents marching resolutely to the beat of “me, mine and materialism.” While both parents took two salaries in order to pay their taxes and feed a consumption mentality, the planners knew that schools would be the perfect holding tank by day for “open minded” (read “gullible”) children who were getting, if any, only minimal moral guidance at home. What was being surreptitiously taught in the mega-compliant government schools was less critical to parents than the convenience of the handy babysitting. A passive Church, meanwhile, yawned. Only Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, virtually alone through the 1970s and 1980s, warned about the grave threat on the near horizon should government-controlled education be allowed to prevail. Has it prevailed? Having to ask the question gives the answer.

It was during this pivotal and still feasible-for-action time frame that others besides Rushdoony should have perked up and given the alert. Pro-active response conditions were still favorable. Post-Viet Nam, as socialist fruit began growing apace in the schools, pastors and young parents alive in the 1980s and 1990s (who would have been born at a time when the Cold War’s lessons about communism’s threat were still vivid) should have paid attention. And communism, as is well known, is merely the freedom-hating socialism of Obama and McCain worked out to its inevitable conclusion. With the facts so clearly visible, why didn’t those Boomer parents and their pastors figure it out?

It wasn’t just Dr. Spock. It wasn’t just end-times misinterpretations that led to irrelevance within church leadership. Post-Viet Nam pastors had other concerns stopping them from storming pulpits and with rhetorical swords drawn, proclaiming; “Parents: Remove God’s children from the humanist schools.” With Christianity under attack on all fronts, especially media, academia, and the entertainment sectors, humanistically-deceived moderns began leaving church. With tithing and giving down, pastors had worries other than the pesky socialism threat. They caved in to financial “reality,” very often using the wholly unjustified “salt and light in the schools” pretext. Instead of “taking a chance on God” and declaring truth, they ignored the get-them-out warning. They feared backlash from parents and public school teachers among the congregants. It was and is that simple.

But there’s plenty of blame to go around. All of the best known national power ministries on radio and TV happily followed suit. They too feared jeopardizing their donations and product-sales base. True, these national voices gave occasional, random attention to the school problem, but were quick to say, as a covering mantra, that the two alternatives, home education and private schools “are not for everyone.” Result: Only a few previously pro-materialism-leaning parents were sufficiently aroused to change gears, even for their own children. From pew to pulpit to the big production ministries, the ball was dropped, and the youth contingent response in the 2008 election reflects this failure. Millions of younger voters from churched homes (and often joined by their parents) had, in fact, succumbed to school socialism-based, pro-permissive, pro-class envy, pro-homosexual, pro-green, anti-defense and anti-capitalism deception. Twenty-first-century parents and leaders must wake up. “If you forebear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain…. If you say, behold, we knew it not, does not he that ponders the heart consider it? And he that keeps the soul, does he not know it? And shall he not render to every man according to his works” (Proverbs 24:10-11).

“Children of the State” in World Magazine for November 1, 2008, unintentionally revealed the degree of American reluctance to grasp 40 years of brutal truth…years at least somewhat reminiscent of 1930s Germany. It stated: “If you want a classic example of how fast a whole culture can be turned on a dime, redirected by 180 degrees, try this: Just when it seemed, through the 1980s, 1990s, and even well into the past decade, that a socialist mindset had been successfully put down in the United States, back it comes- with a vengeance.” No! 2008 was not a “here it comes back,” inexplicable surprise. Exactly the opposite! Since the 1970s, youth socialism-indoctrination has been like a freight train coming. And in 2008 it arrived-with a vengeance, right on schedule and just as planned. If not addressed now, 2010 will be worse. Today’s younger voters are politically illiterate, socialist-leaning, damaged goods and much of this because of a church-wide, millstone-risking refusal to protect Christ’s “little ones” (Matt. 18:6). “For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are led of them are destroyed” (Isa. 9:16).

Wiser heads in the Church; in some rare pockets of government, and we here at American Vision, know that this trend to socialism and, with it, the soon loss of our freedoms, must end. That pitiable throng of those taken in by this fairy tale must decline. Those adults-to-be of tomorrow (and already-adults of today) who would help lead us out of the trap must increase. American Vision’s specialty in the culture wars has always been to supply God-honoring materials for Christians who want to enhance their Kingdom-advancing skills. But AV’s offerings will fall increasingly on deaf ears if the adult readers of tomorrow continue “learning” in the other side’s youth training camps. Why not tell your pastor to think over the challenge? Tell him that an obedience-respecting God will honor his leadership. This is a transformational hour in history and the hour is late. As Cliff May wrote last week in National Review; “The Democrats, i.e., the Left, now have the White House, control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governors’ mansions, a majority of state legislatures, the entertainment media, the elite news media, the unions, the educational establishment, the lion’s share of the philanthropic community, and increasing power over the courts.” ACORN is on its way to OAK status. Christians need to grow trees of influence of their own, their own forests, and fast. Failure to act now guarantees that things will all only get worse, and not just in the political realm but in all of them. We ask you to join us by removing your own children and encouraging others to do the same. Set January, 2009 as your target date. We don’t have forever. Thank you.

One of the issues of the Obama presidency is Service. According to BarackObama.com, "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year." According to Change.gov, the Office of the President-Elect:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Let me state first that I am not suggesting that Obama is a Nazi or that he's the new Hitler. But when I hear about a government requiring community service for young people, I have to admit that a certain image comes to mind. In the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Returning to Total Resistance, there is a section on "The Struggle for the Youth."

An occupation my last many years. The enemy and especially the "Quisling" government installed by him, to consolidate power, will attempt to subvert the minds of the youth.

The enemy not only wants to exploit economically and militarily the occupied territory for his own war purposes, but also wants to incorporate it into his ideological sphere of power. As a consequence, you are not only to be conquered but also, if possible, to be converted. With this policy, he not only hopes to obtain labor forces but also eventually individuals who will support his ideology.

The enemy will write off the older generation, at least partially, as being impossible to convert. He will rely on terror to keep them in check and eliminate them, if necessary, by deportation or execution.

He will, however, turn with increased vigor toward the youth which he will attempt to convert by a variety of means--from promises to naked threats.

The struggle for youth is roughly divided into two parts:
(1) Suppressing the traditional youth organizations and replacing them by a "State Youth Movement."
(2) Elimination or at least a great reduction of the influence of family, church, and school upon young people, and replacing it with the influence of the party and its youth organizations.

B. Suppression of free youth organizations
The enemy fears the forces of community alive in free youth movement. His demand upon your mind is complete. As a result he cannot tolerate any other youth organizations besides the "State Youth Movement" created by him. Any type of allegiance to the old organizations will not be tolerated.

Specifically, the enemy will forbid the traditional youth organizations to do the following:
(1) Wearing of uniforms or pieces of clothing resembling uniforms;
(2) Displaying insignias, flags, and pennants;
(3) Marching, hiking, camping, etc.;
(4) Participating in any kind of sports activity.

In addition to these active measures of fighting the organizations, strong pressure will be created simultaneously to join the newly created "State Youth Movement." It will be announced, for instance, that in the future any applicant for any type of advanced or key position will be accepted only if he can prove that he was a member of the "State Youth Movement." [note: or all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free - Brian]

C. Means used by the enemy to exploit the youth include the unscrupulous, diabolic exploitation of:
(1) the youthful desire for action and adventure;
(2) the ability for enthusiasm (phony ideas);
(3) the ability to become easily impressed with such things as flags, uniforms, music, and pictures;
(4) the little developed ability to judge critically;
(5) the fact that youth forgets easily and is resilient;
(6) the "conflict between generations" (normal latent tension with older generation);
(7) the "golden promises" of the future;
(8) the veiled and indirect coercion which is only used as a last resort.

The enemy thus attempts to make the aims of youth the same as his.

First phase of subverting the youth
First of all, the youth will be enlisted and won over to the enemy's side by subjects of interest to them:

Exploiting the "motor fad" of youth (knowledge of motors, driver's school for motorcycles or cars).

Exploitation of the "hunger for beauty" of youth (films and trips and colorful meetings).

Second phase
Introduction of political lessons (political influence). For the time being, only a very few lessons will be introduced which will go almost unnoticed in the clever, interesting, and technical programs presented by the state. Gradually, the number of hours of political instruction increases until it becomes the main subject.

In conjunction with the above, a slow, almost imperceptible change of emphasis from sports to a systematic pre-military training occurs.

Since occupation may well last many years, there is a great danger of politically poisoning the youth. The enemy places great emphasis on political matters even in wartime.

Always remember, "Work Makes You Free."

We looked at the first three commandments last time, but I want to look at the rest as well.

The Fourth Commandment is "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11)

Yet, in Exodus 16, after the Israelites left Elim, God sent quail and manna to feed them. "Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. And the LORD said to Moses, 'How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? See! For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." So the people rested on the seventh day." (Exodus 16:27-30)

The Lord accused them of refusing to keep His commandments and laws--before Sinai.

The Fifth Commandment is "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12)

After Ham's indiscretion, Noah pronounced the curse upon Canaan (Genesis 9:25-27). When Lot warned his sons-in-law of the destruction of Sodom, they treated him as a joke and died in the destruction (Genesis 19:14). Ishmael scoffed Isaac, which dishonored their father, and Ishmael was cast out (Genesis 21:9, 10).

The Sixth Commandment is "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

When Cain murdered Abel, he cried out, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!" (Genesis 4:13) God told Noah, "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:6). Rebekah remembered this. And, so, when Esau threatened to murder Jacob, she responded, "Why should I be bereaved also of you both in one day?" (Genesis 27:45). This was clearly demonstrated in the destruction of Pharaoh's army. They had drowned the Israelites' children in the river (Exodus 1) and were then drowned themselves in the Red Sea (Exodus 14).

The Seventh Commandment is "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)

For Sodom and Gomorrah's depravity, "the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground" (Genesis 19:24, 25). Jude said, "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (v. 7). The men of Shechem were slain for defiling Dinah. "Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem's house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled" (Genesis 34:25-27).

The Eighth Commandment is "You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15)

Our sinful nature finds its root in this very commandment. Adam and Eve took the fruit which was not theirs to take and passed original sin to all their posterity. When Laban accused Jacob of stealing his idols, Jacob responded, "With whomever you find your gods, do not let him live." (Genesis 31:32) His sons agreed that stealing was a capital offense, "With whomever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's slaves." (Genesis 44:9)

The Ninth Commandment is "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)

When God asked Cain the location of his brother, he replied, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9) God said to him, "So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." (Genesis 4:11) Abraham lied about his wife to Pharaoh. "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. And Pharaoh called Abram and said, 'What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, "She is my sister"? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way.' So Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had." (Genesis 12:17-20) The same occurred with Abimelech (Genesis 20:8-10, 14-16).

The Tenth Commandment is "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." (Exodus 20:17)

We've just seen how the Lord plagued Pharaoh for his desire for Sarai. Notice again that this is Pharaoh, a pagan, who is punished for not keeping the Lord's commandment, and that before Sinai. And, again, the same happened to Abimelech.

1 Peter 2:17 reads, "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."

This passage, along with Romans 13:1-7, has been used by many to remind us to roll over and submit to the government. In our own nation's history, it was used by monarchists and Loyalists/Tories during our revolution and by Southern Unionists during the Civil War. So it doesn't surprise me to see Evangelicals quoting it today. That's our Christian duty. "Render unto Caesar" and all that.

Is that really our Christian duty? Is it really our responsibility before God to support our rulers no matter what they do? Is that what any of the prophets did? Is that what John the Baptist did? Is that what Peter himself did? Isn't this the same Peter who, with John, told his leaders, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge"? Isn't this the same Peter who also said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Well, let's let some voices from our nation's history speak and maybe we won't repeat historical errors:

John Milton (1654) - "If I inveigh [rail] against tyrants, what is this to kings? whom I am far from associating with tyrants. As much as an honest man differs from a rogue, so much I contend that a king differs from a tyrant. Whence it is clear, that a tyrant is so far from being a king, that he is always in direct opposition to a king."

James I (c. 1603) - "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws."

John Locke ("Second Treatise of Civil Government") - "That is, in short, not to multiply cases, in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority."

Jonathan Mayhew (sermon "Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers" 1749 - a sermon which has been called the "Morning Gun of the Revolution") - "When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution, -- when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare, -- they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen. So that, whenever that argument for submission fails which is grounded upon the usefulness of magistracy to civil society, -- as it always does when magistrates do hurt to society instead of good, -- the other argument, which is taken from their being the ordinance of God, must necessarily fail also; no person of a civil character being God's minister, in the sense of the apostle, any further than he performs God's will by exercising a just and reasonable authority, and ruling for the good of the subject."

According to John Adams, this sermon "was read by everybody" in Boston. Mayhew is also credited with coining the phrase "no taxation without representation." Where are the pastors like that today?