Confirmed FBI Cover-Up Sibel Edmonds Nuke Secrets Case

[37]

If she knows something sinister she has a duty to tell her fellow citizens about it.  The Constitution is a business contract between the federal government and it's owners, "We the People".  National security is about protecting the People, not the government.  We are more important than our government.  If she talks, and isn't lying, and they try to put her in jail, I would be there.  I would expect to see all of you there, too.

As long as she keeps her mouth shut about what she knows(if what she knows is illegal or unethical) she is a traitor to this country.  I think she is cointelpro.  I'll change that analysis when she says something we need to know.  I still read all of the info on her, but I have stopped expecting to hear anything important.

[37]

There's something odd about Sibel Edmonds. I remember when "Shoot the Messenger" came out and I thought it would be all expose and hardhitting, but it was really disappointing. There was no meat to it. Lots of people keeping thinking that sometime she's just going to let loose and reveal something really damaging, but that never seems to happen. For years she's been leading people about "the other things she hasn't said yet." I don't think it's going to happen, and frankly I think it's all suspicious. I am starting to wonder if she isn't a distraction, like the pentagon in a way.

Dude, she basically gave the dotted line that showed Dick Cheney personally profitted and sold nuke tech to iran.

WTF else is she supposed to disclose?  The entire blueprints of Area 51?

No one is reporting her stuff.  You gotta dig for it.  http://bradblog.com has a lot of it.  I and Industria have tried to mirror as much as we can here.

Yeah, okay...So there isn't more to come?  She has told everything she knows...short of Area 51, of course.  Then why is there still speculation on more to come?  I have been reading, Sane.  Cheney profitted on selling Nuke tech to Iran...Rumsfeld sold it for profit to North Korea...Clinton sold it to China...and the CIA has given it to Pakistan, Israel, India, South Africa...That, almost isn't newsworthy.

To use your own words, "we need the truth ASAP.  This shit is getting ugly."

Is she hoping to get shot before we hear what she knows?  What's the point of only telling half the story?  Oh yeah, it makes the second half more profitable.  Who cares if the people need to know.  She swore an oath to the Constitution which is a contract between the government(and its employees) and The People.  She owes it to her family, friends, and community to tell whatever she knows about other people breaking their oaths to We the People.  IMO. 

Government secrecy is why we are in the position we are in...that and our willingness to let people run the government without any accountability.  That's not to say that spilling half of the beans isn't commendable...she has certainly done more than anyone else.  It's just too bad she seems reluctant to tell everything. 

Please don't act like I'm saying to ignore her.  I know that would be a mistake, but you can only respond to "wolf" so many times. 

The other major problem in the US is the focus on symptoms, rather than root causes. My case is a good example, but there are lots of others too. Look at the early reporting on my case in 2002, the Washington Post broke the story in July 2002 about the espionage in the translation bureau and then they dropped the story after two weeks. They stopped reporting on it when more important information came out and the State Secrets Privilege was invoked.  To this day not a single US reporter has asked 'Why was the State Secrets Privilege been invoked here? What is going on?'

Just this week I was approached by a major US outlet who wanted to do a story on Kevin Taskesen! [Ed note: Taskesen was an incompetent FBI translator who got his job because his wife worked in the administrative office] This is absolutely the most trivial element of the case, and it has already been reported at length. I told them that they could learn everything they needed to know by watching 60 Minutes, 2002. Again, the US media needs to start looking at the root causes of these problems, not the symptoms.

Notice she turned down an opportunity to say on a Major US Outlet that "the Washington Post broke the story in July 2002 about the espionage in the translation bureau and then they dropped the story after two weeks. They stopped reporting on it when more important information came out and the State Secrets Privilege was invoked."  She passed up an opportunity to say the things that aren't reported...and have her neighbors hear it.  Too, bad she turned that interview down, I mean if what she has to say is important.  I guess we have to wait for the new book. 

[Dig]

I got no answer dude.  Not sure if she is thinking that including one might hinder another, who knows.  Looks like a whole bunch of crap and I do not think she had all the pieces in the beginning.  It was not like she was director of the CIA.  I think she is still uncovering stuff.  I mean look at fricking Abramoff.  At least 100 more people should be in jail but it is like certain things are untouchables.  Or Mussoui.  Who knows what the deal is.  Until I see a clear case of disinfo I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

[Dig]

   
MSNBC: Key 9/11 Commission Report Testimony Based on Torture
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/010208Torture.htm
911 Blogger
Friday February 1, 2008

(I subbed in the word "torture" in the above headline, where MSNBC will only say "waterboarding". Even though Chief Justice Mukasey won't say it, Malcolm Nance, "a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego" says, I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself. So there you have it. -rep.)

9/11 Commission Controversy

By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco - January 30, 2008

The 9/11 Commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives - interrogations that many critics have labeled torture. Yet, commission staffers never questioned the agency about the interrogation techniques and in fact ordered a second round of interrogations specifically to ask additional questions of the same operatives, NBC News has learned.

Those conclusions are the result of an extensive NBC News analysis of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report and interviews with Commission staffers and current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

The analysis shows that much of what was reported about the planning and execution of the terror attacks on New York and Washington was derived from the interrogations of high-ranking al-Qaida operatives. Each had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." Some were even subjected to waterboarding, the most controversial of the techniques, which simulates drowning.

The NBC News analysis shows that more than one quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaida operatives who were subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques. In fact, information derived from the interrogations is central to the Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks. The analysis also shows - and agency and commission staffers concur - there was a separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to answer new questions from the Commission.

9/11 Commission staffers say they "guessed" but did not know for certain that harsh techniques had been used, and they were concerned that the techniques had affected the operatives’ credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being "tortured." The claims came during their hearings last spring at the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We were not aware, but we guessed, that things like that were going on," Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, told NBC News. "We were wary…we tried to find different sources to enhance our credibility."

Specifically, the NBC News analysis shows 441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA. The second round of interrogations sought by the Commission involved more than 30 separate interrogation sessions.

No one disputes that the interrogations were critical to the Commission’s understanding of the plot.

"What we did is the authoritative basis of knowledge on the interrogations until historians get to ply them years from now," said a former Commission staffer who worked with the CIA on the interrogation reports.

Errors pointed out
One critic of U.S. use of harsh interrogation techniques says that while the Commission Final Report remains credible, it was a mistake to base so much of it on what was retrieved from the interrogation sessions.

Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "You read it, the story still makes sense, forgetting the interrogations. What matters - who did it, who planned it - looks like the right story. But it should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."

According to both current and former senior U.S. intelligence officials, the operatives cited by the Commission were subjected to the harshest of the CIA’s methods, the "enhanced interrogation techniques." The techniques included physical and mental abuse, exposure to extreme heat and cold, sleep deprivation and waterboarding.

In addition, officials of both the 9/11 Commission and CIA confirm the Commission specifically asked the agency to push the operatives on a new round of interrogations months after their first interrogations. The Commission, in fact, supplied specific questions for the operatives to the agency. This new round took place in early 2004, when the agency was still engaged in the full range of harsh techniques. The agency suspended the techniques in mid-2004. Agency spokesmen have refused to identify what techniques were used, when they were used or the names of those who were harshly questioned.

Zelikow said the lack of direct access forced the Commission to seek secondary sources and to request the new round of questioning. In the end, says Zelikow, the Commission relied heavily on the information derived from the interrogations, but remained skeptical of it. Zelikow admits that "quite a bit, if not most" of its information on the 9/11 conspiracy "did come from the interrogations."

"We didn’t have blind faith," Zelikow tells NBC News. "We therefore had skepticism. The problems (in getting cooperation from the agency) enforced our concerns about the underlying interrogation.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official says the Commission never expressed any concerns about techniques and even pushed for the new round.

"Remember," the intelligence official said, "The Commission had access to the intelligence reports that came out of the interrogation. This didn't satisfy them. They demanded direct personal access to the detainees and the administration told them to go pound sand.

"As a compromise, they were allowed to let us know what questions they would have liked to ask the detainees. At appropriate times in the interrogation cycle, agency questioners would go back and re-interview the detainees, many of (those) questions were variants or follow ups to stuff previously asked."

Commission staffers interviewed by NBC News do not dispute the official’s assertion that they didn’t ask about interrogation techniques. "We did not delve deeply into the question of the treatment of the prisoners", as one put it. "Standards of treatment were not part of our mission." According to the other, "We did not ask specifically. It was not in our mandate."

The commission first requested access to the detainees early in 2004, around the same time the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. In that scandal, military interrogators at Baghdad’s most notorious prison were accused of torturing low level prisoners. The Commission wanted the access not to check on interrogation techniques or the operatives’ condition, but to get their own access.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."

Zelikow says the Commission tried its best to get inside the interrogation process.

"In early 2004, we conducted private interviews with (CIA Director George J.) Tenet. There were three interviews…five or six hours each, involving Zelikow, Kean and Hamilton," said a Commission staffer, referring to the commission director, and co-chairs, former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean and former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton. "We talked to him about access at that point…Tenet doesn’t say no…the response was ‘Talk to my people."

Tenet’s "people" explained why the commission couldn’t question the operatives.

"The explanation was that the symbiosis between the interrogator and the prisoner would be harmed," added the staffer, "…that introducing external elements could unbalance the relationship. They wanted the prisoners to have total dependency on them…all this psychology."

Although he admits neither he nor his staff asked about interrogation techniques, Zelikow now believes perhaps he should have, that there were reasons for the agency’s lack of cooperation.

"A whole lot needed to be kept from us," he said he now realizes. "It would have revealed a lot of things that it was not in the government’s interest to reveal. They might have worried what we would have learned about the interrogation techniques."

Zelikow adds that one particularly telling position was the agency’s refusal to let the Commission interview the interrogators.

"We needed more information to judge reports we were reading," he said. "We needed information about demeanor of the detainees. We needed more information on the content, context, character of the interrogations."

Current and former agency officials say the commission had enough information to fulfill their mission.

"The CIA went to great lengths to meet the requests of the 9/11 Commission and provided the Commission with a wealth of information," said Mark Mansfield, the CIA’s chief spokesman. "The 9/11 Commission certainly had access to, and drew from, detailed information that had been provided by terrorist detainees. That's how they reconstructed the plot in their comprehensive report."

The former official said that senior intelligence staff feared that if the agency permitted the commission to send staffers to the CIA’s secret prisons to talk with the operatives, the locations of the prisons wouldn’t be secret for very long.

Zelikow agreed that the Commission specifically asked for the new round after reviewing the agency’s first interrogation reports. "That is correct," he said of the rationale for the new round of interrogations. "That was one of the ways they sought to deal with our concerns. They (the first round) had value but were not satisfactory."

"They were looking prospectively in their questioning…looking at current threats. We were looking retrospectively. So we needed the follow-up questions."

The NBC News analysis shows that there were 30 separate interrogation sessions in early 2004 when the second round of questioning began. Based on the number of references attributed to each of the sessions, they appear to have been lengthy.

[bigron]

February 2, 2008

Safeguarding 'New-cue-lur' Secrets
 
by Gordon Prather


According to the Sunday Times, Sibel Edmonds has revealed to them details – in defiance of several government gag orders – of how this and several previous administrations "monitored", but did little or nothing to interfere with, the "infiltration" of Western states by "foreign states" seeking "nuclear secrets."

Edmonds, a fluent speaker of Turkish and Farsi, was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11 to help translate a backlog of recordings – thousands of hours of conversations dating back to 1997 – obtained during an FBI investigation into links between Turks, Pakistanis, Israelis and various Americans, in and out of government.

According to the Times, the Turks and Israelis had planted "moles" in practically every agency or institution involved in nuclear technology. The Turks and their American Turkish Council, Edmonds claimed, often acted as a "conduit," passing nuclear secrets to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, and receiving cash payments in return.

Way back in 1976, metallurgist AQ Khan, had stolen industrial – not "state" – secrets from Urenco, the world’s leading producer of enriched uranium, and returned to Pakistan. According to the Times, Khan then established a clandestine international network to obtain both materials and technology required for enriching uranium in Pakistan.

Why clandestine?

Well, Pakistan, India and Israel were not signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, not wishing to subject all their activities involving "special nuclear materials" to a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Furthermore, as a direct result of India's underground testing of what it claimed was a "peaceful" nuclear explosive in 1974, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was established.

Comprised of 44 nuclear-supplier states – including China, Russia, and the United States – NSG members voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.

The NSG has two sets of guidelines.

Part I comprises materials and technology intended specifically for peaceful nuclear use, including fissile materials, nuclear reactors and associated equipment, and nuclear material reprocessing and enrichment equipment.

Part II comprises dual-use equipment that could have nuclear applications, peaceful and otherwise. IAEA safeguards are only required on the specific nuclear activity or facility where the NSG Part II imports will be employed.

But, since 1992, to be eligible for importing Part I items from an NSG member – irrespective of whether they are NPT signatories or not – importing states must have in place a comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreement covering all their nuclear activities and facilities.

Hence, the IAEA-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime effectively overreaches the NPT. The NSG "verifies" the intended peaceful use of nuclear exports, and the IAEA "verifies" the peaceful use of nuclear imports.

So, by the time U.S.-Brit intelligence agencies initiated the monitoring program for which Edmonds was translating the backload of intercepts, neither the Pakistanis nor the Israelis were "eligible" to import NSG Part I items.

Furthermore, even though Iran and Libya were "eligible," the U.S. had effectively prohibited any NSG supplier from selling Iran or Libya Part I or Part II items.

So what were Pakistan, Israel, India, Iran and Libya to do?

Well, establish a clandestine suppliers/users group.

AQ Khan had returned to Pakistan in 1978 and established a uranium-enrichment program at Kahuta, based upon his Pak-1 gas-centrifuge, a modification of Urenco's first generation design.

But Khan had trouble producing aluminum rotors which would pass the "spin" test.

So, in the 1990s, Khan developed the Pak-2, his modifcation of Urenco's second-generation design, which had maraging steel rotors.

Khan then sold off (clandestinely, if the buyer preferred) the Pak-1 equipment.

When Pakistan held its first international arms bazaar in 2000, there was even available at the booth of Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) a Pak-2 brochure, as well as an associated 10-page catalog of specialty vacuum pumps, gauges, high-voltage switches, power supplies, and other equipment.

According to KRL representatives, all the listed items were available for sale and had been approved for export by the Pakistan government.

Now, in the first Edmonds story by the Sunday Times, they provide a "timeline" entitled "How Pakistan Got the Bomb, Then Sold it to the Highest Bidders."

The Times charges that in 1989-91 "Khan’s network sells Iran nuclear weapons information and technology."

But since 2003, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has had total access to Iranian activities, both safeguarded and not required to be safeguarded, and he has, as of this writing, found "no indication" that any such sales took place.

The Times claims that in 2001 "CIA chief George Tenet gathers officials for crisis summit on the proliferation of nuclear technology from Pakistan to other countries."

Notice the Times says "proliferation of nuclear technology," not proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And here’s what Tenet – who had presided over two of the worst intelligence failures in out history – had to say in a pre-retirement attempt to salvage something of his reputation –

"First, we discovered the extent of Khan's hidden network. We tagged the proliferators. We detected the network stretching from Pakistan to Europe to the Middle East to Asia offering its wares to countries like North Korea and Iran.

"Working with our British colleagues, we pieced together the picture of the network, revealing its subsidiaries, scientists, front companies, agents, finances, and manufacturing plants on three continents.

"Our spies penetrated the network through a series of daring operations over several years. Through this unrelenting effort, we confirmed the network was delivering such things as illicit uranium enrichment centrifuges."

Notice Tenet didn't claim that Khan was a nuclear-weapons proliferator. Or that Khan had done anything that had resulted in nuclear-weapons proliferation.

For good reason.

Nevertheless, the Times claims that in 2004, "Khan [was] placed under house arrest and confesse[d] to supplying Iran, Libya, and North Korea with weapons technology."

But AQ Khan’s "confession" was made on Pakistani TV, in English, and is a matter of record. He did not confess to supplying Iran or Libya or North Korea anything, much less "weapons technology."

Musharraf promptly pardoned him.

So what?

Well, it is important in this and all other matters pertaining to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, Turkey, et al that the differences between [a] plain-vanilla nuclear materials/technologies and nuclear weapons materials/technologies be kept foremost in mind.

There are entirely too many groups – not just the neocrazies – who deliberately obfuscate those differences for their own purposes.

Why? So they can bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb-bomb Iran.
 

 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12302 

[Dig]

9/11 Commissioner: 'We had to go through Karl Rove'
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/911_Commissioner_We_had_to_go_0203.html
Nick Langewis and David Edwards Published: Sunday February 3, 2008



Two recent segments delve into a new book that accuses the head of the ostensibly independent 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, of being beholden to the Bush Administration during his tenure.

The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, by New York Times reporter Philip Shenon, indicts Zelikow on his ties with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his frequent contact with senior political adviser Karl Rove, during what was touted as an independent investigation into the events surrounding the 2001 World Trade Center attack. This seeming conflict of interest, the book says, led Commission staffers not to trust Zelikow.

"We found him to be very fair-minded," counters co-chair Lee Hamilton, "quite impartial, very rigorous in his searching out of the facts; and he certainly did not try to protect the Bush Administration, or to protect anybody else."

9/11 Commission member John Lehman goes on to tell MSNBC that it was impossible not to go through Karl Rove when documents such as presidential daily briefings were needed. Many Commission members, he says, pressed the White House to provide more information and lift restrictions on a regular basis.

"We had to go through Karl Rove, and through [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales and the other most senior members," says Lehman. He indeed hoped that Zelikow was talking to Karl Rove, although he expressed disappointment that contact with the White House wasn't more frequent towards the beginning of the investigations.

On charges that a mass of NSA records on al-Qaeda went unreviewed by the Commission, Lehman says that nothing new would have come about as a result of obtaining that data besides more text to put into the final Commission report.

The Commission is due to be published on February 5.


The following video is from NBC's Nightly News and MSNBC's News Live, broadcast February 2 and 3, 2008.

[chris jones]

IF ONLY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS COULD SEE US NOW.
Lets take this one in measure, being a small percentage of the treasonous acts and deceptions wrought upon the American people by our ruling class.
911, target a stimulus to gain access to the war Acts and complete domination. We know this abomination was combined mission involving our regime.
WMD's, we know the USA, the UN & the inhabitants of this globe realize thiswas a smokescreen developed by our ruling class with Powell as its front man among others..
Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the search for WMD's, hundreds of thousands ofinnocnet killed, to mention our own troopers.
Habeas Carpus eliminated from our constitution followed by G.B.'s words, it just a piece of fn paper.
Bankrupting  of our nation, and folks we are in this abyss.
Domestic surveillance, quite handy for the regime.
Torture , water boarding and other sadistic methods where upon the victim would admit to being related to Donald Duck.
CIA agent and material exposed by the Ole Gov.
The dollar decline globally.
Indentured servitude, Obama and Hillary are for 2 years of indentured slavery for our citizenry for those uner the age of 42.
These are but a few of the treasonous and sadistic acts performed by our illustrious leaders and their elite crony's. Your very existence and freedoms are not your own, we are a controlled society. Deceived, lied to, constitutionally ignored.
Our representation is but non existant, has congress reacted, no. Where  is the voice of freedom and liberty. Where be the voice of the people who see through the deceptions, who desire Americas rebirth. Attempt to find the truth in our news media, your nightly news. We hope for Pelosi and her impeachment of Bush and Chaney, we were  lied to, "impeachment is of the table".
We remain with hope for Ron Paul, a man of wisdom and truth, a true American. What if R.P. does not get there.
Our Military high Echelon gutless leaders have betrayed their oath and the people, the FBI find cover up a necessity under orders they say, our Congress has failed, in the old days they would be considered turncoats.
We now have a definite class distinction, the peons-us- and the royalty.
Be it this the American people desire and for their children, indentured slavery,mind control,depression,and loss of free thought and will.
"evil exists because good men do nothing", where to from here my friends.

[Thesonsofliberty]

Its so corrupt and so far gone not even ron paul could fix this mess. The solution is sadly a final one 1776 and abolishment of government and our only hope and salvation is gods kingdom and our lord jesus christ.

[Dig]

Rice Was ‘Uninterested In Advising The President’ Before 9/11, Wanted To Be His ‘Closest Confidante’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/rice-911-commission/



Tomorrow, New York Times reporter Philip Shenon will release his book The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, revealing “failure at the highest levels of the United States government.”

Shenon singles out Condoleezza Rice as inept, more interested in being President Bush’s buddy than securing the nation. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas writes a preview of the book:

The official ineptitude uncovered by the commission is shocking. Dubbed “Kinda-Lies-a-Lot” by the Jersey Girls, Ms. Rice comes across as almost clueless about the terrorist threat. “Whatever her job title, Rice seemed uninterested in actually advising the president,” Mr. Shenon writes. “Instead, she wanted to be his closest confidante — specifically on foreign policy — and to simply translate his words into action.”

An example of this incompetence is the fact that on July 10, 2001 — two months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks — then-CIA director George Tenet met with Rice and warned her about a threat from al Qaeda that “literally made [his] hair stand on end.” Rice was polite, but gave them the “brushoff.”

The 9/11 commission, however, heard about this meeting only after it completed its report. Shenon reveals that commission executive director Philip Zelikow, a close friend of Rice, stopped staffers from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance prior to 9/11 as “amount[ing] to incompetence.”

Another particularly bumbling figure in Shenon’s book is John Ashcroft. On July 17, 2001, the then-Attorney General “received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target.” While Rice was interested in cozying up to Bush, Ashcroft was focused on protecting gun owners:

Attorney General John Ashcroft appears more interested in protecting gun owners from government intrusion than in stopping terrorism, and dismissively tells [acting FBI director Thomas] Pickard that he doesn’t want to hear any more about threats of attacks.

UPDATE: According to Shenon, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was intent on placing blame on the Clinton administration. When Ashcroft “unveiled a memo that seemed to cast the antiterror record of the Clinton Justice Department in an unflattering light, Gonzales and his aides high-fived each other.”

[Dig]

what a swirling sucking eddy of despair.

I doubt Jesus would recommend just curling in the fetal position and waiting for him to come.

Sun Tzu - Break their will and then the fight will be over before it begins.

Jesus Is an Anarchist
(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)
http://anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
by James Redford
The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

But you read correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this point you may be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite serious. If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge is, for if the above comes as news to you then you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and deception. This is the central struggle which defines mankind's history and, sadly, continues to do so. As Christians and as people in general, what we choose to believe and accept as the truth is equally as vitally important, for ultimately it is people's beliefs about the world that will shape and determine what outcomes transpire in the world. If the mass of people believe in political falsehoods and deceptions then mankind will continue to repeat the same gruesome mistakes, as it does presently, and the aforementioned struggle will continue to be no closer to a desirable resolution. Genuine change must first come by changing one's mind, and if what one had believed before was in error then one cannot expect good results to proceed forth from it. And all change starts with the individual. You can help change the world by simply changing your mind. All I ask of you is to believe in the truth--know the truth and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).

It is the purpose of this document to demonstrate the above claim, and if you are a Christian then I submit that it should be your task to honestly consider what is presented here, for if the above claim comes as a surprise then I will show that what you thought you knew about Jesus was not the whole story: Jesus is far more radical than many would have you believe, and for good reason--it threatens the status quo. For the consequence of this truth becoming understood and accepted by even one-tenth of the population would be quite dramatic indeed: governments would topple like so many dominoes. For as the 16th century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie observed in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (http://www.blancmange.net/ tmh/articles/laboetie.html), all governments ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictatorships. Now this "consent" does not have to be in the form of active promotion and support of the State, it could simply be in the form of hopeless resignation, such as accepting the canard "nothing's as sure as death and taxes." All governments can only exist because the majority--in one form or another--accept them as at least being inevitable. They believe in the deception that even though government may be evil that it is nevertheless a necessary evil, and therefore cannot conceive of a better alternative. But if such were true then Jesus Christ's whole message is a fallacy. But such is not the truth, there is an alternative: liberty. And I will show that Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are incompatible with government.

You may wonder where I got the one-tenth figure from in the above if all governments require the acceptance of their rule by the majority of their population. Again, the reason is because this acceptance doesn't have to be active support but merely resigned, as it usually is. If just one-tenth of the population strongly believed that government was itself the greatest moral evil and that there was a better alternative it would be enough to turn the tide. Since most people are followers and uncritically accept the reigning political opinions, those who do not accept the status quo and who are able to form and articulate a critical alternative will come to be the intellectual leaders by default when the popular regime suffers a crisis and people begin to look for alternatives. If the history of governments teach us anything it is that such crisis is a regular occurrence, for governments by their nature tend toward instability. If it be asked Why then do we still have government?, it is here answered that it is because no viable alternative to government has been articulated by a critical mass at such a crisis, in that most people throughout history have accepted the deception that government is a necessary evil and could not conceive a better alternative.

Now I will articulate that better alternative, the one that Christ commanded us. I will show that Jesus and His message are necessarily anarchistic. And what better place to start than in the beginning?:

Jesus's Very Life Began in an Act of Defiance to Government (And Would Later End in Defiance to Government)

If it were not for Joseph and Mary's intentional act of defying that which they knew to be king Herod the Great's will and escaping with baby Jesus from out of Herod's mid as fugitives to the land of Egypt then Jesus would have been mercilessly killed and needless to say His ministry and the fulfillment of Scripture would have never come about. Thus in the most fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism from the very start between Jesus and government (to say the least): Jesus was born into the world as a criminal and would latter be killed as a criminal--a criminal as so regarded by the government, that is. And what was baby Jesus's crime? From Matthew 2:1-6 we find the answer:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him." When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.' " (NKJV, as elsewhere unless noted otherwise.)

So here we learn that Herod became troubled at the thought that there might be someone else that people would come to regard as their king other than Herod. Herod regarded Jesus as a threat to his power: was his fear unjustified? It is my judgement and this document's central thesis that Herod was correct in his assessment of Jesus as being a threat to his power--although not just to Herod as an individual but to all that Herod represents, in a word: government; along with the unholy usurpation, deception and subjugation of people that it necessarily entails. For as I will show, Jesus's Kingdom is to be the functional opposite of any Earth-bound kingdom which has ever existed. And for government, this is the ultimate crime of which Jesus was guilty, and which required His extermination.

Here we read of this pivotal act of holy defiance to government, without which there would be no Christ as we know of:

Matthew 2:13-15: Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him." When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

As well, so enraged was Herod upon learning that the wise men had disobeyed his order to report back to him on the location of baby Jesus that he ordered the extermination of all the male children in Bethlehem and the surrounding areas from age two and younger, all in the hopes that baby Jesus would be among the slaughtered (Matt. 2:12,16-18). It was only after king Herod the Great had perished that Joseph brought his family out of the land of Egypt, and then only to Nazareth as Herod's son Archelaus was then reigning over Judea (Matt. 2:19-23).

How very considerate indeed Jesus was being when He advised His disciples in Mark 8:15:

Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

At the time Jesus offered the above advice He would have been referring to Herod Antipas. Jesus would later be mocked and ridiculed by Herod Antipas before finally being put to death as a common criminal by the Roman government (Luke 23:8-12). In handling the case of Jesus, Herod Antipas asked Jesus many questions, but Jesus refused to answer any of Herod's questions (Luke 23:9). Thus, not only did Jesus's very life begin in an act of holy defiance to government but it would also end in holy defiance to government. It was also Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9).

The story of Jesus's life can in part be summed up as suffering through this unjust Satanic world system for having preached the Truth, with government being chief among the culprits of this Satanic world system. All one has to do is review the life story of Jesus to plainly see that government--far from being instituted by God--is and has been a demonic tool of Satan used to oppress the righteous. And I will demonstrate that Jesus and the early Church leaders--as recorded the Bible--knew this to be the case and preached the same. The instrument which Satan used in an attempt to snuff-out that Truth in an act of deicide was government--from the beginning of Jesus's life to the very end, it was government which sought to exterminate this most dangerous threat of all to its power.

The Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism

Jesus commanded us that in all things we are to treat others as we would want others to treat us. Thus:

Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Matthew 7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

By saying that this commandment is "the Law and the Prophets" Jesus is saying that by following this one commandment that one is thereby fulfilling the Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets--in other words Jesus is saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the proper ethic of social relations. This ultimate social ethic which Jesus commanded everyone to follow is commonly known as the Golden Rule.

But if indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these words--and He most certainly did--then this alone is more than enough to prove that Jesus is of necessity an anarchist, and not just any kind of anarchist, but a libertarian, free-market anarchist in particular.

The reason this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.

To understand why this is unalterably true, one must first have a clear and precise understanding of just what a "government" is and just what it is not, i.e., the distinguishing characteristics of Government which differentiates it from all other things that are not Governments.

(When the word is used in the sense above) Government (i.e., a State) is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

It is here where we find why it is quite impossible for any government to actually abide by Jesus's ultimate commandment. The reason quite simply is because all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. That is, all governments, in order to be a government, must enforce a coercive monopoly on ultimate control of the law--this is a necessary feature of all governments. All governments set up courts and enforce control over ultimate judicial decision, while outlawing others from engaging in the same practice. Thus, for example, if a group of people become dissatisfied with the judicial services that the government is providing and decide to set up shop offering their own private arbitration and protection services on the market without seeking the permission of the government to do so then the government will attack these people and put an end to their competitive judicial services, and would thereby enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the law. If the government failed to enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the law then it would cease to be a government, but would instead become just another private protection agency offering its services on a competitive market.

The above scenario leaves out something extremely vital though, as it merely assumes that this government in question somehow obtains its revenue by voluntary contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual governments throughout history have obtained their revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services but by coercion. Thus all governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus here again in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. I say "historically" because while although all governments throughout history have found it necessary to fund their operations through theft and extortion, it is not necessarily the case that all governments in theory must be supported by taxes: one could imagine that most people in a certain society simply voluntarily donate their money to fund a government, as unlikely as that possibility is in practice. So while although a monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical necessity of all governments, taxes are not--taxes have simply been a practical necessity throughout all of history in order for governments to function.

And so we find that all governments must of necessity continuously violate Jesus's ultimate social commandment even to simply exist. The principle which all governments are founded upon and follow may properly be termed the "Luciferian Principle." This logically follows, because to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the Golden Rule: i.e., rather than doing to others what you would want others to do to you, you would instead be doing to others what you do not want others to do to you. Hence, if we may term the Golden Rule the "Christ Principle," or otherwise the "Christian Principle," then it certainly follows that the opposite of this principle would properly be termed the "Luciferian Principle": which is none other than doing to others what you do not want others to do to you.

It is for this reason that anyone that takes Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment seriously must of necessity advocate the abolition of all Earthly governments wherever and whenever they may exist, as governments are necessarily incompatible with Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment and diametrically opposed to it. In passing, it's important for me to distinguish "Earthly governments" from what is sometimes called the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Christ." In the above discussion I have been analyzing governments as they are operated by men here on Earth--but as I will show, the "Kingdom" which Christ is to establish on Earth will be the functional and operational opposite of any kingdom which has ever existed on Earth before, i.e., it won't actually be a government in the sense in which I defined above and will in fact be perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.

Above I also stated that Jesus's commandment of the Golden Rule not only proves that He is an anarchist, but also necessarily a libertarian, or free market, anarchist to be specific. The reason that this is so is because an anarchist is simply someone who desires no government to exist: only this and nothing more. Thus, one could desire no government to exist and yet still feel that it is alright to, say, slap people upside the head for no reason. Yet someone who follows the Golden Rule must not do to others what they do not want others to do to them--this necessarily means that one must respect the autonomy of other people's person and their just property: which unavoidably leads to not just anarchism, as was demonstrated above, but also to the free-market, voluntarist, libertarian order. The rigorous proof of this is that everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as their own property. If such were not the case then, by definition, such action would not be an aggression but a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first non-aggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into possession of property which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained by a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining a good by involuntary means from another who can trace their possession of the resource either to direct homesteading or through voluntary transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the two types given above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor would not want others to take his property against his will which he had come into possession of by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such property, even if it is just their own body.

Hence, if Jesus was serious about the Golden Rule--and He most certainly was--then it necessarily means that He is a consistent libertarian, as the Golden Rule as a political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of people may initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to initiate force against another.

Jesus does not Respect the Person of Men

According to the Bible, every person is equally subject to the commands of God, and one does not become exempt from God's law simply because one has managed to receive some sort of title of nobility. We are instructed to treat everyone by the same law. Yet this automatically rules out the possibility that governments could ever be legitimate, as they can only exist do to a privilege of monopoly on the ultimate control over the law which they enforce while excluding all competitors. As well, they collect taxes, which they call "theft" and "extortion" if anyone else engages in the same behavior against them or others.

As it is recorded in the Gospels, it seems that the people that knew of Jesus in His day were aware that He did not regard the person of men (i.e., titles of nobility, etc.):

Matthew 22:16: And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men." (See also Mark 12:14.)

Yet this would have been merely conforming to people's expectation that Jesus would have been following the Old Testament commands not to regard the person of men (Lev 19:15; Deu. 1:17; 16:19; Job 32:21; 34:19; Prov. 28:21.). But that this is indeed the case was confirmed in the apostles' writings:

Galatians 2:6: But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

And:

James 2:8,9: If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (See also 1 Peter 1:16.)

Yet consider what James's above admonition means as it concerns Jesus's ultimate ethical command of the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31). If we as Christians were to take Jesus's command seriously and apply it to everyone without partiality, then it would necessarily require that we demand the abolition of all governments wherever they may exist, as they can only exist by a continuous violation of the Golden Rule (see above).

Jesus on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar's!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government) as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's, being that they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.

When the Pharisees asked Him whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel's history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes--which were being used to support this occupation--were much hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees' intent in asking this question quite clear:

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer replaced (Psalm 109:8--see Acts 1:20); see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm 69:25. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."

In Matt. 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus testifies to this exact same thing after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes--see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . ." (NKJV), which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble" (CEV). He said this after in effect saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26)--yet one reason Jesus came was to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2 Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Jesus was being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have told people was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of betrayal would have gone unfulfilled. Yet the most important thing in all this is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar's! Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." But this just begs the question, What is Caesar's? Simply because the denari have Caesar's name and image on them no more make them his than one carving their name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his.

Tax Collectors are Sinners!

A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of taxation to be unjust is given in the below story:

Matthew 9:9-13: As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (See also Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32.)

It's important to point out here that Jesus actually made a stronger case against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees originally had in questioning Jesus's disciples about it: the Pharisees actually separated the tax collectors from the sinners when they asked "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Yet when Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by lumping the two groups together under the category of sinners--thus: "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Yet since this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called to repentance by Jesus we will do well to ask how it was that Matthew obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting! And from this beginning Matthew would thus go on to become one of Jesus's twelve disciples.

[Dig]

On Paul and Romans 13 and Titus 3:1

It is often claimed that Christians are required to submit to government, as this is supposedly what Paul commanded that we are supposed to do in Romans 13. Thus:

Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

But in actual fact Paul never does tell us in above excerpt from Romans 13 to submit to government!--at least certainly not as they have existed on Earth and are operated by men. In fact, Paul would be an outright, boldfaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such a thing: for Paul himself did not submit to government, and if he had then he would not even have been alive to be able to write Romans 13. For Paul himself disobeyed government, and it is a good thing that he did as we would not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed government. As when Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of Damascus as he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest him in order that he be executed. This was right after Saul's conversion to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing of Sauls conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause in persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the wall of Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in Christ (see Acts 9:23-25). In none of Paul's later writings does he divest himself, or disassociate himself, from these actions that he took in knowingly and purposely disobeying government: in fact, this very event is one of the things that he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering commitment to Christ (see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!

Indeed, ever since Paul's conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the rest of his entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and would at last--just as with Jesus before him--be executed by government, in this case by having his head chopped off. Paul was continuously in and out of prisons throughout his entire ministry for preaching the gospel of Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by the "authorities" for preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the "authorities" for preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of his did he ever disavow: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his commitment to Jesus (again, see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!

But even more importantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many people have said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal, Earthly governments, then it is questionable whether Paul could even be a genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not even have existed as we know of today had it not been for Joseph and Mary intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from his reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus (see Matt. 2:13,14). Thus, if indeed Paul meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey Earthly governments then this would mean that Paul would rather have Joseph and Mary obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be killed.

So what in the world is going on here with Paul and Romans 13? Is Paul a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, No to both. Once again, as with Jesus's answer to the question on taxes, this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was counting on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the Christian church--the Roman "authorities" in particular--would, upon reading Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of legal positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" spoken of must refer to the men who operate the governments on Earth. But never does Paul anywhere say that this is so! (Legal positivism is the doctrine that whichever gang is best able to overpower others with arms and might and thereby subjugate the populace and who then proceed to proclaim themselves the "authority" are on that account the rightful "Authority.")

But before proceeding with the above analysis, what would the motive be for Paul to include such rhetorical misdirection in his letter to the people at the church of Rome? In answering this, it must be remembered that just as with Jesus, Paul was not free to say just anything that he wanted. The early Christians were a persecuted minority under the close surveillance of the Roman government as a possible threat to its power. Here is Biblical proof of this assertion written by Paul himself:

Galatians 2:4,5: And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Paul never intended that his letter to the Roman church be kept secret, and he knew that it would be copied and distributed amongst the populace, and thus inevitably it would fall into the hands of the Roman government, especially considering that this letter was going directly into the belly of the beast itself: the city of Rome. Thus by including this in the letter to the church at Rome he would help put at ease the fears of the Roman government so that the persecution of the Christians would not be as severe and so that the more important task of the Church, that of saving people's souls, could more easily continue unimpeded. But Paul wrote it in such a way that a truly knowledgeable Christian at the time would have no doubt as to what was actually meant.

The Church leaders at the time would have known that Paul obviously couldn't have meant the people who control the mortal governments as they exist on Earth when he referred to the "governing authorities" and "rulers" in Romans 13, for that would have made Paul a shameless hypocrite and also meant that he would desire that baby Jesus had been killed (for surely the histories of Paul and Jesus's lives would have been fresh on their minds). The only answer that can make any sense of this seeming riddle is that one doesn't actually become a true "governing authority" or "ruler" simply because one has managed by way of deception, terror, murder and might to subjugate a certain population and then proceed to thereby proclaim oneself the "King" or the "Authority" or the "Ruler." Instead, what Paul is saying is that the only true and real authorities are only those that God appoints, i.e., one cannot become a real authority or ruler in the eyes of God simply because through force of arms one has managed to subjugate a population and then proclaim oneself the potentate. Thus, by saying this Paul was actually rebuking the supposed authority of the mortal governments as they exist on Earth and are operated by men!

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." (Rom. 13:1.) leaves wide open the possibility that those who control the mortal governments on Earth are not true authorities as appointed by God. The fallacy most people make when encountering a statement such as this is to unthinkingly and automatically assume that Paul must be referring to the people in control of the mortal governments that exist on Earth--for after all, don't these people who run these Earthly governments call themselves the "governing authorities"? Do they not teach their subjects from birth that they are the "rulers" and the "authorities"? But when we factor in the life history of both Jesus and Paul, then it can leave no room for doubt: Paul most certainly could not have been referring in Romans 13 to the people who control the mortal governments as they exist on Earth--otherwise Paul would be an outright hypocrite as well as an advocate of deicide against baby Jesus. Indeed, God Himself directly confirms this very thing:

Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."

But, some may inquire, what about Paul telling us to pay taxes in Romans 13:6-7? Thus:

Romans 13:6,7: For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

But does Paul really tell us to pay taxes here? Again, just as with Jesus, nowhere does Paul actually tell anyone to pay any taxes! Paul continues with the rhetorical misdirection that he started in the beginning of Romans 13, knowing--just as Jesus knew before him--that those who would be hostile to the Christian church would automatically assume what they are predisposed to assume: i.e., that the taxes and customs "due" are due to those in control of the governments who levy them. But here Paul was being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, as Paul never said any such thing. For when Paul says "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs" this just begs the question: to whom are taxes and customs due? The answer to which could quite possibly be "No one." And this is precisely how Paul proceeds to answer his own question-begging statement, in Romans 13:8-10:

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

So there we have it in no uncertain terms: Owe no one anything except to love one another! Yet since when have taxes ever had the slightest thing to do with love? As was explained above, all mortal governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. Thus, all Earthly, mortal governments, by levying taxes, break the Golden Rule which Jesus commanded everyone as the supreme law.

In the earlier discussion on Jesus and taxes we learned that when Jesus said "Give on to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the Lord that which is the Lord's" he was, in effect, actually saying that one need not give anything to Caesar: as nothing is rightly his, considering that everything that Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion.

And what of Paul writing in Titus 3:1: "Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work"? As was clearly demonstrated above, Paul was referring to the true higher authorities as recognized by God, not to the diabolical, Satanic, mortal governments as they have existed on Earth--as Paul spent his entire ministry in rebellion against the Earth-bound, mortal "authorities," and was at last put to death by them. (For other cases of righteous disobedience to government in the Bible, see Exo. 1:15-2:3; 1 Sam. 19:10-18; Esther 4:16; Dan. 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt. 2:12-13; Acts 5:29; 9:25; 17:6-8; 2 Cor. 11:32,33.)

And as further proof of this, consider Paul's advice to Christians as regarding being judged by what the government considers the "authority":

1 Corinthians 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

Paul said that the government judges "are least esteemed by the church to judge"! It is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!

But moreover, even Jesus didn't consider the Earthly, mortal "rulers" to be true rulers and authorities! Thus:

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

By saying this Jesus was in fact rebuking the supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers"! Just because mortals on Earth may consider someone to be an "authority" and "ruler" does not mean that God considers them to be so!

On Peter and 1 Peter 2:13-18

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists in an attempt to demonstrate that people ought to submit to mortal government is 1 Peter 2:13-18:

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

But Peter himself did not so submit! Peter and the apostles were arrested in Jerusalem by the Sadducees for preaching the gospel of Jesus and brought before the Sanhedrin court for questioning:

Acts 5:27-32: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him."

So here we have it from Peter himself: We ought to obey God rather than men! Yet Jesus already commanded that the ultimate Law is for everyone to treat others as they themselves would want to be treated--therefore, according to Peter, any command by men that are contrary to this ultimate Law are automatically null and void.

Once again one must consider that the Christians at this time were a persecuted minority under the surveillance of the mortal "authorities" as possible insurrectionists, and so statements like what is written in 1 Peter 2:13-18 were included to pacify such "authorities" so that the most important task of saving people's souls could continue--yet, just as Paul included an "escape clause" in Romans 13 ("Owe no one anything except to love one another"), Peter also includes an escape clause contained in 1 Peter 2:13-18, which is the 16th verse therein:

For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--[verse 16:] as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

The NIV Bible translates verse 16 as "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." Most other modern English Bible versions translate the beginning of this passage as either "Live as free" or "Act as free." So in other words, when this is combined with what Peter said in Acts 5:29, we can take the entire passage of 1 Peter 2:13-18 to mean that we ought to obey all the ordinances of men: except for all such ordinances that happen to conflict with our God-given liberty and Jesus's ultimate commandment--which is virtually every single one of them! But other than that, do indeed obey every other ordinance of man, for in so doing one will merely be obeying Jesus's commandment--in which case the ordinances of man which one ought to obey are merely redundant!

Also, consider the following statement by Peter which some statists might try to construe in their favor:

2 Peter 2:9,10: [...] then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, [...]

As has already been pointed out, the statist fallacy when encountering such statements is to automatically deem the "authorities" and "dignitaries" spoken of in these cases as necessarily being the "authorities" and "dignitaries" that the positive law (i.e., the government's law) so regards--but such cannot be the actual case, as it is written:

Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."

As well, Jesus Himself rebuked the supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers":

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

The Ruler and God of This World and Age which All Mortal Governments Worship is Satan (A.K.A. Lucifer)

The Bible is quite explicit as to who it is that really controls all the mortal governments on Earth, and which god is the god that the mortal rulers worship:

Luke 4:4-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.' " (See also Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13.)

This is one of the offers Satan made to Christ during the forty days in which Satan tempted Jesus, an event now sometimes referred to as the Temptation of Christ. Satan wasn't lying when he made the above offer to Jesus: it was an absolutely real offer that Satan would have delivered on. This is necessarily the case, as Luke even writes in verse 2 of the above chapter that here Jesus was "tempted for forty days by the devil"--thus, this had to be a real offer or else it could hardly qualify as a real temptation, as certainly Jesus would have known whether or not what Satan said here was true: if what Satan was saying here were false then Jesus would have already known that, and hence Satan's offer could not have been the least bit tempting to Jesus.

How true indeed Satan was being when he said that all the kingdoms of the world have been delivered to him, and that he gives them to whomever he wishes: which are those who worship him as their God! All Earthly, mortal potentates have quite literally made a pact with Satan!--every last one of them has literally sold their soul to Satan in return for Earthly power! As God spoke in Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."

And Jesus later said on two separate occasions that Satan is the ruler of this world--thus in John 12:31: "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." And in John 14:30: "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me."

And Paul in two separate letters writes that Satan is the god and ruler of this age:

2 Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

And in Ephesians 6:11,12:

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

All one has to do to realize just how literal and true Satan, Jesus and Paul were being when they made the above statements is to consider that more than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany committed genocide against some 16 million people--6 million of them Jews. (The preceding figures are from Prof. R.J. Rummel's website: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills.) Over 800,000 Christian Tutsis in Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes between April and July of 1994 by the Hutu-led military force after the Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, of which disarmament decree the United Nations helped to enforce. On several occasions, United Nations soldiers stationed in Rwanda actually handed over helpless Tutsi Christians under their protection to members of the Hutu military. They then stood by as their screaming charges were unceremoniously hacked to pieces. This massacre happened one year after the United Nations helped to put in a national ID card in Rwanda, and it was that very national ID card system which the Hutus used to track-down and identify the Christian Tutsis. Needless to say, all of the subject populations of the above mass murders had been disarmed beforehand.

The wars and mass murders which the mortal governments routinely engage in are literal human-sacrifice orgies that the Earthly rulers of those governments offer up to appease their God Satan, a.k.a. Lucifer!

Government, throughout all of recorded history, has been the most methodical and efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a purely Satanical machination masquerading as humanity's salvation, but has always been--and forever will be so long as it exists--the scourge of mankind and its decline.

[Dig]

Jesus Defended the Right to Freely Contract and Private Property Rights

Besides the Golden Rule which Jesus commanded as the ultimate social ethic, another Biblical account of Jesus's teachings which clearly demonstrates His attitude toward the institution of private property and the free and voluntary trade thereof is given in His below Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

Matthew 20:1-16: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen."

It never ceases to amaze me when Socialists sometimes try to claim that Jesus was some sort of proto-Socialist or Communist. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Socialists' attitude toward such matters would know that the typical Socialist response to such a landowner's actions towards his workers would be to scream bloody murder! Of course, a Socialist government's response to such a land owner would be to exterminate him. Yet here Jesus reinforces the correctness of the libertarian creed on the absoluteness of lawfully being able to do what one wishes with their own possessions, as well as being able to freely and voluntarily contract said possessions as one sees fit--even if doing so greatly upsets others! So long as one has kept one's word in the contracts in which one has agreed to--and so long as one's actions pertain to their own property--then the right of the individual to make decisions concerning their property remains absolute!

Greatness is in Serving

One of the things which most clearly demonstrates just how different Jesus's Kingdom is to be from the mortal, Earthly kingdoms and governments--and also why we should be very careful to never confuse the two together--is given in the story of when the apostles James and John came to Jesus asking if they may have the favor granted to them of being able to sit on either side of Jesus's throne, one to the right and the other to His left, and this is how Jesus answered them:

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (See also Matt. 18:4; 20:25-28 Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26.)

How diametrically opposite the Kingdom of Christ is indeed from that of the mortal, Earthly governments! Thus, when it is claimed herein that Jesus is an "anarchist" it needs to be born in mind that this is in relation to how all mortal governments on Earth have operated. If one wishes to refer to the "Government of Christ" or the "Kingdom of Christ" this is fine so long is one realizes that the Government of Christ will in no sense be an actual government as they exist on Earth and are controlled by mortals.

It needs to also be pointed out here that above in Mark 10:42 Jesus rebukes the supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers"! Thus He says of them "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them"--here is clear proof that just because mortals on Earth may consider someone to be a "ruler" does not mean that God considers them to be genuine rulers! In the eyes of God, those who are the greatest among men are those who seek to serve their fellow men, not those who seek to be served by their fellow men!

Slaves Obey Your Masters?

While although not directly related to the issue of the ethical status of government per se, some individuals have asserted that certain statements in the New Testament by Paul and Peter condone the institution of slavery, and for this reason it is important as it concerns social relations in general. Thus:

Ephesians 6:5-9: Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Colossians 3:22-4:1: Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1,2: Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.

Titus 2:9,10: Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

1 Peter 2:18-25: Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

But to quote the above passages as condoning the institution of slavery, one would thereby be confusing the offering of pragmatic advice on how to best handle a bad situation as granting the rightness of that situation. Yet obviously Peter and Paul didn't so regard the institution of slavery as being at all just, for then there would have been no cause for Peter compare the slave's suffering to that of Jesus in 1 Peter 2:21-25--as certainly any true Christian regards the scourging and execution of Jesus to have been unjust, to say the very least. Thus the fact that Peter did compare the slave's suffering to that of Jesus is by itself enough to demonstrate that he considered it to be unjust.

So what of the actual ethical status of the institution of slavery as it concerns Jesus's own teachings? On this question there can be no doubt, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

So here we have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim liberty to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed!

The word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word aphesis, and means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, it is a complete and absolute negation of the condition of being a slave. And since there exists no recorded instance of Jesus qualifying the above statement, it then becomes quite clear that Jesus is very much against the institution of slavery--besides of course slavery being totally incompatible with the Golden Rule.

So how are we to make better sense of Paul and Peter's above statements, since it is clear that the institution of slavery is very anti-Christian in the most literal sense of the word (i.e., as it concerns the actual doctrine as preached by Jesus Christ)?

One must bear in mind that Paul and Peter knew better than most of the injustices contained within this Satanic world system--Paul himself was continuously in and out of prisons during his ministry, and would at last be beheaded by government for preaching the gospel of Christ, just as John the Baptist was beheaded by government before him for preaching the same. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul clarifies his above statements while at the same time declaring the absoluteness of his God-given rightful liberty:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

It is here where the seeming contradiction of certain passages in the Bible whereby Paul and Peter admonish slaves to "obey their masters" (see Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18) is cleared up. Such an admonition is a pragmatic one, not an categorical moral one--as Paul himself declared his absolute rightful freedom from all men (and also called for people to "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ," 1 Cor. 11:1)! So rather than laying hands on one's Earthly "master," or trying to run away--which in the end would probably only affect one's freedom in a negative way--a much better and effective solution would be to convert one's Earthly "master" to Jesus, and if one has truly succeeded in doing so--i.e., whereby one's Earthly "master" becomes infilled with the Holy Spirit--then one will have at once gained one's God-given absolute liberty, at least in relation to what the positive law considers one's "master." The reason that this is necessarily the case is because Jesus commanded the absolute law as treating others as you would want others to treat you (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), yet the very institution of slavery is founded upon the exact opposite principle, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow the logic of his below argument!):

If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (Abraham Lincoln, Fragments on Slavery, c. April 1, 1854)

In the above discussion on the Golden Rule as commanded by Jesus it was pointed out that to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the Golden Rule: i.e., to treat others as you would not want others to treat you--of which ethic was termed the Luciferian Principle (see the above discussion on this as to why such a designation logically follows). Yet this is the very principle on which the institution of slavery necessarily rests.

And in further support of my contention that the conversion of a slave's Earthly "master" to Jesus would be the most effective and practical solution in obtaining one's God-given absolute liberty--at least in relation to what the positive law considers one's "master"--consider Paul's own words on this matter:

2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The word "liberty" in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a translation of the Greek noun eleutheria and is completely congruent in meaning with the English word "liberty," i.e., as in "freedom from slavery," "independence," "absence of external restraint," "a negation of control or domination," "freedom of access," etc. Thus, it is the complete negation of a state of slavery. But in fact, Paul even goes further than this in the very passages above which some have contended condone the institution of slavery. Thus in Ephesians 6:9 Paul writes:

And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Yet it is plainly clear that if a slave's "master" were to actually and truly give up threatening--of all things--then there can hardly even be said to exist a state of slavery any more in relation to what the positive law considers the "master" and the "slave," as the very institution of slavery is enforced by the threat of either physical harm for non-compliance or recapture in the case of escape. Thus, this passage is actually a case of advocating the de facto abolition of slavery even while a state of de jure slavery--as considered by the positive law--may still be in place!

It is for the above reasons why the above cited passages which some have contended condone the institution of slavery can only make any sense within the Christian point of view as pragmatic advice on how best to handle a bad and unjust situation, and certainly cannot be regarded as commentary on the ethical rightfulness of the institution of slavery; nor for that matter as a categorical moral imperative as to how one is always to conduct oneself--as Paul and Peter were often in rebellion to what the positive law considered their "masters." Extreme problems arise for those who would try and contend otherwise--for just one example of the problems presented to those who would thus contend, consider the following statement by Paul:

1 Timothy 5:23: No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.

Yet this statement by Paul is completely unqualified, and far more direct than his above advice to slaves. Thus, for those who would contend that Paul was giving a categorical moral imperative as to how a slave is always to conduct himself in relation to his "master"--as opposed to merely offering advice as to the best and most practical way in which a slave could go about obtaining his God-given liberty in relation to his "master"--such individuals, if they are to be consistent, would also have to contend that according to Paul it is a sin not to drink wine! In fact the case for this contention would actually be much stronger than in that of Paul's advice to slaves, for unlike in his advice to slaves nowhere does Paul qualify the above statement! Yet obviously to make such a contention would be absurd, as in both cases it would be confusing pragmatic advice with a categorical moral imperative.

But moreover, here is what Jesus Himself had to say about the serving of masters:

Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (See also Luke 16:13.)

Yet what in the world is the institution of slavery if not mammon? If the institution of slavery does not qualify as mammon then there is nothing that possibly could! For it is a method of obtaining wealth that is a complete and utter violation of Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment:

Matthew 7:12: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

Thus it becomes clear that the institution of slavery is just another product of this sick Satanic world system--of which system Jesus is to ultimately overthrow in the time of His Judgement. Mammon indeed!

Jesus Supported the Collecting of Interest (Usury)

One of the Socialists' great bugbears has been the institution of usury, or otherwise the collecting of interest. Yet in the only instance in which Jesus commented upon this He was clearly in favor of the concept, as is given in His Parable of the Talents, in which a man traveling to a far-away country leaves his three servants with some talents to make use of in the best way they see fit while he is away--the first two servants invest the talents and receive more talents from their initial investment, and this makes the lord of the estate happy to hear this upon his return; but here is what Jesus says of the third servant:

Matthew 25:24-27: "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.' But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest." (See also Luke 19:21-23.)

Now obviously this parable is a lesson on how Christians should be ever vigilant in converting people to salvation in Christ, in that we should not keep the Gospel of Christ to ourselves but always seek to increase the number of Christians in the world. But even so, it nevertheless demonstrates that Jesus was hardly hostile to the concept of the collecting of interest, considering that this was his only commentary given on the subject. But moreover, it ties in quite appropriately with Jesus's attitude toward the absolute lawfulness of an individual doing what they wish with their own property--including freely contracting thereof--as told by Jesus in his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard as recorded in Matthew 20:1-16.

The Cleansing of the Temple: Righteous Libertarian Vigilantism

The only recorded act of violence by Jesus was what is now known as "the cleansing of the temple":

Matthew 21:12,13: Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.' " (See also Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45,46; John 2:14-17.)

Now this event is often misinterpreted as being some sort of revolt by Jesus on the bad aesthetics of commerce being conducted inside of God's temple, and so is given as anti-libertarian and free-market commentary. But if that were really what this episode was about then there would have been no cause for Jesus to accuse the priests of turning the temple into a "den of thieves."

Jesus was being literal when he said that. To understand what Jesus was talking about one has to understand the nature of what was being bought and sold in the temple as well as the function of the "money changers." What was being bought and sold in the temple were animals which were to be sacrificed as a sin offering, and the function of the money changers was to convert the Gentile Roman money into the Jewish money which would then be suitable to present inside the temple for purchase of the sacrificial animals. The people who bought these animals did not get to take them home to eat--if they had then Jesus would have had no good reason to object the commerce being conducted at the temple, and certainly would have no grounds to accuse the priests of thievery. Rather, the animals stayed in the temple to be sacrificed by the Levitical priests, which by so doing would (as it was supposed) atone for the sins of the purchaser of the sacrificed animal. So when Jesus accused the priests who conducted this practice of being thieves what he was saying was that the people who bought these animals to be sacrificed to atone for their sins were being ripped-off--i.e., that the animal sacrifices weren't doing anything for their sins. In other words, the priests were selling religious snake-oil--misrepresenting their product as curing something it couldn't cure; hence they were committing fraud (per libertarian rights theory).

Now realize what is at stake here: Jesus came to save people's very souls, and here people are being deceived and defrauded into believing that sacrificing these animals is setting their souls right with God. As it is written in Hebrews 10:4-7:

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.

Then I said, 'Behold, I have come--In the volume of the book it is written of Me--To do Your will, O God.' " Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law) [...]

If we assume that Jesus is God's Messiah then He was in a particularly unique position to accurately determine whether or not these animal sacrifices were achieving what was being claimed for them, and having determined that the priests were defrauding their patrons He took appropriate libertarian action (per Rothbardian theory in particular) by using retaliatory force against these thieves. It is important to point out that it is only a true Messiah from God which could have rightly taken such action, for any normal man would not have possessed the requisite information in order to make that determination honestly. Thus, not only was Jesus's only use of force quite libertarian, but it was also in a situation which would have been inappropriate for most anyone else.

[Dig]

Jesus on the War on Drugs (and all Forms of Prohibition)

In the modern era one of the most virulent scourges which has plagued the Western societies in particular is the so-called "drug problem," i.e., the use of, and combating the use of, illegal drugs. Yet, why has the "drug problem" only become such a problem within, predominately, the last century? What is the cause of this? But first, before we answer this question, the more important issue from the Christian's viewpoint is: what is Jesus's position on the so-called "drug problem," i.e., whether it is called "the War on Drugs" or "Prohibition"? More directly, what does Jesus have to say about prohibiting by law the use of certain drugs, or inebriants?

Most people at this point will probably be thinking that the issue only concerns which drugs or inebriants ought to be prohibited and how severe the penalty for their use should be--as those calling themselves Christians have traditionally been at the forefront of not only the Prohibition of alcohol during the '20s in the U.S., but so also with the continuing War on Drugs. So, first of all, what does Jesus have to say about which substances ought to be outlawed?

On this question Jesus is quite clear about it in no uncertain terms--although the answer may come as a surprise to some: absolutely no law ought to exist prohibiting the consumption of any substance whatsoever! Jesus says quite clearly in the strongest of terms that there is no substance a man can consume that could possibly defile him--thus we read in Mark 7:15-23:

"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." (See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)

This is the only directive that Jesus gives in the entire Bible as to what substances should be, or should not be, prohibited. Some may claim that Jesus was only talking about food in the above, and not psychotropic drugs. Yet if this were truly the case then Jesus's above claim is a false one: Jesus saying "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him" would be wrong, for then there would indeed be something which could thereby defile a man--namely: psychotropic drugs! Yet Jesus is absolutely clear on this issue: there is no substance a person can consume which could possibly defile them! Also, there is not even any clear distinction between "drugs" and "food" in the first place: just about any drug, in principle, can also be made into a food--and traditionally often have been and continue to be: thus, the drug ethanol is almost always consumed not by itself, but in combination with non-inebriants as a drink; the drug caffeine is almost always consumed as the beverage known as coffee; marijuana has often been consumed as an edible baked into brownies; cocaine was once an ingredient in the original formulation of the name-brand soft-drink Coca-Cola; etc. If the modern-day Prohibitionists desire to maintain that Jesus did not mean to include substances such as psychotropic drugs when He gave this clear directive then the burden is on them to show where in the Bible Jesus qualifies His above statement to include the possibility that psychotropic drugs are an exception to His above all-inclusive directive. But search the Bible high and low and no such alternate, qualifying directive is anywhere to be found.

Some may be quick to point out that the angel sent by Jesus to John the Reveler said in Revelation 9:21 "And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts" (see also Rev. 18:23; 22:15) and that the word that is here translated as "sorceries" is in the original Greek pharmakeia, i.e., as in "pharmaceutical" or "drugs." But the original sense of this Greek word pharmakeia meant the mixing of various ingredients for magical purposes, whether or not they were actually ever intended to be consumed by anyone, or whether or not they had what we would call today "pharmacological" properties: in other words, it was for the most part pure spell-casting--often black-magic in nature, such as casting hexes on people. Thus, the most accurate translation of this word into modern English is indeed "sorceries," and not "drugs"--and this is indeed how almost all English Bible translations have handled this word: whether it be the King James Version or almost all modern translations. But even if such were not the case and one were to maintain that pharmakeia here really did mean "drugs" then this would present such a person with quite a serious problem: which drugs? If indeed one were to maintain that pharmakeia here should be translated as "drugs" then one would logically have to so also maintain that all drugs are thereby meant by it, irregardless of whatever psychotropic properties they may or may not have--the reason being is because no type of drug in particular would then be specified in the above Bible passages. Thus, there would then be no grounds for singling out psychotropic drugs such as ethanol over, say, penicillin, or any other life-preserving medicine for that matter. To be consistent, some may get around this problem by saying: very well, all drugs, including medicine, are thereby meant by it. But to so maintain this would just create an even bigger problem than the one it just solved: for the Bible teaches that "A merry heart does good, like medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones" (Prov. 17:22); and Ezekiel, in the description of the Heaven on Earth that Jesus is to establish after the Judgement, writes of it, in part:

Ezekiel 47:12: "Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine."

So quite simply put, if one were to so maintain that all drugs must be meant by the above passages in Revelation then one would be going against Biblical doctrine, as what little the Bible does have to say about medicinal drugs it is nevertheless clear about: that curative drugs are a good thing. Thus, if these passages in Revelation actually meant "drugs" instead of "sorceries" then the Bible would be contradicting itself here, as the passages in Revelation would thereby be inclusive of all drugs, not just any kind in particular. But even if we were to here grant for argument's sake that one could somehow narrow it down to some sort of drug types in particular, one still would not be able to derive that such drugs should therefore be outlawed, as nowhere would these passages in Revelation then so much as even suggest that mortal governments make any laws against such drugs.

Thus, even under the most favorable interpretation of the Bible--from the viewpoint of modern-day Prohibitionists--Jesus's declaration that "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him" would still stand--at least as it concerned all mortal, Earthly forms of judgement.

Some diligent readers may now say at this point, to the effect of: "Wait a minute! The Mark of the Beast is an obvious exception to something which possibly enters a man from the outside which can defile him!" (The King James Version translates the Mark of the Beast as being "in" the hand or forehead, while most modern versions translate it as being "on," although the original Greek can actually be accurately translated either way. I suspect the reason most modern versions have preferred to translate the Mark as being "on" the hand or forehead is because this then, in almost all cases, covers both possibilities: as in almost all cases, in order to put some identifying mark "in" the skin would require that one also leave a mark "on" the skin.) But this would ignore Jesus's follow-up elaboration about all such substances under discussion eventually being "eliminated" from the body by its natural excretion processes, as the Mark of the Beast is meant to be a life-long identifier, and thus is not excreted by the body's natural processes, as are eventually all foods and drugs. But if one still wants to persist in this line of reasoning they may counter that indeed not all drugs are eliminated by the body's natural excretion processes: of those who die of drug over-doses, the drugs which thereby caused their deaths are not then excreted by the body's natural processes. While although this is quite true, one would still not be able to derive therefore from it that there ought to be laws against certain drugs, as all drugs are capable of causing death from over-dose; indeed, most lethal drug over-doses are not caused by illegal psychotropic drugs, but legally used medicines--and hence, one would be presented with the original problem discussed above on this. And, it should be stated in passing, it would also be completely nonsensical to make a law against taking a lethal over-dose of a drug, as the penalty for taking a lethal dose of drugs would be, by definition, an automatic death-penalty: therefore any such law-breaker would automatically be out of the reach of any Earth-bound, mortal law-enforcer.

Thus, any which way one slices it, it is simply quite impossible to justify any form of drug-prohibition whatsoever from a Biblical perspective. But even far stronger than such drug-laws being merely unjustifiable from a Biblical perspective, all such laws go directly against Jesus's clear directive that all things which a person may consume cannot possibly defile them! And thus, not only are all drug-laws extra-Biblical in origin, they are all also extremely anti-Christian in the most literal sense of the word! If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left in one's mind as to the veracity of this, then hereby, once and for all, let Paul slay that misplaced sense of doubt:

Colossians 2:20-23: Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. (See also Rom. 14:14.)

So we see in no uncertain terms that all forms of drug-prohibition are completely unjustifiable from a Biblical viewpoint, and indeed anti-Christian. If then such drug-laws are extra-Biblical and anti-Christian, how is it that many self-professed Christians came to be on the forefront of all the various forms of drug-prohibition within recent history? Quite amazingly, this very question was already answered almost 2000 years ago by Paul, and in shocking but no uncertain terms:

1 Timothy 4:1-5: Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

As was already pointed out above, there is no clear distinction, in principle, between "drugs" and "food": just about any drug, in principle, can also be made into a food--and traditionally often have been and continue to be. Indeed, the first truly large-scale form of drug-prohibition in a Western society in the modern era was what was known as simply "Prohibition" in the U.S., which was the outlawing of consuming the drug ethanol, i.e., "alcohol." Yet alcohol is consumed almost exclusively as a food-stuff in mixture with non-inebriating potables! Indeed, strait laboratory-grade ethanol is virtually inedible, if not actually quite painful to so consume. So how very true and accurate Paul was when he wrote the above words, as it was predominately self-professed Christians who lead the movement to outlaw the food of alcoholic beverages! And to grasp the awful extent that these self-professed Christians must have been truly deceived by demons in order to prohibit the food of alcoholic beverages, just consider that the first miracle recorded in the Bible by Jesus was to turn water into wine during the wedding at Cana (see John 2:9-11)! What absolute blasphemy for them to prohibit the resultant product of the first miracle of their self-proclaimed God! Deceived by demons indeed!! Truer words could not have been written by Paul to describe such a perverted situation.

Indeed, it was Paul himself that counseled to "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities" (1 Tim. 5:23). And Psalms 104:14,15 says of God: "He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man's heart." (See also Judges 9:13.)

Many in the Temperance movement responsible for Prohibition had falsely claimed that these Biblical references to "wine" were in reality grape juice. But the Greek word for wine in the New Testament, oinos, is a fermented drink, whereas the Greek word for fruitjuice is khymos. And besides that, this claim demonstrates either an appalling ignorance of Jesus's own parables or outright deceit, as Jesus even referred to the fermenting of wine in one of his parables:

Matthew 9:16,17: "No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (See also Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37.)

In ancient times goatskins were used to hold wine. As the fresh grape juice fermented, carbon dioxide would be generated by the living yeast's metabolism, increasing the volume of gas contained in the wineskin, and so the new wineskin would stretch. But a used wineskin, already stretched, would break. Not only that, but before 1869 it was impossible to store grape juice in temperate to hot climates (which are the climates grapes grow in) without it either quickly going bad or becoming wine. If grape juice is left exposed to the open air then it will quickly go bad due to mold and bacteria--sealing grape juice from the open air protects it from these aerobic microorganisms because the yeast which is present naturally in the grapes creates an atmosphere of carbon dioxide while at the same time making alcohol. Consequently, storing non-alcoholic grape juice was an impossibility until 1869, when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch succeeded in applying the process of pasteurization to freshly squeezed must. About the only people who may have been drinking grape juice before 1869 were those who pressed the freshly picked grapes themselves (without refrigeration grapes will quickly go bad, unless they are dried into raisins). It is for this reason that the suggestion that the fruit of the vine that Jesus and the twelve disciples drank during the Last Supper on Passover (Mark 14:23-25) was grape juice is absurd, as the growing season for grapes in Palestine is from April to October (the dry season), yet Passover starts on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan (the actual Last Supper occurred either on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, it's debatable which day it actually was), which is a lunar month that roughly corresponds with the latter part of March and the first part of April--so quite simply, there would have existed no unfermented grape juice at this time, as no grapes would have existed, since the growing season for them had just started.

In the beginning of this discussion on drugs, it was first inquired as to why the "drug problem" has only become such a problem within, predominately, the last century. The reason is precisely because of the very laws against drugs! The government's War on Drugs has turned what once was an individual problem into a social problem by inventing new make-believe "crimes" that aggress against no one, while spawning a whole true crime industry associated with it (just like during Prohibition). The effect of libertarian legalization would be to make drugs an individual problem again instead of the grave social problem that it is today. As they say, we don't have a drug problem, we have a drug-problem problem. Were it not for the government's War on Drugs, the gang turf-wars, theft, and other various true crimes that are associated with the distribution of drugs and the procurement of money in which to support habituations to drugs, of which the price has been artificially inflated, would not exist.

How many liquor stores have shoot-outs between each other? Yet when alcohol was illegal the black-market distributors of alcohol found it necessary to have shoot-outs and murders between each other on a regular basis. This was because, being that their business was illegal, they did not have access to the courts in which to settle their disputes; as well, because their business was illegal, this raised the stakes of doing business, for if they got caught then they would go to prison--thus it became profitable to resort to murder in order to solve problems which would otherwise lead to prison. And how many tobacco smokers resort to theft and prostitution in order to support their habit? Yet clinical studies have shown that tobacco is more habit forming than heroin. The reason you don't see tobacco smokers doing such things is because tobacco addicts can afford to support their habit. When Russia experienced an artificial shortage of cigarettes over a decade ago due to its socialist economy, tobacco smokers took to the streets en masse rioting--requiring emergency shipments of Marlboros and other cigarette brands from the U.S. in order for it to cease. If heroin or crack were legal it would cost no more (and probably less) than a tobacco habit, and so heroin and crack addicts would be able to support their habit by working at a regular job instead of resorting to theft and prostitution. If one should doubt this last statement, it should be born in mind that the original laws in the U.S. against the use of opium were to punish the Chinese opium-smoking immigrants in the early 1900s, who were so productive that they were taking railway construction jobs away from native White Americans.

As a parting note on this subject, I will leave you with what Peter counseled us: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people's matters" (1 Peter 4:15). How very much this last admonition applies to all forms of drug-prohibition!

Woe to Lawyers!

In Jesus's day, as well as in modern times, lawyers have had quite a system worked out for themselves. Not only are lawyers the ones that write the laws, but they are also the ones who become rich in prosecuting and defending people from those very laws that they or their colleagues have written in the first place. As well, most politicians, especially in modern times, are also lawyers. Thus, throughout history there has existed a grotesque system whereby the very people responsible for the laws have a perverse incentive in making sure that they are as arcane, unintelligible, Byzantine and numerous as possible--hence, always insuring a healthy demand for their services.

This fact was certainly not lost on Jesus, and He made a point to warn lawyers that they are putting their very souls at stake in their chosen profession. Thus:

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)

Luke 11:46,52: And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. [...] [verse 52:] "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

This is not to say that all lawyers throughout history are unrighteous. There has existed and does exist a few principled lawyers who entered their profession in order to defend righteous people from the unjust laws that their colleagues are responsible for--but they are and have been quite a minority indeed. The simple fact of the matter is that most lawyers are simply in it for the money, and generally have shown little to no interest in rolling back or defending against unjust laws if doing so negatively affects their bottom line. Even the ones that often appear on the surface to be fighting against bad laws are usually being paid quite handsomely in doing so (think ACLU), or are loyal opposition and have already been bought and paid for to purposely lose the case in order to generate bad legal precedent in the case law, etc., etc.

So a "Christian lawyer" is not an absolute contradiction in terms, it's just exceedingly rare--and to the extent that such rare individuals do exist God has undoubtedly blessed them for their work in protecting His children against this Satanic world system. But in the main, how true indeed Jesus was being when He warned lawyers that they were jeopardizing their very souls in practicing the profession that they have chosen! Woe to lawyers indeed!

[Dig]

Jesus on Government Courts: Avoid Them!

Another thing which is quite congruent with Jesus's above warning to lawyers is Jesus's advice for the faithful to avoid the government's courts if at all possible:

Matthew 5:25,26: "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny."

And:

Luke 12:57-59: "Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid the very last mite."

Needless to say, government judges are also lawyers, so Jesus's advice here fits in with His warning to lawyers. It also completely demolishes the notion that Jesus considers what the government's positive law regards as "authorities" to be true authorities--or otherwise Jesus would have no problem with such government judges resolving disputes among the faithful. In fact, Paul absolutely confirms this notion in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

And this also conclusively demonstrates that the "authorities" that Paul spoke of in Romans 13 could not possibly have been the "authorities" as so regarded by the government--as Paul said that the government judges "are least esteemed by the church to judge"! Thus it is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!

And so also James writes in James 2:6:

But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?

It needs to be pointed out that most of the rich in the days in which the above passage was written were rich due to grants of privilege by the government--particularly that of collecting taxes. Thus when James writes in the above of the rich oppressing the faithful and dragging them into the courts he is speaking of actual violations of individuals' just property rights, and not of individuals reneging on voluntary contracts in which they had entered into. And this brings us naturally to the next point which needs to be made:

Jesus on the Rich

Jesus had this to say about the rich:

Luke 18:18-30: Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?" But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You." So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life." (See also Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31.)

Some have given this as anti-libertarian commentary. But first of all, in analyzing this statement by Jesus it needs to be pointed out that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any person whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus also said that "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (verse 27). It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for anyone to enter the Kingdom of God on their own--that the only way in which anyone enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone (see John 14:6). Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this particular aspect. And so also, from this alone it cannot be claimed that Jesus had it in for rich people per se more than any other group.

Second, when Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For this was not just any kind of rich person--this was a rich person of a particular type: a ruler, i.e., one who has some variety of command over an Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and might--this particular ruler's opinion to the contrary (verse 21) not withstanding scrutiny: almost no rulers throughout history have ever regarded their wealth as having been obtained through stealing:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of The City of God.)

Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely telling this person what any good libertarian would have said in the same situation--particularly a natural-rights libertarian such as a Rothbardian.

Jesus Engaged in Conspicuous Consumption when He Could have Provided for the Poor Instead

Some have maintained--usually in an effort to make some larger political point--that Jesus was some sort of ascetic who was against individuals having material riches, especially when those material goods could be used to provide for the poor instead. Yet Jesus Himself engaged in conspicuous consumption when He could have provided for the poor instead:

Matthew 26:6-13: And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor." But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." (See also Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:37,38; John 12:1-8.)

Yet here in this case of luxurious consumption on the part of Jesus is purely of ornamental value, i.e., of a purely aesthetic value--and a fleeting one at that! When Jesus's disciples complained about this "waste" Jesus told His disciples to stop bothering the woman about it! At the very least, this demonstrates the notion that Jesus was some sort of austere, principled ascetic to be an untenable one--and thus also, any attempt to make some larger political point out of such a notion is automatically moot.

As well, Paul had this to say as to one's ultimate responsibility in providing for others:

2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

Jesus Has Called us to Liberty--Yet Those Who Pay Taxes are not Free!

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists to supposedly demonstrate that Jesus supported the paying of taxes--but which in actuality demonstrates the exact opposite--is in Matthew 17:24-27:

When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"; he said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you."

But it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told above in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the necessary fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture (see Psalm 41:9; 69:25; 109:8; Zech. 11:12,13--see also Matt. 26:54,56; Mark 14:49; John 13:18-30; Acts 1:15-26) and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . .," which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble" (CEV)--at any rate, this comment by itself clearly demonstrates that Jesus was hardly enthusiastic about the prospect of paying taxes.

But moreover, Jesus said this after in effect saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26). This is the necessary implication of this passage, for if the sons of the kings on Earth are free because they are exempt from paying taxes then this certainly implies that those who are required to pay taxes are therefore not free on that account--either that or Jesus was merely being insipid when He said this (which at least from the Christian's viewpoint is certainly not something Jesus was ever known for). Yet the fact that Jesus considers those who are required to pay taxes as being unfree is enough to conclusively demonstrate that Jesus is necessarily against taxes, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

So here we have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim liberty to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed--and yet Jesus also said that those who are required to pay taxes are not free!

Some may attempt to get around this glaring fact by pointing out that the word "free" in Matthew 17:26 is a translation of the Greek word eleutheros, whereas the word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word aphesis. But eleutheros is the adjective form of the noun eleutheria, and means: freeborn, i.e., in a civil sense, one who is not a slave, or of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted; or at liberty, free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation--and aphesis means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, when used in the context above these two words are completely congruent in meaning with each other. As well, if one desires to go back further to the original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 which Luke 4:18 is quoting from, the word aphesis is a translation of the Hebrew word rwrd (which roughly transliterates as "darowr") which is a noun that means: a flowing (as of myrrh), free run, or liberty. And so this word, too, is completely congruent in meaning with eleutheros when used in the above context. Indeed, the Greek Septuagint translates this Hebrew word in the above passage as aphesis. Thus it cannot be honestly maintained that Jesus had in mind two separate meanings when he spoke the above words, as the only sensible meaning of these separate words are completely congruent with one another when used in their above context.

It might be pointed out by some that the New International Version translates the Greek word eleutheros in Matthew 17:26 as "exempt." But this is a damning example of how some modern Bible translations have been Bowdlerized in order to avoid inconvenient facts--particularly political ones--that are often found in the Bible. As was mentioned before, if indeed this were assumed to be the correct translation of this word, then for Jesus to make such an utterly pointless and vapid comment would have been totally insipid on His part--again, not something Jesus was ever known for, at least from the true Christian's perspective. The only meaning in which this comment by Jesus can be taken which actually makes any point whatsoever and avoids meaningless, inane and idle talk on His part is for the Greek word eleutheros in Matthew 17:26 to be translated as "free" (or otherwise "at liberty," etc.)--which is precisely how the King James Version and most other English Bible translations have handled this passage. Again, trying to avoid this most obvious and direct translation renders Jesus's comment here absolutely irrelevant and inane.

As well, Paul and the original apostles understood that one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty. Thus:

1 Corinthians 7:23: You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23: For though I am free [eleutheros] from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty [eleutheria].

Galatians 4:6,7: And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty [eleutheria] by which Christ has made us free [eleutheros], and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Galatians 5:13,14: For you, brethren, have been called to liberty [eleutheria]; only do not use liberty [eleutheria] as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

James 1:25: But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty [eleutheria] 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.

James 2:12: So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty [eleutheria].

1 Peter 2:16: Live as free [eleutheros] men, yet without using your freedom [eleutheria] as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. (RSV.)

It needs to be pointed out that the Greek noun eleutheria is completely congruent in meaning with the English word "liberty," i.e., as in "freedom from slavery," "independence," "absence of external restraint," "a negation of control or domination," "freedom of access," etc. Some have contended that any demarcation of property "restricts liberty," i.e., the liberty of others to use these resources, and so have maintained that the very concept of "total liberty" for everyone is an untenable one. But as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard has pointed out in Power and Market (pg. 242):

This criticism misuses the term "liberty." Obviously, any property right infringes on others' "freedom to steal." But we do not even need property rights to establish this "limitation"; the existence of another person, under a regime of liberty, restricts the "liberty" of others to assault him. Yet, by definition, liberty cannot be restricted thereby, because liberty is defined as freedom to control what one owns without molestation by others. "Freedom to steal or assault" would permit someone--the victim of stealth or assault--to be forcibly or fraudulently deprived of his person or property and would therefore violate the clause of total liberty: that every man be free to do what he wills with his own. Doing what one wills with someone else's own impairs the other person's liberty.

[Dig]

Jesus Will Overthrow All the Governments of the World and Punish All the Rulers in the Time of His Judgement (i.e., His Second Coming)

In the above it was clearly demonstrated that the Earthly, mortal governments are firmly under the control of Satan--that it is Satan who is the true god and ruler over this perverted governmental world system wherein power-mad psychotics rule over our existence and exempt themselves from every standard of decency which people would otherwise expect from any common stranger. Yet this diabolical, demonically-controlled government system is not to last forever. The Bible is quite clear and explicit in many passages as to what God's Judgement--i.e., the Second Coming of Christ--is to be about.

Lucifer's false Christ--i.e., the Anti-Christ--will come to strengthen and empower government during the last days: cementing together for the first time in human history a world government--of which God will allow to continue for a short time (Rev. 17:9-18). This world government will be the ultimate culmination of the very essence of everything which government represents: in short, it will be the most diabolical government which has ever existed, with mass murder of the righteous on a massive scale (Rev. 20:4). All the rulers of the Earth will whore themselves with this world government and be aligned against Jesus Christ during the final battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:14; 17:2; 18:3,9; 19:19).

Yet the coming of God's true Christ--Jesus Christ--is to be the exact opposite of Satan's Christ! Instead of strengthening government, Jesus Christ will come to abolish and utterly annihilate all the governments of the world: including all the rulers of those governments along with them!

As it is written in the Old Testament concerning the End-Times Judgement of God, i.e., Jesus's Second Coming:

Psalms 110:5,6: The Lord is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries.

And the above prophecy is also mirrored by the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 24:21,22: It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together, As prisoners are gathered in the pit, And will be shut up in the prison; After many days they will be punished.

This is quite amazing indeed when one realizes that the prophet Ezekiel foresaw this exact thing concerning God's End-Time Judgement--this time as it specifically concerned the rulers over Israel:

Ezekiel 34:1-10: And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD to the shepherds: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them." 'Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: "As I live," says the Lord GOD, "surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock"--therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them."

Now obviously when God, speaking here to Ezekiel, refers to "shepherds," He is using this as a metaphor for rulers, just as "flock" is a metaphor for the masses of people. Consider also the following passage by the prophet Zechariah concerning God's End-Times Judgement:

Zechariah 10:3: "My anger is kindled against the shepherds, And I will punish the goatherds. [...]"

Now obviously again, God, speaking here to Zechariah--just as Ezekiel before him--is not talking about literal shepherds and goatherds, but is using these expressions as metaphors for rulers--indeed, this is how the NRSV translates it: "My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders. [...]"

Thus, there is an amazing continuity within the Old Testament prophecies as to what God's End-Times Judgement is, at least in part, to consist of: the punishment of all the Earthly rulers and the abolition of all mortal rulerships! Can there be any doubt left in an honest, true Christian's mind as to just how much Jesus absolutely abhors and detests government? If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left in one's mind, then please, choose to walk in the clear light of Liberty and let Paul slay--once and for all--that last misplaced sense of doubt!:

1Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

How could it possibly be stated any clearer?! The governments of the Earth are not of God, they are of Satan, and Jesus will come to utterly destroy them ALL during His Judgement!

As it is written:

Revelation 19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

In the above passage from Revelation, the "rest" referred to being "killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth" of Jesus in verse 21 are "the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army," which was previously referred to in verse 19.

And so it is found that from the Old Testament through the New Testament that there is a remarkable continuity and agreement as to what the fate of the Earthly governments shall be during God's Judgement. And so also, this all demonstrates unmistakably just how much God is opposed to the ghastly, Satanical machination called government!

There can be no honest doubt: Jesus is an anarchist!

God's People are to be Volunteers and Self-Rulers in the Kingdom of Christ

Some may object to the designation of Jesus as an anarchist--as some may counter, What about the Kingdom of Christ that is to be established after the Judgement? But as was pointed out in several places above, the "Kingdom of Christ" will in no sense be an actual government as they have existed on Earth and operated by mortals. For the Kingdom of Christ is to be the diametrically functional opposite of any government which has ever existed on Earth before. Thus, it is perfectly fine to refer to the "Kingdom of Christ" so long as one bears in mind that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any historical government that has ever existed. And so when it is said herein that "Jesus is an anarchist," this is merely an objective designation as it refers to all Earthly, mortal governments, and all governments of their kind. People have been trained from birth by the Satanic, mortal governments to fear this word and to recoil from it, but it is used here only in its most objective sense.

It has been said above that the Kingdom of Christ is to be the functional opposite of any government which has ever existed before. What exactly is meant by this?

Well, to begin with, unlike all mortal governments, which compel people to support them whether they want to or not--in the form of taxes, etc.--the only thing which anyone can give to God which He does not already have is their voluntary love. God gives to all their very life, and God sustains all (Job 34:14,15; Acts 17:25). The seeking of material possessions means nothing to God as He is what makes their very existence possible. Therefore taxes and their like will have no place in God's Kingdom, as God has no need for such material support, as do the mortal governments.

But God is always seeking our love: but true love cannot be forced from someone, real love can only be a voluntary process. Therefore there will be no compulsion on the part of God. As it is written in Psalm 110:3 concerning the establishment of Jesus's Kingdom:

Your people shall be volunteers
In the day of Your power;
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,
You have the dew of Your youth.

Thus the people of God's Kingdom shall be volunteers! How different indeed from all the mortal governments which compel people to support them through theft and extortion!

And in further elaboration of this, let us consider the following passage from Revelation:

Revelation 5:8-10: Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:

"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
[verse 10:] And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth." (See also Rev. 1:6.)

Yet what exactly is verse 10 in the above passage talking about? If we righteous shall all be volunteers and all the workers of iniquity have been cast into Hell, then who exactly is left for us to be king over and what exactly shall we be reigning over? Each other? Does that make any sense?

Obviously the only who for us to be kings over is our own persons and the only what for us to reign over shall be our own domain. For the first time in history mankind will truly be free from the yolk of bondage--that Satanic world system of servitude in all of its many guises. For the first time ever we will be self-rulers and our homes truly will be our castles! We shall be complete and absolute sovereigns over our own lives!

Because it very much bears repeating, I will leave this section by citing what Paul had to say on this matter one more time, for he said it as well and as plainly as it could possibly be stated:

1 Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Amen.

In Closing

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried."--Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Part I, Chapter 5, "The Unfinished Temple," in What's Wrong with the World.

In all of my research into Jesus Christ I have discovered that He is nothing if not a perfectly consistent libertarian, at least as it concerns His political ethic. I could come across not one instance of Him contradicting this position, either in word or in action. I can't say that I was really surprised by this, although I suppose to many it may be surprising to learn this. For one thing, when Jesus gave the Golden Rule as the ultimate social ethic (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), it's clear that He actually meant it. Yet, as was demonstrated above, this ethic is just a different formulation of the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, at least as a political ethic. As a strictly political ethic it is actually completely congruent with the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, in that as political ethics they actually prohibit the same activity: i.e., aggression against people's just property--and ultimately all just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first non-aggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of homesteading).

What I have shown above is that Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are incompatible with government. Indeed, governments throughout history have been the most demonic force to ever exist on Earth. We need not lament their passing, but instead look forward to it.

Before I leave you, there exists a couple of other points that need to be mentioned as to what the importance of this message is:

To start with, as Christians how can we be attentive to the cries of the oppressed if we don't even recognize the oppressor? How can we comfort and give aid to someone if we don't even recognize them as a victim? We are liable to be obtuse and uncaring to those who have been unjustly wronged by this Satanic world system if we don't even recognize the main instrument of Satan's power on this Earth. So that is first and foremost: by realizing and understanding the truth as to the diabolical origin of government one will thereby have gained back part of one's humanity which this Satanic world system has worked so hard in making people oblivious to. One need only watch some of the old Nazi propaganda films of thousands of German youths goose-stepping in unison to realize just how effective this demonic world system can sometimes be in striping people of their humanity.

Second, according to the Bible, it makes a difference as to when Jesus's Second Coming will occur depending on our actions in being able to raise the awareness of the world's population. While although I mentioned Étienne de la Boétie in the introduction and pointed out that if a critical mass of the population could come to understand and accept the truth as to the true nature of governments that it would be enough to topple them, this is ultimately true because it would in this case hasten the coming of Jesus Christ! Thus Peter wrote about Christians being able to hasten the coming of Christ:

2 Peter 3:11,12: Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

And another extremely important reason for this message presented herein has already been touched on in one of the above sections. The Bible tells of a massive End-Times deception perpetrated by Lucifer upon the masses in the form of the Anti-Christ. Although if one understands what the coming of God's real Christ is to be about--as Paul puts it "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor. 15:24)--then it will be impossible for one to be deceived by the Anti-Christ, as the Anti-Christ will come to strengthen government, not to abolish it. Some Christians mistakenly believe that so long as one accepts a person called "Jesus" as their Lord and Savior then they will have eternal salvation. Yet there will be many people in the End-Times Judgement who will consider themselves to be good Christians worshiping the true Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and yet in doing so they will have condemned themselves to Hell! The Anti-Christ will present himself as being the Second Coming of Jesus! But Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)! Thus if one worships a lie in place of the truth then the fact that one will have called this lie by the name of "Jesus" will be of no help! In fact, to do so is blasphemy! In order for one to really worship Jesus one first has to know what the truth of Jesus is about. And that, my friends, is the ultimate purpose of this document: that people may come to know the real Jesus. And what Jesus is about is liberty--at least as politics is concerned.

But lastly, many unjust government actions have been supported by self-professed Christians, such as with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, even though such unjust laws are completely unjustifiable from a Biblical perspective and indeed very anti-Christian in the most literal sense of the word. As well, such government actions as taxes are also completely anti-Christian. Thus, in clearly demonstrating how Jesus was nothing if not a perfectly consistent libertarian--at least as it concerned His political ethic--from this Christians can get a clear picture as to what their objectives should be as it concerns such matters, instead of "giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" as Paul put it (1 Tim. 4:1). I dread to think how many young men have been raped in the U.S. prison system because they had violated some make-believe "crime" against using or selling certain pharmaceuticals--that aggresses against no one--which people calling themselves Christians had supported. As Christians, we need to be aware of the tricks Satan has used throughout history to get people to support his empowerment. We need to be above all the pettiness and walk in the clear light of liberty which Jesus commanded us and declare everyone to be a sovereign over their own domain, unless they should violate another's right of the same.

**********
Appendix: Articles Everyone Should be Familiar With:

The Anatomy of the State by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

Defense Services on the Free Market by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html

The Private Production of Defense by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_ 1/14_1_2.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ Hoppe.pdf

Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9 _1_2.pdf

[chris jones]

Hi S.

You did your homework on that post, I can but imagine the time and consideration involved.
I will confess that years ago among my possessions I had a large very beautiful bible on a shelf in my dining room, I had bought it for my folks and when they passedon theyleft it for me.. I resigned myself to the fact that either I understand this bible or I'm nothing but a hypocrite to keep it in my house.. I tried in vain to get a handle on it, finally I enrolled in a night school to study the word. This involved tuition and the purchase of concordances, translations from the  original Aramaic and critical Greek etc.
I admit I found certain things I personally disagreed with from the heart, the alterations that took place in the holy councils, though I had access to some works the general public may not. And, I did not agree with the the money end of the religions that I would have to understand jibber jabber. Id like to tell you what I left with.
The golden rule.
Love God with all your heart mind and soul... and I must add, this to me is of the most importance.
God works through people, not to be sarcastic ,  he can not come down and sit with us and drink a coffee. However I truly believe he manifests himself through his creation, us, at those very specail times.
Those of conscience are connected to the creator in a very special enlightened way.
i too believe our Creator does not like a fence sitter, ones who care to see which way the wind blows before making decisions.
Nor do I believe he want his children, which we are, subjected to cruelty, just s a father on earth he knows his kids.
I do not know if what I have just written will make much  sense. I hope it does.
Though I am not a person who attends church, my place of worship is wherever i should find myself as I believe our creator is in all things.and my communication to my creator is a deep and personnel one.
I found my way from the pit of agony I was in from the war, only with Gods help.
Does anyone believe that our creator wants his kids subjected to domination, loss of free will, mindless followers of some government, killing for the elite, paying scumbags for the right to live on the earth he created. I do not believe he does. Does anyone think he wants his kids to lay down and die, to accept the brutality of the powers. Again i do not believe so.
I have rambled, I apologize, simply put our if is the fact we have a soul, I am with hope that those of us in this nation seek to give it attention. It basically real simple, what is Right and what is wrong. Is it not time for our citizenry to question their stand, to look into their souls.

[Dig]

Chris, your communications provide this entire forum a wealth of perspective that enriches our very lives.

I have never regarded your posts as ramblings and appreciate very much the time you spend here.

That said, I have a similar perspective as you on our creator.  In any case, all of that work was done by the mises contributor Prof. Murray N. Rothbard.  I simply read it a while ago and found it fitting to post here.  I lack both the literary talents, the libertarian expertise, and the theological expertise to ever compose such a masterpiece.

[PatriotX]

So, nice to hear such a breath of fresh air from you Sane.  The time is growing short.  Even now we approach the destruction of all earthly kingdoms.  Beginning with America.  And ending with the Anti-Christ world government being destroyed by the coming of the Lord.  God Almighty has set the course.  And it is unfailing.....

Afterall, How can evil bring forth "life".  It must end in utter destruction.



Patriot X

(P.S.  How many of these conclusions are "your own"?  Just curious.  Nevermind.  You just posted your response before I could get it out of you....)

[Dig]

So, nice to hear such a breath of fresh air from you Sane.  The time is growing short.  Even now we approach the destruction of all earthly kingdoms.  Beginning with America.  And ending with the Anti-Christ world government being destroyed by the coming of the Lord.  God Almighty has set the course.  And it is unfailing.....



Patriot X

(P.S.  How many of these conclusions are "your own"?  Just curious.  Nevermind.  You just posted your response before I could get it out of you....)

I do not believe in the end of America, I believe in the enforcement of the constitution.  I do believe in never having an anti-christ world gov (no arguments there).

I wrote none of that, it was here: http://anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

I just reposted it (needed many posts as there is a limit on characters).  I plaigerize about everything and have little original thoughts whatsoever.  Some people give me credit for stuff I copy, I try to correct them whenever I see it.  If you are ever curious, just PM me.

Thanks

[PatriotX]

Jesus is no doubt an anarchist when it comes to "Satan's rulership"..... It would seem that once sin is clearly understood and clearly eradicated by the presence of the Lord and this prophesied union with the perfection of the saints, that government will have no need of representing anything we have understood it to be up until now.


Patriot X

[PatriotX]

Then again.  I may just be mind-controlled.  And I will let time and death help iron that out for me personally.  I struggle with my faith just like the rest of you (to retain what is left of it).


Patriot X

[Dig]

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 2/4/2008 4:49PM 
Former CIA Analyst: 'Sibel Edmonds is Talking About Treason, Cover-Up at Highest Levels of U.S. Government'
Philip Giraldi Slams the American MSM, Says Former FBI Translator's Allegations of the Sale of U.S. Nuke Secrets to the Foreign Black Market 'Must be Heard'...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5649#more-5649
Former CIA analyst and international security and counter-terrorism expert, Philip Giraldi has filed some of the American media's best reports (even though we realize that's not necessarily saying much) on the Sibel Edmonds case.

If you missed it a week or two ago, Giraldi filed a detailed report on the latest of Edmonds' allegations on the sale of U.S. nuclear secrets, on the foreign black market, to friend and foe alike, as aided and abetted by very high-ranking U.S. officials. His article, published at American Conservative Magazine, and titled "Found in Translation", is a must read for both folks new to the issue, and those who may have missed a beat or two along the way. The case also, if you haven't noticed, ties into the Valerie Plame Wilson/Brewster Jennings CIA Leak Case, and includes allegations that her cover company was outed to foreign agents by the #3 in the State Department, Marc Grossman, years before Robert Novak wrote his infamous column blowing the cover of the previously covert Plame Wilson.

Giraldi has now posted a slightly more general read this morning at Huffington Post, in an article titled "Sibel Edmonds Must Be Heard". The piece offers both an easily readable summary of the case so far, and another scathing (and well-deserved) condemnation of the American corporate mainstream media for all but ignoring the story.

He even notes, correctly, the failure of "so-called gadflies like Olbermann and Moyers" to cover this story, as we detailed ourselves several moons ago...


Of course, Huffington Post, whose current top headline on the "Politics" page is: "Goodfellas: DeNiro Backs Obama In Jersey," has been less than stellar in their own coverage of these issues as well. While they did feature a front page cross-posting of "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg's recent op-ed on the American MSM failure to cover and report on the Edmonds case (originally published at The BRAD BLOG here), so far Giraldi's post has been buried to all but those who seek it out.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: We also write for Huff Po ourselves from time to time.)

We hope you'll read Giraldi's latest Huff Po story in full, so we're loathe to quote too much of it here. The final graf, however, must be noted far and wide:
Article III of the Constitution of the United States defines treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. This has been interpreted by US courts to include the selling or betrayal of defense secrets to foreign powers. Sibel Edmonds is talking about treason at the highest levels of the United State government and it is clear that a cover up is going on orchestrated by the Bush Administration that is being aided and assisted by an acquiescent media. It is time that Sibel's voice be heard.

To quote from the musical 1776: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?

The BRAD BLOG's extensive, years-long coverage of the Sibel Edmonds case can be read here...

[Tyrson]

"Jesus Is an Anarchist
(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)
http://anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
by James Redford"

Awesome post Sane, if we all live by "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" we wouldn't need Government or it's associated trappings.
Well something to strive for.

Peace

[Dig]

High Treason and Felonies
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/02/07/high_treason_and_felonies
Ted Lang 02/07/08

The elephant that has been swept under the carpet to protect the Cheney-Bush regime could not go forever unnoticed by the American people. The unending laundry list of so-called “high crimes and misdemeanors” described in Section 4 of Article II, powers of the President, enumerates such treason that even the Founders and writers of the Constitution, in all likelihood, never had the capacity to either imagine or foresee. Section 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” And Bush has gone on record as to what he thinks of the Constitution he swore to protect and uphold.

As former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill pointed out, Bush was obsessed with invading Iraq and going after Saddam Hussein. We will probably never learn of the real reason behind his planned vendetta, but it seems that his need to do so can be summarized thus: Who will rid me of this meddlesome competitor?

Dick Cheney saw his opportunity to fill Bush’s burning need. Never being able to become the “top gun” in the White House, Cheney saw his chance to provide the solution for Bush’s burning quest. As David McCullough pointed out in his John Adams [© 2001, Simon & Schuster – New York]: “All the frustrations and feelings of stagnation that went with the vice presidency, all that so many others who followed in the office were to bemoan down the years, were felt intensely by the first Vice President.” But with the advent of The Establishment’s New World Order launched in reality by the Bush-Clinton dynasties, strict adherence to the Constitution was seen as counterproductive to the agenda requiring the abrogation national sovereignty.

Vice President Al Gore was given specific solemn duties in terms of “re-inventing government” and strengthening airline security immediately prior to September 11, 2001. And Cheney saw his opportunity to lead and be an effective Vice President. For it was Cheney that started pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency at their Langley, Virginia headquarters on a seemingly regular scheduled basis seeking to induce the needed intelligence thereby providing Bush with the pretext to pull the trigger on Iraq and Saddam. It was in fact Cheney that initiated inquiries regarding “yellowcake” uranium solicitation by Saddam from South Africa.

These inquiries from the office of the Vice President must have been very disturbing for high-level CIA supervisors and managers necessitating immediate verification and a thorough investigation. The first level of inquiry would obviously be localized and be an in-house review, but then progress to where a possible direct investigation of the alleged clandestine activities were said to have been taking place. One of the closest readily accessible and knowledgeable operatives was undercover CIA supervisory operative, Valerie Plame. Plame’s cover was the use of her maiden name, and her “occupation” as an international energy trader with the CIA corporate front of Brewster Jennings Associates. The CIA had set up this phony front as far back as 1994. Plame would have had first-hand knowledge of WMD solicitations, especially nuclear ones centered in Africa.

Most of the information that follows is from the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry under the title of the “Plame Affair.” Having established the Brewster Jennings front, Plame was acknowledged by the CIA to have been a secret operative there from January 1, 2000 forward. She operated in this capacity until exposed by The Establishment’s Bilderberg-connected Washington Post and its reporter, Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003. Here is the opening excerpt from Novak’s article, entitled “Mission to Niger”: “The CIA’s decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet’s knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.”

But if Novak is being honest here when referring to a “routinely “and “low level” inquiry, why did he feel it necessary to investigate and approach high-level “senior officials” in the Cheney-Bush regime? Six paragraphs later, he offers this: “Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. ‘I will not answer any question about my wife,’ Wilson told me. Novak hints at a Plame/Wilson-arranged vacation junket on the taxpayer, playing down the higher level CIA officials’ request to Plame and the fact that Wilson offered to pay for the trip himself.

Why was it necessary to elevate George Tenet’s position by Novak’s posturing of the Cheney-initiated inquiry as being routine and low level, yet denigrate former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV’s trip to Niger and his report as being less than definitive yet requiring comment from two high-level “senior administration officials” of the Cheney-Bush regime?

Consider Novak’s second paragraph: “Wilson’s report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly President Bush did not, before his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson’s mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence, though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.” How does Novak know that “certainly President Bush did not” [see the report]?

Does Novak’s argument seem plausible? It totally disregards and omits the actual source from which the inquiry originated: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Why didn’t Novak start with the very origin of the Niger question? And Wilson’s report was regarded by high-level CIA officials “as less than definitive”? Here’s just the opposite view as cited in Wilson’s July 6, 2003 editorial piece in The New York Times and taken from the archives of CommonDreams.org: “Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger’s uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.”

Now isn’t this a more plausible observation, and wouldn’t it go a long way to ending all doubt as regards the possibility of yellowcake from being secretly shipped to Iraq? Why did Novak choose to ignore this part of Wilson’s editorial? And why would the CIA regard Wilson’s findings as “less than definitive” given the unlikelihood of the huge and overarching coordinated conspiracy required to pull off a secret transfer of uranium to Iraq? And isn’t it possible, that if Tenet wasn’t interested, that it might be because such a possibility was so highly implausible and absurd? And who cares what British intelligence might have learned – what was our CIA’s take on the matter from the getgo?

As we all know today, there was intelligence uncovered through Italian media sources, with a somewhat undefined participation in some way by neocon war agitator Michael Ledeen. But Novak takes the neoconspirator approach in ignoring, for the most part, Cheney’s role, and plays down Bush’s use of those famous 16 words in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” But much more revealing than those 16 words, is the ENTIRE paragraph documenting Bush’s lie, as pointed out by Dennis Hans in his Counterpunch article of July 24, 2004, entitled, “Those 16 Words Still Smell.”

Here’s the entire paragraph taken from Hans citing Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union address: “The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

What utter nonsense! What a pack of unadulterated lies! The CIA was clearly on board with Wilson’s findings and saw absolutely no threat from Niger. And as to those aluminum tubes, here’s Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting’s write-up on July 18, 2003, entitled, “Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg”: “Aluminum tubes: In the State of the Union address and elsewhere, the White House has claimed that Iraq was seeking to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in processing uranium, tubes Bush said would be ‘suitable for nuclear weapons production.’ But a report in the Washington Post (9/19/02) months before Bush’s address noted that leading scientists and former weapons inspectors seriously questioned the administration’s explanation – pointing out that the tubes, which would be difficult to use for uranium production, were more plausibly intended for artillery rockets. The Post also noted charges that the ‘Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence.’ Commendably, some reporters, like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell (7/14/03), have questioned the aluminum tubes claim in recent reporting about Bush’s State of the Union address.”

Clearly disenchanted with the “obstructionism” of the intelligence community, Cheney, along with the help of then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, set up an independent intelligence operation, Office of Special Plans headed up by neoconservative neoconspirator, Zionist Douglas Feith, that would fit cozily into Bush’ nebulous description of “our intelligence sources.”

Robert Novak, if for no other reason than his inborn curiosity tempered by years of balancing it against legal parameters in getting to the bottom of a story, should have known that attacking Wilson by exposing the latter’s wife as a “CIA operative” would blow her cover as well as that of Brewster Jennings, then a nine-year-old successful covert operation with a highly significant security mission. Here’s a segment from Wikipedia: “According to Murray S. Waas in the American Prospect of February 12, 2004, the CIA source warned Novak several times against the publication: two ‘administration officials’ spoke to the FBI and challenged Novak’s account about not receiving warnings not to publish Plame’s name; according to one of the officials, ‘At best, he is parsing words .... At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think.’ Novak's critics argue that after decades as a Washington reporter, Novak was well aware of Plame’s CIA status due to the wording he used in his column. A search of the LexisNexis database for the terms ‘CIA operative’ and ‘agency operative’ showed Novak had accurately used the terms to describe covert CIA employees, every time they appear in his articles.”

The primary sources of Novak’s supposedly new-found information on Plame were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. It is now established that Armitage, Bush’s former Deputy Secretary of State, serving in that capacity from 2001 until 2005, was Novak’s primary “inside source.” Armitage was second in command at the State Department formerly headed by Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

The third ranking official at the State Department under the Cheney-Bush regime was Marc Grossman. Here’s the Wikipedia write-up of this Cheney-Bush character: “Ambassador Grossman was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey from 1994 to 1997. In Turkey, he promoted security cooperation, human rights and democracy, and a vibrant U.S.-Turkish economic relationship. Ambassador Grossman had previously served as the U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission from 1989 to 1992.”

It was while at a Washington DC reception held at the residence of the Turkish Ambassador that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV met Valarie Plame. They later married in 1998, the marriage being his third and her second. The strong ties that Plame had developed with Turkish diplomats and government officials is precisely what made her a valuable US intelligence asset. It has now, once again been revealed recently by fired former FBI linguist and Turkish translator, Sibel Edmonds, that she had uncovered astonishing, incriminating evidence that Turkey, along with Pakistan, was seeking to acquire nuclear military secrets through the United States State Department. Edmonds, along with others, has pointed the finger at Grossman. Grossman was number three at State, while Douglas Feith was number three at Rumsfeld’s Pentagon.

Contained in the Wikipedia entry under “Douglas Feith,” there is this revelation: “Upon leaving the Pentagon, Feith established the Washington, DC law firm of Feith & Zell. His law firm colleague, Marc Zell, was resident in Israel. Three years later, Feith was retained as a lobbyist by the Turkish government. Among other clients, his firm represented defense corporations Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Lockeed Martin and Northrop Grumman are among the largest defense corporations on the US government’s paid contractor list, Lockeed being the largest. And again, with Feith, we see the “Turkish connection.”

Is this why the FBI required a translator in Sibel Edmonds who was fluent in the Turkish language? In an article that succinctly articulates the situation concerning Sibel Edmonds and her gagging by the Cheney-Bush regime, Gary Leupp, in his January 29, 2008 piece for Counterpunch entitled, “We Can’t Afford to Let Them Spill the Beans,” offers: “Over 120 Israelis were detained after 9/11, some failing polygraph tests when asked about their involvement in intelligence gathering. But they were not held or charged with any illegal activity but rather deported. As former FBI translator and whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds has revealed, there was a curious failure of the government before 9/11 to act upon intelligence pertaining to an al-Qaeda attack. Most importantly Edmonds, defying the gag order that former Attorney General Ashcroft imposed on her in 2002, is implicating Marc Grossman, formerly the number three man in the State Department, in efforts to provide U.S. nuclear secrets to Pakistan and Israel. She suggests this was done through Turkish contacts and Pakistani contacts, including the former head of Pakistan's ISI who funneled funds to Mohamed Atta!”

Leupp continues: “Edmonds claims that during her time at the FBI (September 20, 2001 to March 22, 2002) she discovered that intelligence material had been deliberately allowed to accumulate without translation; that inept translators were retained and promoted; and that evidence for traffic in nuclear materials was ignored. More shockingly, she charges that Grossman arranged for Turkish and Israeli Ph.D. students to acquire security clearances to Los Alamos and other nuclear facilities; and that nuclear secrets they acquired were transmitted to Pakistan and to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the ‘father of the Islamic bomb,’ who in turn was selling nuclear technology to Libya and other nations.”

Leupp goes on: “She links Grossman to the former Pakistani military intelligence chief Mahmoud Ahmad, a patron of the Taliban who reportedly arranged for a payment of $100,000 to 9/11 ringleader Atta via Pakistani terrorist Saeed Sheikh before the attacks. She suggests that he warned Pakistani and Turkish contacts against dealings with the Brewster Jennings Corp., the CIA front company that Valerie Plame was involved in as part of an effort to infiltrate a nuclear smuggling ring. All very heady stuff, published this month in the Times of London (and largely ignored by the U.S. media). She does not identify Grossman by name in the Times.”

Why is this blockbuster of a real conspiracy and proven treason against our nation not being reported by the American corporate mainstream media? We know why: the gatekeeper, with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s full approval, is The New York Times, and as I pointed out in my earlier piece quoting news industry insider, Bernard Goldberg, “If the Times decrees a story important, by definition it is important. And when the Times ignores a story – or a book or a social trend or an idea – then it is invisible.”

The deliberate outing of covert CIA operative and a CIA front that had been effective for nine years was orchestrated by Vice President Dick Cheney. All of Novak’s sources came from that particular office of the Cheney-Bush operation. This occurred while Plame was probably as close as Sibel Edmonds was to exposing the sale of nuclear secrets by “our” State Department to Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. Turkey and Israel have very tight diplomatic and intelligence ties. Only a few months back, Edmonds revealed that in addition to the Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s direct and egregious involvement in the espionage case involving former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin that it was only the tip of the iceberg. She offered back then that at least FIVE espionage cases could have been made against Israel and its criminal lobby! How has our Zionist MSM handled this? By the way, Sibel Edmonds is Jewish!

So the Zionist New York Times is silent, as are the rest of the media in reverence to the Times’ dominating role over news and information in America. Isn’t it a lot easier to now see why co-traitor and Democrat Nancy Pelosi wants impeachment off the table? If Cheney is impeached, he could be arrested and tried for violating Title 18, Section 794, Part b, which covers espionage operations during time of war. Such a violation is punishable by either death or life in prison. Outing a covert CIA operative is precisely this kind of counter-espionage activity forbidden by this law, as well as is the selling of nuclear military secrets during a time of war. The State Department transfer of nuclear secrets to Turkey eventually found its way to Iran. Curious how Cheney-Bush are using the same approach as succeeded in igniting the war with Iraq towards Iran; yet, Cheney outed Plame who could have provided POSITIVE evidence that Iran DID at least receive nuclear secrets, albeit, however, from the Cheney-Bush crime machine’s State Department!

It is now easy to understand why there are no impeachment inquiries on the table; it is now also easy to see why there is in effect a “state’s secret” gag order on Edmonds; it is also easy to see why there is a gag order on former Lt. COL. Karen Kwiatkowski of Douglas Feith’s old office, and yet another on Valerie Plame. And Democrats Waxman, and Leahy, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Clinton all know the dirty, filthy treasonous secrets of the deadly, criminal Cheney-Bush regime. Virtually every member of this criminal dictatorship is guilty of one felony and/or capital offense or another. How asinine is it for US to attack Iran now, and also in light of the highly publicized negative NIE? And if the Cheney-Bush neoconspiracy is a treasonous operation, what about the complicit Democrats in Congress who are now accessories after the fact? And what of the continuing complicity of The New York Times and the rest of the “American” MSM? Our government, its political parties and our media are all corrupt, filthy cesspools in desperate need of a serious cleaning!

-###-

February 7, 2008 © Theodore E. Lang 2/03/08 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

[Dig]

Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now
- Former CIA agent says
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/4677486/

Hamid Mir - A former American CIA agent and nuclear expert David Dastych has claimed that main nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, India, Britain, France, the USA, Russia and China are safe but nuclear proliferation could not be controlled now because it has completely slipped out of control.

He said some corrupt officials of the US defence and state departments were involved in the theft of US nuclear secrets which were sold to many countries including Israel and Pakistan.

In an exclusive interview with Hamid Mir, he said questioning Pakistani scientist Dr A Q Khan is not of any high value now. He said Russian-made small neutron bombs are a real threat to world peace. David Dastych (66) was recruited to Polish intelligence in 1961. He joined CIA in 1973 and became a double agent. He served in the USA, Europe, Vietnam, and China and in other countries. He was arrested by Polish counterintelligence in 1987 on charges of espionage for American and Japanese secret services. He was released from prison in 1990, after the fall of communist regime in Poland.

In the following years he worked for several western intelligence services for the monitoring of illegal nuclear trade. He survived two assassination attempts. His son died mysteriously [in poland, after returning from] in the UK in 1996. He is living in Poland these days and writing for some local and international magazines. This interview was done via email.

Q: For how long you worked with the CIA and in which countries you performed your duties? (Also mention about your arrest and then release from prison)

A: I had first informal contacts with the CIA in North Vietnam, when working for the International Supervision and Control Commission (ICSC) and the Polish Intelligence in 1967. Canadian officers enabled them. But I was blocked from going to South Vietnam and I was expulsed from that Communist country (and was) declared "persona non grata."

I went to China then. A formal CIA recruitment was my own initiative and it happened in summer of 1973 in Saigon, Republic of Vietnam. Then, in August 1973, I passed lie-detector tests and interrogation by CIA teams in Paris. In Poland I reported my CIA recruitment and I became a covert agent, in loose contact with the Agency and targeted against the Soviet Union, from 1973 until my arrest in March 1987.

In fact, I became sort of a double agent for the CIA in the Polish Intelligence and Counterintelligence and that lasted fourteen years. I worked in Poland, USSR, Hungary, East Germany and other countries of Eastern and Central Europe - in the countries of the Warsaw Pact. In result of a "sting operation" I was arrested under false accusations of spying for the Japanese Intelligence. Following a secret military trial I got a sentence of 8 years in 1988, but the Communist regime in Poland collapsed in 1989 and I was released by general amnesty in February 1990.

Q: Is it correct that you tried to break up a Soviet Nuclear spy ring in Europe in the 70's?

A: Yes, my information to the CIA about Soviet spies in Western Europe helped the NATO to break up a multinational organisation of Soviet agents (planted in Germany, France, Italy and other countries). This organisation consisted of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians, working in sensitive places. Most of the members of that intelligence network were arrested in a sweeping operation but some escaped. It happened in the second half of the 1970s.

Q: Did you monitor the illegal trade in nuclear materials, weapons parts and technology in 1990's and which particular countries were involved in illegal proliferation?

A: Yes, I did. For me it was a voluntary mission and I worked under many covers in Europe and Asia. Since the beginning of 1992, following a meeting in Jerusalem's "King David Hotel" with a prominent Israeli and international nuclear expert, the late Shalheveth Freier, I performed many special tasks. The purpose of my mission was to penetrate organised crime and intelligence groups trading in nuclear materials, weapons parts and technology. Most of these products originated in Russia and in other states of the former USSR, some also from China.

In my work, I had contacts with several intelligence agencies but I was not employed by any of them. My work lasted until December 16, 1994. At this stage, the countries (or rather their intelligence services and various criminal groups) involved in the nuclear proliferation were mainly Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Baltic states (Latvia and Lithuania), and Kazakhstan. Chinese and Mongolian private groups traded in post-Soviet nuclear materials via Hong Kong.

The countries searching for nuclear materials, weapons and technology were (among other) Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, North Korea and some terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Palestinians from several political-military organisations (al Fatah, Abu Nidal Organisation) often served as intermediaries for Arab and other states. Chechen rebels, fighting against Russia and cooperating with the Russian and other mafias, were an important source of materials and weapons for al-Qaeda.

Several countries, including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, as well as Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Israel were "transit" places for shipments of nuclear materials and products from Russia or other post-Soviet states to "end users" in other countries. Specialised laboratories in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France and other states tested illegally imported nuclear products.

American, Australian, Canadian, and also Mexican businessmen or intelligence "front companies" participated in the illegal nuclear trade and in the proliferation of nuclear technology.

Q: How safe are the Russian and American nuclear weapons.

A: I have no direct access to the Russian and American nuclear secrets but I know from many sources that the main nuclear arsenals of these big nuclear powers, as well as other nuclear states like Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan, are safe and under strict control. In the early 1990s, tactical nuclear weapons from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine were offered on international nuclear black markets.

Most of these weapons were offered and sometimes sold by military-business groups, some via organised crime groups. A few transactions of very expensive nuclear materials and products were organised by specialised Russian military enterprises. Technical descriptions of these materials and products were available from Russian military laboratories.

Q: Do you know anything about the nuclear purchases made by Pakistan in the past?

A: Yes, I think I could trace some purchases of nuclear materials and products by Pakistan from Russia on black market. In fact, there was no other way to get them. Saudi Arabia and Brunei financed some of these transactions. I remember a shipment of special nuclear products from Russia to Austria in late 1992, which went to Pakistan then. It was perfectly organised from both sides -- the seller and the buyer.

The products were shipped by Russian military plane, delivered to a Russian diplomatic mission, inspected by experts and sold and shipped to the buyer. The end user was Pakistan but the products went there through a third party. No Pakistani officials or other people took part in the transaction carried out in Austria, near Vienna. Money was paid through banks, not in cash. But there were also cash-goods exchanges in Germany, Switzerland, Luxemburg and Liechtenstein.

Q: Do you know anything about some US officials selling nuclear secrets to others?

A: I do, but only through my American contacts in the Intelligence and the FBI. Some corrupt US officials of the Department of Defence and State Department facilitated the theft of US nuclear secrets (technology) from American national laboratories -- Los Alamos and Sandia -- to customers in several countries, including Pakistan. This procedure involved Israeli and Turkish intelligence and also Pakistan's ISI.

Dr A Q Khan's laboratories were brokers for nuclear proliferation to other countries, including Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Myanmar and other states looking for nuclear technology. This information first surfaced five years ago through reports of a Turkish-American FBI translator, Ms Sibel Edmonds. She was gagged by US court decision and only recently she disclosed more information, which is still being blocked by the Bush Administration. It was revealed in part by three articles, published by "The Sunday Times" in London on the 6th, 20th and 26th of January 2008 (with my contribution).

Q: Is it correct that US officials sold nuclear secrets not only to Pakistan but also to Israel and some Arab countries?

A: Of course, they did. The main recipient of the most of the US nuclear information was always Israel, specifically after the capture, sentencing and jailing of their main spy in the USA. Jonathan Pollard, whose handler was a former top Israeli intelligence officer Rafi Eitan (now member of the Israeli government and chairman of the Pensioners Party).

An informal group in the Mossad composed of right-wing operatives and working hand-in-hand with the Turkish and Pakistani Intelligence was offering US nuclear technology to some Arab countries and to other countries. They did this for profit and, in some cases also for political motives, for example, to get direct proof of some foreign states illegally purchasing nuclear materials or technology. At present, this might be used as a justification to prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Q: How Israeli intelligence helped China to break into American nuclear laboratories. Why Israel is still a trusted friend of USA?

A: It's a long story, going back to the 1980s, when the Mossad sold PROMIS software to the Chinese Military Intelligence (PLA-2) via its top agent and business operative, the late British publisher and billionaire Robert Maxwell. Since then Chinese intelligence developed highly effective "hackers teams" which use modernised versions of PROMIS to break into American nuclear labs. But this is only one of many methods of spying by the Chinese, who are extremely numerous and active in the United States. Israel, as a state, was and still is a trusted friend and political and military ally of the United States.

But in Israel itself, there are several political groups, which have divergent goals. The present alliance of the Bush II Administration and their "neocon" advisers in particular, is with the Israeli right wing Likud coalition, which is in conflict with the Palestinians and with Arab and Muslim states. Israel is a nuclear power, the biggest in the Middle East, though it officially does not admit to the possession of the nuclear weapons.

Q: Dr A Q Khan is under a lot of restrictions from many years in Pakistan but why he is still very important for the Western media and Western governments?

A: It is important to the West and to the USA in particular to question Dr AQ Khan about his nuclear proliferation activities, which did a lot of harm to the world's efforts to stop the spread of the nuclear weaponry and technology. Dr Khan is not a nuclear scientist himself and his contribution to the development of the nuclear arsenal by Pakistan was by theft of the blueprints of uranium enrichment technology from Holland's Urenco and by his organisational skills to develop the massive centrifuge uranium enrichment systems in Pakistan.

But Dr Khan and his collaborators have also organised a profit-based, semi-official system to sell Pakistan's nuclear technology to other countries. Western media are simply looking for a "scoop", trying to approach Dr AQ Khan and to interview him. Western governments would like to know more about the ways of spreading nuclear technology to the countries, like Iran, Syria and several other to stop that procedure.

But I am sure that it isn't Dr Khan but other Pakistani nuclear scientists who were sharing their knowledge with other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and also with al-Qaeda. Therefore, the questioning of Dr Khan himself is not of any high value now.

Q: Do you think that nuclear terrorism is a real threat and if yes then how to control nuclear proliferation?

A: Sure, nuclear terrorism is the ugliest nightmare of our times and the most dreaded threat to humanity. The all-over proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, especially of simple methods of producing radiation weapons, "dirty bombs" and other devices is the utmost danger to the whole world. It is still possible to control the nuclear proliferation done by states.

But how to control the spread of the nuclear know-how by individuals, motivated by greed or ideology? The most dangerous scenario is passing of miniature nuclear weapons, like the Russian-made small neutron bombs based on a special high-pressure technology product, to terrorists for some political reason. I don't think the nuclear proliferation could be fully controlled any more. It slipped out of control completely.

Q: Do you think that Russian-made small neutron bombs are not safe and already slipped in the hands of under world or terrorists?

A: These Russian miniature neutron devices have been first described by the American inventor of the neutron bomb - Dr Samuel Cohen. He has confirmed to me the formula of the main component of this device, on a technical specification I have gotten from a Russian military laboratory. These devices are in the possession of Russian special services and -- so far they seem to be safe.

I think that the Russians are keeping them for a "special occasion". A small bomb of this type, size of a baseball ball, can destroy a ship. My research of a few last years didn't prove that Russians had given or sold these devices to terrorists. But, in the past, they were selling the nuclear product (a powerful explosive), which is the component of these neutron devices. This product was used in nuclear warheads and probably had been sold to Pakistan in 1992, in Vienna.

Q: Who tried to assassinate you and why?

A: There had been several attempts on my life in the 1980s and 1990s, in Poland, in Hungary and also in Russia. I was lucky to survive them, thank to my intel protection and good luck. But probably they (a post-Soviet intelligence or Russian mafia) had poisoned my only son, Olaf Dastych, 24, in England in 1996.

Hamid Mir, the author of this article, is a top Pakistani reporter, head of the Geo TV Bureau in Islamabad. He has won a world-wide acclaim for his interviews with Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, before and following 9/11. His new book about OBL is due to appear in Britain, later this year.

David Dastych is a former Polish intelligence operative, who served in the 1960s-1980s and was a double agent for the CIA from 1973 until his arrest in 1987 by then-communist Poland on charges of espionage. Now he is an international journalist, who writes for Poland's acclaimed weekly, WPROST, Canada Free Press, and The Polish Panorama (Canada), Ocnus Net (Britain), FrontPageMagazine and The New Media Journal (USA), Axis Information and Analysis (international), Nachrichten Heute (Switzerland), Agentura.ru (Russia), and runs his own David’s Media Agency.


This article was first published at Dhaka, Bagladesh

[aura]

Go Here for Further instructions -----> http://mysticalmaven.com/blog/2008/02/08/video-sibel-edmonds-kill-the-messenger-part-i/   

[chris jones]

 Treasonous sellouts do not betray their masters.
Hi Pelosi. You rat lying peice of dung, boy was I wrong about you, you got me fooled kid. Never again.
Once you got in, no explanations no word for the commoners , simply impeachment is off the table. Concessions, deceptions , betrayal to your oath.
But your got what you wanted didnt you kid.
It may suprise you to know thre are human beings who souls and conscience have no price.

[Dig]

Valerie Plame Wilson Describes Sibel Edmonds Disclosures as 'Stunning'
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5685#more-5685
BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 2/12/2008 2:51PM

Says She Has Been Following Recent Blockbuster Series in British Paper Concerning U.S. Nuclear Secrets Espionage, Allegations That Her Cover Company, Brewster Jennings, Was Exposed by a Former High-Ranking State Department Official as Far Back as 2001...

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson says the recent disclosures in the UK's Sunday Times concerning the sale of U.S. nuclear secrets to the foreign black market, as aided by high-ranking government officials, are "stunning."

The previously covert agent, who had worked in the agency's counter-proliferation division for years, monitoring traffic in the nuclear black market under the guise of a cover company named Brewster Jennings until being outed by Administration officials, was asked about the recent series of explosive stories in the British paper during an interview this morning with Florida radio host Henry Raines of American AM.

Those disclosures include allegations that Brewster Jennings' real identity as a CIA front company, was outed to Turkish officials by then Asst. Sec. of State for European Affairs, Marc Grossman, as early as 2001...


A text transcript of the interview, as well as the audio, has now been posted at the end of this article.

The series of three Times stories so far have corroborated information detailed by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds has been gagged by the Bush Administration's Department of Justice in this country under the "State Secrets Privilege" since 2002, disallowing her from speaking about her work at the bureau. In a BRAD BLOG exclusive late last year, Edmonds announced she would disclose all of the information she'd be barred from revealing to any major U.S. broadcast media outlet who would allow her to tell the full story.

Every U.S. mainstream media outlet failed to take up her offer, though the London Times contacted her through us after we ran our story. After they subsequently ran their first blockbuster in the series early last month, the story became front page news around the world, as the U.S. media continues, incredibly enough, to ignore it.

The second and third stories in the Times series alleged a "senior State Department" official participated, along with a network of moles at sensitive nuclear instillations and military bases, in the sale of nuclear secrets to American allies and enemies alike. The official has subsequently been identified as Grossman, a former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, and at the time of the alleged disclosures, the #3 State Department official beneath Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.

Grossman, according to the Times' and Edmonds' allegations, even tipped off Turkish officials, as long ago as 2001, to the fact that Plame Wilson's Brewster Jennings was a CIA cover company. Grossman denies the charges.

While Plame Wilson offered today that she has "no insight" into the story, other than what's been published by the Times, she joined Edmonds and other whistleblowers, such as Daniel Ellsberg, in her criticism of the U.S. mainstream media for failing to investigate and report on the story.

"I think it's very interesting that it's showing up across the pond and not here at all, in any of our newspapers," Plame Wilson said.

"It's fair to say that in general the American media has been extremely intimidated, it's been supine, and I think it's let the American people down," she explained, pointing to the run-up to the Iraq War when the U.S. media, "took simply what the Administration was dishing up and didn't question it, didn't analyze it, didn't go seek secondary sources. And look where we are today as a result of that."

While noting that there are "a couple of brighter spots" in the media, Plame Wilson said it's "sort of thin gruel out there right now"

Her comments echo ones recent made in an op/ed originally published by The BRAD BLOG by Ellsberg, the legendary former Defense Department official who released the explosive "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in the 70's. He excoriated the U.S. media in light of their failure to cover Edmonds' disclosures, charging that they were "participating in a cover-up of information."

"Many, if not most, covert operations deserve to be disclosed by a free press. They are often covert not only because they are illegal but because they are wildly ill-conceived and reckless," Ellsberg wrote in reference to the disturbing allegations in the Edmonds case. "Such activities persist, covertly, to the point of national disaster because the press neglects what our First Amendment was precisely intended to protect and encourage it to do: expose wrongdoing by officials."

Plame Wilson told Raines that she believes the American media has been "intimidated", "supine", and have "let the American people down."

Former CIA agent, Philip Giraldi recently covered the latest Edmonds allegations in some depth, filling in a few details in an article titled "Found in Translation" published by American Conservative Magazine. A few days later he joined the call for additional media coverage, as well as investigations by elected officials, in a subsequent article, "Sibel Edmonds Must be Heard" published at Huffington Post.

When Raines expressed to Plame Wilson during today's interview that felt the allegations bear further investigation she said again, "I agree! It is stunning," and added "It's a very frustrating period...I don't have any terrific suggestions on how to get this story played in the United States."

When asked about the allegations that Grossman outed her covert Brewster Jennings network, she said she was unable to speak to those charges.

"Not only can I say, 'no comment,' but I mean 'no comment' because I don't know anything to add to it," she claimed. "Certainly during the run-up to the war and until I was outed, I was focused almost to the exclusion of anything else on just trying to run safe and effective operations, trying to figure out what the hell was going on in Iraq, what were the scientists, what were they doing, where were their secret sites."

Edmonds is currently unavailable for comment while traveling. If we're able to hear from her, we'll update this story appropriately.

BRAD BLOG articles from our own long series of coverage and exclusives on the Sibel Edmonds case can be read here.

American AM's entire interview with Plame Wilson is approximately 30 minutes. The portion during which the Edmonds allegations are discussed begins near the :20 minute mark. That section of the interview has been transcribed below, thanks to VelvetRevolution.us' Emily Levy. MP3 download here, or listen online below...
HENRY RAINES:I imagine that you still follow closely news about the topic that you were working on, the counter-proliferation.

VALERIE PLAME WILSON: Oh, absolutely. I, between that and terrorism, those are the two primary most critical threats facing our nation today.

RAINES: There's a really disturbing series of articles, investigative articles, that have been appearing in the Times of London over the last month or so, I think there've been three installments so far …

VPW: Yes, mm-hmm.

RAINES: …and there's practically a mainstream news blackout here in the United States. We've done numerous shows on it since the very first installment came out. In fact, we about a week and a half ago we interviewed the first person to have a column or article written in a American daily newspaper, which was the North Mississippi Journal. So, you know, we hear all these worries and concerns about Iran building this or …

VPW: Mm-hmm.

RAINES: … some other country building that, but the story in the Times of London front page, respected newspaper, is about the third highest person in the State Department, identified in the American Conservative as Mark Grossman …

VPW: Mm-hmm.

RAINES: … actually selling our secrets to Turkey and to Israel, and then Turkey would resell them to Pakistan …

VPW: Right. No, it's stunning. I've seen the series. I don't, right, I think it's very interesting that it's showing up across the pond and not here at all, in any of our newspapers. I have no insight into it, any more than what you're reading, but it's very interesting. But I think, I think it's fair to say that in general the American media has been extremely intimidated, it's been supine, and I think it's let the American people down. Look at the run-up to the war with Iraq, for starters, and how, again in general, they took simply what the Administration was dishing up and didn't question it, didn't analyze it, didn't go seek secondary sources. And look where we are today as a result of that. I think the media understands this and is grappling with these issues but because of consolidation and increasingly shrinking budgets, foreign and otherwise, devoted to any sort of investigative or foreign reporting, we're just going to, it's sort of thin gruel out there right now, with a couple of brighter spots, but pretty thin otherwise.

RAINES: And how would you suggest our audience can help this story see the light of day? Because it's just amazing to me, an act of, I'm not a legal scholar on this, but an act of treason, I would think, when the third highest person in the State Department is selling this, bears investigation.

VPW: I agree! It is stunning. As I've traveled across the country speaking in the last couple of months, it is clear to me that Americans of all political stripes are really hungry for information. And it comes to, it's so watered down, and you don't, of course, know the veracity of what it is you're reading, whether it's on the Internet or whether it's mainstream media. It's a very frustrating period. And I, I don't have any terrific suggestions on how to get this story played in the United States. Maybe they do have plans, I don't know if they have a sort a sister paper in the United States for it to run here.

RAINES: Well, it would be, I don't know, Fox News. It's a Rupert Murdoch paper. Wouldn't be hard to get the story out if the motivation was there. I understand from Sibel Edmonds that it is, the investigation is increasing. The Times of London is putting more resources into it because it's becoming a prestigious investigation there.

In our last couple of minutes, I want to ask you one more question related to that … because the third installment of the story deals directly, well, you can't acknowledge it directly, but is very similar to what the firestorm around you was. Because the same State Department official is alleged to have tipped off the American Turkish Council …

VPW: Mm-hmm.

RAINES: … which was going to hire a firm called Brewster Jennings, which would have given an insight into what was going on, he tipped them off and said, 'Don't hire them, they're …"

VPW: Yeah.

RAINES: "… CIA." That's got to be disturbing to you.

VPW: Not only can I say, 'No comment,' but I mean 'no comment' because I don't know anything to add to it. Certainly during the run-up to the war and until I was outed, I was focused almost to the exclusion of anything else on just trying to run safe and effective operations, trying to figure out what the hell was going on in Iraq, what were the scientists, what were they doing, where were their secret sites. For me personally it wasn't until Colin Powell, General Colin Powell, gave his speech before the U.N. in February 2003, right before the war, that, as I write in my book, it was sort of the first time that I got my head out of the operational weeds and said, "Wait a minute. What he is saying does not match with my, with my understanding and my knowledge of the intelligence on this issue." And I would, I just felt absolutely sick because I knew that what he was saying, it sounded much more robust than what it was in reality. And I just thought, uh!, I just hope someone well above me in the ranks knew, had much better access to information than I did, because it just did not match up. I felt absolutely sick at heart about it.

RAINES: I apologize to our listeners, they've been ringing off the hook but Alan and I have decided to keep Valerie Plame Wilson all to ourselves …

VPW: [laughs]

RAINES: … and we've got 60 seconds, Alan, if you want to get something else in here.

ALAN CROSS: Just real quick question. In your book Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House , I guess the question I have is, did you work as a lone operativeall by yourself, or did you have a team of people that worked for you?

VPW: I think that's one of the constructs that Hollywood constantly makes. We think of The Bourne Identity identity or James Bond, the fact is that we're, you are never alone. It is always a team effort. It is not some rogue operator out there changing into his tux to walk into some casino in Monaco. You have the analysts, you have the technical people, you have the folks that are putting together the questions, you have your surveillance team. It really is a team effort. And the people working, my former colleagues at the CIA for the most part are very smart, extremely dedicated people that right now are laboring under a heavily politicized yoke and I hope that that direction can be changed in the future.

[bigron]

Valerie Plame Wilson Describes Sibel Edmonds Disclosures as ‘Stunning’


Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 in News, WMD, Covert Action, Plame, Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton| Comment |

(visit site for many links ): http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/12/valerie-plame-wilson-describes-sibel-edmonds-disclosures-as-stunning/

What disclosures are those? Treason.

Sunday Times 1,2,3. Philip Giraldi 1,2,3.

Now BradBlog reports to us an interview from Tuesday, February 12th 2008, in which “outed” CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson discusses (at 39:00) the allegation that former State Department official Marc Grossman tipped off the Turks and Pakistanis to her nuclear black market-monitoring CIA front company years before we ever heard of her. From Bradblog:

[Plame] says she has been following recent blockbuster series in British paper concerning U.S. nuclear secrets espionage, allegations that her [CIA] cover company, Brewster Jennings, was exposed by a former high-ranking State Department official as long ago as 2001.

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson says the recent disclosures in the UK’s Sunday Times concerning the sale of U.S. nuclear secrets to the foreign black market, as aided by high-ranking government officials, are “stunning.”

The previously covert agent, who had worked in the agency’s counter-proliferation division for years, monitoring traffic in the nuclear black market under the guise of a cover company named Brewster Jennings until being outed by Administration officials, was asked about the recent series of explosive stories in the British paper during an interview this morning with Florida radio host Henry Raines of American AM.

Those disclosures include allegations that Brewster Jennings was outed to Turkish officials as a CIA front, by State Department official Marc Grossman, as early as 2001.

That would be as opposed to by Robert Novak in July of 2003.

Plame says that she can’t confirm it, but she sure doesn’t sound doubtful of Edmonds’ story.

Read the transcript of the interview at Bradblog. Listen to it here.

[Dig]

Pentagon said drawing up plans for strike on Iranian camp
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pentagon_drawing_up_plans_for_strike_0503.html
John Byrne
Published: Saturday May 3, 2008



Military focus shifts from nuclear facilities to Revolutionary Guard

The Pentagon is drawing up plans for a "surgical strike" against an alleged insurgent training camp in Iran, according to the UK Sunday Times' Michael Smith.

Attributing the assertion to Western intelligence officials, Smith asserts that US officials have become increasingly frustrated with Iran's Republican Guard force -- an elite corps of the country's military -- which the Bush Administration has designated a terrorist group. Western officials have accused Iran of helping arming rebel militias in Iraq, and have accused Iran of supplying IEDs.

Smith was the first to reveal the Downing Street Minutes, an account of a secret 2002 meeting between Bush Administration officials and British intelligence surrounding Iraq, in which MI6 director Richard Dearlove remarked that facts around Iraq were being "fixed" around a policy for war.

"US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force," Smith writes."'If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,'" he quotes a defense official as saying.
Nuclear facilities 'not targets'

Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna revealed internal Pentagon planning in a buildup to a potential Iran conflict. Since the reports ran, however, rhetoric about Iran has been toned down and concerns of a potential all-out war have diminished.

American officials are opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Smith says. They believe, however, that an attack on a militant camp could send a message to the Republican Guard.

CBS News reported last week about a potential strike on Iran.

"Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq," they wrote.

"U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program," CBS adds. "New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon."

Sources told Smith that no attack was planned on Iranian nuclear facilities. Such attack plans have been criticized, because many of Iran's facilities are located underground and not all locations might be neutralized by an airstrike.

�If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere," one intelligence officer said.

[TheGoodFight1984]

The WINEP thinktank are fully pro-israel and if you go over the articles written by members on their site pre-9/11, half of the pieces are about ousting saddam.

Here's an interesting one about Saudi Oil reserves and the US / Saudi relationship, citing Saddam as being the most likely candidate to create an oil crisis..

"Realistically, the most likely suspect for creating another energy crisis is Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The United States is worried that he might lash out at the West by shutting down his current oil production of about 3.0mbd. Saddam Hussein would have several reasons to act.
First of all, he benefits domestically when he can demonstrate that he is still a force that global powers have to reckon with.
Secondly, he badly wants economic sanctions removed, and this is a good time to put on maximum pressure for a new deal from the United Nations (UN), combining Iraqi pressure on oil prices with complaints about the sanctions-related suffering of ordinary Iraqis.
Thirdly, he has a history of testing U.S. will during presidential transitions, as he did in January 1993 with a crisis over Iraqi military flights and again in September 1996 with his reoccupation of Kurdish-opposition-controlled northern Iraq."

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=410 - Nov 2000

--------

and a mention of Bin Laden and 'freelance terrorists' in a call for a new kind of fused legal/forceful anti-terrorism policy - Nov 2000

"At a time when U.S. global power seems absolute, the presidential candidates are assiduously avoiding thorny international security issues. Such complacency is misguided because the U.S. faces a greater terrorist threat now than at any point in the past.
The next president will have to confront not just the challenge of rogue states but also free-lance terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. There is much confusion and ambivalence in the higher echelons of government about how to address this augmented threat of terrorism. The problem is not lack of options, but the ineffectiveness of the existing options."

"The U.S. destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in response to charges that bin Laden sponsored the bombing of two U.S. embassies in east Africa demonstrates the potential pitfalls of this strategy: The plant had no apparent connection to bin Laden. Moreover, the legalistic model of holding individual terrorists accountable fails when dealing with state-sponsored terrorism."

"The United States should hold individual states responsible for their conduct and prevent their integration into the international order."

"In effect, the United States needs a flexible anti-terrorist strategy because it confronts threats from both rogue states and rogue individuals."

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=718

-----

I'm just waiting to find the 'catalyzing and catastrophic event, like a new pearl harbour' bit.

[Dig]

Turkey-Contra Affair?

Black market arms deals...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/02/thoughts-on-corrupt-generals.php


The attacks were no mystery. What puzzled Turkish police was the weapons' origin. Glocks are high-quality sidearms, but by last year they had practically become common street weapons in Turkey. More than 1,000 had been taken from criminals, guerrillas, terrorists and assassins all over the country, and authorities believed tens of thousands more had found their way onto the black market

There are many more where those came from. At least three U.S. government agencies are now investigating the massive "disappearance" and diversion of weapons Washington intended for Iraqi government forces that instead have spread to militants and organized gangs across the region. The potential size of the traffic is stunning. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office last month showed that since 2004, some 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols, bought with U.S. money for Iraqi security forces, have gone missing.

snip

Major U.S. arms transfers began when Gen. David Petraeus was commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command--Iraq (MNSTC-I), better known as Minsticky. Its mission was to train, arm and organize Iraq's military and police forces, but the Iraqis' weapons came via the State Department, and the supply line was actually run by private contractors.
Drugs...

According to the State Deparment's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs' 2006 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Turkey is a key player in this industry:
Turkey

I. Summary.

Turkey is a major transit route for Southwest Asian opiates to Europe, and serves as a base and refining center for major narcotics traffickers and brokers.... While most of the heroin trafficked via Turkey is marketed in Western Europe, an increasing amount of heroin and opium also is smuggled from Turkey to the U.S., but not in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the U.S.

II. Status of Country

Turkey is a major transshipment point. Turkey is also a base of operations for international narcotics traffickers and associates trafficking in opium, morphine base, heroin, precursor chemicals and other drugs. The majority of these opiates originate in Afghanistan, and are ultimately trafficked to Western Europe. A smaller but still not insignificant amount of heroin is trafficked to the U.S. via Turkey... Turkish authorities continue to seize large amounts of heroin and precursor chemicals, such as acetic anhydride. It is estimated that multi-ton amounts of heroin are smuggled through Turkey each month. Some heroin is still being refined in Turkey.

[SNIP]

Drug Flow/Transit. Turkey remains a major route, refining center and storage, production and staging area, for the flow of heroin to Europe. Turkish-based traffickers and brokers operate in conjunction with narcotics smugglers, laboratory operators, and money launderers in and outside Turkey. They finance and control the smuggling of opiates to and from Turkey. Afghanistan is the source of most of the opiates reaching Turkey. Morphine and heroin base are smuggled overland from Afghanistan and Pakistan via Iran. Opiates and hashish also are smuggled to Turkey overland from Afghanistan via Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Traffickers in Turkey illegally acquire the heroin precursor chemical, acetic anhydride, from sources in Western Europe, the Balkans and Russia. For fiscal year 2004, 2,304 liters of acetic anhydride were seized in, or destined for, Turkey. Some criminal elements in Turkey reportedly have interests in heroin laboratories operating near the Iranian-Turkish border in Iran. Turkish-based traffickers control much of the heroin marketed to Western Europe.
That's quite straightforward - Turkey is a key player up and down the value chain - yet the comprehensive 228 page report from Paul Wolfowitz' World Bank essentially ignores Turkey's role using various mechanisms of sophistry and mendacity - just as Sibel predicted.


At least three quarters of all heroin sold in Western Europe comes from Turkey - 4 to 6 tons every month - yet the World Bank report mentions Turkey exactly... once!

Here's the reference, in all it's glory:
The large dealers in both Lashkar Gah city and Kandahar claimed that they deal directly with buyers in Pakistan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
That single reference to Turkey is all that the report could muster.
And republican hacks behind the whole thing too, eh? Not like it hasn't happened before...

It is starting to look like a conspiracy theorist's dream? Or just what Sibel Edmonds was talking about all along? And the State Department keeps popping up in these kind of stories.

---------------
Just some food for thought... The fact that it is the courts that are still gagging her suggests just how much pull these "highly placed co-conspirators and connections" really have here in the USA. They have gained influence everywhere in our system. They are our system. And that is our problem.

[SUPREMEMASTER]

This is fricking insane!!!!!!!!

The terrorists are in the Pentagon!!!!!!!!!!!

Bump.