Just War Theory and Charles Rice at Camp American

A must hear podcast from the Institute for Principled Policy:

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=1327

Rand Paul Votes In Favor of Sanctions on Iran

Last week I posted an article about Ron and Rand Paul and why a lot of conservatives seem to like Rand, but won’t vote for Ron for President.  The news about Rand’s recent vote on sanctions on Iran may be a very revealing answer to the question.

Before I get to Rand’s answer, let’s look at Ron’s position on the issue.  I don’t want to put words into his mouth, but I know he considers sanctions to be an act of war.  (And therefore they would only be appropriate if war were officially declared.)  Consider two typical businesses, one in America and one in Iran.  Imposing sanctions would prevent these two businesses from engaging in commerce.  Even though Iran may have wicked leadership, to cite that as a justification for sanctions (or war) would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black (consider who our President is).  What if a business in Iran doesn’t subscribe to the agenda of the leadership of its country?  Why should they be punished for what someone else did?  There are actually some Christians in Iran who haven’t yet been killed.  In general, if you deprive two people from engaging in legitimate commerce, then you are depriving them of liberty.  I realize that there could be extenuating circumstances in which exceptions could apply (i.e. if the business in Iran would be required to pay taxes that would go to support terrorism or other criminal activities).  But just because Iran may get a nuclear weapon, does not justify such extreme measures.  The basic principle is to allow as much liberty as possible without supporting an obvious suppression of it in another case.  One tenet of my political philosophy is that nothing should be against the law unless you can prove from the Bible that it is sin.

Rand said that he would not support a war against Iran because it would rally the Iranian people against the United States.  He also said that we would not be able to afford it.  He said that innocents would be harmed.  But sanctions would also rally the Iranian people against America.  And any sanctions would be meaningless unless we used force to enforce it.  This would also cost a lot of money.  And innocents would be harmed because they would be deprived of the liberty of engaging in commerce as I described above.  All these negative effects could in fact lead to a war which Rand says he is against.

So that is why I conclude that sanctions on Iran are not good unless they actually attack the United States and we formally declare war on them.

My Perspective on A Veterans Day Sermon

A few weeks ago, a guest preacher preached a sermon at my church.  It was the Sunday before Veteran’s Day.  The preacher is an upstanding, godly member of my congregation who often preaches on special occasions, especially patriotic holidays.

The sermon was about the Gulf War and its similarities to a certain battle or war involving Israel and Syria and the consequences thereof.  In this story, Benhadad, king of Syria, invaded Samaria (the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel) as mentioned in 1 Kings 20:1.  The city had been surrounded by the Syrian army and the Syrians had begun to plunder the city.  But the tables were turned when Israel’s king, Ahab, sent out princes to fight against them in accordance with the word of the Lord given to him by a prophet.  Benhadad then asked for terms of surrender so that his life would be spared and King Ahab agreed to these terms (1 Kings 20:31-34).  God was displeased with Ahab for letting the guilty Benhadad go free (1 Kings 20:42).  Benhadad besieged Samaria again (2 Kings 6:24).

In the parallelism drawn by the preacher, Benhadad represents Saddam Hussein and Syria is represented by Iraq.  Israel is parallel to the United States and King Ahab is President George H.W. Bush.  In the preacher’s view of the events of the history of the Gulf War and its aftermath, Bush let Saddam Hussein get away, God was displeased with this, and as a result, we HAD to fight against Saddam and Iraq again. 

I don’t quite agree.  Yes, there are similarities between the stories.  Saddam Hussein and Benhadad were both wicked aggressors.  I agree that George H.W. Bush did not act in accordance with God’s word, but not quite in the manner that this preacher is intimating.  There are huge differences between the Gulf War and this episode between Benhadad and King Ahab.

Benhadad invaded Samaria, murdering thousands of Israelites.  This was apparently an unprovoked attack.  (The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been at war with Judah, who had made covenant with Benhadad against them [1 Kings 15:18-19].)  The battle was fought completely on Israelite land, not in Syria.  Saddam Hussein never invaded America nor even harmed an American citizen prior to the Gulf War.  The Gulf War was fought in Iraq, not the United States.  This was simply a case of the United States choosing sides (one Muslim nation against another) and was by no means an act of national defense.  I know of no place in Scripture where God ever commanded the nation of Israel to attack a nation outside of the land Canaan because of brutality inflicted only on people who were not Israelites.  It just doesn’t fit very well.

Secondly, there was specific revelation from God that Benhadad was to be removed from office and replaced with another king (1 Kings 19:15).  We had no such revelation from God concerning Saddam Hussein.  From a Biblical perspective, there was no more reason to remove him from office than Kim Jong Il or King Hussein of Saudi Arabia.  In fact, the Bible specifically warns us to stay away from Babylon (e.g. Revelation 18:4), which is modern day Iraq.

Thirdly, I am not so sure that George H.W. Bush had Saddam Hussein in custody or that any form of agreement was made that involved sparing Hussein’s life.  As king of Israel, Ahab had the authority to make such decisions for the entire nation.  But in the United States, we do not have a king, but a President who cannot, according the Constitution, make such an agreement without the approval of the Senate, not to mention that the war itself was unconstitutional because war was not formally declared.  (In fairness to the preacher, he did not actually mention the name of the President, but said “we” which would include the Congress.)  This being the case, the right thing to do, from a Constitutional point of view, at any point in time after the invasion, would be to immediately cease fire and withdrawal all forces from the region.  This would include even a point in time when Saddam Hussein was in captivity or capable of being killed.  A much better parallelism to Benhadad and Ahab would be Osama Bin Laden and Bill Clinton.  Clinton let Bin Laden get away.  Of course, the right thing to do in Ahab’s case would have been to kill Benhadad, but in Bush’s case, it was more of a dilemma.  Because of previous poor choices, there was no good choice for him. 

Fourthly, the parallelism between the subsequent wars has the same problem as the first.  When Benhadad invaded Israel, it was another unprovoked attack which violated a treaty he had made with Israel.  But again Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States or harm any American citizen.  For a second time, in the Iraq War, we invaded his land, taking the side of one of our enemies against another.  We certainly did not HAVE to violate the Constitution and have this second war for reasons which are still unknown to me.

Even though the nation of Iraq was led by a brutal dictator like Hussein, this does not give anyone the right to go in there set off bombs killing thousands of people, including children.  Intentionally killing innocent people is murder and it is always unacceptable to God.  No exceptions.

There is one similarity between the two historical events that the preacher did not mention.  Like the nation of Israel, America has turned its back on God.  In Israel, there were only 7000 people (likely out of millions) who had not bowed the knee to Baal (I Kings 19:18).  While we are not quite that bad off, we are certainly headed in that direction.  One of the consequences of this, in both cases, is that uncompassionate and foolish leaders have come to power and the people are suffering for it.  Will we turn back to God before it’s too late? 

Ron Paul Votes Against Cut, Cap, and Balance

Here is his speech:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.

When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government.

As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.

We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.

By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.

Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.

Rand Paul on Obama's War on Libya

Judaism is a Religion of Peace

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/jews-for-justice-aid-boat-sets-sail-for-gaza-1.315773

Please read the article at the above link. 

I do not believe that the Palestinians are totally innocent in all that has gone on, but to deprive them of their basic human rights and to kill them wholesale is abominable.  Blockades deny people their basic right to use their property as they see fit.  This was recognized as a universal right by our Founding Fathers, only to be taken away from individuals with due process and only taken away from nations with a justifiable and formal declaration of war with reasonable terms of surrender. 


Being against Zionism and being for peace does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.  Evidence of this is that even Jews whose relatives have died in suicide bombing attacks and Holocaust survivors are willing to risk their lives to try to deliver aid to the Palestinians in Gaza.  These brave and unselfish Jews, even though they don’t believe that Jesus is their Messiah, are obeying Jesus’ exhortation in Matthew 5:43-48 (KJV) better than most Christians do.  Though they still need to come to know Jesus as their Savior for their salvation just like everybody else, they have already proven that real Judaism is a religion of peace.  I pray that these Jews might come to know Christ as their Savior.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

http://jewishconscience.blogspot.com

Was Reagan the Ultimate Hawk?

Imagine that…

Imagine that all trade to and from the U.S. came under the supervision of a superpower nation or international organization so that no products could be imported or exported without its approval and inspection. Imagine that the President, the Congress, and all other government officials were forbidden from traveling abroad unless they agree to certain conditions imposed by the superpower nation or world organization. Imagine that anyone traveling to and from the U.S. would also be subject to inspection under the supervision of a foreign power. What if this foreign power also prohibited the Armed Forces from developing certain weapons? What should we do if this were to happen? I would hope that Americans would see this as tyranny and defy the rules imposed upon it by this foreign power. The Declaration of Independence contains grievances against these very things and things even less tyrannical than this.

But this is what the majority of our short-sighted congressmen are in favor of doing to Iran. The bill which would authorize this action is called H. CON. RES. 362. (If the link doesn’t work, find it here.) It has 247 cosponsors which is more than enough votes to pass the House. The authors of this legislation insist that this is not a blockade. What else would you call it? This is the kind of language that is being used to justify this tyranny:

“Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009…”

“…the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others…”

Are we so depraved that we are going to attack a nation just because of “could haves” and “possibilities”? (Here we go again.) So what if Iran does have nukes. What gives us the right to attack them just because they have nukes? They are surrounded by other nations which either have nukes or are occupied by nations that have nukes (India, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel). Iran has been inspected nine times since 2003 and there have been no violations of the agreements they made with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They may be in violation of U.N. resolutions, but so what? The U.S. is in violation of the resolutions of that tyrannical organization. And I’m glad that we are—we need to stand up to those tyrants.

The legislation also cites Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah as a reason for this aggressive maneuver. If you don’t believe that this is hypocritical, click here.

Some people are saying that we should do this because of threats made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and has said that the holocaust is a myth. But he is just a mouth. The Mullahs have the real power in Iran. We should not go to war unless a real violation of the sovereignty of the United States (not Israel) has occurred and only against nations guilty of such a violation. Jesus said, “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5:39)

“No options have been taken off the table.” This is an obvious prelude to war—as if the two that we are already in aren’t enough! Supporters of the bill are saying that this blockade will weaken Iran the way that the sanctions against Iraq weakened it, and then it will be easier to win a war against them. But mark my words, this will different (even bloodier). Saddam Hussein was not religious, but was just a greedy tyrant who didn’t care about the sanctions, just as long as he could dominate and terrorize his own people. Iraq was a deeply divided nation. But people of Iran are fully behind their government and driven by their nationalism and their common (Shi’a) religion. This time, we will have a war against a much stronger opponent and we will not “win the war” so easily this time, if at all. This nation is already literally bankrupt, and in desperate need of a budget overhaul. I predict that this will cost multi-trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of U.S. service men will be killed in this conflict.

Neoconservatives Tom Tancredo and my own congressman, Steve Chabot, are on the list of cosponsors for this bill, but so are ultraliberals like Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. One congressman who would never support such legislation is Ron Paul. It is interesting that neither Duncan Hunter’s name nor Nancy Pelosi’s is on the list (yet). I will never vote for anyone who supports this bill unless they change positions. I am pro-life.

So, for whom should you vote for president? It doesn’t matter. McCain and even Obama are likely to support this bipartisan death bill. The Illinois senator clearly stated that we “cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon”. Barring divine intervention, we are headed for the worst war since WW II. But there is hope. This is a sign of Christ’s return. Jesus said, “And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you are not troubled: for all these things must come to pass...” (Matthew 24:6) Be ready. If you need to get right with God, click here.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Should the U.S. Fund “Moderate” Terrorism?

The U.S. is engaged in several attempts to arm various groups around the world as they are fighting against extremists and terrorists. But are these groups themselves terrorists?

It is well known that President Bush wants to establish a Palestinian state. The U.S. is giving them $190 million in aid to do this. The U.S. is arming the Palestinian group Fatah as they are fighting against the more radical, but popularly elected Hamas. They have taken over the Gaza Strip, and the Bush wants Fatah to control the West Bank. But will the weapons that we are giving them end up being pointed at the United States? King George wants to “spread democracy”, but only when the elected are to his liking.

The U.S. is now engaged in arming Sunnis in Iraq, even some former Bathists (ones who were loyal to Saddam Hussein). The hope is that they will use these weapons to fight against Al Qaeda. These were the very people who President Bush said were evil and were in cahoots with Al Qaeda and must be overthrown for the safety of the United States. Now he is saying we must help them defeat Al Qaeda. Is this wacky or what? Some of the dollars we are pouring into Iraq are bound to end up in hands of the insurgents.

The U.S. has given aid to Pakistan in order to seek out and kill Al Qaeda members who have crossed the border from Afghanistan. Remember that the justification for overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan was that they refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. He has not been caught, despite the fact that Pakistani President Musharaf has said, “we have done our part”. Not only has Musharaf been complacent about this, he has made treaties with Taliban factions and has created a “safe zone” (no Pakistani police or military presence) for terrorists in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border. Musharaf will not even allow U.S. forces to come into that region and deliver justice to these murderous terrorists. Remember that President Bush once said, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.” The case for war against Pakistan is now equal to that of the case for war against Afghanistan and far greater than the case for war in Iraq ever was, and yet President Bush still wants to give Pakistan aid.

The Mujahadeen fighters (which included Osama Bin Laden) that were armed by both the Carter and Reagan administrations against the Soviet Union became the Al Qaeda of today. The establishment of the Taliban government was also funded by the United States under the Clinton administration. Bush claimed that he was against such “nation building” when he first campaigned for president in 2000, but unfortunately, he discarded this promise soon after he was elected.

The other Islamic madman that the world has focused its attention on in is this Mahmoud Amedinajad. (I think that the mullahs have the real power in Iran, but this is moot point—they are all of the same ilk.) I don’t know that the U.S. is funding Iran now, but it did help Iran at one time. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal?

I have only mentioned the funding of Islamic groups in this article only because that’s where everyone’s attention is these days. Don’t think that I don’t know that they have not cornered the market on terrorism. Both republicans and democrats alike have funded and/or aided countless other thugs, dictators, and bloody revolutionaries who were worse than those they overthrew.

Is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” really a good policy? Have we really learned the lessons of September 11th?

Psalm 118:8, 9 says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.”

Psalm 146:3 says, “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”

Isaiah 31:1-3 says, “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they shall fail together.”