Donald Trump: Guilty on All Counts

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

The president of the United States is not above the law. He only thinks that he is.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

News has just broken that the United States has attacked Venezuela by bombing its capital, Caracas, and captured kidnapped both President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and now have them in custody. This unconstitutional action follows the months-long killing spree on fishermen off the coast of Venezuela, among others, without any attempt made to interdict, board, and search the boats. It was just alleged that they were carrying drugs and, as such, were a threat to the “national interests” of the US.

Whether or not Maduro was captured kidnapped remains to be seen, but it is quite evident that the actions of Donald Trump and his administration go against the clear meaning of the above-cited section of criminal law and could potentially open them up to prosecution should the Democrats gain control of the Congress in 2026. If the “war”1 is speedily concluded and Trump’s regime change gambit works as planned, then there is no danger of that, but if he has committed the country to another “forever” war which cannot be won, then all bets are off concerning the mid-term election.

  1. Whoever…willfully subjects… Can there be any question that Trump has not willfully acted? After all, he has boasted that, as president, he can do whatever he wants and has constantly said what he wanted to do with Venezuela and Maduro.
  2. …Any person… It is difficult to claim that this does not include even fishermen in small boats.
  3. …in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District…Ah, here we get into the legal mumbo-jumbo of the text. It can and will be claimed that Venezuela is NOT a state, territory, commonwealth, or district of the US and, therefore, this does not apply. However, it was only a few months ago that the White House released its National Security Strategy which openly declared that the entire western hemisphere was the second incarnation of the Monroe Doctrine which assumed sovereignty over the entire area of North, Central, and South America, to the exclusion of any foreign power. Interpreted this way, Venezuela IS a territory and possession of the US Government.
  4. …if bodily injury results… No question about this. See the afore-mentioned fishermen blown out of the water and deliberately murdered. [Update: Up to 40 people on the ground in Venezuela might have been killed. This number will probably fluctuate for some time and may settle at a higher number.]
  5. …if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire… Again, without doubt.
  6. …if death results from the acts committed… See Item #4 above.
  7. …if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap… Trump himself has stated that Nicolas Maduro and his wife were both captured kidnapped and are in the custody of the US.2
  8. …shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. This does not have to be explained.

It used to be that presidents, while perhaps condoning or committing criminal acts in secret, would attempt to maintain a squeaky-clean, public image. Those days are also gone. Today, they are out in the open for the whole world to see, hear, and experience. I’m pretty hard on Trump, but I will give him credit for one thing–he says the quiet things out loud. This may be due to his propensity to open his mouth before engaging his brain, but it is a fact that he does not hesitate to proclaim his doings.

Venezuela has been a major, big-league, supplier of oil to China. What will happen if, all at once, that supply is shut off and denied? The implications of this are almost too frightening to think about, but it is imperative that we (when I say we, I mean you) do think about them because they will have some sort of effect on all of us.

It’s the end of the world as we know it. But, then, history shows that this is the way it’s always been and people have survived through it all. This time is no different, except for the fact that the “dogs of war” are coming closer and closer to home.

God help us!

  1. Technically, this is NOT a war as the Congress is the only entity which has the constitutional authority to declare war. Since Congress has NOT declared war against Venezuela (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Iran, etc.), then military adventures of this type become merely “police work” to enforce the will of the president. In the current situation, Congress is, at least, as guilty as the administration because it failed to rein him in during a recent vote. ↩︎
  2. Together with the alleged Ukrainian attempt to assassinate Russian president, Vladimir Putin, this precedent could easily become a slippery slope which puts any single official, regardless of his or her office, at risk of becoming “collateral damage, terminated”. Years ago, protocol demanded that high government officials were not to be physically harmed, but those days are gone. ↩︎

Looking Ahead to the New Year: Viva 2026!

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Today is January 1, 2026, the beginning of a new year, and the possibility of any number of good things happening. After all, we just finished the season of wishing others a “Merry Christmas”, which connotes peace and good will toward others in a spirit of love, even toward our enemies. Or maybe, just not hating our enemies quite as much as we normally do.

Or perhaps, even more likely, since Christmas is over for another year and we can put those warm, fuzzy feelings behind us, the next year will be one of Hell breaking out on Planet Earth. There is ample evidence for this extrapolation.

  1. The Ukraine/Russian war which is threatening to engulf all of Europe.
  2. The ongoing Israeli massacre of the Palestinians in Gaza and the destruction of the Middle East.
  3. The next chapter of the Israeli/Iranian war, which might destroy the Middle East.
  4. The potential of the US attacking Venezuela in an effort to force a regime change, so that “we” can get “our” oil back.
  5. The strong suspicion that China is about to assault Taiwan.
  6. The rise of BRICS in opposition to the “international rule of law” as interpreted by the West.
  7. Financial turmoil on a scale never seen before and the recent nearly vertical rise in the price of gold and silver.
  8. The increasing belief that the Day of the Dollar is just about over and that a new system, the Great Reset is imminent.
  9. CBDC’s, digital surveillance, and social conditioning are about to destroy any residual semblance of privacy and freedom, all with the assistance of AI controlled data centers which are going to suck up every last available bit of electricity and fresh water.
  10. COVID. Climate change. The whole Woke monstrosity.
  11. Etc., etc., etc.,…

Oh, yes, there is good reason to believe that 2026 will not be all sugar, spice, and an extended vacation in a tropical paradise. Why, it’s almost enough to make me want to go to bed, cover my head with a pillow, and never come out again. And yet, and yet…

“In the world, you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” — John 16:33

For those who have put their hope and faith in Jesus Christ, the Word, and His word, the troubles we face here can be met with courage and fearlessness because we understand that He is watching over His creation, His Church, with the ultimate intention being that it will reflect all the glory which is God’s alone. No matter what happens to us, it is done with His permission and/or blessing. There is nothing which can touch us unless He allows it and even the “bad things” are meant to steer us toward greater humility and trust.

There are only three ways we can respond to the troubles around us:

  1. Returning evil for evil as the world does. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What’s in it for me. I’m looking out for #1. Kill them all, let God sort them out. Money, money, money. He who dies with the most toys, wins. Eat, drink, and be merry, because tomorrow we die.
  2. Self-control. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, including your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Do not retaliate, but forgive. Seek peace with all. Beat your swords into plowshares. Make a positive difference in your own world because you believe in the future.
  3. Disengage. Distance yourself completely from society. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, but especially do nothing to restrain evil. In essence, admit defeat and commit suicide. Because it’s hopeless.

In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl wrote these timeless words.

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms–to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way…The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity–even under the most difficult circumstances–to add a deeper meaning to his life. It may remain brave, dignified, and unselfish. Or in the bitter fight for self-preservation he may forget his human dignity and become no more than an animal. Here lies the chance for a man either to make use of or to forgo the opportunities of attaining the moral values that a difficult situation may afford him. And this decides whether he is worthy of his sufferings or not.”

In everything we experience this next year, we have a choice. Go through it as a willing ambassador of Christ, knowing we are His, or go through it as an animal, forgetting or refusing to admit that we are made in His Image.

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord…” — 2 Timothy 1:7-8a

As Christians, we have the power and ability to influence our world for the better. We ought not squander the opportunity. Be blessed as you go out and have a Happy New Year in His Name.

The Source of Our Beliefs

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

 “What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes” — Demosthenes

On multiple occasions in the past, and always in response to some person stating that he (or she, usually a he) has no religion, no god, and is, therefore, fully and sovereignly in control of his life, I have said that everyone has a god, a religion, whether they acknowledge it or not. What is the one thing, the value, the idea which you hold in highest regard, which is most important to you, and which reigns supreme over everything else in your life? Regardless of its nature or being, that is your god and the pursuit of it is your religion. You place your faith and your belief in it and you worship it. No one is exempt. No one can rise above this fact nor escape its certainty.

I have been vindicated. In his book, We Who Wrestle with God, Jordan Peterson, yes, that Jordan Peterson, writes this, barely a few pages into the foreword.

“We elevate what we most highly regard to the utmost place of supremacy or sovereignty. We aim at the upward target we deem central, however momentarily. We bring our consciousness itself to bear on what we define as worthy of the expenditure of our attention and the efforts of our action. We begin our continual journey forward by positing a good–a good that is at least better than our point of departure. This is an act of faith as well as one of sacrifice: faith, because the good could be elsewhere; sacrifice, because in the pursuit of any particular good we determine to forgo all others.”1

Nature abhors a vacuum, it is said, and those who state that there is no god and that religion is for fools literally create their own spiritual vacuum which must be filled with something. That something is usually themselves. “God does not exist, therefore, in the absence of God, I become God.” This is commonly known as atheistic humanism and its most basic tenet is that Man can determine truth for himself without any “help” from outside. The major problem with this line of thinking is that it is impossible to prove that God does or does not exist. Instead, the concept must be taken on faith, which is an aspect of a religious belief.

Some “believers” in the non-existence of God become nihilists, believers in nothing, who work toward the destruction of anything good and positive so that something else can be built in its place, subsequently to be destroyed. (See here for a good description of nihilism.)

“Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life–the passion for destruction is also a creative passion!” — Mikhael Bakunin

This is perpetual, unending destruction for the sake of destruction, until Utopia is reached. Somehow, Utopia will be attained. The devil is in the details.

“Deeper down, at the core of our dilemma, is a self-perpetuating crisis of thought. In a sense the difficulty is a very simple one, adequately captured in the story of Adam and Eve. Mankind, tired of dependency on its creator, seeks to strike out alone.” — John Waters

Yes, mankind seeks to strike out alone, to chart his own course, to become his own arbiter of truth. This is exactly what happened in the Garden of Eden, metaphorically or literally, and mankind is still suffering from the action taken. Mankind also suffers from the actions taken today because we have never recovered from The Lie that we could be like God, equal with Him in the determination of what constitutes and defines good and evil. We see it everywhere throughout society. It is in the forefront of the news constantly, as evidenced currently by Israel’s ongoing slaughter of her weaker neighbors, countenanced by the assertion that this is, somehow, God’s desire and, therefore, to be supported without reservation.

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” — from the Melian Dialogue

Yet, in spite of this, in the midst of all the chaos, din, and confusion, there is that still small voice which whispers quietly to us, which we cannot drown out or silence, no matter how hard we try: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

What is God? Who is God? Who shall declare himself as God? There is only one answer and it is seen in the immediate quote above. Even this, though, is subject to interpretation because if Man is God, then however Man loves his neighbor is right and proper, as in, “Do to your neighbor, but do it to him first”, which is pure aggression, or “Love your neighbor, but more especially his wife”, because in all probability, your neighbor is “loving” your wife, even as we speak.

This whole conversation thus reverts back to the beginning: what is truth, and who will define it. Shall I submit to a higher authority and align my life with its (His) decrees or shall I make the vain attempt to go my own way and declare myself God, regardless of the cost?

Does it really matter who or what we worship as God? Does it really matter whose word becomes law? The difference is stark. “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”, and its total opposite, “I am the president. I can do whatever I want.”

Well, yes, Mr. Trump, you can, but there are always consequences which follow.

  1. We Who Wrestle With God, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Penguin Random House, 2024, page xxvii.
    ↩︎

The End of Oppression: O Holy Night

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

December 25, 2025. Christmas Day.

“Truly He taught us to love one another, His law is love and His gospel is peace. Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother and in His Name, all oppression shall cease…” — from the Christmas hymn, “O, Holy Night”

One year ago, I posted an article here which began with these same words, except that the year is 2024. I considered reposting it again but then decided to write a new article building off the same base, following the same format, and taking the argument I made last year into a new direction.

This song, O Holy Night, is without doubt, hands down, my absolute Christmas favorite and the main reason for that is the message it conveys. It is worth repeating.

“Truly He taught us to love one another. His law is love and His Gospel is Peace. Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother and in His Name all oppression shall cease.”

I cannot imagine a better way of describing the Gospel in three short sentences.

Undoubtedly, the breaking of the chains which bind us begin with the spiritual freedom which comes as a result of confessing faith in Jesus Christ and submission to His Lordship over our lives, but this is only the first step. From there, it progresses to the liberation of the soul, our emotions and feelings, and can even spill over into physical healing regardless the condition. Moreover, as time goes on and I make progress in my relationship with God, the more I realize that since I am a person made in His Image, that I am no longer bound by the rule of Man, but am a sovereign being in my own right. The chain which seeks to bind me to the tyranny of others has been broken and cannot be used to subjugate me to their will. In Christ, I am truly free.

Of course, this should not be read to say that I can do whatever I want, that I am completely independent of anyone and anything. I am, as one of His disciples, under His authority and rule, and as a consequence, must live the way I am commanded. The distinction between these two is that, while Man’s rule enslaves in a spirit of power-seeking for one’s own benefit, His law is love, which empties itself for the good and betterment of those it touches.

“Chains shall He break…”

He breaks the chains. All we have to do is to watch and then act in unison, cooperation, and gratefulness. The important thing is that we recognize that the chains have been broken and that we are now freed from the manacles, freed to walk out of the prison cell, freed to become what we were created to be.

What is just as important is the promise this phrase makes, i.e., that the breaking of the chains is guaranteed and, while we may not see it as of yet, it will happen. This is where faith comes in. Our part is simply to believe and be patient, yet ready to move when the moment occurs.

This is true liberation. Political liberation, as proclaimed so avidly by winners of elections and wars, cannot begin to compare.

Christian Health Care–Courtesy of the State

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

Or, should it be Statist Health Care, Courtesy of the Church?

“From the beginning of Christianity, love for one’s neighbor and the example of Jesus’ concern for the sick have compelled Christians to care for the ill and dying. As a result, the Catholic Church has been involved in health care for centuries. In the first hospitals, which were in monasteries, monks and nuns provided care for the sick and dying, especially the poor. The wealthy were taken care of at home.”

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/christianity-compels-us-provide-health-care-poor-politicians-must-do-their-part

Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest, published this article less than two weeks ago at National Catholic Reporter. I found it by chance and I thought the above paragraph consistent with history and Scripture. Unfortunately, it was thrown, as an orphaned poor step-sister, into his argument, which started out with this contradictory title: Christianity compels us to provide health care for the poor. Politicians must do their part.

Yes, absolutely, even the non-Christian politicians and bureaucrats must be harnessed to the task. Separation of Church and State be damned!

Reese made pretty short work of the concept that love for one’s neighbor and the example of Jesus should dictate how we approach the issue of health care for the poor among us. Instead, almost from the beginning, he pivoted to the idea that the State should be doing the heavy lifting:

“A single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and give the government the power to negotiate lower prices with drug companies, doctors and hospitals. Hospitals and doctors could be required to post their fee schedules online to encourage competition.”

“The government could also be more generous in forgiving student loans of doctors and nurses who serve the poor. It should also fund research and public health that reduce health care costs. Eliminating vaccines and fluoride, which some of our national health leaders seek to do, will simply raise health care costs as preventable illnesses and dental problems could increase.” 

“As a nation, we need to move toward Medicare for All, a tax-funded health care system that includes all medically necessary care. We can start by allowing employers and individuals to buy into Medicare even if they are under 65. We should also start by providing Medicare for All to anyone under 18 years of age, including children in the womb.”

This is about as political as it gets, but then he adds this gem.

“Such programs will cost the government money, but the current system is both costly and wasteful.”

About which, I ask, who built the current government run system and if it is costly and wasteful now, then why does he think that giving the government more power to manipulate, regulate, and control will make it any better?

All this is beside the point, however, as Reese’s first mistake is to conflate the Church with the State. As individual Christians, we have an obligation to care for the sick and poor, therefore, the political system we live in and under MUST also care for the sick and poor in order to produce the results which are expected from the followers of Jesus. This is a false equation as there is a vast difference between the mission of the Church which is to heal and comfort out of a genuine love for those it ministers to, and the mission of government which is to gain power regardless of the harm it does to those it seeks to subjugate and use.

There is no place in the Scriptures where it records that Jesus told His disciples to take over the political system so that the hungry could be fed and the bed-ridden raised up healthy. In fact, He constantly had to disabuse them of this notion. Instead, He encouraged them to voluntarily give of their own substance to those who were less fortunate and, as a result, the early Church developed a system of community in which they took care of their own and outsiders as they were able–all without the “assistance” of an external entity which operated on theft, force, and violence.

How does Reese expect the government to afford what he proposes? There are only two ways that government can raise revenue: either by borrowing money which has to be repaid with interest out of the second method of revenue enhancement, which has many various versions but is known by one name–theft, e.g., taxes, inflation, outright confiscation, penalties, etc. Government does not own anything which it has not previously taken from someone else. If government spends more on healthcare tomorrow than it does today, it must run larger deficits (borrowing) or take more from productive society (theft). Both these versions are roundly condemned in the Scriptures as either unwise and/or criminal.

Conversely, the Bible promises that the Church gains materially as it gives spiritually. As individual Christians become more like Christ, they are blessed by God and made richer (emotionally, spiritually, physically) for one purpose: that they will give even more to benefit more people. Note that we are not only considering material wealth here, but everything which we are blessed with. Since the Church (and every organization which has two or more persons in it) is made up of individual members, if the individuals, as individuals, become wealthier, the Church, as a collective, will also and this accumulated wealth can then be spread around to needy persons as seen fit by those who control the flow.

One major distinction to make is that everything governmental involves force, sometimes brute, violent, and lethal force. People are made to submit and comply on pain of punishment if they don’t. The message of government can be summed up in just a few short words, “You will, dammit, or else.” The mandated position of the Church could not be further from this, as Jesus taught that anyone (everyone) could participate in His life-giving freedom if they wanted to, but that participation was completely voluntary and had to come from one’s heart without compulsion. There is nothing forced about salvation or true Christianity and for anyone, especially a recognized minister of the gospel, to claim that the gospel must be practiced by taking from those who have to give to those who don’t is a sacrilege and does dishonor to the message of Christ Himself.

Reese begins to wind up his screed with this reminder.

“As Christianity compels us, we need to put aside our arrogance and partisanship on health care and do what is best for the nation and its people.”

Well, yes, we do, but arrogance and partisanship are integral parts of government and to expect those to be extirpated on behalf of the nation and its people is unrealistic and delusional. Besides, as a formally recognized leader in the Catholic Church, he ought to be the first to do so.

Finally, in his last gasp at trying to force the issue, he writes:

“And, if Congress is incapable of reforming the health care system, we should take away their generous health care plan and put them on Medicaid. That should wake them up.”

In other words, to put it bluntly, repay evil with evil, a practice which is strictly forbidden by the Word of God.

The fact is that Congress is incapable of reforming the system, partly because its individual members benefit greatly from the system itself, but also because most Americans, the vast majority of them, from the very top of the heap to the lowest dregs on a trash-ridden slum, demand that the government gives them what they want, at someone else’s expense, and Congress is only too happy to oblige them. They are all, all of them, part and parcel of an evil, unchristian way of life and the only way to change that is to change oneself. Changing the system for the better is not possible. Changing yourself is, provided that the Spirit of God is given permission to operate, no pun intended.

“Vengeance is Mine, I Will Make You Pay”, says Donald Trump

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.” — Tevye, from Fiddler on the Roof

“Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” — Romans 12:17-19 NKJV

Contrast those sentiments with the words coming out of the mouth of the one who thinks he can do anything because he is the president of the United States.

“They’ve [Venezuela] treated us badly. I guess now we’re not treating them so good.” — Donald Trump

https://twitter.com/i/status/1999565449093169515, at about 51 seconds in.

During the entire history of Christianity from the very beginning 2000 years ago, one of the points of the message has been that retaliatory vengeance, the repaying of evil with evil, is not to be tolerated. Instead, God claims vengeful authority for Himself alone, and any instance where Man is allowed to exercise power in that area of the realm is by designated permission which is constrained by clearly marked parameters and boundaries. In fact, the legal basis for restraining one from taking vengeance goes all the way back to the early days of the Hebrew nation, e.g., among others,

  • Deuteronomy 32:35 “Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.”
  • Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”

The amount of ink spilled onto paper concerning the so-called Christian roots of America is voluminous and even today there are those who call America a Christian nation (or at the very least, call for America to return to its Christian beginning). Yet, in all of this, where are the voices of prominent Christians who tell Donald Trump to change his course, to cool down his rhetoric, to take it easy where it concerns his belligerent words and actions?

Chuck Baldwin comes readily to mind, but there are not a lot of others that I know of.

I am not surprised by Trump. He is promoting his own religion, one of unilateral power, wealth-gathering, and self-importance which incorporates many aspects of religious worship but cannot rightly be called Christian. The ones I am constantly in amazement of are those who call themselves disciples of Jesus Christ, but who flock to Trump’s banner and idolize him as the modern, visible incarnation of the anointed messiah, despite the clear commands of Scripture. In many circles within American society today, criticizing the man about anything he might have said or done is swiftly met with vituperative condemnation.

The questions before us are the same as those posed by the prophet Elijah to the people of Israel at Mount Carmel in his head-to-head confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Who is the god you will worship? Whose word is true? What are you going to believe? These, and others like them, have to be answered in the hearts and minds of all of us and it would be best to settle them, once and for all, before fire rains down from heaven…again. This time, it could be nuclear.

Beating Swords into Plowshares, Montana Style

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

A few days ago, I posted a short article about a bill, HR 6508, introduced into the House of Representatives by Thomas Massie (R-KY), which if passed into law would require the White House to begin proceedings to remove the US from the organization known as NATO. A companion bill, S 2103 has been introduced into the Senate by Mike Lee, R-UT. In addition, the White House has released its National Security Strategy which basically calls for a moderated withdrawal from a hegemonic attempt to control the world into a more manageable position of ruling the Western Hemisphere with an iron fist. Conversely, it could be an admission that the US cannot rule the world due to the rise of significant resistance and must pull in its horns somewhat. It’s all relative, depending on your viewpoint.

These events, even if they take twenty or thirty years to accomplish, can be seen as positive steps toward a better future for the world, like the first faint glimmer of light breaking through the darkness after a long, dark night. We should be aware, though, that nothing is guaranteed and that international tensions could continue to escalate as modern-day society breaks down into uncontrolled chaos, with the ever-present specter of full-blown nuclear war still only a heartbeat away.

[Note: I wrote this at the request of an editor at Western Montana News who asked how it could relate to the local area in the case that events of this sort did unfold.]

I am extremely skeptical about anything which comes out of Washington, regardless of its source (Thomas Massie, excepted) and understand that evil, like the multi-headed hydra of Greek literature, will not be easily dispatched. These things take time to mature and we should not expect to see an immediate end to hostilities even as we hope and believe that world-wide peace will be the eventual result.

Putting aside our disbeliefs and assuming the best, let’s take a look at what might be long-term effects for Montana and the surrounding regions if, and I stress if, NATO is disbanded and the US does pull back from its long-standing policy of never-ending wars to fill the coffers of the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about long ago. Keep in mind that this is only an exercise of hopeful possibility, not a prediction. Your guess is as good as mine.

  1. NATO is abandoned and disappears. The US and Russia come to an understanding of peaceful co-existence. The European Union, a supra-national organization, disintegrates and reverts once more into a continent of national states, each of which is beset with its own peculiar problems, none of which is capable of exercising massive power outside its borders. In such a scenario, it is possible that the number of nuclear warheads which the US and Russian states control and use as threats against each other might be negotiated down from an insane level to one where the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy does not cause nightmares in fearful people. If that were to happen, would the missile silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base eventually be decommissioned and filled with concrete? It is, according to the premise of this article, at least theoretically possible. If that was the only development which came out of this, it would be a good thing.
  2. Trillion dollar “defense” budgets would become a thing of the past. Without an existential threat constantly looming over our heads, there would be no need to break the bank any longer for the ostensible purpose of keeping the “barbarians” at bay, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Instead of pouring that money into weapons systems to kill and destroy, some of it could be used to rebuild Montana’s deteriorating infrastructure–roads and bridges, schools, hospitals, e.g., among others.
  3. Peace is deflationary. Inflation is necessary to drive the financial engine which waging war requires. Without the “need” to destroy the dollar to protect “national interests”, the printing presses which lubricate the political machine in Washington could be wound down to a more moderate level at the very least. The wages which local Montanans earn would go further and purchase more, enabling a general rise in the standard of living.
  4. Massive numbers of young men and women would no longer be needed to fill the ranks of “cannon fodder” in wars which America has no business involving itself or occupying military bases in foreign countries where they are not needed. Instead, they could become highly productive citizens here, raising future generations in an era where soldiers dying in combat might be an anomaly instead of a fixture.

I could go on but you get my point. Western Montana (and the world) has much to gain from the cessation of wars, especially those in which the threat of nuclear annihilation always looms just ahead.

In conclusion, I point to Isaiah 2:4, which says,

“He [Word of God] shall judge between the nations and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.“

If this prophecy is true, then it is inevitable that war will cease to exist. All of us should be working toward that goal whether it comes to pass in our lifetimes or not until far into the future.

The bronze sculpture “Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares,” was created by Soviet artist Evgeny Vuchetich, and presented to the United Nations on 4 December 1959 by the Government of the USSR. The sculpture, depicting the figure of a man holding a hammer aloft in one hand and a sword in the other, which he is making into a ploughshare, is meant to symbolize man’s desire to put an end to war, and to convert the means of destruction into creative tools for the benefit of mankind. It is located in the North Garden of the United Nations Headquarters. 1/Oct/2001. UN Photo/Andrea Brizzi. http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/

The Narrative is Shifting: Foreign Policy Course Corrections Ahead

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/regenerative-farming-just-went-mainstream-heres-why-it-matters

Whether you are a “farmer” growing food or not is not important. The underlying message in this article is that significant changes which become known do not usually happen overnight but occur as a result of hard work over a long period of time by dedicated individuals. The author explains the process quite well.

This can be favorably related to Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) recent bill introduced into the House to require the US to withdraw from NATO. A companion bill, S2152, by Mike Lee (R-UT) can also be seen in this light. Slow, gradual progress is the order of the day, eventually producing enough weight and momentum to push the idea forward to success.

A society, large or small, rarely changes direction dramatically and sharply as a discontinuous event. Instead, like a supertanker or aircraft carrier, the change of course begins with the unseen turning of a rudder, overlooked by nearly everyone until the new direction becomes obvious.

The very fact that these two bills, along with the recent release of the National Security Strategy (NSS) by the White House detailing foreign policy changes show that there is some significant movement underway which most people will not see nor recognize until it bursts onto the scene, perhaps in a cataclysmic manner, akin to a dam bursting and the subsequent release of a large amount of water resulting in the destruction of everything downstream caught in its path.

The system we have lived with and under for decades is giving way and a new one is about to be implemented. It is important to keep in mind that neither of these above-referenced bills are guaranteed passage, however, both add to the weight and pressure building on the existing structure which is trying to maintain the status quo.

Do not discount the significance of Massie’s bill.

Taking the Next Step…and Terrified to Do It

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

This is a confession of sorts. I’m trying to sort something out.

For weeks now, my wife has been binge watching the long-running TV series, The Waltons, which detail the life of a family in the mountains of western Virginia during the Depression years of the 20th century. Just before I started writing this post, I walked by and saw Jason tell his older sister, Mary Ellen, that he didn’t know whether he could ever kill another human being, even for his country. It is important to know that Jason voluntarily signed up (against the express wishes of his mother) to serve in the National Guard at the beginning of WW2 and had been having qualms about what he was being told and taught to do should he ever have to defend himself or his comrades.

A number of years ago, I purchased a book by John Roth, “Choosing Against War”1, and have read through it numerous times, in fact, so many that it is beginning to fall apart. I recently finished reading it again and the message resonates as loudly now (probably louder) as it did the first time I read it. Like Jason Walton, I am questioning my response should I ever be in a situation which might require the use of violent force, even the killing of another human being, to save my life and/or that of those close to and around me, especially my wife.

Roth teaches non-violent resistance to criminal aggression as a means of defending oneself and others, answering in detail many of the arguments raised by those who do not live in his “camp”. I find his position compelling and while I don’t agree with everything he writes, nevertheless, the issue is working on me quite persistently. I just cannot stop thinking about it.

There are two things which have shouldered their way to the front of my mind:

  1. As a stated believer in the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the ultimate peacemaker, can I claim to be His disciple in all truth, yet still cling to the idea that someone else’s life is dispensable should I decide to pull the trigger? How do I love my neighbor (definition of neighbor notwithstanding) as Jesus commands if his life is at my disposal and I choose to end it?
  2. As a stated believer who claims to trust God to take care of me, regardless of the situation, would I be overstepping that boundary if I actually did pull the trigger? Can it be said that I have faith and trust in God’s protection, except for the times when that protection is not working out the way that I think it should?

It seems to me that these two questions are inextricably linked with the first flowing from the second. Can I even love my neighbor as Christ orders without first placing my trust in God? Ultimately, at least it seems so to me, this boils down to one thing: in order to fully embrace the policy of non-violent living, I must first open myself up to the highly vulnerable position of trusting God to perform as He has promised. Ultimately, what it means is that I have to give up the “right” to decide for myself in everything I do and surrender completely to His will, whether it results in my good or to my detriment.

I have not come to this place easily. I know all the arguments against such a position and have made many of them myself and, to further confess my sins, in my past have even entertained the thought of shooting someone simply to know what it felt like and to have the satisfaction of doing so. Of course, that has not happened and today, if the temptation pops up, I put it out of my mind as quickly as possible because I will not succumb to it in any way, shape, or form. So help me, God!

This is my dilemma and speaking only for myself, it is a question of whose will is going to reign supreme in my life. Do I trust God enough to surrender that power in my pursuit of becoming like Christ, because there can be no doubt on this issue. If I do not trust God completely in this manner, then I will never give it up, but will always hold that as my prerogative. Do I trust God or do I act as my own man? In essence, the decision I have to make is equivalent (is that the right word?) to the decision Jesus made in the Garden of Gethsemane just before his arrest and crucifixion.

“Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not my will, but Yours, be done.” — Luke 22:42

I do not want advice or argument. Rather, I ask only one thing from you, if you are on speaking terms with the Almighty, say a prayer on my behalf. And, since there is strength in numbers, repost this to anyone you think would be open to it.

  1. 2002, Goodbooks, Intercourse, PA, 17534 ↩︎

The Value of Value

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

“When we forget the cost of something, we stop valuing it. And when we stop valuing it, we stop protecting it.”–Molly Engelhardt, https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/age-forgotten-infrastructure

“The man who does not value himself cannot value anything or anyone.” — Ayn Rand

Can it be said that the President of the United States and his Minister of War, i.e, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, respectively, have forgotten the cost of human life and, as a consequence, do not value it? For certain, it is sure that they do not value the lives of Caribbean fishermen and have been prone to simply blowing them out of the water because they have decided that those men have no value. With respect to Ayn Rand’s statement, what does this say about both Trump and Hegseth?

Christianity, the teaching and application of the teachings of Jesus Christ, proclaims something different. All human beings have value in the eyes of God, regardless as to who they are or their position in society. It does not matter how much (or how little) wealth they possess. Whether they are the cream of the crop, the top echelon, the elite, or the dregs at the bottom of the filter, the homeless, the addicts, the prostitutes. All have value for only one reason: they have been created in His image, after His likeness. All are equal simply because they are, because each contains the spark of what was implanted in Adam and Eve at the very beginning, i.e., that Man (individual and collective) has been created in the Image of God Himself, and that this cannot be, cannot be, dismissed casually and without effect.

But, isn’t this exactly what Trump and Hegseth are saying and doing when they blow fishermen’s boats out of the water with Hellfire missiles from afar? They are nothing. Their lives mean nothing. They do not deserve any consideration because we have determined that they are a threat to our way of life. Isn’t it ironic that both Trump and Hegseth consider a single boat plying its way across the water is an existential threat to the American way of life, which has at its base, the absolute right of every human being to make decisions which might, or might not, actually benefit him? The right to decide for himself what is best for himself?

No, by Government! Certainly not! You do not understand and because of that misunderstanding, we will decide what is best for you. Of course, the fact that it will affect our own bank account positively and will make us wealthy beyond belief has absolutely nothing to do with it. We are concerned only with your welfare and you ought to trust us completely, no matter how it seems.

What’s the matter with you, you peasant?

Yeah, well, I cannot (and will not ever) blend in with the “cream of the crop” at the top of the social spectrum. In fact, I live within the lowest spectrum of the income scale, that is, the bottom 90% of the wage earners, the peons, so to speak. I will never be rich by worldly standards, will never attain to the status of those who assume that they are something, yet, despite the lack of wealth and influence that I might have, from God’s perspective, I have immense value, more value than that of the entire universe because He gave everything to show that my life is important. I am, because He has declared that I am, and that is all that is necessary. I have value because He had decreed it and there is nothing that the State of Man can bring against me which will contravene that truth.

Show me the truth!

Either we believe in the message that human life is subservient to power or we believe that each person, regardless of his stature or caste, has value and that value ought to be defended, no matter how small or insignificant it is.

If we forget that human life, no matter how small, has value and is only fit to be used to further our own goals (wealth, power, etc.), then we run afoul of the concept that all, that is, ALL, men have been created in the the Image of God. In doing so, aren’t we actually setting ourselves up against the One Who has determined the way it is?

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Utopia and Personal Responsibility

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

There are only two laws which I recognize as the basis of what is legitimate and lawful. Both can be found in Matthew 22: 37-40.

“Jesus said to him [the lawyer who asked the question in v. 36], ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'”

Notice that Jesus did not say that the first commandment was the greatest and that everything else falls short of it. This is the FIRST…and the SECOND is its equivalent. Nothing else matters. Nothing else matters. Everything hinges on these two orders, which are identical. In fact, the apostle Paul verified this distinction and went even further in his letter to the Galatians, ch. 5, v. 14.

“For ALL (emphasis mine) the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Let me rephrase that to make it more personal. You shall love your neighbor as if he were you. How do you love yourself?

“The man who does not value himself cannot value anything or anyone.” — Ayn Rand

How do you want to be treated by your neighbor? Well, then, doggone it, treat him the same way. Further, since you proclaim yourself as “Christian”, then treat him that way first, before you ever see any reward for your action. Without ever knowing that you will receive any reward at all, but acting only on faith and believing that your action WILL have some benevolent effect on your neighbor. Someday. Perhaps. You know, “Do unto others…”, which is known as the Golden Rule, although not a lot of people regularly bank on it.

Love God. Love your neighbor. The first is easy, the second somewhat more difficult and sometimes near impossible. My recommendation: quit trying to love God. God can take care of Himself and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which you can do about that. Instead, love your neighbor, your f***ing neighbor, whom you know, whom you cannot get along with, who may be caught in the grip of sin which you have been miraculously set free from. If you have been redeemed by the grace of God and set free from that, then, what excuse do you have for NOT loving your neighbor who has not yet attained to that understanding? This is your duty and it is the only way you have to show your love for God. In loving your neighbor, you are loving God.

Let me repeat that. Loving your neighbor as if he were you is the ONLY way you have to show your love for God. Of course, this raises the question, “Who is my neighbor?”, but if you need an answer for that, then you don’t understand the order in the first place.

“How can you hate your brother whom you have seen, yet still claim that you love God, Whom you have not seen”? — 1 John 4:20, paraphrased quite loosely.

“Hating your brother, whom you have seen, is incompatible with claiming to love God, whom you have not seen, because genuine love for God must be reflected in love for others, especially fellow believers. The Apostle John states that if someone claims to love God but hates their brother, they are a liar, as one who does not love their visible brother cannot genuinely love the invisible God. This principle underscores that love for God is demonstrated through tangible actions toward others, making it impossible to truly love God while harboring hatred toward a fellow human being.” — from a Brave search.

Let’s change direction. In the first post of this series, my argument was conditional, an if-then statement and I think it is worth repeating. If, and I put a considerable amount of weight on the word if, citizens restrain themselves, tolerate disagreement, act with integrity, and recognize right from wrong, then what need is there for laws? If people voluntarily behave themselves the way that they should, according to the Great Commandments (Matthew 22: 35-40), then doesn’t that obviate the necessity of laws which attempt to force people to live in a certain manner? If. If. If. If these conditions are met, then…

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace.” — Jimi Hendrix

The problem is (and always has been) is that people do not (will not) live under the absurd, tyrannical, autocratic, and extremely difficult rules system laid down in Jesus’ message. Instead, rather than controlling themselves and loving their neighbors as they are instructed, they prefer to live under an absurd, tyrannical, autocratic, and extremely difficult rules system laid on them by other people who are determined to exercise power and control for their own sake, regardless who has to suffer for it, including poverty-stricken wives and children of fishermen who are killed because they ventured out into the Caribbean Sea to feed their wives and children, running the risk of being executed because someone more powerful said, without any provable evidence, that they were bringing drugs into the United States, and were, therefore, without value and dispensable.

Without value. Dispensable. Kill them all. Let God sort them out.

Let that sink into your soul for a moment and then ask yourself this question. How much further do we have to go before I get the point?

Extreme? You betcha!

Part 2: Utopia, Reality, and the Future

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

“If we can’t learn how to peacefully interact with those that we disagree with, we are going to be in big trouble.” — Michael Snyder, https://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/how-to-survive-thanksgiving/

I think it is important to clarify one thing about my previous post here, Utopia? Or the Truth Working its Power?, as it can easily be misconstrued to read that I am advocating doing away with all laws and simply relying on redeemed human nature to live with others the way we should. Well, in a sense, I guess I am, but that does not mean that I am blind to present reality. I do recognize that most of the world, perhaps virtually everyone, is not ready for this and could not live under such a protocol or regime. People are selfish, unloving, afraid, and do not control themselves, therefore, to live in a semblance of peace with each other, they pass laws which offer (seem to offer) some form of protection against others who live the same way they do. This is human nature.

It would be easy to simply write me off as a lunatic, someone who is completely out of touch with reality, and I have no doubt that many have this opinion. However, I have done nothing more than noticed the transforming power of the gospel, in myself and those around me, extrapolating and projecting it further and further into the future, and logically coming to the end conclusion, which I happen to believe can be verified through Scripture.

“For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” — Habakkuk 2:14

They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” — Isaiah 11:9

“He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.” — Psalm 33:5

“…I will build My church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18b

Please note that none of these scriptures nor many others like them claim that the physical presence of Jesus on Earth is required for these scenarios to be fulfilled. It is not my intention to get into a pushing, shoving match between the various factions of Christian eschatology who can’t get along with each other. Rather, I see these as hope for the future, knowing and believing that truth and righteousness will overcome evil in society, even as it works its way through individual human hearts. Whether Jesus returns before you finish reading this post or does not appear until you are long dead and forgotten is totally irrelevant to the subject. The Scripture promises that this will happen and, if you believe it, then there is no good reason not to live that way now. IF you believe this, there is no good reason not to live that way now.

“No excuse, Sir!”

My vision is not meant to be seen as an immediate cure-all, but as a life-long goal to be achieved, to be lived for, to be realized individually on a daily basis as we conform ourselves to the Image of Jesus Christ and His perfection. This is nothing different than the way that Christians are expected to live. We all understand this. No one is automatically made perfect at the time he walks down a sawdust trail at a local tent meeting, but it is presumed that, if he is sincere and honest, spiritual growth will eventually appear and bear fruit. Over time and with enough participation, these changes work their way through and into society in such a manner that the entire culture is transformed for the better. Jesus even mentioned this.

“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” — Matthew 13:33

During his earthly ministry, Jesus constantly was pestered and harassed by people (including his own disciples) who wanted him to use his power to overthrow the Roman rule and establish his own kingdom. To every one of those petitions he had the same answer. “No, that’s not the way it works. I will teach you a different way. Be patient and learn.” It was not until after his death and resurrection that many of the disciples caught on and even today, 2000 years later, there is still a great deal of confusion about this. People then thought in terms of political power. People today do the same thing without ever realizing that they are repeating the same mistake over and over again, trying to contort the Gospel of Peace into an agglomeration of rules enforced by violent power, to which He Who sits on the throne has the same refrain–“No, that’s not the way it works. I will teach you a different way. Be patient and learn.”

Selah! Pause. Consider.

Utopia? Or the Truth Working Its Power?

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

“A free republic requires citizens who can restrain themselves, tolerate disagreement, act with integrity, and recognize right from wrong. Without that, laws become hollow and institutions brittle.” — https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/americas-real-crisis-collapse-citizen

This quote was taken from an article cautioning us to not put our full trust in AI as a means of solving our problems. It is good as far as it goes, but I am going to rip it entirely out of context and address the deeper philosophical meaning buried in these two sentences. A free republic allows this and no one can complain that I did not recognize the author because you can click on the link and read it for yourself. If you want to.

Consider.

Isn’t the first part of this question a paraphrase of the Great Commandment and the one which is its equal?

“Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second one is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'” — Matthew 22:35-40 (NKJV)

If citizens restrain themselves, tolerate disagreement, act with integrity, and recognize right from wrong, then what need is there for laws, especially laws which are intended to control and regulate behavior according to what someone else thinks? Literally, every single law that has ever been promulgated has been enacted for one purpose–to control someone’s behavior in some way, yet Jesus says that the structure and foundation of these laws throughout history, myriads of myriads, is encapsulated in two short sentences: Love God with everything you have. Love your neighbor as if he were you.

So, I ask again, if citizens restrain themselves, tolerate disagreement, act with integrity, and recognize right from wrong, what need is there for laws? What need is there for governments which do not make people free by their rules, but seek to enslave them by constantly passing more laws which restrict human liberty?

Of course, some will say that this is only a theoretical exercise and people will push back declaring that I am trying to create an unworkable Utopian future, yet the fact remains that I, personally, do not need laws to tell me how to restrain myself, to tolerate disagreement, to act with integrity, to recognize right and wrong. I do not personally need government to order my life, to keep me under control, to keep my neighbor “safe” from my depredations and aggressions against him. Further, I do not need government nor laws to protect me from my neighbor who also keeps himself under control and recognizes right from wrong. Neither do you.

Let me ask you a question. Do you have need to be told how to live, how to restrain yourself, how to discern what is right, how to be known as a person of integrity, how to disagree with others? Well, do you? The point I am trying to make is that if you and I can live according to the Two Great Commands, then so can anyone. Everyone has the potential for doing so.

But, but, but…I can hear the sputtering now. We might be able to live that way with God’s help, but others won’t and they are the ones who need to be controlled and ordered. Imagine what the world would look like if criminals and wrongdoers were allowed to run amok without any fear of punishment or retribution, to which I would respond, like the world we live in today? And, of course, we could go back and forth in this argument forever without ever coming to some agreement, so I will just leave it there and move on.

What would be the condition of the world in 100 years (or 1000, the length of time doesn’t matter) if those who understand what the first sentence of this article really means AND spent their time, effort, and resources developing those traits and characteristics in themselves instead of working to pass laws to control someone else? Instead of trying to keep others down, what would happen if we actually lived the life as described in Jesus’ answer to the lawyer? Didn’t Jesus also say that, “You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.”? And, isn’t it true that one of the things we are set free from is fear–fear of the unknown, the future, our fellow man, our own sinful nature, inclinations, and actions? If we truly wanted to be free, wouldn’t we work harder on ourselves to conform to His Image and less on a political party or ideology that we support and believe in? Isn’t it likely that the more we become like Jesus, the less we will conform to the world system, perhaps eventually abandoning it altogether?

Theory. All theory, you say. Pie in the sky by and by and completely impossible in this world. Yet, that is the way I am living now and, as time goes on and my life becomes more in tune with His Spirit, I fully expect to become more and more consistent with what I am promoting. Whether anyone joins me or not is irrelevant. I know my path and I will travel it unafraid, alone if necessary, and without any need or desire to exercise power and control over anyone else. But, then, I do not have to walk alone because the Spirit of God walks with me.

This is not to say I have arrived at sinless perfection because I haven’t. I won’t as long as I am alive. There will always be corrections to make, sins to overcome, hard places to smooth out, transgressions to be repented of and forgiven. However, I have put my trust and faith in the Word, which rules supreme over all law and I refuse to believe in the actions and institutions of Man.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such, there is no law.” — Galatians 5:22-23 (NKJV)

I repeat, against such, there is no law.

Final answer.

The Ghost of Jeffrey Epstein Lives!

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

When I got up from my late-afternoon nap a little while ago, I pulled up ZeroHedge to see what was going on in the world and was shocked, shocked, absolutely stunned, I tell you to see this article pronouncing that both the House (expected) and the Senate (completely out of character) had approved the release of the Epstein Files, and sent it on to The Donald for his long, drawn-out signature. What really blew my mind, however, were the margins in the votes, 427-1 (House) and unanimous (Senate).

Naturally, being the sort of person I am, I immediately started ruminating on the meaning of these lop-sided decisions and, being the suspicious, skeptical sort of person I am, latched onto the idea that one of two things had just happened:

  1. The Federal Government, as exemplified in its two august bodies, had just had a “coming to Jesus” moment and, henceforth, would be working for truth, righteousness, and the American Way.
  2. The American people were just snowed…again.

I have to hand it to Thomas Massie, a republican representative from Kentucky, who along with Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, has been pushing and pushing for months to get this “list” published. Massie, for his efforts, has been subjected to serious “trouble” from the White House, but has emerged victorious. I think. Maybe. We’ll see. No telling what this will lead to. Nevertheless, take your victory lap, Mr. Massie. You have earned it.

On July 10, 2025, I posted an article, https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2025/07/10/officially-confirmed-epstein-didnt-kill-himself/, which included the paragraphs below.

“There is one other similarity between JFK and Epstein. The case is closed. Closed. Officially closed. There will be no more investigation, no more fact-finding ventures, no more questioning, no more publicity, no more “conspiracy theorizing”. The administration of Donald Trump and Co. has issued its last report and there will be no release of any files pertaining to the matter. In due time, it will all be forgotten….Except that it won’t be. There is simply too much about this that doesn’t pass the smell test. Anyone with a sense of reason, common sense, and a nose for the truth can discern that we have been lied to…again, this time with vehemence, bigly, as Trump would say.”

Which, once more, brings up the question: Are we being snowed again? Suspicious minds want to know.

  • While on the campaign trail, Trump vigorously promoted the promise that the files would be released as soon as he became president.
  • In February, 2025, barely a month after Trump took office, his AG Pam Bondi, declared that the “list” was on her desk, impatiently waiting for her review and release.
  • In July, 2025, barely four months later, the White House held their famous (infamous?) press conference during which it was averred, avowed, and aggressively asserted that “there was no there, there”. The List had somehow vanished, the evidence had been mysteriously flushed down the toilet, there were no witnesses to the alleged crimes, the whole thing was a hoax (a Democrat hoax to get Trump, mind you), and on, and on, and on…
  • In July, Massie and Khanna introduced their resolution named the Epstein Files Transparency Act, seeking to gain 218 co-signers which would force the House to take up the measure. Around that time, Trump declared war on Massie, vowing to “primary” him in 2026 with someone more “suitable” and unleashing a virtual river of vicious invective against him.
  • In early August, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s girl Friday, was transferred from a high-security prison in Tallahassee, FL, to a low-security Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas, where she has received preferential treatment. Around the same time, it was revealed that Donald Trump had never, ever, done anything wrong with Epstein. Not even once.
  • Initially, Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House, resisted the EFTA resolution and refused to bring it up for a vote until it became apparent that it was going to happen, at which time he allowed it. It is noteworthy that Johnson also kept the House in a state of recess for months so as to avoid seating Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who was elected in a special election in August and who had sworn to sign on as the last needed co-sponsor.
  • Claiming “we have nothing to hide”, Trump caved in on Nov. 17 and gave his “blessing” to the vote, which was apparently the last straw on the camel’s back.

Something here is not right. It stinks to high heaven. Either there was nothing there to begin with OR there is something which TPTB are desperately trying to cover up. Considering that Trump and Team have been bouncing back and forth between two opinions, depending on who they are trying to please, it is not hard to believe that some VERY SERIOUS SHENANIGANS did actually happen, that Epstein had something to do with them, and that it will cause some extreme embarrassment on the part of some VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE should the truth about the whole sordid affair come out. Larry Summers is only the first one to fall.

Final Answer: Let the truth be told and the chips fall where they will.

Random Thoughts

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Reading Lew Rockwell this morning.

“I have written a number of articles for which I have received little response about the horrible mistake humanity has made by entering into the digital revolution and the AI it spawned.  These disastrous developments are now being institutionalized in all societies.  They bring the end of human autonomy, independence, control, objective truth, freedom, and awareness of reality.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/11/paul-craig-roberts/the-destruction-of-reality/

I have great respect for the insights promoted by Paul Craig Roberts, but no sympathy for the fact that he has received “little response” to his offerings. The fact of the matter is that, virtually wherever I have seen his postings, there has been absolutely no possibility to respond–no email address, no comments allowed, etc. It’s almost as if he is talking to the wall and then gets miffed when the wall just sits there. My advice to him: open up the channels of communication and you will be surprised at the response you get.

————————————————————

“If people can’t make enough money to get by then they should get better-paying jobs. If people don’t like getting kicked around by an abusive status quo then they should climb their way into a socioeconomic strata that isn’t getting kicked around as much. If someone doesn’t like being the nail then they should become the hammer.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/11/no_author/in-capitalism-they-tell-you-to-become-the-hammer-if-you-dont-like-being-the-nail/

I respect Caitlin Johnstone for her tenacity. She sees things which are wrong and goes after them full-force, most especially the morally disastrous catastrophe happening in Gaza. Yet, I simply cannot align myself with her viewpoint on capitalism, which she routinely and often maligns without ever getting to the root of the problem. It is easy to blame “capitalism”, however, in our own way, every single one of us is a capitalist.

 “The fundamental premise of capitalism is that all exchanges of property between economic actors are voluntary. No one is forced to make an exchange against their will; and no one is forcibly prohibited from making an exchange with another willing actor. Freedom of association and freedom of contract are inherent to capitalism. Without them, whatever system is operating is not capitalism, whether supported by private business owners or not.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/11/tom-mullen/jim-crow-laws-were-anti-capitalist-and-the-free-market-killed-them-long-before-the-government-showed-up/

Capitalism, at its root, is the everyday acting out of every single individual using what he has at his disposal to make his own life better, whether financially, socially, emotionally, or spiritually. What Johnstone decries, yet does not distinguish, is that when power (force, violence) is brought to bear on society, there is no longer free capitalism, freedom of choice, but a contrived system in which individuals are no longer able to decide for themselves, but must submit to the will of others.

What is capitalism, indeed, if not the ability of one person deciding where and how to “invest” his own capital, regardless as to the amount, so that he reaps a reward at some indeterminate time in the future? Did not Jesus extol this practice, as seen in The Parable of the Talents, i.e, putting the money which has been entrusted to you to profitable use? (Matthew 25:14-30)

————————————————————

“We tell ourselves that violence is like a coat that you can put on and take off when you choose, but that’s a tragically mistaken way of thinking. Violence works its way into your body, even into your soul. Then it festers there, eating away at your capacity for being human — your longing for loving, honest relationships; your care for yourself and others; and your deep connection to other living beings. Even worse, in a culture that glorifies violence and has made it into something sacred, such dynamics are excruciatingly hard for us to see clearly.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/11/no_author/military-moral-injury-violence-and-the-parable-of-the-guinea-worm/

An honest, soul-searching inquest into the repercussions of organized violence and our acceptance of it. 11/11 used to be known as Armistice Day, the celebration of the end of war, but it has transmogrified into the celebration of the worship of violence and those who practice it, without ever recognizing the consequences which follow such action, i.e., the destruction of our own souls.

The Stones are Crying Out. Can You Hear Them?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

It has been reported that the toll from Donald Trump’s self-declared “war” on Caribbean fishing boats has now reached a total of 18 attacks, with at least 70 persons losing their lives because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though some (that is, a few) members of Congress are demanding that the attacks end (that is, until Congress itself can declare them official), there is no sign that Trump and his gung-ho henchmen (Rubio, Hegseth, etc.) will stop voluntarily. It is more than likely that the killings will escalate and multiply until the end goal of the neo-con White House and its puppet-masters is reached: a full-blown war against near or distant “enemies” who are unable to stand up against the military might of the US Department of War (that is, the highly profitable business model known as the “military-industrial complex).

In my lifetime, I have read a few books which have left a lasting impact, which I cannot forget, overlook, or ignore: Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, Roth’s Choosing Against War, Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, et al. There are pamphlets, essays, polemics, articles too numerous to mention, which have shaped my thinking in so many ways, bringing me to the point I am at today. When it comes to Trump’s “Fisherman’s War”, however, one stands out as extremely relevant and sounds a clear warning. The excerpt below is taken from it.

“Today, the stones still cry out. Every story of victims—whether nonviolent prisoners like those Steve Bannon met in jail, or casualties of wars we fuel in Israel-Gaza or Ukraine-Russia—haunts our collective conscience. Jesus tied the stones’ cries to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD, when Israel’s zeal for violence mirrored Rome’s and left both exposed as complicit in the same sin. America stands at a similar crossroads. Our politics, like Caiaphas’, justifies flesh-and-blood victims for “national security” or “progress.” We cheer Barabbas-types—leaders promising strength through exclusion or war—while ignoring the Lamb who redefines polis not as the victors’ club but as the refuge for the least of these.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/david-gornoski/the-stones-still-cry-out-holy-weeks-political-reckoning/

Caiaphas-type politics which demand that someone die. Barabbas-type leaders who prey on weak, insignificant countries, societies, and persons. Pilate-type rulers who could stop the carnage but are politically inclined to “go along to get along” and, therefore, impotent and useless. And, of course, there are the “huddled masses” which obediently provide the necessary background noise and support for such actions, all in the delusion that somehow blowing boats out of the water without just cause will make America safe and their own lives personally better and more prosperous. Oh, yes, the collective zeal for violence at the mainstream level does mirror that in Washington and, like the crowd which screamed out, “Crucify him, crucify him!”, urge and hector our own Caesar-like “leaders” to increase the tempo and pressure because all would be lost if we relented for even a moment. Whether our collective conscience haunts us or not is debatable.

And still, the stones cry out!

Well, yes, this is an obvious reference to the devastation and killing fields in Gaza, not the waters off the coast of Venezuela, but everything I have described above applies to this as well. This ought to raise the question which everyone has heard at some time or another: WWJD? What would Jesus do, indeed, about the situations in both locations where the powerful and mighty rain down violence, death, and destruction on the poor and helpless? Actually moving from theory to consequence, probably negative, is to rephrase the question. What will Jesus do? What will be Heaven’s response to these not-so-isolated instances of theft, murder, and injustice, all of which are occurring on our watch and often with our complicity and consent, both vocal and silent.

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.” — Psalm 2:1-3

And, the answer.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure… — Psalm 2: 4-5

My belief, informed by history and the warnings (both implicit and explicit) laid out in the Holy Bible, is that it will not be pretty nor comfortable. Many of us will probably express regret that we allowed the stones to cry out because it was easier than to raise a fuss ourselves.

Suffering, Endurance, and the Prize of Life

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

A little bit of background.

I read Bionic Mosquito. His posts, whether I understand them fully (sometimes I don’t), whether I agree with them or not (usually I do), are always worth the time it takes to read and think about. Recently, he has been posting a series of articles on the book of Job, from the Old Testament, which have helped me to see Job’s suffering (and his insufferable “friends”) in a different light.

At about the time this series started, I also began reading (again) Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning, and I recognized that the struggle Job went through is also the same thing which Frankl describes, namely that, unavoidable suffering is to be endured and that, by enduring it instead of becoming bitter or hopeless1, the individual actually becomes stronger, more spiritually satisfied, and fulfilled. This, of course, is not meant to say that suffering is inevitable, but if or when it does happen, it does not have to be the end of the world. In fact, the apostle Paul alluded to this when he wrote to the Philippian church that,

“…for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content; I know how to be abased, and I know how to about. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” — Philippians 4:11-12

The understanding I am gaining is that no matter what happens to me, it does not have to destroy me, but if I choose to allow it, can propel me to a higher level of understanding, bringing me closer to the ideal of Christ, Who endured all things, including the cross, because He understood that the glory set before Him was worth the temporary pain which the suffering brought about.

Why should I be any different than that? Or exempt from it? Suffering, in and of itself, does not result in godliness or holiness, but if responded to in the correct manner, can bring about a level of spiritual peace and power which cannot be attained in any other way.

The key here is that the suffering which cannot be avoided simply cannot be avoided. If Job had known what was about to happen to him, he might have been able to take steps to evade it. If we knew what the future holds for us, we would do whatever we could to mitigate the resultant pain. The ancient Irish saying goes, “If I knew where I was going to die, Begorra, I’d never go near the place.” Or, as Frankl says, in reference to suffering,

“…If it is avoidable, the meaningful thing to do is to remove its cause, for unnecessary suffering is masochistic rather than heroic.” — ibid

If you suffer because you cannot control your spending habits, always spending more than you earn and take in, then the thing to do is to change the way you live, to bring your lifestyle into alignment with your earnings capacity (and perhaps even slightly below that). For many people, however, it is easier to play the victim, to take advantage of someone else’s compassion and pity, but this is not the way to endure to the end nor the way to conquer a bad habit. Obviously, this is a simplistic example, but the principle holds regardless of the circumstance. If you can avoid unnecessary suffering by changing, then it is better to change, no matter how much it costs in the short run.

How should we respond, though, if we are hit with a bout of suffering which we can do nothing about, over which we have no control? Reading the book of Job, it is evident from the beginning that he could do nothing to alter or alleviate his situation, and was compelled to endure through it to the very end when his righteousness would be proven. Frankl has mentioned that being arrested and thrown into a concentration camp against your will may be nothing you can avoid or alter, but you always have the option to determine the way you will respond to it.

“…[E]verything can be taken from a man but one thing; the last of the human freedoms–to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” — ibid

Isn’t this what we should be aiming at?

  1. Job’s wife? Bitter and hopeless? Curse God, and die! Over the millennia, she has been held up as an example of a bitter, hopeless woman, yet I can’t condemn her. After all, she experienced nearly all the suffering that Job did, loss of wealth, children, etc., and probably a great deal of emotional health, which would be an enormous load for any woman to carry. I wonder, how would I respond if I had to walk a mile in her shoes? ↩︎

How to Get Along in Five Easy Steps

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

We live, it is widely and loudly asserted, in a deeply divided nation in which the two main polar extremes, Left and Right, cannot get along and will never be able to agree on anything at all, not to mention all the innumerable smaller factions and splinter groups who simply are at irreconcilable odds with no chance of ever achieving even a smidgeon of tolerance for each other, let alone actually working together for a better world.

“I am not going to waste your time debunking these assertions. They have been repeatedly, exhaustively debunked. You know what they are and you either believe them or you don’t. Either way, reviewing and debunking them again isn’t going to change a thing.” — C.J. Hopkins, Fear and Loathing in the New Normal Reich, Skyhorse Publishing 2025, pg. 77.

Well, admittedly, I have jerked C.J.’s statement completely out of context and applied it to another issue entirely, but the fact remains that there are an incredible amount of people in America today who are constantly making assertions about the divisions and disconnectedness among the populace. (My apologies to you, C.J. for the slight.)

OK, enough digression. Back to business. We have work to do.

One of the most common of the assertions is that “they” are constantly keeping us stirred up and fomenting trouble between “us”, with the expectation that “we” will focus on fighting with each other instead of “them”. You know what I mean, the Superior Elites against the Countless Masses.

“The goal is clearly to keep us divided so the plutocrats can keep doing what they are doing.” — from an undisclosed source, but the sentiment is widespread

Well, if this is the goal, then it seems logical that we figure out what we have to do to defeat it. Wouldn’t you think that, if “they” want to keep us divided and “we” are trying to resist them so that “they” don’t win the game, then “we” should stop doing whatever it is that divides “us”? Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Just stop being divided and “their” power over us is immediately shredded like so much confetti, but, as with any conundrum, the knowing comes easier than the doing. It is quite elementary to say that we really ought to get along with each other in a spirit of cooperation, but actually bringing ourselves to act on it is a horse of a different color.

But, that raises a question. Why is it so difficult to get along with others? I will leave it there for you to ponder. If you come up with an answer and want to share it, feel free to write a comment. OK, OK, here’s a hint.

Step 1: Examine yourself and admit that you might have something to do with the problem. Identify those areas within your own life which make it hard for other people to get along with you. (Notice that the thrust of the argument has been flipped. It’s not that you find it hard to get along with others, but that they find it hard to get along with you. If this rings true, then Step 2 should be easy for you to figure out.)

Step 2:

Step 3:

Step 4:

Step 5:

By the time you work your way through all of these steps, each one leading naturally to the next, the problem should have been resolved. BTW, if you need some help with this exercise, I recommend you go to https://bionicmosquito.substack.com/p/the-teaching-that-is-foolishness and work your way through this simple, yet comprehensive study on the Beatitudes.

“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” — Romans 12:18

No Kings! Except the One I Want

Roger Mitchell10 Comments

No Kings! If these people really thought about what they are pushing, they would abandon their desire for anyone to be (s)elected President, as it is certain that whoever sits in the Oval Office acts as a king–pushing laws, writing “executive orders”, finagling more revenue to spend, fomenting wars to increase their power, etc.

However, the “king thing” doesn’t stop with the president. Every single person, from the top dog down to the most local level who tries to impose his or her will on everyone else, is a wannabe king. There are an incredible amount of people in this world who want to rule, to make their word law, to use force and the threat of violence to show how strong and tough they are. Everywhere, there are kings and most of them have been placed in their position by the “lower-downs” who decided that “our” king is better than “their” king.

Yes, that’s right. No Kings mean no kings except the ones we want to rule over us and every political faction promotes this. So, liberals and progressives are comfortable with Democrat kings, but conservatives and Christians prefer to submit to Republican ones. The reality is, though, that no matter which king or whose king is on top, the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the average American continue to be eroded, degraded, and removed.

There is only one philosophy which is true to the No Kings concept–anarchy. True-blue unbridled anarchy in which every person is his own sovereign, being respected as such AND respecting the absolute sovereignty of all others.

No kings! I agree with that sentiment and, unlike the protesters last Saturday, I try to be consistent with it.

A Return to the Age of Idiocy

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

In today’s modern world, I am an oddity. I say this because I gain most, nearly all, of my information from reading. I rarely watch videos. This is a deliberate choice. I have found over the years that I can get more out of an article, essay, pamphlet or book in less time than it would take to equal that by watching a video. Most videos, in my opinion, are at least 50% longer than they need to be due to the inevitable advertising, hemming, hawing, and general waste of time over virtually nothing at all. Training and teaching videos which get right to the point and stay on track may be different, but a very large part of what is produced and disseminated today is “stuff” for which I have no time.

Many people today probably don’t understand that and, as time goes on, less and less time is spent on readership and critical thinking about the language and wording of the text, which is rationally and logically based. Videos provide an artificial boost emotionally because the viewer can literally see and hear the facial expressions and hear the tonal inflections of the speakers, which written words are not able to do without an active imagination. Images provided add to the “heat of the moment”, in whatever the video is attempting to convey. The immediate effect of this is that attention spans are shrinking. It is becoming harder and harder for people to focus on any one thing or topic, such as a book or full length article, for extended or long periods of time.

I recently found an article on Forum Geopolitica which confirmed this phenomenon. The article itself is long, long, long, but grabbed my attention from the beginning and I read it through to the end. It might have taken me half an hour, but, as far as I am concerned, was well worth the time and I have a much better understanding of the topic than I would have if I had not read it. The quotes below are taken from it.

“[W]e are experiencing a process of de-literacy, a relapse into a new illiteracy. The ability to understand complex texts is being lost on the way to an “age of idiocy”.[93] The loss of written culture in turn leads to a crisis of tradition: this opens the door to the recoding of history, a reframing in the service of ruling propaganda, and the implementation of historical lies…”

“…When writing loses its significance as a tool of communication, historical experiences are lost – which condemns us to repeat them. If the word tends to become obsolete, the analytical power of written symbols is also lost. Visual media become the dominant matrix of truth, as they are much more effective at undermining reason and appealing directly to emotions.[95]…”

Visual media become the dominant matrix of truth… Isn’t that exactly what has happened across much of the world today? It’s not too far-fetched to think that, books might themselves become oddities, accessible only in museums as quaint artifacts of ancient history. The goon squads of Fahrenheit 451 might become obsolete because no one ever reads anything, thus depriving writers of a viable market.

Book? What’s a book?

My father, whom I learned to understand too late, said that there was only one thing which needed to be taught to anyone, namely, how to read AND understand what had been read. If a person can read anything and understand it, there are no limits to what he might achieve. Everything can be learned–everything–including complex and advanced subjects, IF understanding comes with the reading. Abstract philosophical and religious concepts, theories, sciences, mathematics, all the way to mundane, everyday subjects–all these can be learned simply by knowing how to read and to understand what has been read.

When I was young, I read anything I could get my hands on, mostly fiction, but I also spent a lot of time studying encyclopedias, fascinated by geographic maps and history. Gradually, my tastes changed and now I hardly ever read a novel, concentrating on non-fiction works of all stripes and persuasions, constantly honing my beliefs and (hopefully) becoming a better thinker for my efforts.

While reading the above-cited article, it struck me that modern society might be reverting back to a time where only a few, the learned few, could address issues intelligently and the masses of men simply lived as they had for centuries with no hope of ever escaping the pit of extreme ignorance. The vision that came to me was of monks in a monastery, toiling a lifetime away to produce knowledge, while nearly everyone around them was in survival mode, simply trying to stay alive. Of course, the argument can be made that education was strictly limited to the intelligentsia and that the common people and even their nobles had no means of accessing that until Gutenberg’s press came along, which may be true, but it still does not detract from my point. The fact is that knowledge and information are easier to gain today than ever before in history, yet the ability to retain those for longer than the immediate usage is rapidly being degraded. If the medieval, Dark Ages were a pit of ignorance, then what would today’s society be called? Age of idiocy seems to be about right.

In a world where video and audio are increasingly dominant, it becomes more difficult to determine what is actually true, especially now that AI can be used to manipulate photos and sounds, even words, to achieve the ends desired. How do I know that video I just watched is completely accurate? Has it been worked over to portray something different than what is seen and heard? I have no way of being sure without relying on someone else’s judgment and say-so. It is nearly impossible to do this with the written and published word which cannot be changed without leaving a record.

All that aside, curling up with a good book, whether on a couch beside a roaring fireplace or not, is far more satisfying than watching it (or its adaptation and interpretation) on a screen. The “seeing” of Buck in Call of the Wild, Sherlock Holmes, Beau Geste, the Chronicles of Narnia, Aku-Aku, or the Gulag Archipelago, in one’s own mind far surpasses the experience of seeing them according to someone else’s imagination.

But, then, I may just be speaking as an old fogie who refuses to keep up with the times and wants to revert back to his own Age of Innocence.

An Afternoon to be Remembered

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

This is not my typical post. I’ll be back. I promise.

On September 26th, a perfectly beautiful, wonderfully gorgeous day, I had the satisfying experience of hosting a “local gathering” of people where we ate grilled chicken (Le Chef Moi) and varied delectable and delicious potluck dishes brought in by others, washed it down with good beer (some of us, anyway), and expounded our favorite theories about the way the world SHOULD WORK all afternoon. This was brought about, of course, by sticking my neck out and inviting CJ Hopkins and Hugo Fernandez to make a pit stop in their America Tour while they were traveling through.

The Official Touring Car

This came about because I cannot resist temptation when it is staring me in the face. It all began when I noticed in CJ’s published itinerary that they had nothing planned for Big Sky Country,

“Big Sky Country — No idea yet where we’re going to stop. Basically, we have six days to get from Kansas City to Portland, so … Wyoming, Montana, Idaho maybe. Again, if you live in this part of the country, and have suggestions or invitations, please let me know.”

Just a big, fat void of emptiness, so I jumped at the chance and sent him an email inviting them in for some of my world-famous BBQ’ed chicken and an opportunity to sit for an interview with my good friend, Dan, who is building a digital radio station out of the Bitterroot Valley. Needless to say, almost before the ink had a chance to dry in my email missive, CJ replied that he would be delighted to join us and…well, the rest is history.

I had invited numerous (80-100 people), friends, neighbors, acquaintances, to participate, and in the end about 25 actually showed up. The ratio is probably typical–invite three times more than you want, although I was hoping for better, but it was what it was. As far as I could tell, everyone had a fantastic time of it, at least no one has yet told me they didn’t, and considering that some decided to stretch the afternoon well into early evening hours, tells me that they were really into the spirit of the day.

The only fly in the ointment, the thing that really has me upset, is that I didn’t get any photographs of CJ and Hugo. I have no excuse for the lapse except that the thought never entered my mind. That being said, these will have to do, and please read the running commentary as well. This is not Playboy, after all. You don’t come here just for the pictures.

https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/america-road-trip-project-week-three

https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/america-road-trip-project-week-two

https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/america-road-trip-project-week-one

All in all, an incredibly positive moment. I was blessed to be in the right place at the right time and I will always look back on this event with special fondness. Thank you to CJ and Hugo (I persist in using the Spanish pronunciation of his name), to Dan (see the link above to his interview), and also to everyone else who helped to make this a smashing success. We are better off for it.

Murder on the High Seas: Coming Soon to a City Near You–A Hypocrisy of the Most Personal Order

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

It has only been a few weeks since the cold-blooded murder of eleven crew members on a fishing boat in the Caribbean by the US military machine, headed up by none other than Donald Trump who gave the order, essentially pulling the trigger himself. Between then and now, there have been two other instances in which the same action has been taken, with three men killed in each event, thus bringing the total killed in an extra-judicial action to seventeen persons.

Supposedly, these men were running drugs from Venezuela into the United States with the intent to destroy American society, but there is no proof that this is the case, and no legal precedent for the action taken to prevent that from happening. Instead, Trump and his henchmen, beginning with Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, simply decided unilaterally that they were going to blow the boats out of the water without ever referring the matter to the Dept. of Justice (I use that term loosely) for criminal prosecution.

This sort of behavior reminds me of The Mouse’s Tale in Alice in Wonderland. “I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury, said cunning old Fury. I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.”

The American Experiment has come full circle and now this deadly attitude is being practiced openly without any attempt to hide or excuse it. Judge, jury, executioner. Because we can. Because the president can do anything. No longer is anyone deemed to be innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of his peers (not that this was ever really a valid concept, but at least it presented a moral face). Today, all that is necessary for me, you, or any other person, to be “eliminated” is to cross the path of The Decider and engage his ire. As Donald Trump put it in his own words truthfully spoken, probably among the few truthfully spoken words of his life,

“He did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them,” Trump said, before breaking from his prepared remarks to add: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry.”

Yes, he sure is sorry. A sorry sight, indeed. Knowing how he treats those who oppose him, it would be a good idea to watch your back if you are one of those. And the crowd of adoring, hero-worshipping, fanatical followers who call themselves “Christian” cheered and applauded, hating his (and presumably their own) opponents as well, even though the action goes against every principle taught by Jesus the Christ.

The hypocrisy of those who claim to be good and against evil is staggering and reeks to high heaven. Or the high seas, whichever is closer. Consider this.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-ups-pressure-control-disputed-waters

Just a few days earlier, China’s newest aircraft carrier, the Fujian, sailed through the Taiwan Strait for the first time while still undergoing sea trials ahead of expected commissioning later this year. Japan’s military also reported spotting the Fujian near the disputed Senkaku Islands on Sept. 11, sailing with two destroyers.

Beijing claimed the carrier was en route to the South China Sea for training and scientific tests, insisting the transit was routine and not aimed at anyone. However, the move carried symbolic weight as the CCP asserts its claims over both the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan.

Around the same time, the U.S. destroyer USS Higgins and the British frigate HMS Richmond transited the Taiwan Strait, prompting sharp warnings from Beijing, which condemned the move as undermining regional stability and deployed naval and air forces to monitor them.

Washington and London countered that the operation was lawful and routine under international law, stressing that the strait lies beyond the territorial waters of any state and that freedom of navigation must be upheld.

Did you get that? Freedom of navigation beyond the territorial waters of any state MUST be upheld, that is, as long as it is not Venezuelan fishing crews or Chinese aircraft carriers who are doing the navigating. Donald Trump (who stands in for God and the Deep State) forbid that anyone except “our” national interests be allowed to sail with impunity, whether in the bathtub of the Caribbean or halfway around the world in deep waters near their own homeland. Such shenanigans are not to be tolerated and steps will be taken to enforce “the rule of law”, as we see fit. We, of course, meaning the ones who wield the power in the halls of Washington, D.C.

International law? Pffffttt! WTF is that?

Murder, the aggressive, unjustified killing of another person(s), has become accepted as normal in American society. We used to be shocked and outraged at the senseless slaughter of innocents, but have now become inured to it. Murder is increasingly seen as the means to advance and achieve one’s own goals and if that happens to cross over the line of traditional morality, so what? As long as I can get what I want, who cares, even if someone else has to die for it? If I have the power, as Trump does, to determine who shall live and who shall die, then why shouldn’t I be allowed to use it?

Well, for starters, once this type of thinking becomes pervasive throughout society, then no one is safe. Once murders happen because…(you fill in the blanks), then there is no protection from any unexpected assault, whether it be from a knife (Iryna Zarutska), a rifle (Charlie Kirk), or a Hellfire missile (Venezuelan fishermen). The really sad thing about all this is the immense number of (alleged, supposed) Christians, those who profess faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ on love for others, who wholeheartedly and fervently express their support and adoration of Donald Trump. After all, he is fighting on our behalf and will shortly reconstitute and resurrect America from the absolute mess it became at the hands of decades of liberal, progressive policies orchestrated by unhinged, lunatic, deranged Democrats and Communists!

Right? Of course, right. Which is the mental attitude fostered and believed by so many who claim to be disciples of the King of Kings, yet cannot fathom their own misguided faith in a system which promotes and encourages chaos, mayhem, and murder. As long as Trump is the Executioner, we are OK with it. He is one of us. God damn the evil Russkies and the transgenders! Revive and defend the moral code according to our own lights and truths, and let us write it on tablets of stone, if that becomes necessary!! Just so that everyone knows who is handing down the decrees from on high.

We have a problem.

“For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me…” — Exodus 20:5b

Donald Trump, who can do anything, hates his opponents, especially the One Who rules international law. We have been warned.

The Wages of Sin is Death–Official or Not

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

In the last few weeks, there have been three high-profile instances of deliberate murder in which those killed had no warning that they were going to die. Life was good, until all at once it was over.

  1. Eleven crew members of a small Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean which was destroyed by a Hellfire missile.
  2. A 23 year old woman, Iryna Zarutska,1 stabbed in the neck repeatedly by a man behind her while riding home from work in Charlotte, NC.
  3. Charlie Kirk, shot in the neck while speaking at a rally at a Utah university.

Other than the fact that they were completely unexpected, do these murders have anything in common? It could be argued, I suppose, that the boat’s crew members were “known to the State of US” to be violent gang members running drugs, therefore the takeout was justified. It could be argued that Charlie Kirk brought it on himself by opposing the “woke”, progressive, liberal agenda and being extremely vocal about his beliefs. It could be argued that Iryna’s murder was caused by decades of insane policies of refusing to treat criminal cases harshly without any serious consequence for the perps.

Yet, during his first term in office, Donald Trump gave the order to assassinate an Iranian general2, Qasem Solemani, while he was traveling to a peace conference in Iraq, done without warning solely because it was possible. While Barack Obama was president, numerous persons were simply killed via drone strikes3 because they happened to get on the wrong list, including an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, and his 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. How many innocent people have been killed because of the aggressive wars waged by the American State and society? It is safe to assume that they number in the tens of millions and probably most of them were not aware that they were in imminent danger until it was upon them.

We have a problem and it is not going to be easily solved nor overcome. America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, has always been a practitioner of violence, often deadly. We still are, and there does not seem to be any groundswell of movement on the part of the grassroots population to bring the official killings to an end. Instead, if the Venezuelan State sank one of the US Navy ships in the area, citing defense, this country as a cohesive unit would issue a full-throated roar for vengeance and destruction, regardless of who started the whole mess or whether it was legal or right. We love our violent Hollywood movies and PlayStation video games in which we can vicariously “live” the victorious life. Or die trying, except that we get to come back another day and fight again.

“Kill them all. Let God sort them out.”

Why are we shocked when something like Charlie Kirk’s assassination or Iryna Zarutska’s cold-blooded murder occur, but pooh-pooh any notion that the killers were only following the examples set by their own government? Why is murder excused, even lauded and honored, when it is practiced by a government for political purposes, but individual murders cannot be tolerated, even though they might be done for political purposes? Why do we tolerate “black on black” murders which constitute the largest part of the killings in the US and try to justify “black on white” murders as, well, “correcting racial imbalances”? Why do we treat “white on black” murders as worse than any other, especially if a police officer is the one doing the killing?

Why? Why? Why? These are the hard questions we need to honestly explore and try to answer in order to make some sense of the situation, and the first place to start is with ourselves, in our own innermost being, the one which drives and defines everything we are. Am I a supporter of government led and sponsored wars and extra-judicial “executions”? Do I think it is right for my government to declare war on other countries without cause? Would I join the military and kill some person I never knew simply because someone else told me to? Do I hate my neighbor and wish evil on him? And on, and on, and on…

We are at this point in history because, as a nation and a people, we have either explicitly abandoned the moral imperatives of God or made light of them, ignoring them when convenient, and/or trying to substitute our own man-made rules which seem right and just to us. Today, and increasingly so in a rapidly disintegrating future, we are (and will) reap the consequences of our actions and behaviors. The only way out is to seek forgiveness for our own sins and change the way we think, which will change the way we act. This is called repentance…and it works. It is the only thing which will work. Everything else is nothing more than a Band-Aid® slapped over a blood-gushing wound.

More to come…and it ain’t looking good. Murder is murder is murder, and it’s past time to recognize this fact. Time to raise our sights to a higher plane, one where the injunction, “Thou shalt not kill” still holds true.

  1. Notice that Wikipedia does its dead-level best (no pun intended) to mask the fact that the killer was a black male who had 14 convictions on his record and was still walking the streets. ↩︎
  2. To justify this action and call it “lawful”, read this. I do not agree with the conclusion. https://www.jagreporter.af.mil/Post/Article-View-Post/Article/2539536/the-killing-of-qassem-soleimani/ ↩︎
  3. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/ ↩︎

Jeffrey Epstein or Beating Up on Venezuela

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

Donald Trump, America’s peace-loving, peace-making president, is acting presidential again. No, he has not got the war in Ukraine settled after almost nine months of overtures, empty threats, and broken promises, one of which was that he would stop it in twenty-four hours as soon as he took office. Nor has he reined in the Insane Beast of the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu and the Israeli State, on their wild, murderous rampage through Gaza. Neither has he stopped threatening Iran over its refusal to bow down and worship “the god that be”, that is, the puppet-masters and heavyweight policy-makers of the Western realm.

Instead, probably with the blessings and direction of his controllers (whoever they might be), he has virtually, unilaterally, declared war on Venezuela, a small, oil-rich country on the northern coast of South America. In fact, on Tuesday, September 2, following Trump’s direct order, a boat was fired upon by the US Navy off the coast of Venezuela in international waters, killing eleven crew members. This was done without warning, without any attempt to stop the vessel, any effort to arrest the crew and bring them to a court in the US where they could be tried and convicted of their crimes against humanity and receive “justice”. Note the quotation marks.

All on Trump’s say-so. Yes, very presidential, if I may say so myself. In this, at least, he was consistent with his own words, “I’m the president. I can do whatever I want.” Well, now he’s a murderer…on several counts, as are the men and women who colluded with him and those who actually pulled the triggers. Now, in response to Venezuela’s response in which two of its warplanes buzzed a US destroyer, Trump has just issued another threat. “Don’t do that anymore or I will shoot you down.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-warns-any-venezuelan-plane-threatening-us-ships-will-be-shot-down

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-deploys-f-35s-puerto-rico-airfield-after-pair-venezuelan-jets-buzz-us-warship

Supposedly, the boat which was fired upon was running drugs from Venezuela to…somewhere, and those drugs were guaranteed to find their way onto the streets of Miami, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, or points between and further afield. Supposedly, the drug runners were members of the “notorious” gang known as Tren de Aragua, vicious rapists and killers all, whose only goal was to degrade and destroy the fine, upstanding citizens of the above-named communities and points between and further afield. Yes, it is certain that, if Trump had not acted “presidentially”, the streets of America would have been thrown into chaos, confusion, degradation, and death, but today the people who live there can sleep peacefully at night, knowing that a heavily-armed SWAT team is not going to smash their front door in and shoot up the place, because there are no drugs inside. What a relief!

Yeah, we have to fight them over there, so that we don’t have to fight them over here.

OK, let’s cut to the chase here. This is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. The land of innate human rights backed up by the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. All of us know this and we repeat it monotonously and mindlessly whenever the government, represented by the president (currently Trump), overrides The Supreme Law of the Land and tramples and abuses the citizenry. But, but, but…that’s not constitutional. That’s not allowed. That’s illegal. OK, tell that to your Congressperson or Senator the next time you see them…if you ever get a chance to see them, which isn’t likely unless they’re in your district stumping for re-election, at which time they will tell you anything to get you off their back AND get your vote in the upcoming election.

  1. Donald Trump, representing the US government, declared the crew members “criminal” and not worthy of life.
  2. Donald Trump, taking matters into his own hands, ordered them killed without recourse to any of the legalities which Make America Great.
  3. The boat was destroyed in international waters, on the high seas. This makes Trump a pirate, a modern-day one, to be sure, but absolutely no different in principle than other pirates throughout the ages.
  4. Trump has, in effect, declared war on Venezuela and its people, some of whom probably are vicious rapists, killers, and drug-runners. However, the highly-revered and worshipped Constitution insists that Congress must declare war and the president is bound by it. Despite this impediment, none of America’s wars since WW2 have been lawfully declared, they just somehow happened, usually because the president and his henchmen decided that they could do anything they wanted…and did, to the detriment of an enormous number of people world-wide, including Americans. Oh, and BTW, Congress which should have stepped in and stopped it, did nothing at all.

If Trump sends the troops and gunboats into Venezuela to “arrest and neutralize” the drug-runners, especially the top dog, Nicholas Maduro, it is likely to immediately resemble the situation in Viet Nam during the “war” (undeclared) there. Venezuela is an ideal spot for a protracted guerilla war with rough, mountainous terrain, steaming rain forests, huge rivers, and a poverty-stricken population which might conclude they have nothing to lose except their lives in the battle against an invading hegemonic power. Even though the US would quickly gain air superiority and maintain control of the coast with its warships, the place is not suited for tank warfare nor would it be easily overrun by large armies, which the US cannot afford to lose.

The best that Trump, representing the government, could hope for is that the Maduro regime (don’t you love that word, always used against our enemies, never our friends) would be destabilized and run out of town (or, better yet, into a maximum security prison in El Salvador), giving the US the opportunity to install a puppet government to its own liking, a proxy which would act as it was told to and would speedily sign over Venezuela’s vast mineral rights (oil) to ExxonMobil, Shell, and the like.

It would be wise, however, to remember that Venezuela’s neighboring country, Colombia, suffered from a decades-long struggle which pitted a weak, centralized government against dedicated opposing guerillas, until they finally were able to come to an agreement and end the fighting. Would Venezuela be any different? Would ExxonMobil or Shell care? Would The Powers That Be who have unleashed Trump and sicced him onto a “crappy little country” which is only fit to be picked up and thrown against a wall? Would Trump himself care?

What is really going on? I can think of three things without ever breaking a sweat.

  1. Trump and the West have lost the war (excuse me, Special Military Operation) in Ukraine. The Russians have won it. There is no stopping it without submitting to Vlad Putin’s demands, all of which have been known publicly for years.
  2. The war in Gaza (excuse me, Special Military Operation) is going badly for Israel and its constantly attentive, muscular, sycophantic groupie, the US State. Every day that Israel beats up, shoots down, tortures, rapes, and starves innocent people, mainly women and children, is another day in which world opinion increasingly turns against it. Like Ukraine, the war is lost but it cannot be admitted and will not be quit nor surrendered until the bitter end.
  3. Jeffrey Epstein. Ahhhhh! You thought I would never get there, didn’t you? It’s OK, you can exhale now. Yep, good ole Jeff is reaching out from beyond the grave (if he is actually dead which is not certain for sure) and causing havoc, panic, and consternation among the power-brokers who think that they had control of the narrative on this sordid affair. Do you believe that there is no list? Do you believe that Donald Trump is on that list? Do you believe that Ghislaine Maxwell is telling the truth? Do you believe that all the young girls who were supposedly seduced and manipulated willingly cooperated and that there were absolutely no victims among them? Do you believe that Thomas Massie is going to give up on his efforts to expose ALL the records held by the government?

What is more probable is that Trump and the cronies around, beneath, and over him are scared to death, terrified of being exposed, and doing what they do best to distract the public by creating a diversion, the best diversion, the one most guaranteed to turn the attention of the public away from the issue–war. A war which will accomplish its purpose, meant to take the heat off the current crisis which is threatening severe consequences on people who have acted with impunity for decades, believing like Trump, that they can do whatever they want.

Psalms 2 tells what happens when kings, rulers, and nations get too big for their britches. It’s not a good place to be.

A Mealy-mouthed Admission of Guilt

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

According to an article in Zero Hedge, the state of Florida is taking steps to remove all the imposed mandates concerning the Covid so-called “vaccines”. Yes, that’s right, all of them. To which I can only say, “It’s about time. They never should have ordered them in the first place.” But, credit where credit is due, and this is a positive development.

That being said, I am not pleased with Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo’s philosophical argument in his announcement as he fudges what the real issue is.

“Who am I, as a government, or anyone else, or who am I as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in their body?

“I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your Body and your God.”

Ladapo manages in just a few short sentences to shift the argument from one of imposed mandates by a power-grabbing, totalitarian wanna-be State to one more to the liking of “libertarians” everywhere, namely, the sovereignty an individual has over his or her own body. Indeed, who is Ladapo (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell anyone at all how they SHALL treat themselves? Isn’t the base principle of libertarianism the concept that everyone can decide for themselves how they live? With respect to this, he is saying nothing new and, really, nothing at all.

The point that he avoids, however, is not one of individual, sovereign choice but the fact that injecting the shots has not been voluntary, but forced on people by the very same government which Ladapo is a part of. If he was entirely truthful, his words would have looked like this: “Who am I, as a government,…to tell you what you WILL put into your body?” No, no, even that is not correct. Let’s try again. “Who am I, as a government,…to tell you what someone else WILL put into your body, completely overriding any objection you might have?” Furthermore, “Who am I to tell you what your child WILL have injected into their body, against their (and your) will and consent?”

This has nothing to do with bodily autonomy or personal freedom and everything with understanding that the anti-Covid tide is running strong against TPTB and the scam which was foisted on the world. In some areas, it still has life but the monstrous beast which destroyed liberty over the course of a few years can be seen struggling and thrashing about, trying to maintain its viability. Ladapo recognizes the trend and is trying to get ahead of the curve by throwing out a bone, but I am willing to bet that if the Establishment had won the battle, we would never hear anything like this…from anyone. Instead, the only thing which would have been voiced is the injunction to–“Get Your Booster!”, and the giddy, gleeful (or not) pronouncements by the Bought and Paid For “news media” that Donald “Cap’n Warp Speed” Trump has won again.

I’m glad to see the state of Florida taking the lead on this issue but, please, please don’t muddy the waters. Either individual people are secure in their own rights or the State can tell them what they will do. There are no other alternatives. There is no other option.

Eugenics, Elitism, and the Law

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18: 17

“From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.” — Mark 7: 24-30, NKJV

At first glance, these two pieces of scripture seem to have nothing in common, but I have found a connection. Oddly enough, it comes from two separate articles on The Unz Review, the first making a case for the practice of eugenics and the second ripping his argument into shreds. Reading through the first article (7600 words, half-marathon, but I finished), one might be tempted to think that there is a sound argument for the practice, but reading through the second (27, 800 words, I skipped a lot and didn’t get through to the end before I quit), it is quite apparent that there are a lot of flaws in the first, all of which need to be resolved and the Commenters Which Follow happily did (and still are doing) their part to achieve that.

There are a lot of things which play into this debate and discussion, but ultimately the lesson learned is that eugenicists favor some method of “selection” to cull those they disapprove of. The reason for the disapproval nor the method employed are not critical to the debate, all that matters is that there are “elites” who decide and “sub-standards” who bear the judgment of the decision. This attitude brings to mind the saying that “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Throughout human history, the world has experienced this tension repeatedly. This is not something new. Everywhere, in all times, some class of people has been termed “deficient” and “not quite human”, and due to that designation, suitable for “subjugation and/or removal”. Consider the history of the United States alone:

  1. Native Americans
  2. Black slaves
  3. Irish and Italian immigrants
  4. Chinese
  5. White trash
  6. Mentally incompetent
  7. Physically flawed
  8. And many more.

Applying this topic to the second scripture quoted, it is evident that the mindset was prevalent and accepted during the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that they were “superior” over all others and the others who lived under their dominance knew it as well. How else can you explain these words? “…it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” The Gentiles were treated like dogs, little dogs, fit only to be cursed and kicked out of the way, unless, of course, they could be used to fill the coffers and wallets of the self-recognized “upper” class, which included not only the highest echelons of Jewish society, but also the lowest of the low. Remember Peter and the vision he had in which God told him not to call anything “unclean” which God had cleansed? Yes, even poverty-stricken, ignorant fishermen were prone to look down their snobbish noses at anyone they deemed “inferior” and draw in the hems of their robes to avoid touching them.

Thank God that after twenty centuries, we’re beyond that. Except that we’re not. The issue still swirls and the temptation still exists to consider a specific class as better than all others and it is nearly certain that the “favored ones” are represented by those who do the defining. Curiously enough, the definition always matches the person and personality of the definer, but then again, it really isn’t so curious. After all, we do have tendencies to inflate and lift ourselves above the status of others around us, don’t we?

Or am I the only one who has ever done that?

The Concept of Justice in an Unjust World

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

I subscribe to Doug Casey’s communique and regularly receive articles which I always read intently, sometimes more than once, and from which I usually learn something, even if nothing more than to buttress and bolster my own viewpoint. The most recent one did just that, commenting on the system in American society which we call “justice”, and proposing a logical, well-reasoned solution to the problem. I have reprinted it here in verbatim and added nothing. If you want to see the original, click on the link below. For the record, I am in complete agreement with Casey’s argument.

Doug Casey on the Failures of the Justice System and a Viable Solution

justic1e.jpg

International Man: What is the role of a justice system in a society, and what should the State have to do with it?

Doug Casey: In my view, what really holds a society together isn’t the laws enacted by legislatures or dictators, but peer pressure, social opprobrium, and moral approbation. In general, society is pretty self-regulating. It’s why people pay their bills at restaurants even though there’s not a cop at the door. Criminals are the exception, not the rule—although, it must be said, they naturally gravitate towards the government.

When somebody commits a crime, there’s a trial to determine what harm has been done, who should be compensated, and so forth. Courts determine these things. But I would argue that the state is not a necessary part of any of this. Society, like markets, tends to be self-ordering.

With a minimal “night watchman” sort of state like that described by Ayn Rand, the proper role of government is simply to defend you from force and fraud. This implies an army to defend you from force external to your society, a police force to defend you from force within your society, and a court system to allow the adjudication of disputes without resorting to force.

I could live in a society like that—it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. A proper court system, with either arbitrators or judges and juries system, would be part of it. But I’d go on to argue that juries and courts should be privatized.

International Man: What would a privatized justice system look like? Would it have juries?

Doug Casey: There might be either arbitrators, or juries, or both. The jury should be composed of independent thinkers who aren’t easily swayed by rhetoric or pressured by groupthink. Today, however, they’re just random people who aren’t clever enough to avoid jury duty.

In theory, juries can counter the tremendous power of judges. Judges today are either elected or appointed. If elected, they have to campaign like any other politician and are subject to the same perverse incentives any other politician is. If they are appointed, it can be even worse. Appointees are often just collecting political favors. While they’re allegedly more independent, in many ways, they’re even less accountable.

In theory, a jury is a good counterbalance to the power of the judge. You need some way to weigh the facts and decide who’s in the right. But the way juries work in the US today is far from optimal. It used to be that a jury could easily overturn any law. The process was called jury nullification, and it was an effective way for the common people to keep legislators under control. Today, however, it’s really a dead letter.

Today’s juries amount to a form of involuntary servitude. You get your notice for jury duty, and you either have to serve, whether you want to or not or come up with excuses the state will deign to accept. Most productive people feel that they have more urgent priorities in their lives than helping decide court cases that can go on for months. So the type of people who end up serving on juries these days generally have nothing better to do or for whom the trivial fee they pay is good money. Hardly the kind of person who should decide weighty matters, perhaps even life and death.

In addition, many trials center on highly technical concepts, and forms of evidence, that people rounded up from the highways and byways are simply unqualified to interpret.

Worse, there’s the jury selection process called voir dire. The notion is to give the attorneys of both sides the opportunity to remove a few individuals from the jury who might be biased against their case, thus ensuring a more unbiased jury. But in practice, it’s an interrogation process by which lawyers try to ensure they get a jury that will believe whatever they tell them. This usually means that anyone exhibiting the least bit of independent thinking or is prone to value justice over law enforcement will get removed and never serve on a jury.

The result is that the quality of juries today is several standard deviations below what it should be. Any intelligent person has opinions, and in this day of the Internet, almost any person’s opinions are easy to find out. No matter which way your opinions line up, one side or the other isn’t going to like them in any case, so you won’t make it past voir dire. Both the prosecution and defense like to see malleable jurors with easily influenced minds. As a result, the typical juror has no opinions other than those on the weather, sports, and American Idol. People who think in concepts are weeded out as troublemakers.

This process makes a shambles of the concept of a “jury of your peers.”The type of people they rope into jury duty wouldn’t likely be the peers of anyone now reading this. If I were facing a trial, I’d much rather be tried by twelve people randomly selected out of a phone book than by the type of people who get selected for jury duty.

If we’re to have juries, they ought to be truly juries of our peers—people who can understand you and the facts pertaining to your case. But we’re far from an ideal system. It’s worse than arbitrary; given that most of those employed by the justice system work for the state, and that it’s the state vs. an individual in so many cases, there’s a huge inherent bias on top of the whole problem with today’s stacked juries.

International Man: What is an ideal justice system in your perspective?

Doug Casey: It would be a more equitable system if judges and jurors were professionals who had to compete with each other on the basis of their proven records of intelligence, fairness, speed, and low cost. The victim and the accused would mutually agree on the judge and jury or arbitrators.

Separating justice and state would help eliminate the state’s ability to prosecute phony, made-up crimes, especially crimes with no victims. There needs to be an actual victim to press charges if the state can’t be party to a case. That alone would eliminate the wasted resources and trashed lives resulting from the US’s various wars against victimless crimes. No one could be criminally prosecuted for having unorthodox sexual preferences, using unpopular drugs, drinking on Sunday, or smoking in a private establishment. Or for evading taxes. It might surprise Americans to know that tax evasion is a civil, not a criminal, matter in most countries.

Most legal actions focus on matters of tort and breach of contract. It’s important to keep the laws simple and few, so ignorance of the law is impossible. Ideally, just two great laws:

1. Do all that you say you’re going to do.

2. Don’t aggress against other people or their property.

The point is that justice has to do with righting actual wrongs that have been done to people, not enforcing laws and exacting arbitrary punishments. Today justice means enforcing the will of politicians and bureaucrats. A proper system of justice would focus on making the victim whole, not arbitrarily punishing the aggressor.

With privatized justice, someone would accuse another, both sides would choose an arbitrator (professional or otherwise), and those two arbitrators would agree on a third to make sure there were no tied votes. They would look at all the facts—not just the arbitrary subset of facts allowed by legal precedent and state machinations. That decision would not be about punishing anyone but about making the harmed party whole again.

The key concepts are justice and restitution, not punishment. Punishment, if you actually think about it, rarely serves any useful purpose; it just gives vent to base and reactive emotions. It may set a “good example” to deter future miscreants, but it definitely sets a bad example for society as a whole by institutionalizing and justifying cruelty.

International Man: Is there any hope for the current justice system?

Doug Casey: The whole system is highly politicized, which is only natural for something run by the state. Unfortunately, as the country increasingly looks to government as a solution—your only choice being to choose between so-called “right” and “left” politics. That’s going to make the current legal system even more dysfunctional in every way I can think of.

International Man: What are the implications of this for investors and businesses?

Doug Casey: I see people being convicted under ridiculous applications of the securities laws, tax laws, and more. The only area where things are becoming more rational and freer is the area of drug laws. It’s becoming clear to even the dimmest legislators and jurists that they’re as stupid and destructive as were those against alcohol during Prohibition.

In fact, almost all the administrative laws of the myriad of three- and four-letter agencies—ATF, FTC, EPA, SEC, FDA, etc., etc.—create bogus and even nonsensical “crimes.” Even if you aren’t convicted, if you’re targeted, it can cost you hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in legal fees, plus time, lost business, and damaged reputation. The system has become rapacious and Kafkaesque. And as the state grabs more and more power with each passing crisis, the risk of attention from state operatives increases, even for innocent and honest­ people. The trend is accelerating in a negative direction. If history is any guide, things will get worse until we reach a genuine crisis. That’s bad news for anyone with any wealth, especially if they have unpopular political views.

That has very serious implications. Not just for people in business and investors, but society itself. This is one reason I’m so bearish on the prospects of the current world order; not only are there decades-long distortions in the economy that have to be liquidated, but the whole legal system is rotten to the core. It needs to be scrapped—someone needs to push the reset button and restore justice as its guiding principle—and that, too, is a distortion that can’t be corrected easily or painlessly.

Unfortunately, it seems as if it’s the very worst people who have their fingers on “The Great Reset” button.

The Smell of Blood Money

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Whoohoo! Happy days are here again.

Europe To Spend $100BN It Doesn’t Have, To Buy Weapons America Doesn’t Have, To Arm Soldiers Ukraine Now Lacks

This is the headline of an article on ZeroHedge which attempts to explain what happened in Washington yesterday between Donald Trump and the seven dwarves of Europe1 in their discussion of the situation in Ukraine.

Here’s what Trump had to say after the meeting.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I had a very good meeting with distinguished guests, President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, President Emmanuel Macron,
of France, President Alexander Stubb, of Finland, Prime Minister
Giorgia Meloni, of Italy, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the United
Kingdom, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Friedrich Merz, President of the European Commission, Ursula
von der Leyen, and Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, in
the White House, which ended in a further meeting in the Oval
Office. During the meeting we discussed Security Guarantees for
Ukraine, which Guarantees would be provided by the various
European Countries, with a coordination with the United States
of America. Everyone is very happy about the possibility of
PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I
called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a
meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin
and President Zelenskyy. After that meeting takes place, we will
have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself.
Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been
going on for almost four years. Vice President JD Vance,
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve
Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine. Thank you for
your attention to this matter!

Yes, he should be happy and quite proud of himself because, just a few minutes later he said this in response to a question from a reporter.

“We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons,”

Spoken like a true hero and peacemaker, a very compassionate, loving way to make the stakeholders of the military-industrial complex (MIC) extremely happy. And richer than ever. Yes, the sale of weapons is really what counts in this matter. BLM! Bottom Lines Matter! The war in Ukraine can eventually be brought to an end–someday–AFTER we have milked this cash cow for as much as we can get out of it. Did it ever cross his mind that while he’s raking in the dough along with his cronies (partners-in-crime) that average, everyday people in Ukraine are being mercilessly slaughtered?

The fact of the matter is that Donald (Colonel Bombast) Trump could end the war in Ukraine in one day, just as he promised he would while on the campaign trail. All he would have to do is to declare that the US would no longer write any more checks to Ukraine, it would no longer allow US weapons to be transferred to Ukraine (whether they were given or paid for), it would no longer use its intelligence “services” to coordinate and work with Ukraine, it would immediately drop the sanctions imposed on Russia, and demand that the EU follow in lockstep with his directive.

Boom! End of war. But he won’t do that. We all heard that, right? “We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons.”

Ain’t it grand?

  1. Starmer (UK), Macron (France), Merz (Germany), Meloni (Italy), Stubb (Finland), Rutte (NATO), and the smallest of them all, Ukraine’s own, Vlad Zelenskiy, plus the fairy godmother, Ursula von der Leyen, the head honcho of the European Commission, who can’t resist the temptation to keep the war going at any cost. ↩︎

Five Years On: Covid, Clergy, and Culpability

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“…five years after the most significant assault on the human race by its governments since the invention of democracy, only a handful of clerics have emerged to state clearly that, far from being any kind of ‘subtle seduction’, this assault was evil and disgusting.” — https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/diary-of-a-dissenter-the-week-from-aaa

John Waters was commenting on the Catholic Church’s response to the various Harry Potter books and films when he threw this curveball, but it fits. Of course, he was referring to the COVID (pandemic, plandemic, panic, debacle, fiasco, coup, etc., take your pick), but the fact of the matter is that his statement is absolutely accurate. Let me ask you. How many members of the Christian cloth, the clergy, (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox doesn’t matter) have you heard recently (or at any time at all) call out the Covid scheme for what it really was–an overt assault on the rights and freedoms of individuals world-wide? Really now, I’ll bet you can count them on the fingers of one hand without using any of them twice. Can you? Give it a try. If I am wrong, let me know by leaving a comment and include links which back up your assertion. I’ll check them out.

Early on in the COVID years (late February 2020), I saw that this was a scam and began encouraging people to resist it. One of the ways I did this was to state that churches everywhere ought to tell the State where to get off and to get out.

Corona, churches, and Easter

This exhortation produced nothing, nothing at all, as the local churches I am familiar with did nothing of the kind but, instead, fell all over themselves to parrot and obey the Party Line because…Romans 13. Well, that last is pure conjecture, but I have no doubt that it had something to do with the attitude of obsequiousness, in addition to which they were scared to death, fearful, terrified, that they and everyone around them would get sick and die unless the State was exalted and worshipped as the only entity which could stave off the (allegedly) approaching existential disaster. God, er, I mean, Government forbid that anything like this should happen. Or, it might have had something to do with an obscure, archaic, generally benign, seldom mentioned tax law called 501(c)(3), which is rarely, if ever, used to restrict anyone’s free speech.

Pardon, my sarcasm is showing! I apologize profusely to anyone who might bristle at the heretical thought that the concept of money is one of the most prominent things which pastors, preachers, and church officials think about. How could I have been so stupid???

An Easter Message for Our Time

Can you think of even a single church leader who has stood firm in his denunciation of the State for their mendacious, brutal oppression of the citizenry during the COVID era? How many can you name who were willing to go on record in defense of human rights and liberty at the risk of their own health, wealth, and well-being? Try this for starters, Artur Pawlowski, who did not hesitate to call a spade a spade. Or, better known, Chuck Baldwin, who absolutely refused to shut down his large church in Kalispell, MT and is constantly speaking out about the abuses of Statist societies.

OK, there’s two. You only have to come up with three more.

Am I being too hard on the preachers? OK, then, let’s spread the responsibility around. It is fairly certain that the church leaders were only saying what their constituents wanted to hear, you know, the itching ears syndrome. After all, when Covid arrived on the scene, everyone was scared s*itless [spitless] and everyone was looking for someone, anyone, to assure them that all was well and, lo and behold, there was the State, which openly proclaimed the narrative: “Do as you are told and all will be well with you. Otherwise, you will die a horrible, agonizing death and if you don’t, someone’s grandmother in Omaha or East Berlin will. You don’t want that on your conscience now, do you?” This is not a great amount different than the admonitions we heard as young children at table. “Eat your food. There are starving children in Africa.” That didn’t make any sense to me then, and still doesn’t.

With respect to that, the parishioners were as complicit and compliant as the clergy and, five years on, it doesn’t seem to have improved substantially, if at all. Churches today are still filled with people (pew-sitters) who want to have their feelings tickled, to go home emotionally satisfied, to congregate again after the service at the local restaurant and extol the “lift” they got from the morning’s “worship”, which was AWESOME!, and for which they willingly deposited their tithe (Es ist Pflicht!)1 in the “offering” tray as it was passed around. Is it any wonder at all that pastors and priests do not rock the boat, do not call their followers to a higher level, do not call out evil for what it is?

Is it any wonder that today churches have no power to speak power into the lives of those who are enmeshed in the grip of evil?

In a thought-provoking post on his Substack, Joshua Stylman wrote this gem.

“Now, the mirage is gone. What was once promised can no longer be afforded. The institutions that upheld the illusion are spent. They extract, but no longer inspire. They preach equity while enforcing dependence. They sell empowerment while removing agency.”

“And still, they insist the dream is alive.”

Stylman was not writing about churches. Instead he was focused on the real problem of homeownership in America among the younger generations, most of whom will never own a home due to financial circumstances–price and interest rates, for instance. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to extrapolate his assertion onto Christian churches today. Unfortunately, much of the “dream” which has been promised relentlessly over the years and decades has been the assurance that Jesus would return soon, real soon, and “rapture” His followers out of here, to never experience any more evil or hardship again. Yeah, beam me up, Scotty! What is even more unfortunate is that those who swallowed this crap whole-heartedly refused, by and large, to affect the society around them in a positive manner, believing that anything they did would be minimal, would have little to no effect, and would probably be destroyed in the Tribulation.

“Everyone knows the world is getting worse and worse, so, why should I waste my time, energy, and wealth in a vain attempt to alter its course for the better? “

Except for voting Republican and conservative in the next election, especially if one of the names on the ballot is Donald John (Captain Warp Speed, Colonel Bombast) Trump.

Es ist Pflicht! That is required.

  1. Es ist Pflicht! A German phrase which basically means “duty, obligation, responsibility, etc.” My thanks to C.J. Hopkins for the education. ↩︎

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎