|
|
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.
My parents were also murderers.
They brought me into the world 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." Actually, American "capitalists" are "crony-capitalists," or "corporatists." A logically consistent "capitalist" -- 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism, 0% fascism, 0% socialis, 0% any other -ism, will be called an "anarchist," or as the Jewish economist Murray N. Rothbard called it, "Anarcho-Capitalism"). But "The Cold War" could not be allowed to end. It was too profitable for the U.S. "Military-Industrial Complex." To "The Cold War" was added a "War on Terror."
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 doing their own "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Years later we are told Osama and his crew visited the World Trade Center in New York. They were "Freedom Fighter" 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. increased its control over the productive sectors of the economy, and 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. "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff." I love that title so much that every time I see the book I start applauding, and so far I haven't even gotten around to reading it. But Matt Kibbe is a good guy, and I'm sure it's a good book.
The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). 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.
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.
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?
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 most of what is popularly called "defense" is really offense. A "first strike" by our "Defense Department" can be called "pre-emptive defense." A lot of actions labeled "defense" are actually vengeance.
A lot of "defense" ignores the command of Jesus to "love your enemy." Especially lethal "self-defense."
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. You say it was "self-defense," but it wasn't -- you already failed to defend yourself. That part is over and done with. Now you want vengeance.
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.
So, "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff" -- even if they hurt you and take your stuff.
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. (Yes, 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.
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.
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.).
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 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.
If you pay one dime in federal income tax, then you're working nearly an hour a day to pay for unconstitutional U.S. imperialism in the "defense" budget.
Would you like to free up an hour a day?
You're working four hours a day for all the other unconstitutional government programs.
Would you like to free up 3 days a week to be with your family? Abolish all unconstitutional government programs.
Hint: it will never happen. Everyone will be horrified at the idea of following the Constitution. They will say, "That will lead to anarchy!"
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).
When the Soviet Union fell on December 26, 1991, the "cold war" should have ended. Russia admitted that Communism was a failure. Russia wanted to become a part of global "capitalism." But the "Cold War" didn't end. Two things happened instead: first, the public was distracted by a new war: "The War on Terror." But second, the Cold War with Russia continued.
Like Greece in the post-war 1940's, the U.S. is using the military-industrial complex to prevent the government of Ukraine from shifting from pro-U.S. to pro-Russia. In 2014, the U.S. helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Ukraine which was committed to "neutrality" between Russia and the U.S./NATO. "Neutrality" is not allowed in the eyes of the U.S. government. The U.S. is now sending arms to Ukraine, which is being used as a proxy by the U.S. to aggress against Russia. The United States is an atheistic nation, while Russia is becoming more Christian.
The U.S. is willing to kill a million Ukrainians in an effort to secularize Putin's Russia.
I'm not saying Putin -- or any other leader of a "government" -- is a good guy. I'd rather live in the U.S. under the Biden-Trump regime. But Putin is not hostile toward Christianity, and for this, he must be destroyed, according to the atheists in Washington D.C. steering the U.S. empire. Should a follower of Christ kill Russians in support of a corrupt Ukrainian dictator? Should a follower of Christ vote for politicians who promise a war against a self-proclaimed defender of Christendom?
Definitive account of U.S. aggression against the former Soviet Union: Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine by Scott Horton.
