Christianity in Action — the Obama Presidency

Imperialism, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, War
Share

Ever wondered what Christianity looks like in practice? Look no further than… President Obama!

Obama - Christianity in Action

I saw this on August 9 at a demonstration at UT-Austin in front of Gregory Gym and the library. Of all the ridiculous things I’ve seen in the past year, I think this takes the cake.

I asked the gentleman how Obama could be “Christianity in action” if it requires aggression against a neighbor to act. His response, I kid you not, was that back in the first century they had despots as leaders, and now we have representative government. After laughing hysterically, I then proceeded to ask how he justifies his task of blowing up the Middle East, I mean, they’re still his representatives of Christ, right? On the contrary: “Love for neighbor cannot be delegated” said Pope Benedict XVI.

I just can’t wait for Obama to go back to DC so he can put more Christianity into action!

Come back to TLS tomorrow for the full report on the demonstration. Thanks to Heather from LP-Texas for taking the picture. Heroic!

Crossposted at LibertarianChristians.com.

Christianity in Action — the Obama Presidency Read Post »

Everything you need to know about the Wikileaks Afghanistan Leak

Imperialism, Legal System, Technology, War
Share

assange In April, Wikileaks.org released a suppressed video of US soldiers killing civilians in Baghdad, and the world was shocked at what it saw. The boldness of Wikileaks to expose this evil was commendable, and their mission to tell the truth about the war continues. Early last week, Wikileaks revealed 91,371 classified military records about American aggression in Afghanistan, including many detailed reports of civilian deaths. This is the biggest military intelligence leak in history. It brings the war lost in time back to the forefront of the world public.

Everything you need to know about the Wikileaks Afghanistan Leak Read Post »

Separate Oil and State, says Greenpeace

Anti-Statism, Environment, Imperialism, Mercantilism, Taxation, The Left, War
Share

From the Edmonton Journal comes news that some Greenpeace members rappelled off the top of Calgary Tower to hang a banner that read “Separate Oil and State.”

Scott Blasken got this shot from his office window Tuesday morning after Greenpeace unfurled a banner from the Calgary Tower.

Hey, I’m all in favor of separating oil and state. But that means no strategic oil reserves; no taxes, including carbon taxes; no cap-and-trade; no regulations; no moratoriums or bans on offshore or other drilling; no special protections of any kind, including caps on liability for actual damages to private property caused by oil companies;1 no eminent domain (ab)use; and no mercantilistic and imperialistic wars to make the world safe for domestic consumption of foreign oil. But somehow I don’t expect all of this is what the Greenpeace activists confusedly mean by “separate oil and state.” Alas and alack.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.


  1. I’m not talking about limited liability for shareholders here. I’m referring to caps like the $75 million liability cap that has received so much attention in the wake of the BP oil spill, enacted in 1990 as part of the Oil Pollution Act following the Exxon Valdez spill. 

Separate Oil and State, says Greenpeace Read Post »

How one should *not* write a FAQ (Capitalism.org)

Anti-Statism, Business, Libertarian Theory, Private Security & Law, War
Share

On the Capitalism.org FAQ we find this jewel of an answer:

Why is “anarcho-capitalism” a contradiction in terms?

Those who attempt to combine anarchism with capitalism, make the error of confusing the peaceful form of competition of capitalism — trade, ideas, and dollars — with the brutal “jungle” form of competition of anarchism — brutality, whims, and bombs.

Have you ever thought what happens when one ‘corporate protection agency’ disagrees with another? By what method do they solve their dispute? They do it by competition not with dollars, but with guns. They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to force against each other, i.e., a perpetual state of civil war. Under such a system, which gang wins? The one that is the most brutal.

Ok let us add the precision it lacks to this sloppy argument. …

How one should *not* write a FAQ (Capitalism.org) Read Post »

Serving Two Masters

War
Share

MSNBC, a media outfit not known for pro-liberty sentiments, is reporting that there are 3100 organizations involved in the war on terror. The original report comes to us from The Washington Post, another entity not commonly regarded as champions of laissez faire. According to the Post, 1271 government organizations and 1931 private ones are working on counterterrorism. 854,000 people hold top secret clearance. When government programs have become so large that even liberals can’t help but notice, you know you’ve got a problem.

Though liberals are normally (and accurately) described as “big government freaks,” it is difficult to imagine any way to more intractably install big government than to simply make it all secret. This is where those in favor of both small government and “a strong national defense” are simply out of touch with reality. There simply is no way to have both small government and high levels of secrecy about what that government is doing. This is a point Dan Carlin makes in his podcast. Vietnam-era documents which are only now being declassified appear to have only been classified in the first place to avoid embarrassing the people covered in the documents, not for anything we would normally call “national security.” As Carlin points out, these things were intended to be buried until the Congressmen quoted in them were all dead.

Allowing the state to keep secrets is a sure path to expansion of that state. The government regards the leaking of information which undermines people’s confidence in the actions of government employees to be “a threat to national security.” If even pointing out that a course of action is a bad idea is itself considered a bad idea, what hope can there possibly be of learning and improvement? And since the national security advocates all seem to believe that the government should have the right to keep secrets, how can they honestly also believe that it is possible to effectively limit a largely secret government?

Serving Two Masters Read Post »

Scroll to Top