Friday, July 27, 2007

Ron Paul on Homeschooling

As a homeschool parent, I find strident opposition to and disdain for homeschooling to be a sign of ignorance, pointing potentially to much larger flaws in the worldviews of its critics.

The political involvement of homeschoolers at state and local levels is necessary to protect parental rights. Even at the national level, it is necessary for groups such as the Home School Legal Defense Association to keep members apprised of shenanigans perpetrated in the Imperial City.

Nevertheless, I've been disturbed by the mindless support offered up by homeschoolers to the GOP, particularly with regard to the war, where the homeschoolers I know are still largely enlisted in the imperial project in Mesopotamia.

I hadn't thought about Ron Paul's position on homeschooling. I simply assumed he was supportive of parents and families trying to free themselves in some limited way from the tentacles of the state and culture of mediocrity and atheism enshrined in public schools.

I wasn't disappointed. Here is a press release from the Paul campaign.

Will homeschoolers support Paul? The question is merely rhetorical. HSLDA has already endorsed Mike Huckabee. Yes, you read that correctly--Mike Huckabee.

Given Paul's support for homeschoolers over many years, why would the HSLDA endorse Huckabee? Because the HSLDA is joined at the hip with the GOP and any deviation from conservative dogmatics precipitates excommunication of the heretic.

Support for Bushian foreign policy now defines the GOP, and those who dissent in the political sphere face rhetorical and political assaults. Battered by amoral sexual degenerates and revolutionaries on the left and corporate shills and militarists on the right, I am a politically homeless pilgrim wandering aimlessly in search of a place to call home.

Christians in Iraq

According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, conditions for religious minorities (i.e., Christians) in Iraq "have deteriorated very considerably.”

An Anglican vicar in Baghdad who supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein told the commission that Christians have “never had it so bad" in Iraq.

In case anyone has forgotten, Christians in Iraq were largely free of persecution and protected by the Iraqi state during the bad ole days of that tyrannical, mini-Hitler, Stalin-wannabe Saddam Hussein. While far from perfect, the lives of Christians in pre-war Iraq were far better than they are today.

Roughly 50 percent of the Christian population has fled Iraq and about 40 percent of the 2.2 million refugees from Iraq are Chaldo-Assyrian Christians. Most of these refugees have found protection in Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

Naturally, the sad plight of Iraqi Christians wrought by mindless, reckless American interventionism is being used by the likes of Richard Land to promote more mindless, reckless interventionism in Iraq.

Land currently serves as vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Freedom, and after testimony about the Iraq debacle had this to say: “I applaud the courage of all of those who testified and the courage of those that they testified in behalf of in continuing to bear witness for their faith in the midst of a terrible and tragic situation. Hopefully, their testimony will help encourage our government to do more to ensure that the rights of all religious minorities will be protected in Iraq."

How exactly does Dr. Land propose we ensure “religious freedom” in Iraq? I’ve chronicled Land’s deranged enthusiasm for the war in Iraq, but this is just too much. Land led the charge of evangelicals in support of this silly war, based on fabrications and lies about WMDs and the allegedly tight relationship between Bin-Laden and Hussein.

The religion of messianic militarism has a voice in Richard Land. His shilling on behalf of an immoral war has led to the destruction of the world’s oldest Christian communities, a consequence that anyone with the slightest foresight and knowledge of the region would have reasonably predicted.

Sadly, it is often our own occupying forces that are committing misdeeds directed at Christians. Even now monks are being evicted from monasteries to quarter “coalition” troops and store arms while Dr. Land prattles on about their religious freedom.

A fundamentalist faith in the wonder working power of “democracy” and our ability to impose it at the point of a bayonet has led to disaster for our Christian brethren in the Middle East. As journalist Felicity Arbuthnot has written, “In the ‘cradle of civilization’ where Abraham, Father of Christianity, Islam and Judaism was believed born at Ur, his children, of all religions and denominations, it seems, are now those of a lesser God - as the Yazidis, Zoroastrians and Mandeans, the forgotten minorities, safe under a ‘tyrant’, now doomed under the fundamentalist US/UK's crusading army of God.”

Sunday, July 15, 2007

On Tolerance

“Segregation and separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator. Toleration is the excuse under which this leveling is undertaken, but the concept of toleration conceals a radical intolerance. In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed. The believer has a duty of lawful behavior toward all, an obligation to manifest grace and charity where it is due, but not to deny the validity of differences which separate believer and unbeliever. In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to tolerate all things because the unbeliever will tolerate nothing; it means life on the unbeliever’s terms. It means that Biblical order is denied existence, because all things must be leveled downward….The basic premise of the modern doctrine of toleration is that all religious and moral positions are equally true and equally false. In brief, this toleration rests on a radical relativism and humanism. There is no particular truth or moral value in any religion; the true value is man himself, and man as such must be given total acceptance, irrespective of his moral or religious position…But integration and equality are myths; they disguise a new segregation and a new inequality…Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation. A particular faith and morality is given privileged status and all else is separated for progressive elimination. The claim of equality and integration is thus a pretext to subvert an older or existing form of social order. ”

–R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Baldwin on Conspiracies

In his latest column, Chuck Baldwin points to the existence of conspiracies. "Yes, my friends, there is a conspiracy...It is a conspiracy of elitists from all races and ethnic backgrounds who deeply despise our constitutional form of government, our national independence, and our Christian heritage."

I agree with Baldwin, though I would say that successful conspiracies are typically in tune with the aspirations and faith of the age. Rather than hiding in the shadows, conspirators usually operate right out in the open.

Ultimately, history is a struggle between two covenant, federal men--those who belong to Christ and those who belong to Satan. History is thus both personal and conspiratorial. The conspirators are doing battle against God, and against the church as His ambassadors serving His creation.

For more on the "Revolting Elites" visit here.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

THIS AND THAT

War costs are up for American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "war on terror" is now costing $12 billion dollars a month in those two theatres alone.

Meanwhile, the number of mercenaries, I mean "contractors" in Iraq has soared to 180,000--more than the number of American soldiers.

Speaking of mercenaries, I'd seen a spate of stories earlier in the year indicating the Pentagon was considering recruiting overseas to fill the increasing need for soldiers. "The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks --including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials."

The policy is endorsed by globalists on the left and right. See this defense of the proposal by neo-con Max Boot and the all too conventional Michael O'Hanlon: "Now is the time to consider a new chapter in the annals of American immigration. By inviting foreigners to join the U.S. armed forces in exchange for a promise of citizenship after a four-year tour of duty, we could continue to attract some of the world's most enterprising, selfless and talented individuals. We could provide a new path toward assimilation for undocumented immigrants who are already here but lack the prerequisite for enlistment -- a green card. And we could solve the No. 1 problem facing the Army and Marine Corps: the fact that these services need to grow to meet current commitments yet cannot easily do so (absent a draft) given the current recruiting environment."

I was reminded of this foolishness when I saw this article: "Standing under a glittering chandelier, 161 service members took the oath of citizenship Wednesday, the largest group to be naturalized at once in Iraq since the conflict began in March 2003. The mostly young, mostly male troops with last names such as Toledo and Serrano stitched across the back of their caps vowed to "support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies," an abstract promise with a deeper meaning here."

Naturally, the ceremony was attended by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who assures us that the surge is going just great.

Hey, why not just have foreigners do our fighting for us. We're an empire, we can make our own reality, right?

The problem is that such an action points to the diminution, indeed the destruction, of the American character. And are we so historically ignorant as to not see the potential problems?

My wife and I homeschool our children, and this year our history curriculum will cover the period from the fall of Rome through the Reformation. My oldest son is but seven. Nevertheless, I want him to have an appreciation for, and an understanding of, history that I lack.

In thinking through the fall of Rome, there were many reasons for its collapse, and there are many ways in which the American empire is similar. From our willingness to abort and contracept ourselves out of existence, to the mindless and shrill forms of entertainment that keep us numb, we increasingly resemble our Roman forbearers.

One reason for Rome's fall was the foreignizing of its military and the subsequent blurring of political distinctions:

How the "Roman" army came to be composed of barbarian troops of an often renegade nature is in many ways the story of Rome’s fall. It is the story of a people who seemingly lost confi­dence in themselves, a government that lost control of its army, and an army that lost control of its soldiers. It is a story of ambition, but also of miscalculation and finally failure.

In its heyday, the Roman army was composed of citizens and subjects—legionaries were recruited from the ranks of citizens, and subject states contributed the auxiliaries. Roman politicians commanded both types of soldiers, and the army represented a Romanizing force in the empire. All soldiers learned Latin, and those troops from the more barbarous subject states learned the civil ways of Rome. Excavations in northern England have revealed that even Rome’s most distant auxiliaries, Batavians, had adapted to the imperial style. They wrote letters in Latin and built forts that served as makeshift facsimiles of Roman urban life, complete with public baths.

But even while the imperial army Romanized its troops, the Romans themselves professed an ironic longing for the barbarism of their enemies. Long before the barbarization of the late Roman army, Roman writers expressed admiration for the uncouth warriors who battled their legions. In the eyes of Tacitus, or even Julius Caesar, civilization made men soft. The fiercest fighters were those deemed least civilized.

Perhaps as a consequence of this conviction, Rome often deviated from its standard recruiting policies. For example, no close reader of Caesar could fail to observe that the legendary general was repeatedly saved, even at Alesia, by mounted German mercenaries whom he had hired for his war against Vercingetorix. Subsequently, Augustus established an imperial bodyguard, the custodes, composed entirely of Germans. Army recruitment took a similar path. Whereas Italy still supplied 65 percent of legionary troops during the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula, by the mid-second century the contribution of the Italian heartland had dwindled to less than 1 percent. Rome had begun recruiting its soldiers from the least civilized areas of the empire—a policy that would remain in place in late Roman times. Recruiters seem to have believed that the best soldiers, the real fighting men, could only be found outside the cities.


The proposals being floated by the Pentagon, and which are in some measure already being implemented, needs to cease now. Will those members of the ruling class that oppose mass immigration but love warmongering come to their senses? What do you think?

Sorry for the long digression. Back at the ranch...

Turkey announces plan to invade Iraq. Really, these guys need to quit meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq.

Republican defections from Bush's madness will likely continue the closer we get to election time. As General Odom says, the time has come for withdrawal--and impeachment if necessary. He obviously hates America.

While our soldiers, and any other hombres we can round up, face the possibility of death and maiming, the architects and creators of the deceptions that led to war are given a get-out-of-jail-free card. After all, we're a land of laws, not men.