Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
I am an anarchist.
I am a murderer. Some would say I'm a "mass shooter." Others would compare me to Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber."
I engaged in theft (extortion) to fund my acts of murder.
But I have repented of murder and theft. I am now a Bible-believing anarcho-creationist.
You too are a murderer. You too are a thief. You need to repent.
On this page I want to prove that you and I are both guilty of murder and robbery. We both need to repent and become anarchists.
I was born in the year of Sputnik: the Soviet satellite that kicked off "The Space Race" which was part of "The Cold War." The Cold War should have ended in 1991, when the Communists cried "uncle" and decided they wanted to become "capitalists" so that Russians wouldn't starve. (Well, they wanted to be "capitalists" as much as American oligarchs were "capitalists.") But "The Cold War" could not be allowed to end. It was too profitable for the U.S. "Military-Industrial Complex." So "The Cold War" was replaced by a "War on Terror."
"War on Terror" is horribly hypocritical. In the 1970's the U.S. gave weapons, including Stinger missiles, to Osama bin Ladin and his Afghani "freedom fighters" so the "Mujahideen" could be a swarm of mosquitoes on the underbelly of the Soviet Union. The U.S. helped expand the influence of "Wahabi" Islam in places like Chechnya. "Terrorism" is in many ways the creation of the CIA as a weapon in "the Cold War." Terrorism is "The Best Enemy Money Can Buy." (Read the book's "Foreword" by Gary North.).
The "Cold War" included "hot" wars in Korea and Vietnam. "The Cold War" also included "proxy wars," where the U.S. would give military aid to one side or the other (sometimes both). Examples include the Greek Civil War, which lasted from 1946 to 1949, in which communist rebels fought the Greek government. The US gave military aid to the Greek government. This was an early example of the US policy of "containment" against communism. More than 50,000 soldiers died in the Greek Civil War. Over 100,000 to possibly close to 150,000 non-combatants were killed, and one million became homeless. The civil war had a devastating impact on the Greek economy and society. I never heard about this in my government school. Nor a lot of other wars the U.S. was involved in.
The "Cold War" was profitable for the "military-industrial complex," so when the Soviet Union held a "Going Out of Business" sale in 1991, we should have beaten our "swords into plowshares" (Micah 4:3), but "sword makers" were a powerful lobby. So the U.S. traded in "The Cold War" for a "War on Terror."
Osama bin Ladin would use the platform the U.S. built for him to attack the World Trade Center on 9-11. Or so we're told. The U.S. had many ready-made terrorist organizations to fight against (or fight with), since the U.S. had funded many of them, and would later use them to overthrow Gadhafi in Libya and Assad in Syria.
source
People can be called "freedom fighters" on Monday and "terrorists" on Friday.
All told, during my lifetime, the U.S. government has directly murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world. The indirect casualties may be much greater.
Since the death of Mao Tse-Tung in 1976, Washington D.C. has become the most evil and dangerous government on the planet. Some might say that Iran or North Korea are more evil, and that case can surely be made, but they are not more dangerous. Statistically speaking, the average human being on planet earth is more likely to have her God-given rights to life, liberty, or property violated by someone on the payroll of the United States, or with weapons made, sold, or donated by the U.S., than by any other government, terrorist group, drug cartel, or organized crime syndicate. Plus Washington D.C. is the enemy of the Christian family, and promotes homosexuality and abortion around the world, which Islamic nations do not do.
Since I was raised in a conservative Christian home, when I was first old enough to vote, I voted for politicians who promised a "strong national defense," which turned out to be a defense of special interests (large corporations) using terrorists as proxies.
The Bible says true religion is protecting widows and fatherless children (James 1:27). I voted for politicians who created widows and orphans by killing husbands and fathers. Then these widows and children were tormented by having their schools, hospitals, and grocery stores bombed.
I thought I was a Christian. Was I really? Can a Christian vote for mass murderers?
I was taught that evolution was a scientific fact.
I was taught that without scientific social planners, imbeciles like me would drag society into the ground. Without experts in Washington D.C., we would have "anarchy." Without the "military-industrial complex," we would be enslaved by commies, Muslims, or the enemy du jour.
I was taught that it was "utopian," "impractical," or "unrealistic" to "beat swords into plowshares" (Micah 4:3).
I was taught that taking the teachings of Jesus Christ seriously was OK in your "personal" or "spiritual" life, but must not be applied in "the real world" of politics, law, economics, and foreign policy.
As I said, that's an exaggeration. I have a bad habit of making shocking claims to get the reader's attention. But there are people spreading lies about some very important things. Some people are liars, while some people have been lied to but believe they have a "patriotic" or "scientific" duty to repeat those lies.
And sometimes the failure to tell the truth results in a lie.
I have discovered that I have been lied to about the Scopes "Monkey Trial."
I have been lied to about the Bible.
I have been lied to about the "theory of Evolution."
I have been lied to about "the separation of church and state."
I have been lied to about the 4th of July and the American Revolution.
I have been lied to about the Constitution and the government of the United States.
I hate being lied to.
What if I could show you that everything you know about the Scopes Trial, the Constitution, the Theory of Evolution, and the Bible is a lie?
The phrase "cold war" means hostility or tensions between two nations, which is different from a "hot war," which means "boots on the ground" and bullets in bodies.
But "The Cold War" involved a lot of bullets. And bombs.
Was the "Vietnam War" a "hot war" in the "Cold War?" Napalm is pretty warm. Three million human beings were killed in that war. More or less.
(The Constitution requires Congress to declare war before a war begins. This was not done. The Vietnam War was unconstitutional. This is why "fringe" groups like the John Birch Society opposed the Vietnam "War.")
The (unconstitutional) Korean War was also pretty warm. Another three million people were killed.
Sometimes the United States gave guns and bombs to other governments to fight a hot war against communists. These are called "proxy wars." Example: from 1946 to 1949, the U.S. gave military aid to the Greek government in their Civil War against communists. The Greek Civil War resulted in approximately 158,000 total casualties, including a significant number of deaths from both combat and civilian suffering. The conflict also caused the displacement of over a million people, left a shattered economy, and led to the forced exile of hundreds of thousands of refugees.
There were at least a dozen such hot wars during "The Cold War," and maybe others we don't know about (kept secret in the interests of "national security"). These wars killed a minimum of 7 million people, with some estimates as high as 20 million, if you include more conflicts or account for civilian excess deaths from displacement, famine, or disease.
As they did in Greece, the United States gave weapons, including Stinger missiles, to Osama bin Ladin and Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan who were messing with the Soviet Union. Years later we are told Osama and his crew visited the World Trade Center in New York. They were "Freedom Fighters" when committing acts of violence against Russians, but "Terrorists" when committing acts of violence against New Yorkers. "Your Tax Dollars At Work"
Fifty years ago Mao Tse-Tung died, and communism in China died with him.
Since then, hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. Or more accurately, "lifted themselves" out of poverty. Mao's successor, Deng Xiaoping, would like to give credit to central planning by the Communist Party in China for China's economic turn-around, but prosperity was the work of the private sector. China's central government can be given credit to the extent it stood aside and let capitalism work its miracles.
But during my lifetime, in stark contrast, "my" government in Washington D.C. has murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant non-white civilians around the world. U.S. Wars and imperialism have made the U.S. the most evil and most dangerous government on planet earth. Some might say the government of North Korea is more evil, but it's not more dangerous. The average human being, especially the average non-white human being, is more likely to have her God-given rights to life, liberty, and property infringed by someone on the payroll of the U.S. government than any other government, drug cartel, terrorist group, or organized crime syndicate.
When I turned 18 and was old enough to vote, I voted for "conservative" politicians who were "strong on national defense."
Doesn't that make me guilty of murder?
I believe what Hebrews 9:27 says:
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment
I believe what Jesus said in the third section of Matthew 25:
40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
This judgment is based on a simple criteria: did you raise the material standard of living of "the least of these?"
35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food;
I was thirsty and you gave Me drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you visited Me;
I was in prison and you came to Me.’
War does the opposite. War does not help, but in fact creates hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, and sick people. And dead people. Often children.
James 1:27 defines true religion:
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
The word "visit" means to guard or protect. War does not protect widows; it creates widows by killing husbands and fathers.
In verse 26, James says:
If anyone among you thinks he is religious ... but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.
I believe there was a time when my religion was useless. It was a fake religion.
Is this a fair reading of James 4:4?
Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the Pentagon is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the Pentagon makes himself an enemy of God.
Matthew 25:44-46
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Am I "righteous" if I vote for "strong national defense?"
It's not really about "defense." None of the millions of people killed and tens of millions of people maimed or made homeless during "the Cold War" were attacking me. I don't think killing them was "defense." I'm told they were attacking U.S. "interests." Or they were "collateral damage." The "Department of Defense" was originally called "The Department of War." Recently Donald Trump changed it back to "Department of War." That's honest, even if it's also sinister.
If I haven't convinced you that voting is murder, maybe a bunch of Bible verses will help. If it will help, you'll keep reading. If it won't help, you probably already stopped reading.
Matt Kibbe wrote an introduction to libertarianism with a great title: "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff."
That nicely sums up Christian Morality 101.
To the extent I violated basic Christian morality, I'm guilty of murder and adhering to a false religion. [More about guilt.]
There are basically two reasons why "good people" kill other people.
I believe "Self-Defense" is a Sin. I don't mean it's a sin to use a shield if someone is attacking you with a sword.
But a lot of what is called "defense" is really offense. A "first strike" can be called "pre-emptive defense."
A lot of actions labeled "defense" are actually vengeance. Suppose you're trying to defend yourself and you fail. You have suffered some harm. Now you want to take vengeance on your enemy. Or you say, "I want to prevent my enemy from doing that again." So you kill him.
What Israel is doing to thousands of children in Gaza is not "self-defense." Your tax dollars are funding genocide, and the Trump empire wants to turn the rubble of Gaza into an oil-producing resort.
Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman slaughtered civilians and burned their homes in Georgia, a modern-day Gaza. He famously said "War is hell." He didn't mean that to condemn war, he meant it to justify making war as hellish as possible in order to gain a decisive victory.
The contrast is simple and obvious: The generals say "Wage war; create hell on earth." The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).
The Bible is said to be "unrealistic" or "utopian." War is said to be "practical," "pragmatic," the "lesser of two evils."
The question is, who is your god? The God of the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill, period." This is repeated many times in the Bible: [skip down if you know the verses]
Mark 10:19
Jesus tells a rich young man to obey the commandments, including "Do not kill."
You get the idea. Don't kill people.
But it's more than that. You may not be a "Calvinist," but John Calvin was correct when he commented,
"The sum of this Commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one. [U]nder the word 'kill' is included by synecdoche all violence, smiting, and aggression."
Cited by R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, 219 (1973)
A Bible-believing Christian is non-violent.
Jesus goes further. He says don't even hate people:
Matthew 5:21:
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,' and 'whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment."
Then He takes it even further: love your enemy:
It's not enough to refrain from hating your enemy; complete indifference to your enemy is not Christian. Christ requires us to cultivate love for our enemy by seeking the best for our enemy.
A lot of "defense" ignores the command of Jesus to "love your enemy." Especially lethal "self-defense."
The goal of the Christian is to see his attacker repent, be reconciled, and be redeemed. Not killed.
In conclusion, suppose you say you "believe" the Bible, but anytime someone bugs you, you kill them. Are you really a "Bible-believing Christian" if you're not a Bible-obeying Christian?
The goal of this website is to persuade you to become a "Bible-believing Christian."
I define "Bible-Believing" as "Bible-Obeying."
The story is told of an Explorer who hired a Native to guide him. They came to a river which looked frozen. The Native said "We had an unusually cold winter, and this river is so frozen that we can safely walk across it." The Explorer says "I believe you." But then the Explorer says "I'm going to walk around till I find another way to get to the other side of the river." Did the Explorer really believe the Guide? No, because the Explorer didn't obey the Guide in his actions.
To repeat my claim, the Bible makes two commands which the vast majority of "Bible-believing Christians" do not obey.
These two commands are contained in the phrase "anarcho-creationism."
They run contrary to what the generals, the professors, many preachers, the media, and just about everyone you know keeps reminding you.
No pacifist I know is against ture self-defense. If you have a shield and some maniac is coming at you with a sword, you may defend yourself with your shield. But suppose someone murders your friend or family. You're not happy about that. But the Bible also commands you to leave vengeance to God: [if you already admit that, and don't want to read some verses, skip down]
Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.- Romans 12:17-21
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord [Deuteronomy 32:35]. 20 Therefore- “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” [Proverbs 25:21-22]- 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Proverbs 24:17-19
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him. Fret not thyself because of evil men, neither be thou envious at the wicked;Proverbs 24:29
Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.
This pretty much rules out the entire "criminal justice" system. If someone steals your car, that's an "injustice." "Justice" means you get your car back, plus damages. The "Criminal Justice" system should be called "The Criminal Vengeance System," funded by taxes from the victim. That's not what the Bible says.
So, "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff" -- even if they hurt you and take your stuff. Leave vengeance to God.
Suppose I want to boast to people that I'm a "Bible-believing Christian," but I want to get around those commands of God that interfere with my desires (e.g., Don't hurt people; Don't take their stuff; Leave vengeance to God).
Suppose I want to take vengeance on my enemy. I hire a mafia hit-man to hurt my enemy. That way I can tell God and everyone at church: "Who, me? Not me! I didn't hurt that guy! Never laid a finger on him!!"
Do you think God will buy that?
What if instead of hiring a mafia hit-man, I "vote" in an "election" for a political candidate who promises to hurt all the people I don't like, and fund his acts of violence by theft ("taxation")?
What will God think of my "vote?"
There are all kinds of philosophical and legal theories about criminal guilt vs. moral guilt. I suppose some people feel better after reading about these theories.
When I say "Voting is Murder," I certainly don't mean that the government is going to arrest you and take you to court. There's often a difference between what is "illegal" and what is "immoral" or "sinful." I believe it's sinful to vote for someone who promises to kill people and take people's stuff. But it's not "illegal" to vote for murder and theft in a government-approved election, even if that's sinful. (To be sure, sometimes government makes things "illegal" which are not "sinful.")
That way when I kill my enemy and eventually die and face judgment by "the Supreme Judge of the World" (to quote the Declaration of Independence, 1776), I can say to God, "I didn't take vengeance, the hit-man did it!"
I asked ChatGPT about this. ChatGPT answers my questions in terms of today's criminal law, not God's Law. Are the laws of today's government stricter or more lenient than the Law which will one day judge you?
Q.: If I hire a Mafia hit man to murder an enemy of mine, can I be charged with murder, or am I only an "accessory?"
A.: Good question. The law draws careful distinctions here. Let’s look at how U.S. criminal law generally treats this situation (though details vary by state): 1. Solicitation of Murder
If you hire someone to kill, you’ve committed solicitation to commit murder the moment you ask, encourage, or pay for the killing — even if the hit-man never lifts a finger.
That’s already a felony, punishable by years in prison.
2. Conspiracy to Commit Murder
If there is an agreement between you and the hit-man, that’s conspiracy.
A conspiracy charge sticks even if the murder never happens.
Prosecutors often charge both solicitation and conspiracy.
3. Principal vs. Accessory
Modern U.S. law usually treats the person who orders a killing as a principal — not a mere “accessory.”
Even if you never touch the victim, the law considers you equally guilty as the trigger-puller.
The hired killer and the hirer can both be charged with first-degree murder.
Example: In many states, if the murder succeeds, you (the hirer) can face the death penalty or life in prison without parole just like the hit-man.
4. If the Murder Fails
If the hit-man doesn’t carry it out (e.g., backs out, or is actually an undercover cop), you can still be convicted of attempted murder, conspiracy, and/or solicitation.
✅ Bottom line: If you hire a hit-man and the killing happens, you are treated as a murderer, not just an accessory. If the killing doesn’t happen, you’re still on the hook for serious felonies (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, etc.).
Q.: Suppose I vote in an "election" on a site like this one: https://ElectionRunner.com, in which a real individual says he will steal from specific people and give some of the money to a guy who makes bombs, and the bomb will be deployed on a specific building, killing a specific hated individual (admittedly, along with innocent bystanders), if a certain number or percentage of people "vote" for him to do so on that website. If I "vote" for him, and he carries out the terms of this "election," have I committed any crimes?
A.: Here’s how the law would generally look at your hypothetical (not legal advice, just an explanation of principles): 1. The “election” organizer
The person who sets up the “election” and promises to commit crimes if a threshold of votes is reached is clearly committing crimes:
Solicitation of murder/terrorism (asking for public approval/support in exchange for committing violence).
Threats (announcing intent to bomb a building).
Conspiracy once anyone else joins in the scheme.
If he actually follows through, the underlying crimes themselves (murder, terrorism, etc.).
2. Your role as a voter
By casting a “vote” for him to do it, you aren’t just “expressing an opinion.” In this scenario:
Agreement: Your vote can be interpreted as an agreement to the plan. That satisfies the legal element of conspiracy: two or more persons agree to commit an unlawful act.
Encouragement: Your vote can also be seen as solicitation — you are encouraging him to commit the crime.
Causation: If the organizer actually carries it out after receiving the required number of votes, your vote is part of the causal chain. Prosecutors would argue you aided and abetted.
So even though you didn’t plant the bomb yourself, your “vote” makes you complicit. The law doesn’t require you to swing the hammer or light the fuse — being part of the agreement is enough.
3. Analogy
Imagine a mob boss says:
“If ten people raise their hands, I’ll order a hit.”
If you raise your hand, you’ve signaled assent to the plan. If the hit happens, you’re part of the conspiracy.
4. Protected speech vs. criminal participation
If it’s an obvious parody/joke with no possibility of real-world action, that might be protected speech.
But in your hypothetical, the organizer names real targets and promises real violence. At that point, your vote is no longer “just speech” — it’s participation in a criminal plan.
✅ Bottom line:
Yes — in your clarified scenario, by voting you would almost certainly expose yourself to criminal liability (conspiracy, solicitation, aiding and abetting). The law treats that as active participation, not innocent expression.
The government doesn't come right out and say "we're going to kill those illegals!" It says things like "America first!" More.
Obviously we would never expect the government to prosecute someone for "voting" for thieves and murderers in an "official" government "election." But the government might do so in this case because "The government hates competition."
✅ Bottom line: If you hire a hit-man and the killing happens, you are treated as a murderer, not just an accessory. If the killing doesn’t happen, you’re still on the hook for serious felonies (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, etc.).
What are your moral responsibilities if you live in a society where everyone approves of hiring or voting for hit-men?
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
It is not enough to refrain from voting for murder. It is necessary to take some action, appropriate to our "station" in life, to rebuke murderers, persuade them to not murder, or attempt to stop them from murdering.
R.J. Rushdoony: Liability of The Bystander
In other words, a man who sees a crime and does nothing about it to prevent it, gives consent to it, and the penalty is similar to that of the false witness. Thus, if a man gives false witness in a case where the death penalty is to be invoked, then, for his false witness, he suffers the death penalty also. In other words, whatever the penalty in the crime involved, the false witness suffers similarly and the guilty bystander likewise. It is spoken of repeatedly in scripture as a fearful offense.
|
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Leviticus 19:17
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Psalm 141:5
Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness.
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.
For still my prayer is against the deeds of the wicked.
Proverbs 19:25
Strike a scoffer, and the simple will become wary;
Rebuke one who has understanding, and he will discern knowledge.
Matthew 18:15
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Luke 3:19
But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by [John the Baptist] for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
1 Timothy 5:20
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Titus 2:15
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Elections make you guilty of murder.
Elections make you guilty of theft on a massive scale.
Here's a proposal on how to end wars quickly: jus assassinate the leader who's waging war:
Assassination Politics - by Jim Bell
Why don't "governments" do this?
Because it's not about results (freedom from tyrants, "spreading democracy"), it's about the process (trillions of dollars for the "military-industrial complex" year after year).
Q.: What if the election is couched in vague "patriotic" slogans like "strong national defense" or "bold foreign policy," and the objects of the plot are more abstract, like "illegals," "terrorists," etc., but I know from previous "elections" that "defense" actually means stealing from people and killing people in real life. Should I be charged, prosecuted and convicted of crimes resulting from the bombing my "vote" made possible?
A.: You’re now probing the gray zone between speech and criminal complicity. Let’s unpack it carefully: 1. Direct vs. vague language
If someone explicitly says: “Vote yes and I’ll bomb 123 Main Street,” that’s direct, and your vote is overt participation in a conspiracy.
If they say instead: “Vote yes for strong national defense!” and you know from history that this means they’ll bomb real targets, then legally it’s murkier. On the surface, the slogan looks like protected political speech.
But courts don’t stop at surface slogans — they look at context and intent.
2. What prosecutors would argue
They’d try to show that:
Code words were being used (“defense” = bombings, “illegals” = named victims).
Shared understanding existed between organizer and voters. If you knew what “defense” meant in that circle, then your “yes” vote could be evidence of intent to support real crimes.
Thus, your action could still be treated as conspiracy or solicitation, because the law recognizes implicit agreements, not just explicit ones.
3. What the defense would argue
You only voted for vague slogans like “defense” and “patriotism.”
Political speech, even offensive or coded, is protected under the First Amendment unless it’s a “true threat” or direct incitement of imminent lawless action.
Without a clear, provable link between your vote and the specific criminal act, prosecutors shouldn’t be able to convict.
4. The key legal hinge: knowledge and intent
If it can be shown you knew that “defense” in this context meant real bombs and real killings, then you weren’t just engaging in abstract political speech — you were knowingly encouraging violence.
If you could plausibly claim ignorance or deniability (“I thought it was just rhetoric”), then criminal liability is much harder to stick.
5. Bottom line
If this is truly an inside code known to participants, and you vote with that knowledge, prosecutors could charge you with conspiracy or solicitation.
If it’s just vague patriotic language, without provable shared intent, it’s much more likely to be protected political speech.
So the difference hinges on prosecutors proving that you knew the coded language was a real plan for violence, not just rhetoric.
✅ In short:
Surface vagueness doesn’t automatically protect you if you and others share a “wink and nod” understanding that crimes will follow.
But without provable intent, charging and convicting you would be difficult under U.S. law.
"Difficult" under U.S. law.
Not so difficult under God's Law.
|
What I've done, what I've learned.
Before I graduated from high school, I had come in contact with R.J. Rushdoony [Google], founder of the "Christian Reconstruction" movement, and Chalcedon, its flagship publishing arm in Vallecito, Calif. Soon thereafter, I wanted to be "the next Rushdoony" when I grew up. Some would say neither one has happened yet. I became a "Chalcedon Scholar" and wrote a regular column for The Chalcedon Report. I substituted on occasion for Rev. Rushdoony in the pulpit which he regularly occupied and from which he first delivered the contents of his magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law. I was an overnight guest at his home. David Chilton and I met regularly with Rushdoony for mentoring. The Institute for Christian Economics (Gary North) also published several of my articles. North described this article as "dynamite."
Rushdoony was influential in starting the "scientific creationism" movement, by getting a book called The Genesis Flood published. Becoming a creationist was for me the first of many radicalizing departures from the status quo. My first article published by Chalcedon was on the creationist issue.
One of Rushdoony's protégés was Greg Bahnsen, who wrote the book Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977). "Theonomy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God's Law." The alternative is man's law (or autonomy).
Rushdoony was scathing in his attacks on civil governments which rejected Theonomy and replaced it with Autonomy.
Rushdoony wrote this:
Christianity: Religion of Peace
Islam: Religion of Jihad?If you were to go through scripture and collect the passages that deal with peace, you would find it surprising how many such passages there are. Very clearly, peace is a central purpose of God's plan for man and the earth. Peace as scripture describes it is first and foremost peace with God. Then when man is at peace with God, there is peace between man and man, and man and nature.
Let us now look a little further into the doctrine of peace. Peace is a translation of a Hebrew word, Shalom. We have it in ‘Jerusalem’. Salem. It is the greeting in Hebrew. Instead of saying hello, it is: ‘Shalom’. Peace. Now, peace, shalom, in Hebrew, comes from the root ‘to be whole’ wholeness, soundness, health, well-being, prosperity, peace as opposed to war, concord as opposed to strife.
As a result the Biblical doctrine of peace is very closely related to the Biblical doctrine of salvation. This is why throughout the New Testament, as well as in Old Testament prophecy, the culmination of Christ’s work is peace. And Christ even in the midst of trouble and of strife and turmoil, gives us peace.
“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”
Peace, thus, is a present possession in Christ; and it is a future possession as Christ’s reign is extended throughout the world
Peace is thus, that order of peace and prosperity, a salvation of health, which flows out of our reconciliation to God in Jesus Christ, and our restoration to life under God. Life in Eden was a life of peace with God, therefore peace with yourself, peace with nature. The source of that peace is the primary relationship with God, and Christ having restored it, all other forms of peace shall flow out of that peace we have with God, in Jesus Christ.
Statist peace, on the other hand, is simply an absence of hostility. It means that war has ended. That there has been a suppression, perhaps, of criminal activity. The state cannot regenerate man. It cannot even establish the limited peace it aims at, because the power of the state is essentially the power of the sword. The state cannot order [compel] men to love one another, or to live in peace, and when it tries to do so it only aggravates the situation.
The state therefore can never bring about peace. As a matter of fact, the state, when it tries to make peace its goal, only destroys the peace of citizens and usurps God's peace and the free-man’s peace in Christ. The state can only be an instrument of peace when it ... acknowledges that peace can only come when man is redeemed by God in Christ.
Thus the doctrine of peace is a very important one in law, because it is first of all important in terms of the doctrine of salvation. The vine and the fig tree imagery are thus essential to scripture. They are God-centered doctrines, God-centered symbols, setting forth the peace, the salvation, the fulfillment of man in prosperity, in joy, and in well-being. In God through Christ.
There is no peace, no fulfillment for man in any other way.
Beginning around 1978 I began writing for an organization I envisioned called Vine & Fig Tree, which was incorporated as a tax-exempt non-profit organization in 1982. The name comes from the Old Testament Prophet Micah, who spoke of a day when we beat our "swords into plowshares" and everyone dwells securely under his own vine and fig tree. More Info. I received positive encouragement on this venture from Dorothy Rushdoony, and on the trip back home from Vallecito, I think I realized that my future was not with Chalcedon, but rather with Vine & Fig Tree. My "swords into plowshares" pacifism, combined with a rejection of capital punishment (on strictly "Theonomic" grounds), seemed to me to be the logical development of Rushdoony's thinking, but ran contrary to the prevailing views of the "Christian Reconstructionist" mainstream.
I graduated from USC with a degree in political science in 1979. Because of the negative things Rushdoony said about secular universities, I did not want to go to college, hoping to move more directly to a Rushdoony-like career, but my father (a USC alumnus) was insistent. Perhaps the most enjoyable class I had was a class on "Political Philosophy" with John Hospers, who had been the Chairman of the Philosophy Department until he ran for President as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1972. Hospers, along with Rushdoony, could be described as a "minarchist." He believed, along with Rushdoony, that society needed a small civil government. One of his recommended textbooks in the class was Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty. This was a breathtaking book in the mid-1970's. Rothbard argued that society needed no "civil government" whatsoever. I didn't think Hospers defended his minimal state against Rothbard's critique. My memory of chronology fails me, but if I was not an anarchist walking into Hospers' class, because of all that Rushdoony had said about the dangers of the State, I was an anarchist when I walked out.
"The church" has always said that The State is a "divine institution." I don't see that in the Bible. And Rushdoony taught me to put the Bible ahead of both church and state.
I suspect many people have been brainwashed against the word "anarchist," but know deep down that it is a sin to be an "archist."
My mother taught in California public schools for 30 years. The first job I had after graduating from college was teaching in a small Christian school. Part of my ministry to the homeless was teaching English as a second language to dozens of "illegal" immigrants. One of my housemates went on to teach in public schools, and I spent many hours helping her with bureaucratic administrative paper work.
Legal Education
Rushdoony was a proponent of Christian education, frequently appearing as an expert witness in Christian school cases vs. the increasingly-secular government. I worked with homeschoolers and studied law to help defend them in court. This was when homeschooling was illegal in California. By the time I passed the California Bar Exam, it was less persecuted. But then I was told by a Federal District Court in Los Angeles that because my allegiance to God was greater than my allegiance to the State, I could not be permitted to take the oath to "support the Constitution" required of all would-be attorneys, so I could not get a license to practice law. Details
"Seminary"
I shared the pulpit at a small church in Anaheim, CA with David Chilton, until he joined Gary North, James B. Jordan and the "Christian Reconstructionists" in Tyler, TX. Greg L. Bahnsen, one of the leaders of the "Christian Reconstruction" movement and a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wanted to see if he could get me ordained in the OPC by apprenticing me, rather than through the modern "seminary" system. I thought that was quixotic, but I enjoyed his one-on-one mentoring. Bahnsen was a Christian scholar with integrity and a sharp mind. Scholarship is a virtue. Bahnsen taught me that we should treat our intellectual opponents with Biblical love (1 Corinthians 13:5-7), and interact with their arguments with respect. My personal library is about 10,000 volumes, becoming something of an anarchronism in the Internet age.
After passing the Bar Exam, I spent the better part of a decade with a small group of Christian anarchists who rented a large house in the "wrong" part of town and opened its doors to those who were homeless and wanted to get clean and sober, find a job, and save up first- and last-month's rent for a place of their own. We gave shelter and encouragement to over 1,000 people during the time I lived there, with an average of about 19 people at a time sharing our home, and served tens of thousands of meals and passed out thousands of bags of groceries to the poor in our neighborhood. We held weekly candlelight vigils in front of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station to question militarism and violence.
Our house was called "Isaiah House," and took its inspiration from Peter Maurin, a man who thought a great deal like Rushdoony. Maurin was a decisive influence in the life of Dorothy Day, a socialist agitator in the New Deal era, who converted to Christianity and founded the Catholic Worker movement, largely perceived today as a "left-wing" movement. Maurin said, "I am a radical of the right. I go right to the right because I know it is the only way not to get left." Maurin advised, "Read Our Enemy the State by Albert Jay Nock."
I moved in with these Catholic Anarchists because I saw in their kitchen and dining room the closest thing I'd seen to the L'Abri fellowship under Francis and Edith Schaeffer, a family setting I greatly admired and to which I aspired. The closest I came to the Schaeffers was seeing Francis Schaeffer live at the Anaheim Convention Center in 1977 when he was on tour promoting his book and film, How Should We Then Live.
When my father got lung cancer, I left the Catholic Worker and helped him gulp down 70 pills a day and daily pumped into his heart two liters of an anti-cancer solution under an FDA clinical trial in Houston, TX. After his death I moved my mother back to Missouri (where she was born), and our house was destroyed by a tornado. After being taken by helicopter to the hospital, she came back to my care on a feeding tube. For six years she was immobile, and for the last three years of her life my full-time job was turning her over in bed every three hours to avoid bed sores. We buried her on May 3, 2015.
During all of the above, I have been researching and writing, preparing to advance the Vine & Fig Tree vision, and have produced in the neighborhood of 2,000 webpages and blog posts. Some of them have been duplicated on other sites by people I don't think I've even met.
Beginning in 2002, I have been a perennial candidate for U.S. Congress, both before and after I moved to Missouri. Even though I haven't been able to get out of the house to do much campaigning recently, I've still managed to be the top vote-getter among Libertarian Party Congressional candidates in Missouri for the last few elections (FWIW). I would love to campaign full-time, and bring my brand of "Christian Reconstruction" before the press and electorate.
I am actually an "anti-candidate."
When I first decided to run, it was primarily to gain a soapbox. I knew I had no chance of winning any election (or being inaugurated into any political office). But being an "official" "candidate" presented an opportunity to appear on radio, TV, and newspaper which an "ordinary" propagandist cannot get.
My first decision was which political Party to affiliate with. I decided against the Constitution Party because of their advocacy of state violence against immigrants. I joined the Libertarian Party even though it is not an explicitly Christian party, as the Constitution Party is.
But I am not going to run as a Libertarian in 2016. I was rejected by the Constitution Party as a candidate. I'm exploring options as of April, 2016.
After my caregiving duties ended upon the death of my mother, I grabbed the first job I could find to "pay the rent." I worked full-time at Cox Medical Center in Branson, MO. I got decked out in a disposable "haz-mat" suit (PPE) and clean the module in the pharmacy where they put together IV's for patients, as well as the operating room in OB where C-sections are performed, and anything else that needs to be cleaned. I'm a "tech" in "Environmental Services." Some would just say "janitor." The Apostle Paul, who was more important in the formation of what we call "Western Civilization" (Christian Civilization) than Aristotle, was a maker of tents. My website cannot be viewed on the CoxHealth intranet. It has been banned.
When I was required to get the most dangerous injection ["vaccine"] ever allowed to remain on the market by U.S. health regulators, I refused. Began working full-time at Walmart. First stocking shelves. Then, after some physical ailment (doctors not sure: tick bite?) that left me with something called "alpha gal," I was moved to the front door to accuse people of shoplifting and demanding to see their receipts. I told my boss I was not psychologically fit for that job, and requested another position, but got fired instead. I'm now (October 2025) in income transition.
"Your Bible Coach"
I had hoped someday to fund my campaigns, propaganda, and agitation by being a professional (paid) "Bible Coach." Something like the kind of coach George Washington would be if he could travel through time. Or maybe a "teacher" of some kind.
Vine & Fig Tree University
Don't know if "coaching" is a viable industry. Perhaps I can be founder of some kind of online academy that helps people develop a Christian/Biblical Worldview, on the model of the Khan Academy. An online university, perhaps. With "coaches" instead of "professors." Here's what the drawing board looks like on that one: Vine & Fig Tree University.
