<blockquote>
It all begins with a small, anonymous Twitter account. It has less than 50 followers. One of those followers is Stephen Wolfe, who occasionally “liked” some of the Tweets emanating from this account. A theologian by the name of Alastair Roberts, while working on his own criticisms of Wolfe’s book, became curious about this anonymous account. He did a lot of digging around on social media and <a href="https://alastairadversaria.com/2022/11/27/the-case-against-thomas-achord/">came to the reasoned conclusion</a> that this anonymous account is run by Stephen Wolfe’s podcast co-host and collaborator, Thomas Achord. And then Alastair said so publicly.
</blockquote>
You should go read the whole post by Brian Mattson. I feel like he ably captured the thoughts swirling around in my head in a more coherent manner than I ever would have been able to. But suffice to say that it was all, "shock, horror, that's not my account, definitely not, nope not mine" for days. Then, finally, after the smoking gun was found and the dust had settled, Thomas Achord fell on his sword in the lamest, most passive way possible.
<blockquote>
This is sordid business, and I apologize for having to bring it to your attention. Why does it matter? Well, Alastair Roberts explains why he thinks it matters, and I think he is right: there are actual, real, live white supremacists attempting to use “Christian Nationalism”—and classical Christian education!—as a Trojan Horse to help promote their deviant views. And the world has a right to know whether the author of The Case For Christian Nationalism is one of them. Guilt-by-association? It is certainly worthy of a little suspicion-by-association. This was not a case of “a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend” saying vile things. This, as I understand it, is Wolfe’s closest collaborator. And I frankly don’t find believable any of the “explanations,” such as they are—not Achord’s, and not Wolfe’s. It’s a matter of record that Achord was lying—brazenly so, and to my mind still is—and Wolfe’s (non)accounting of things simply does not add up.
Alastair Roberts (whom I greatly respect and admire) cares about the cause of Christian Nationalism and wants to empty out the Trojan Horse, or, to use another metaphor, drain the movement of its swampy elements. I do not care about the cause of Christian Nationalism—least of all Stephen Wolfe’s version of it—and wish it to die a quick and tidy death. I have done my part to help make that happen. But on this Alastair and I are aligned in lockstep: there is no room for racism or white supremacy of any kind in anything claiming the name of Jesus Christ, certainly not in a “Christian” vision of public and social policy.
</blockquote>
I, like Brian, do not care too much about the name Christian Nationalism or the broader movement <a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>. Though, doubtless, some would want to lump me in with many who embrace the term. Indeed, I do not doubt there is significant overlap in what I believe and what Christian Nationalists tend to believe. Christ is Lord, Christ rules and reigns now, and men's governments and laws should legislate the morality of Christ and God's word rather than the immorality that comes from a bitter and blackened heart and those who curse His name. And yet there always seems to be a lot of "sordid business" surrounding this nationalism stuff. Guilt by association isn't always right. It takes wisdom and discernment to figure it out. But after enough times, you can start to put 2 and 2 together.
I've dealt far too much with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism">kinism</a> and racism in the reformed circles I run in and I, too, wish it to be swept away entirely from my sight. It doesn't look like that will happen in my lifetime.
<hr>
As somewhat of an aside — though certainly related to the nationalism conversation — I think one of the problems in the Christian Nationalism movement continues to be a high view of the "state" and a big government, top-down view of running the world. We moderns care a lot about things happening at a big, huge national level but not too much about what's going on in our communities. To be sure, what happens at a national level affects us far more often and to a larger degree than it should, and that causes us to care a great deal. But there's not a lot we can (or should) be doing from such a top-down position.
The U.S. is HUGE — both in population and land mass. There's just no way to properly and accurately represent all the interests at the national level. There's no way to have a shared identity and sense of "people" that the Democrats, Republicans, or the Christian Nationalists (probably Republicans?) wish to foist upon us. Are there usually things that most Americans can identify with. Yes and no. But the conception of those things will be different depending upon whether they are held in a big city, a small town, or the rural farm land. Each one of those groups has very different ideas and conceptions about being American, and they have very different interests. And because all the power is concentrated in a small group of governing officials and bodies, it doesn't really tend to work out well for anyone.
I don't think anyone, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Christian Nationalists, and not conservative libertarians (or Biblical libertarians or conservatarians, or whatever I try to call myself these days), is happy with the way things are right now. No one's interests are being served. The entire country is polarized along (falsely drawn) political lines and bad-faith argumentation. Our top-down authoritarian government has made us hate the other parties that do not serve our interests because each party is forced to vie for power to serve their own interests at the expense of others out of self-preservation.
The answer is not "nationalism" but localism. Remove the concentration of power. And as Christians we should focus on our communities, our local churches, the gospel, and righteous local leaders. No doubt, out of self-preservation, we should continue to vote in federal elections. But we should seek to be putting into federal power, those who would seek to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, not those who would use it as a battering ram for whatever political pets they or their constituents want.
Of course, when people hear localism, they also hear cliquishness and racism. And I don't deny that the human tendency toward suspicion, even hating the "other" is strong (sorry to use the "other" buzzword). But it's also strong — as we see now — at the federal level too. And it causes far more problems from the top down than it would from a position of less power and influence <a href="#user-content-fn-2" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-2" aria-describedby="footnote-label">2</a>. The thing is that Christian Nationalists tend to speak of our nation in a tribal sense. In a way, I'm advocating for real tribalism through localism, which is ironic. But I believe that focusing more locally would make for much better neighbors nationally. To use a very broad generalization, the city of New York trying to force their ways and their values on the rural areas of TN is precisely what has caused the rise in cliquish fear and aggravated the issues around the so-called "shared identity" of being American.
The answer of nationalism is to change the top-down thinking via authoritarianism. The correct answer is, in my estimation, localism <a href="#user-content-fn-3" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-3" aria-describedby="footnote-label">3</a>.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Do not misunderstand me, I do care a great deal about Christ being the sovereign over all. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-2">
Sin affects every human institution, since sinful humans are involved in every human institution. <a href="#user-content-fnref-2" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-3">
Of course, as a Christian, a healthy dose of the local church is also necessary! <a href="#user-content-fnref-3" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Brian Mattson — Sordid Business

The Nationalism Conversation

<blockquote>
Remember when all the noble people of the world stood up to denounce <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/opinion/joe-rogan-health-misinformation-solutions.html">The Covid Misinformation</a> perpetrated on Joe Rogan's podcast? It seems like ages ago, but in fact it was just this January! And okay, it also wasn't all the noble people. Mainly just a couple of old musicians, like <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/25/neil-young-gives-spotify-ultimatum-over-joe-rogan-disinformation/">Neil Young</a> and <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/29/joni-mitchell-removing-her-music-from-spotify-i-stand-with-neil-young/">Joni Mitchell</a>, who for a moment relived the glory days of the world's attention, as they hammered Spotify for their awful, awful decision to let a popular podcaster have outlawed conversations on outlawed topics. In defiance of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-covid-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say">The Science</a> and official consensus on Covid!!
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
…why is Spotify still trying to appease the likes of Young or Mitchell with these alarming blue warning bars pointing to information counter to that of health authorities in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?
Because Covid in America remains a political struggle rather than a medical one, of course. A flame that continues to attract partisan moths. Despite an absolute embarrassment of specific calls that were at one time or another held by The Consensus of The Science turning out to be bunk. Does anyone need a reminder?
</blockquote>
This has been such a huge problem. Covid, whatever it was or wasn't, however it started, whatever real, physical effects it has or had on people, it has become entirely political here in the U.S.
<blockquote>
Capitalizing The Science and turning it into a <a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/there-are-no-all-knowing-all-seeing-oracles-bc6ed1fc">consensus cult</a> has done more to undermine public trust in the House of Francis Bacon than even the atom bomb. It's cracked the reputation of scientists who turned dogmatists, and centers for disease control and prevention captured by political directives. It's brought eternal shame on musicians turned narrative cops, and the journalists that breathlessly backed the censorship protocol that was installed at the outset of this pandemic.
</blockquote>
This has been my problem for quite some time. Science makes a great servant but a terrible master. Covid became an inflection point where we have consistently been told to "trust the science" when the science suspiciously backs particular, partisan view points while bending over backward so far to accommodate those view points that it's a wonder "the science's" back doesn't break…

David Heinemeier Hansson: Why is Spotify still linking to the CDC?


DHH May Be Canceled, But He Makes Complete, Clear-Headed Sense

<blockquote>
Advocates of so-called Christian Nationalism now are mostly a part of a protest movement, even if they pretend otherwise. Secularists deny certain historical truths about America’s founding; the CN camp replies with excessive revisionism of its own. Secularists scream for the coerced removal of God from the public square; the CN camp replies with advocacy for some coercive notion of their own. Secularists scream that Christianity has no part of America’s identity; the CN camp seeks to merge Christian and American identities. I could go on and on. Things that ought to be acceptable at worst and commendable at best get taken to a place of authoritarianism or nativism out of a temper tantrum.
</blockquote>

The Shine Falls off Christian Nationalism

Bahnsen on Christian Nationalism

<blockquote>
What, dare we ask, are the allowable boundaries of respectable pluralism? In answering this question, David French is particularly unclear.
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
One of the most perplexing marks of our time is the defection of so many “conservatives” from the cause of conserving what Russell Kirk called “the permanent things.” If marriage is not conserved—if civil marriage is not conserved as a man-woman union—then nothing genuinely conservative can last, at least for long. Support for the Respect for Marriage Act is bad enough. The way David French frames his argument is worse. This is how conservatism dies, and this is how marriage is surrendered.
</blockquote>
My like of David French has come and gone during the time I was not publishing to this blog. But the fact is, I did like many things David French had to say during the Trump years and said so on my social media platforms. He was, quite frankly, a breath of fresh air much of the time. I, as another who, like David French, has never been able to support or vote for Trump, resonated with the things French was saying at the time. I agreed with French then and still believe Trump is a blight on Christian conservative's record, even though I believe God used Trump despite his wickedness to do one or two good things <a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>
I mark the sour turn with French as starting at the end of the (first?) Trump era. French allowed himself to be broken by Trump and he has turned on Conservatives, Christianity, and I would argue, on Christ.
Of course, Mohler notes that there were some problematic things from French earlier (in the 2004 era). I can't speak to those. I became aware of French and started loosely following his work just before the Trump era.
I have recently reviewed some things that French wrote or said during that era that I liked, linked to, or promoted on my various platforms, and I still largely agree with all of it, so I am not the one who has changed.
A friend of mine said this morning when I sent him a link to the tweet I'll embed below, that French is a great example of someone losing themselves to <a href="https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Audience_Capture">audience capture</a>.
<blockquote>"Millions of Americans have formed families and live their lives in deep reliance on Obergefell being good law. It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which they’ve ordered their lives." <a href="https://t.co/1dKjODsayq">https://t.co/1dKjODsayq</a>— David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1594426687885811712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote> 
<a href="https://twitter.com/aaron_renn">Aaron Renn</a> also <a href="https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/newsletter-70-why-you-should-be-careful">had some theories as to how this has happened to French</a>:
<blockquote>
All of us instinctively react against negative criticism. One of our most typical reactions is to double down, and to become hostile towards the person who criticized us.
I think this has played a key role in David French’s evolution since the Trump campaign. Imagine David French back in 2019. He’s minding his own business, standing in line for his caffe latte at Starbucks. His phone beeps and it’s a Google Alert, or perhaps a friend texting him to say “check this out.” The subject is an article in First Things, the leading conservative religious journal in the country, called “<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism">Against David French-ism</a>,” written by fellow conservative Sohrab Ahmari. Then thousands of people pile on saying how much they agree with Sohrab Ahmari about French and his approach being what’s wrong with the world.
</blockquote>
I realize that I'm just adding my voice to that negative feedback loop at this point, but it's gone so far with David French I don't know what else I could do.
The fact is, now, French is not someone I would ever link to or support in any way. But I would sure welcome a return of the 2015–2020 French.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Not the least of which was to establish decent, conservative, originalist judges on the Supreme Court. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Al Mohler and The parable of David French

French-ism

<blockquote>
You might ask why I would describe this paragraph on page 118 as the “end” of a 475-page book? Because the sentence that follows begins, “Having established these conclusions…” Since, as I will explain at length, Wolfe has in no way “established” these conclusions, everything that follows from page 118 to page 475 is essentially superfluous. There may be some material of interest—and some of it will elicit comment—but none of it reaches the heart of the matter.
</blockquote>
Brutal.
<blockquote>
Wolfe begins the book by exempting himself from the tasks of exegesis and biblical theology: “Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand that frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.”
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Wolfe’s ambivalence toward the Bible has deeper roots, however, than mere feigned ignorance about how to do biblical interpretation. The fact is rather that he doesn’t think he needs to do any biblical interpretation in the first place. The irrelevance of the Bible to the task at hand—political theory—is deeply embedded in his own understanding of reason and revelation, nature and grace.
</blockquote>
What I find fascinating is that Wolfe sees the Bible and Biblical interpretation as not interesting or important to what he's writing about. Yet his work is being promoted by those of my acquaintance or who's work I have liked or am familiar with, who cast themselves in the Van Tillian or Kyperian traditions. In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til (perhaps famously) says:
<blockquote>
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure how you can cast yourself in this tradition unless you are willing to apply the Bible and Biblical interpretation to everything, including the political realm.
Stephen Wolfe is also of a very two kingdoms persuasion. I do have friends of the two kingdoms persuasion. I would never say they weren't Christians. We can be friends and I even have some sympathy for some two kingdom thinking. Nevertheless, the primary influences in my life are not of two kingdom thought. Yet this book, which is clearly based on two kingdom theology, has taken my non-two kingdom influences by storm.
<blockquote>
If one consults, say, his academic Ph.D thesis looking for some deeper explanation, one finds more of the same: the crassest sort of dualism, with everything divvied up very neatly between “heavenly” things about metaphysics and salvation known by faith and “earthly” things like science and politics known by reason. In that work he even includes a flowchart dividing it all up that would get full marks from Professor Kant of Königsberg, who would then, of course, just tear the sheet of paper in half and throw the “heavenly” side into his fireplace.
</blockquote>
Because you like someone's conclusions (and I'm not saying I like all of Wolfe's conclusions, though I dare say I would fall in line with a great many of them) does not mean I agree with the means used to arrive there. Just because two opposed trajectories intersect, that is no reason to jump on the opposing train. If you jump off the train going in the right direction for the intersecting train going in the wrong direction, you will find yourself at the wrong destination.
And finally, somewhat relatedly, I made a meme, and Andrew Sandlin saw it somewhere and shared it 🙂.
<blockquote>I always knew Brian Mattson was a superhero. <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Square_Inch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@The_Square_Inch</a> <a href="https://t.co/AT5HAWEX2m">pic.twitter.com/AT5HAWEX2m</a>— DocSandlin (@DocSandlin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DocSandlin/status/1594182974840311808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote>

Brian Mattson

On Nationalism

<blockquote>
Even Christians’ advocacy for laws against gay marriage is problematic because it rests on the assumption that the power of government can be harnessed in order to impose one group’s opinions on the rest of society. While Christians should have been defending their rights to make their own determinations on these issues, they instead tried to leverage the strong arm of government to enforce their point of view.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Clumsy, inarticulate pieces of legislation like that in Indiana will do nothing in the long run to achieve this goal.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In doing this, Christians will have to come to grips with the reality that this means they will no longer be able to use government to stop people from making poor moral decisions. They must realize that they cannot continue to try to use laws to control other people and then be surprised when the government decides to control them.
</blockquote>
These are just some choice quotes that I enjoyed, but all of this is highly recommended and I completley agree.

Why Christians Should Immediately Become Libertarians — Ben Lewis

Christians Should Be Libertarians

(by the way, the post image I used above makes me sick to my stomach)
When it comes to immigration, why do conservatives suddenly start using liberal logic and liberals start using conservative logic? Liberals argue that immigrants strengthen the economy by adding value to our workforce. Conservatives argue that we're adding competitors to the workforce in an economy where it's already hard to find a job.
It's so weird because it's like liberals suddenly understand how the economy actually works and conservatives suddenly get belligerent (well, moreso than normal) and decide that the economy does in fact work the way liberals normally say it does. They suddenly view wealth and resources as fixed, and that we are giving away that wealth and those resources to the immigrants. But that is never how any economy has ever functioned. Wealth is not a fixed resource, and work is not a fixed resource. They are fluid resources, expanding and contracting. More people in the workforce makes for a stronger economy. There's more people working, there's more people buying, there are more people selling, there are more people creating wealth.
We normally view competition as a good thing. But suddenly, with immigration, we view it as bad because they might come in and undercut us. But have you stopped to think that maybe you just need to up your game? I am not too worried about an immigrant taking my job. Why? Because I try to be the best at what I do. I'm paid fair wages for what I do. And if my job is taken by an immigrant, or anyone else, then I need to examine myself, my abilities, and the job that I am doing. It's possible that an immigrant (or anyone else) could come in an undercut me, and do a poor job and ruin the company, and/or the company would wish they had not replaced me with a lower wage worker who could not do the job. But that's all part of doing business.
Now, there is a problem with illegal immigrants in this country. It is a pre-existing problem though. I said that more people makes the workforce and economy stronger. I also said that there are more people creating wealth. In general, when the government is not involved, that's true. But the fact is, the government is involved and creating problems. Illegal immigrants and legal immigrants have access to resources no one should, and they take advantage of it. Instead of creating wealth, they come and drain the economy by sucking tax funded benefits. You don't have to be an immigrant to do that, so the issue is not immigration. So the answer to the problem is neither conservative nor liberal. It is an issue of free market and government interference. As in almost all things, I believe we would have a stronger economy, and a stronger nation if we would get the government out of the immigration business.
The founding fathers never envisioned the government having the right to restrict immigration, and Biblically, I cannot come up with a single reason why an expansive federal government should have any say over the free movement of peoples of any race or region. So the idea of "illegal immigration" is not even one we should entertain in the first place. Instead, let's get the government to quit providing benefits that drain the economy. Let's stop regulation immigration so that we only attract criminals. Let’s cut the red tape from the process and make immigration something free and clear so that others may come and strengthen the economy. Let's stop being liberal or conservative, and instead make this country free again. Let's remember to have compassion on people of other countries and races. Let's stop being stupid on both sides of the aisle.

Conservative and Liberal Immigration Logic

So many people seem to be misunderstanding the issues at hand with President Obama and immigration.
Issue 1: The executive order is entirely unlawful. So are most executive orders. Big deal. I mean it is a big deal, but in the grand scheme of things, why fuss about this one? (Oh, I know, it's because Bush didn't give it. Bleh).
Issue 2: Congressional restriction on immigration is unlawful. They have the authority to restrict naturalization, but not immigration. We have become quite the xenophobic culture — at least on the conservative side of the isle — and we are trying to keep people out of the country. We have no right to do so. The constitution of this United States knows nothing of this "illegal" immigration which conservatives love to talk about. Immigration was always meant to be unrestricted. Also, try to remember, every single one of us who is not an American Indian descends from immigrants to this country.
Issue 3: Conservatives love to talk about what a drain illegal immigration is on our society. I beg to differ. The drain they speak of is already present, immigration just tends to really emphasize it. We have the government doing things it's not supposed to do, providing benefits it should not be providing, meddling in things it ought not to be meddling with. "Illegal" immigrants come and take advantage of our broken system, receiving welfare, food stamps, and all manner of benefits that no one at all should be receiving. Immigrants otherwise present a net positive to our society. Without government benefits in place, they would be forced to work for their living like decent and able bodied humans should, they would use their wages to buy things, and our economy would be strengthened. So the real issue is not immigration at all, that's just a smoke screen — a scapegoat conservatives love to point to. The real issue is the size and scope of the government and what it is doing with the money it has extorted from us.
Issue 4: Conservatives love to talk about how "illegal" aliens are already criminals and tend to do criminal things which is harmful to society. The problem is our immigration laws do indeed keep the more law abiding types out, but let in those who are cunning and tend toward illegal activities. It's sort of like the war on drugs in that way. By criminalizing certain substances, it has been made attractive to criminal types and created a black market and trade that otherwise would not exist. Two solutions to this problem are apparent: 1). stop restricting immigration, 2). properly execute justice on immigrants the same as we do for citizens. They should not get a pass because they are not a naturalized citizen. If they steal, they should make restitution. If they kill, they should face the death penalty. If they damage property, they should repay. In short, it should be the same experience for them as it is for us natural citizens (and yeah, I realize that the justice system in general has issues which are exacerbated by immigrants).
<h2>A couple other thoughts</h2>
Are you conservatives all up in arms about "amnesty" really telling me that you want the same government you say you distrust to be in charge of restricting immigration? Why do we suddenly trust the government with the power to do that, but we don't trust it with the power for other things? This is inconsistent. Let's get the government out of the immigration business.
The other thing is that the Bible is not silent on the issue of foreigners in the land. There are two verses that immediately come to mind. Exodus 22:21:
<blockquote>
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
</blockquote>
And Deuteronomy 10:19:
<blockquote>
Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
</blockquote>
Note that the children of Israel were not told, make sure the paper work is in order, make sure they came here "legally" then treat them right. No, the expectation was that people would be coming and going, there would be foreigners in your midst and you must not oppress them. Seems pretty simple, really.
So let's stop getting outraged over the wrong issues and start being outraged that this is even an issue over which Obama could illegally issue an executive order. Why were these strangers in our land considered illegal to begin with? Why are we oppressing them? We need to stop it.
Which goes right to my final "other" though. Let's remember that these immigrants we speak of are real people that God has put here on this earth. We must treat them with the respect due to our fellow human beings. I don't think trucking people off and dumping them back where they came from is the respect that is due to them. Unless one of these immigrants is harming you, damaging your property, or otherwise doing you harm, I suggest you shut your flapping lips and live in peace with your fellow man. Romans 12:18:
<blockquote>
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
</blockquote>
Seeking to deport your fellow men (or women) who are not harming you in any way is not living peaceably with all men.
Lastly, I will recommend a resource to you on this very issue with only the caveat that I don't agree with Bojidar Marinov on very many things. And yet, despite some wide chasms, I consider him a fellow laborer for Christ. And on this issue, I can wholeheartedly recommend and commend his material. Go <a href="http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=877">here</a> and listen to an episode of Apologia Radio where he and Jeff Durbin address this issue in a Biblical manner.
<a href="http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=877">A Biblical Look at Immigration – 8/2/2014 »</a>

Immigration and Executive Orders

I want net neutrality as much as the next tech enthusiast. I want an internet free and clear of restrictions. I don't want Comcast throttling data that comes from Netflix, for instance. But the fact remains that Comcast owns the pipes that get Netflix to me (in other cases, AT&#x26;T owns the pipes, in some cases Time/Warner Cable, etc.). They have the right to do whatever they want with their privately owned network. This is the very foundation of free market capitalism. They own a thing, they charge for access to the thing, they can put whatever terms and conditions in place that they want.
I believe it would be wrong to say that we can now have the government come in and tell Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner, AT&#x26;T, how they may operate their privately owned networks. As much as I want it I don't think it's right to impose my will on the company via the government. Let's say the will of the people of U.S. was that power companies provide power to each of us for free. Shall we pass legislation saying that they must do so?
Let me bring it a little closer to home. Let’s say the people of the U.S. want to pass laws that would require Churches to marry same-sex couples. Is that legislation we should pass? Just because the people want a thing doesn’t make it right.
What the people want in this case is to regulate private companies into providing unrestricted access to the Internet. I say no deal.
What we are actually and ultimately doing is propping up something very much like a monopoly or a duopoly, only with just one or two more players. By regulating these guys to provide a slighter better service, we are making it hard for other players to enter the field and really compete because we've regulated a bad service provided by bad players on the field to be “just good enough” so that gives them an advantage because they are already established. If we leave it alone, and de-regulate what’s already in place, the free market will take care of itself.
A useful exercise is to ask ourselves how we got to this point in the first place. And the answer is regulation. So let’s stop doing the thing that doesn’t work. I don’t want the government more involved in this, I want the free market to be allowed to operate. If Comcast, Time/Warner, Verizon, AT&#x26;T, whatever, are not providing a good service or a service in a way people want, in a free market, someone will see an opportunity and provide competition.
Also remember, the Internet is not a right, it is a service and a privilege. As a service, you pay someone for it. And as such, you don’t have any right to force anyone to provide it to you, or to provide it to you on your terms. You can feel free to negotiate or do business however you want, but you cannot get the government henchmen to act like thugs and force your will upon them.

The Myth of Net Neutrality

<blockquote>
TUSCALOOSA, Alabama -- The on-going strife between the city of Tuscaloosa and the app-based ride-sharing service <a href="https://www.uber.com/">Uber</a> may come to a head this week after city officials said they'd begin Wednesday to arrest Uber drivers operating there.
Billy Guernier, the general manager for Uber Tuscaloosa, said more than a dozen city employees met with an Uber policy specialist Friday and drew a clear line in the sand, promising begin on Wednesday to arrest any Uber driver in the city and charge them with violating city codes that govern taxi services in Tuscaloosa.
</blockquote>
Oh yeah, this is the type of thing you would expect in a free society.
<blockquote>
Guernier said the ultimatum comes after a month of failing negotiations between the two parties. He said he personally flew to Tuscaloosa to meet its mayor Walt Maddox last month, but the meeting never materialized. Guernier said Sunday morning that Uber has come to the table willing to compromise and ready to cooperate with the city, but has been met with continued resistance and a 'my way or the highway' attitude from city officials.
In their defense, city employees said it's Uber that is unwilling to compromise even after it was made clear that the city was willing to be flexible to make Uber work in the Druid City.
</blockquote>
I don't even understand what compromise would look like. Where does this end? I have a car, my friend needs a ride to the airport. Do I need to have background checks and a commercial taxi license? This is complete and utter non-sense. Well, any regulations on any services is non-sense to begin with, and maybe that's the problem.
This is, by the way, not a failure of capitalism or free market. It is in fact a failure of our current society here in the U.S. to recognize the ridiculousness of some of these regulations and to adapt to changing economic conditions and innovations. Uber is an amazing service and an amazing idea. It saves money, takes advantage of modern technologies, and provides a service people want. And here's the thing — make no mistake — people are using this and people want it.
Last night, me and several friends at a conference near Washington, D.C. used the Uber app to get a ride downtown for food and drinks and to have some fun. It was cheap and worked great. We received better service and rates than we would have from a cab. The man driving was happy because he made some money, and we were happy because we were in D.C. without our own car and needed to get from point A to point B. This is basic, free market capitalism 101. The fact that this is even happening — that Uber is even under threat anywhere for any reason, is a painful reminder that we are not in fact in a free market capitalist society.
It's also a good reminder that the regulation that has been set up around transportation services lends itself to propping up old business models that need to naturally die out or evolve. When you allow the free market to work, all this is taken care of.

Stephen Dethrage — AL.com

I Have a Car, You Need a Ride

The Supreme Court of the United States <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html">handed down their decision</a> in the Hobby Lobby case. That decision was in favor of liberty. Hobby Lobby has been fighting for the right to not provide and pay for the type of "healthcare" that can cause an abortion of a tiny little baby in the womb. The Supreme Court has ruled that they do indeed have the right, as one would expect in a free country.
After that decision was handed down, my Twitter stream lit up in a blaze of righteous anger from those on the side of death. The general consensus from moderates to liberals is that Hobby Lobby is being allowed to flaunt the law of the land and, what's next, someone refusing healthcare altogether? The shock and horror.
Let me be clear, I think it is immoral and repugnant that any entity is required by the laws of our land to provide anything for anyone. A corporation is run by people with convictions and morals. You would not require of me that I provide for the general welfare of my neighbor <a href="#fn:1">1</a> so why do we require it of employers? We've made corporations this faceless entity that obviously has resources beyond our comprehension so they just need to buckle up, the CEO should sell a yacht or three, and provide whatever we the people want.
It occurs to me that if I had my way, and corporations were not these big legal entities that we see them as today, but were simply seen as individuals who formed a partnership together, perhaps a lot of this wrongheaded thinking would go away. But I digress.
The tack I wish to take here is this; I keep seeing this type of phrase tossed around negatively about the SCOTUS decision:
<pre><code>We live in a country where corporations have more rights than women.
</code></pre>
This is at best a misleading statement, meant to stir up an emotional response <a href="#fn:2">2</a>. The very premise of the statement is based on a false assumption. The assumption is that a right was taken away from women in this decision to allow Hobby Lobby to not fund murder.
In fact, no rights were taken away from Women, and some were given back to Hobby Lobby. Women may still have an abortion in this country, as sick and sad as that may be. What has changed, however, is that Women may not expect Hobby Lobby to be forced to fund such a heinous act. Note that we can still expect Hobby Lobby to be forced to fund all manor of other healthcare needs. <a href="#fn:3">3</a>
But we have devolved in this country — in our modern society — to the point where we perceive that whatever our heart desires is a right. We desire that woman should be able to murder their unborn children and that this service should be rendered unto them for no cost out of their own pocket. Someone has to foot the bill, why not the employers? To us, freedom means free things for the masses. But this is not liberty, this is tyranny.
To illustrate, let us suppose that what I and everyone else in the country these days wants, is for employers to provide a Ferrari to all employees. One of the companies decides they can't afford to do this and so they don't provide it to me. Is my liberty now infringed upon because my employer would not provide me with what I want? Would I say that the employer has invaded my garage and denied me access to a Ferrari? No one in their right mind would answer this in the affirmative, and yet that's exactly what's going on. Only in this case the stakes are much higher. Those in charge at Hobby Lobby have a moral issue with the murder of babies (I mean, I can't imagine why, right?) and so they do not want to be party to those murders. The loony leftists would like to require that Hobby Lobby provide this type of healthcare.
Look, I'm just going to come right out and say this. You can call me out over on Facebook or Twitter if you like. You can accuse me of making this an "us versus them" debate, and that's fine because I am. I draw the line at murder, so sue me. Anyone who cannot see this issue for what it is is party to the evil that has been spreading over this country like a plague. God has sent a blindness upon us so that we no longer recognize good from evil. We cannot recognize the clarity of this situation and what is happening. We can no longer distinguish between freedom and liberty, and the will of a people whose hearts and minds want nothing but wickedness.
So yes, this is about liberty. It is about those who do not want liberty, but want to have their desires met without regard for others, and those who want liberty to be evenly applied to all.
<hr>
<ol>
<li>
Well, at least not directly, but that’s another post. <a href="#fnref:1">↩</a>
</li>
<li>
A more cynical view is that it is an outright attempt at guilt manipulation. <a href="#fnref:2">↩</a>
</li>
<li>
Which I still find morally repugnant. Government should in no way be involved in a business negotiation, which is what is going on in an agreement between employer and employee. <a href="#fnref:3">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Hobby Lobby, Rights, and Women

<blockquote>
The problem is not what is being taught, or in which district it’s being taught. The problem is that the state is the one doing the teaching, and this must not be. It is not a legitimate function of any state to educate, no matter what they teach, how they teach, or how they acquire the funds to do the teaching. In America it just so happens that they choose the most asinine things to teach, in the most asinine ways, and acquire the necessary funds to do so in the most immoral way possible. It’s certainly fair to complain about that, but not at the expense of the larger problem.
</blockquote>
Yep. The problem is I'm paying for education that I neither approve of, or have any control of whatsoever. It is an immoral system.

Posts tagged “Politics” from the blog