The first book of Aristotle’s Ethics addressed the basis of attaining happiness. The means to this end was placed upon the state to which there was a great degree of dependence. Moreover, aspects of a moral government identified by Aristotle were – as he proposed – the greatest contributor to humanity’s happiness (cf. 1.2-5; 10.8). This essay proposes to compare government and happiness by showing the proper tenets through which government can ensure happiness; in contrast, this essay will show that happiness is not always dependent upon government. 

Aristotle asserted that “fine and just actions” are the investigation of political science (1.3). “Political science spends most of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and capable of noble acts” (1.9; cf. 10.8). All sciences beneficial to man fall under the umbrella of political science because the latter’s aim is for “the good of man” (1.2; cf. 10.7). What Aristotle recognized was that man was not an isolated being, but that he is a corporate being “born for citizenship” (1.7; cf. 8.1, 9). Although a social being, man is sometimes driven by his passions and he may live a life of enjoyment which is conducive to being the most vulgar of men (1.5).

The politician – in studying political science – “wishes to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws” (1.13; cf. 10.9). Since virtue is studied by politicians above all things (Ibid), the method to truly determining what is good for man is somewhat pragmatic but can also be natural (cf. 1.3). The most natural portion of man is his soul, and this should be the focus of the student of political science (1.13) in order to procure the happiness sought. Aristotle advocated that it was through the laws that man could become good since the law ordained what is good; moreover, the student of political science – having later become a legislator after having been well advanced by the formation of habits – becomes capable of stimulating men to virtue by pressing them forward with the motivation of nobility (10.9).

With the correct motivation and the right people in office, government is capable of creating an environment conducive to happiness. However, those virtues which create such an environment must be maintained, and this has proven hard in times past. When a government first begins it does so with noble leaders – though not always – whose interest is a better tomorrow. However, after time the virtue has waned and the initial formation forgotten because an appreciation of the beginning is lost in the annals of history (cf. Judg. 2:10). The very reason government must exist is to regulate the behavior of men within a society. If men are apt to live the lives of beasts, are not governments also capable of doing the same?

Aristotle identified the transitions a government could take although their initial beginning may have been built upon that which was best for humanity. Those governments which transition are: monarchy to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, and timocracy to democracy (8.10-11). The former of each – being without fault – is subject to degrade into unwanted forms which remove the conducive environment of happiness altogether. In the United States’ present condition there is the degradation of a democratic-republic into a form of socialism that – if not constrained by its founding documents – is subject to: a) communism or b) another revolution. The oppressiveness of degradation creates civil unrest and burdensome taxation which restrict portions of happiness if not the right to pursue such.

The reason why happiness cannot be found solely in the operation of government is because “the statesman…aims at despotic power and honour” (10.7). Even here the degradation is not only within a society, but in individuals of power and their endeavor to obtain a greater degree of power over the many. Anaxagoras supposed happy men to not be rich or despots (10.8). However, if happiness is not found in government, from where shall it come? True happiness is not given by governments, because one may live in an oppressive state and still find happiness. The source of said happiness is found within God (cf. 1.9). While the Christian concept of God differs from the Aristotelian concept of “gods,” the premise that true happiness is divinely sanctioned stands (cf. 10.8). One may learn happiness – or any synonym thereof – through the knowledge of and presence of God. Through the greatest trials man is subject to hopelessness and weariness, and government cannot remove these feelings. It was not the power or might of the state that gave the apostle Paul reason to admonish the Philippians to “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil. 4:4 esv);[1] rather, the source of Paul’s joy was in knowing of and having the “peace of God, which…will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7).

Let me first address my lack of understanding when it comes to social drinking. When I get together with people whose company I enjoy, I don’t think of drinking. I don’t think of texting or Facebooking on my cell phone either, because social events are meant to be social. Therefore, I view social events as investing time and attention in others. The idea that drinking is a social custom is something I reject. It’s absurd to me. So, there.

I don’t drink for the following reason:

1) My father drank and was physically abusive to my mother.

2) I had an uncle get drunk and pass out when I was seven, and it scared me.

3) I have an aunt — now deceased — who drank for years and ruined herself. Please notice the part where I mentioned that she’s now deceased. At her death — although relatively young — she looked rough.

4) The idea left in my mind when I think of alcoholic drinking is mediocrity. Those in my family who made drinking a habit have led mediocre lives. Sure, I know wealthy people drink too, but this was the impression I had growing up.

5) I’ve seen people drink to the loss of control of their faculties. I know I may one day lose control of my senses, but it will not be by choice. It will be because I’ve lived a long life and have gotten so old that I’m losing my mind. I hate the prospect of this happening so much, so why would I want to voluntarily usher this process of life in sooner than when nature permits it?

6) Drunk people are too weepy and obnoxious to me. Some are just pure hateful. You either get the weepy, obnoxious drunk, or the hateful drunk. Both are not fun. So, following the Golden Rule, I wouldn’t want to be to someone else what I wouldn’t have them be to me.

7) Alcoholism runs in my family. My father, his mother, her father, etc. These are people who have had problems at one point or another with alcohol, so I would rather learn from their mistakes, time in prison, and so on rather than experience it for myself.

I could probably go on. However, this will suffice. Now, let me add that I don’t think I’m better than anyone who drinks. It’s a choice I’ve made based on my childhood. Furthermore, I have decided that I refuse to let anyone or anything have control over me. If I can help it, I will be my own person. The only one that I let exercise control over me is Jesus — and my wife, of course. That’s because I have seen the wisdom of His ways as higher than mine. Now, I’m not perfect by any stretch, but I try to yield my will to His, and the Bible is plentiful with passages that disdain drunkenness (cf. Prov. 4:17; 20:1; 23:21, 34; et. al.). My favorite is:

Hear, my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Be not among drunkards…(Prov. 23:19-20)

Remember when Jesus was dying on the cross? The Roman soldiers offered him a mixture of wine and myrrh (Mark 15:23). This concoction was meant to deaden His senses so that He did not feel the pain. However, Jesus refused. Why? He refused because He knew He was meant to suffer. Some people use alcohol to deaden the pain. However, your pain is merely mental or emotional. Perhaps it is God’s will that you face whatever is before you, rather than taking the easy way out. Only then will you see God — with un-deadened senses.

I’m not on a soapbox, but I think I have every right to be given some events in my childhood. Nevertheless, I don’t want my children to have to suffer because I was selfish enough to drink. I don’t want my relationships to suffer because I chose to drink. I don’t want my salvation to be discarded because I chose a drink over Christ. It’s just not worth it.

Grief is not merely limited to death. The emotion of grief can come as a result of death, but there are many other reasons why people grieve. For instance, there’s a member of my family who worked for a company for twenty-eight years, and during the recent economic woes, he was let go for a minor mistake. What followed were emotions of grief. After being with the same company for nearly thirty years, this loved one exhibited signs of grief as if someone had died. Therefore, we cannot merely think of grief as limited to death. Loss of job, status and income can cause a person to grieve. Think of the elderly person who has reached an impasse in their life: they are no longer permitted to drive or live on their own. These drastic changes in life can bring about the emotions of grief.

During someone’s grief, people often find it necessary to say things that they believe are helpful. Here are some of the things I have heard others say — as a griever — that were not helpful at all: “It was God’s will.” “They’re better off.” “We knew this day was going to come.” And so on and so on. Let me say to you all: “Don’t feel the need to talk.” Often times what you say is not comforting to the grieving regardless of how well-intentioned you may be. If you must say anything, say, “I want you to know that I love you and am here for you.” That’s it. Leave it to that. Don’t speculate. Don’t speak for God. Don’t talk.

The most familiar biblical story of grief is Job’s. If you’ve studied that book, Job’s friends said things close to what we say today; however, they were more accusing than we would be. God rebuked Job’s three friends for their accusative words, but the only thing their friends did right — at the beginning — was to not talk. “They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him….they sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great” (Job. 2:11, 13). This was the most comforting act Job’s friends performed. Nothing was said. They were just present. Believe it or not, being present means a lot to those grieving. Your presence is enough, so don’t feel the need to speak unless spoken to.

The most important — and often forgotten — act of comforting is follow-up. Being at the funeral home or wherever the griever may be at the time of their calamity is of the utmost importance, but remember their grief will intensify once they’ve gone home. Follow up with the grieving by calling them or visiting. They will show when the visits and calls are no longer needed. However, put forth the effort to visit them in their affliction, and don’t treat them as the widow, unemployed, etc. Don’t merely identify them by their grief. If you were handicapped you wouldn’t want someone to identify you by your handicap.

My hopes are that we as Christians will be better equipped to minister to those grieving. You never know the impact your presence will make. You never know how you may touch someone.

The exact identity of Job is somewhat inferred from passages contained within the narrative of his story. For instance, Job appears to have been of noble birth given certain descriptions of his person: his nobility is inferred in his plea to have been a stillborn and buried among kings and princes (3:13-15); his loss of glory and crown (19:9; this may be a reference to his baldness [cf. 1:20]); and his purported seat among the council of his city (29:7, 21-25). Concluding that Job was of some nobility — regardless to what degree — one is given a comparison of the modern idea of a wealthy noble (identity) and their character.

Those who enjoy the stature of wealth and position are often thought to be egocentric. The circles in which they mingle are the upper echelon of society, and the attention — if any — they pay to the lower classes of man are at best from a distance. The scathing accusation by Eliphaz was that Job was a man whose power led to corruption because he exacted — as Eliphaz stated — unjust pledges, deprived the naked of clothing, suppressed the downtrodden, and the source of his actions were his power (22:5-11). Job acknowledged that injustices were performed by many (24:1-21), but he contrasted himself from those who did such deplorable acts (24:22-25; 27:1ff).  Job rejected Eliphaz’s evaluation, and rightly so. The view Eliphaz held of Job was not his initial view. Interestingly enough, Eliphaz’s first observation of Job was built upon Job’s benevolence (4:3-6), and Job reiterated his charity towards others before his friends and after Eliphaz’s more recent diatribe (29:12-17; 30:25). The sentiments of Eliphaz towards Job — that his power and stature were conducive to his abuse of humanity – are the same stereotype that is held by many in regards to those of stature and wealth. How often is the phrase heard from the lips of those less fortunate that “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?” The core of this assumption has to do with humanity’s inherent belief that the wealthy see to their desires rather than the needs of those less fortunate. Only humble servants — like Christ — see after the poor. Class warfare is escalated because the connection between a person’s identity — especially when it appears as privileged as Job’s — and their character are viewed in such a way as Eliphaz sought to later portray Job.

While it is true that many in positions of influence and prestige do act in such ways as Eliphaz accused Job, the opposite was true for Job. Although born in a favorable position, Job — as previously noted — extended his hand to the poor and less fortunate. While some connection may be made between one’s character and their identity, there is also a factor of contrast from one’s character based on their identity. The nucleus of this contrast had to do with Job’s personal view of God (cf. 42:7). In spite of being seemingly born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Job knew the Lord God and the justice he required of those who were in such positions to be a blessing to others.

Job’s relation to God is first observed when Job cautiously and carefully acted as a loving, but concerned patriarch (1:5). His primary concern at that point was with the prospect that his children’s behavior may have in some way offended the holiness of God; therefore, Job resolved to intercede through sacrifice and cleansing so that his children would stand approved in God’s sight. These actions may be related to Job’s identity and they may not. What is not told is whether Job’s parents were as faithful to God as he was. If so, Job’s fidelity maintained his favor in God’s eyes and he was further endowed to steward. If not, the lack of a contrast between his identity and character prove that one — through their relationship with God — may overcome or contradict the supposed impression of the relation between the two. Just as much as one who is born into wealth is perceived as a selfish snob, so is one who is born in the ghetto perceived as a drug dealer with no decorum. However, the view of those persons towards God permits their conduct to defy the perceived notion of what their character ought to be. Job may have defied this very bigotry.

Hurtado recently wrote a post that dealt with the largely ignored topic of early Christian worship. As a minister for the church of Christ this is a topic near to my heart as it is to most of my fellow brethren who labor for the Lord. Worship is one of the most important ecclesiastical exercises (cf. Malachi) because it deals with the relationship of the believer toward God. Moreover, this largely important subject has been studied in-depth by members of the Lord’s body especially in light of post-modernism and the Emerging Church.

A few lines that Hurtado noted in an article which he wrote for The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (s.v. “Worship, NT Christian) speak to the historicity of early Christian worship. He quipped, “[E]arly Christian worship….did not involve temples/shrines, altars or images.”  These are additions realized later than the time of the apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 4:11), and since they were not sanctioned by apostolic authority they are neglected in modernity by those of us who seek to uphold the integrity of the earliest of Christian traditions. Further on, Hurtado noted that “earliest Christian worship gatherings did not…include use of musical instruments.”

I point these lines out because — from a historical perspective — one may see what occurred and what did not occur. Too often when speaking with those who identify with a particular denomination, we reason theologically. I believe a better approach would be to state what is clear historically, and then look for the theological justification. It is an indisputable fact that the early church did not worship with instruments, and many denominational-affiliated scholars (i.e., Hurtado, McKinnon, et. al.) recognize the history. After all, history is the mere observation of facts. The why of those facts are left to theology. When we reason with people who identify with a denomination, it would behoove us to reason from history (first) and then from theology (second). “If the early Christians behaved in thus and such a way, why? Was there a dogmatic reason for their observance or the lack thereof?” For instance, many interpret John 3:5 to mean anything but baptism, but when one surveys the writings of the early church (post-apostolic), they will conclude that the early Christians employed this passage in relation to baptism (cf. The Epistle of Barnabas 10; Shepherd of Hermas 2.4.3; Justin Martyr First Apology 61; Theophilus of Antioch Autolycus 16; Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.21.2; Clement of Alexandria Instructor 1.6; and Tertullian On Baptism 1).

After all, the Bible is history because it is His Story.

Faith certainly played a vital role in Washington’s entire life. Often referring to God as “the Almighty,” or in times where Providence seemed certain, “the Invisible Hand,” He was never far from the mind of the first president of the United States. However, it would be through much peril in the revolution that Washington’s faith seemed to grow all-the-more deeper.

When his friend and fellow soldier Benedict Arnold betrayed the cause of liberty, Washington exclaimed to those present, “Who can we trust now?” After a period elapsed, Washington reminded one member of that audience the question he once posed in distress and betrayal. He then went on to answer his own question, which seemed to have already been figured out by this member, “God.” Who can we trust in this revolution? God.

What is often dubbed the American experiment, this nation exists in part because of George Washington’s humble sense of duty. After General Cornwallis was met with defeat, the Continental Army almost revolted against Congress because of the promises they had made but had yet to deliver. A coup of sorts was in the works among General Washington’s officers, but when a secret note found its way into the hand of the Army’s most beloved leader, Washington confronted his men — not with arrogance or anger — but with a humble plea. At the time Washington had to pull out his spectacles to read the letter in their presence, and the sight of such a mighty man of valor — his age now showing — before his officers eyes invoked the utmost sense of love and loyalty to the man who lead them through harsh winters, near-death battles, and perilous disease. Had the army revolted against Congress, America would not be today.

Washington would also go on to face Congress. The result was a realization that the biggest recipient of welfare at the time was the federal government itself. The Continental Congress practically had to beg from the states, and the realization came that the Articles of Confederation would not invoke the unity needed for American to survive. Therefore, years later, Washington was again called upon to serve in the Constitutional Convention.

At the time the country wanted Washington to be their monarch — the very power that brought about the revolution and seems to now exist in the presidency. Washington refused. He would not be their king. When the idea of the presidency was suggested, it was done so with the fact in mind that the one who would be the fourth or fifth to hold this office might not be as humble and character-driven as Washington, so the Constitution and Congress was to keep him in check.

Many topics from entangling alliances, monetary policy, self-dependence, etc. were handled by Washington and the Constitution. The source of all these insights? A book called Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You’ve Never Seen Him by Glenn Beck. While I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Beck, I will admit that he has done a wonderful job portraying the father of this nation. Focusing solely on Washington’s character during events in his service, this work “beckons” (pun intended) the question, “How would George Washington — the father of America, the man of humility and faith — view the country he helped keep and found?” Sadly, I believe Washington would survey our great Republic and ask, “Is this what I worked so hard to make?” Then again, based on the character in Beck’s work, Washington probably wouldn’t ask that question at all. He would probably again ask of us the question he asked once betrayed, “Who can we trust now? Rather, who will you trust now?” If America is to every be realized again, the country, its leaders, and its members must trust in God.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 

1 Timothy 2:1-4

Thankfully, when a new year rolls around people decide that it is at this time that they will employ their “fresh start” – a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card. Resolutions are made, but only to later be broken. Why? Because they did not take their commitment to start over seriously. Perhaps you’ve been there. Maybe you’ve said that you would like a fresh start, and you vow to do better the next day or at the turn of the year. As times passes you grow apathetic and complacent, so you slip back into the status quo.

Well, no more! Forget about the mistakes of the past and don’t loose heart. Today—on January 1, 2012—we begin anew. Make that resolution. Renew your commitment to God first and foremost, because without Him there’s not a chance that you can even come near succeeding. Our lives will only get better once we’ve included God as the head of them.

My family and I are excited to begin this new year with you all. We’re excited about the possibilities. We’re excited about the prospect of cultivating new relationships. You’ve all been so wonderful to us since our arrival. The pies and cakes…oh my! These very facts have granted me a glance into your hearts. I believe the people of this congregation have good hearts that sincerely want to please God. I’m thankful for this.

Let me make a request of you. Do you mind? “Let’s not grow weary in well-doing.” This is my third work with a congregation — my second full-time — and I’ve observed the first year of a ministry to be the “honeymoon” period. I’m new to you, and you’re new to me, so the excitement of this newness will cause you to attend most services. It will provoke you to be more active than probably before. However, at the end of the first year I noticed in my first work that the newness wore off. The status quo returned and is prone to do so here too.

You and I are beginning a journey together that has been in place. I’ve been reading a book called Being George Washington. In this book General Washington won his first victory after crossing the Delaware in some harsh winter conditions, but before he did so he had been met with enough defeat to discouraged the strongest of wills. Prior to this “do-or-die” mission, he wrote little letters and had them sent to his officers. As he excused himself from the table one fell from his lap. Dr. Benjamin Rush—a signer of the Declaration of Independence— rushed to retrieve this note, and it read, “Victory or death.” General Washington knew that if he did not find success on this last mission, the revolution would have been over and the fight for freedom would have been in vain. This victory was a new beginning for the Continental Army.

Needless to say, this motivated me. I love our country, but I love my Lord’s church even more. Our mission: “Victory or death.” We will meet death, but we must fight the good fight of faith in the meantime. We will be met with many defeats, but we must approach our Christian service to the King of Kings with a “victory or death” mentality. We must “go for broke.” After all, it took Christ’s death to bring about our victory.

Brotherly, Steven

Posturing is one of the most important things any politician can do…and it must be timely at that. Those things that will be to Obama’s benefit are: 1) Eliminating Osama Bin Laden, 2) the shrinking unemployment rate, 3) strides in gay “rights”, and 4) the recent payroll-tax cut.

While killing Bin Laden rates high with most Americans, something for which the President must answer is why American tax dollars were being sent to a country harboring a fugitive relatively close to one of their (Pakistan) own military bases. While the aid did not originate with Obama, we can’t continue to go back to the Bush administration on everything. However, let it be known that 18 billion of aid was given to Pakistan from the Bush administration while Obama contributed 3 billion. Foreign aid has been a matter of great debate, and since our foreign aid often goes to countries who hate us or work against our interests, we end up in skirmishes with them. The best case-in-point is Libya. After Libya abandoned their nuclear program, we ended up attacking them. Why would Iran ever consider abandoning their proliferation while we attack countries who have done so?

While the unemployment rate has dropped a little in recent days, it has risen overall during Obama’s administration. Of course, the Bush administration will bear the brunt of the blame and Obama will likely say that it took time to overcome the mess created by his predecessor. But! the Solyndra scandal will be a case study of the failed “picking and choosing” of the federal government while GM and Chrysler will be used as success stories.

Abolishing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the military won Obama significant support as well as curtailing the Defense of Marriage Act – you know, the one signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. In 2006 a 56%-35% margin existed with the majority of that number not supporting same-sex marriages; however, a poll from earlier in the year showed — for the first time — that more supported same-sex marriage than oppose it.

The coup de gras was cutting the payroll tax. This is seen as lessening the burden on the middle class if even for the two months for which it was extended. The fallacy with this policy is a Democratic contradiction of principle. They always demagogue the Republican wish to tinker with Social Security, but the payroll tax is what funds the Social Security trust. Therefore, the Obama administration and the Republicans are both guilty of defunding Social Security. This is a double-edged sword for Republicans, because if they cut it they cut the funding to SS. If they didn’t cut it they would be portrayed as standing for the rich and opposing the middle class. However, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is lost on most because most lack common sense. The Republicans are so eager to chastise the Democrats over excessive spending, but they are guilty of the same when they continue to approve tax cuts without approving spending cuts that offset such. They are so unwilling to touch the sacred cow (military budget), but they will defund SS? However, they can’t in good conscience use that against the Democrats because they supported it too.

Here’s what will hurt Obama: 1) the terrorist attacks that did/almost took place, 2) the BP oil spill, 3) his excessive militarism, 4) greatly enlarging the national debt, 5) not fixing the economy while he had a Democratic controlled Congress in his first two years, and 6) his socialist policies.

Who can forget the Ft. Hood shooting, underwear, shoe and Time Square bomber? While the former three failed, American security has been fragile during Obama’s administration. The administration has overreacted by the implementation of the TSA and their later groping of American citizens because the politically correct refuse to “profile.” Do you think our Armed Forces profiled when they went to Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Hmmmm.

The BP oil spill was something Obama tarried on before taking the lead. He wanted to let the professionals handle it, and after an extended absence he finally decided to do something.

Who can forget the war that wasn’t a war in Libya? Violating the War Powers Resolution which grants any sitting President the authority to engage American forces in war for no more than 60 days without reporting to Congress, the President refused to report to Congress because he said the actions of the U.S. military were a supporting role to a NATO resolution. First, should the U.S. take marching orders from anyone but its citizens? Secondly, the War Powers Resolution is a violation of the Constitution because Article 1 Section 8 states that the Congress is to declare a war, and not the President. Thirdly, tax payers should not bear the burden of efforts sought by other parties. Fourthly, because we’re not fired upon — as the President claimed — does not mean one can define our aggressive efforts in Libya as anything but war.

He added more to the national debt than all presidents combined. Need I say more?

He had two years to get the economy working again, but he slept on it while working on Obamacare. He’s been a divider and an uniter during Congressional negotiations.

His socialist agenda of an expanding government will cost. I’ve had two rate increases in my private health insurance since he signed Obamacare. I thought he promised that wouldn’t happen?

Obama was voted into office as a referendum on Bush. Many in Congress were voted out as a referendum on Obama’s policies. It’s possible — though — that he could keep the presidency in 2013. He has positioned himself well in these recent days to the politically apathetic, but to those of us who know something about American history and public policy, we’re not fooled in the least. Spreading the message of these facts will remove the veil of blindness that has covered the eyes of many Americans. You can’t just watch FoxNews and CNN and expect the truth. You have to read articles, listen to voices of dissent, and do some research.

We must ask ourselves the question once posed to this country, “”Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” – Ronald Reagan

No!

Factually speaking, Iran has the right to have a nuclear weapon if they so wish. Why should America be so concerned with Iran having a nuclear weapon when a reckless North Korea has them? In an article from a few years ago, the Atoms of Peace project undertaken by the U.S. is the real cause that led to North Korea and Iran even having nuclear capabilities. The debate about Iran’s nuclear program reaches back to 2002, so this is nothing new at all. However, in the age of warmongering and fear, these neocons running for the presidency play upon the ignorance and fear of the American people.

When George W. Bush heralded the infamously unfounded WMDs of Iraq, Ron Paul was one of the lone voices that said, “Don’t overreact.” The man who ran on a humble foreign policy neglected his preaching on the issue after 9/11. Some would say he had good reason. However, the principle upon which he ran and won was thrown out the window with selfish justification http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc&feature=youtu.be

Then, as now, Ron Paul was accosted for being so “scary” and “dangerous” in his rhetoric to urge caution. However, he was right then, and he is now. Ron Paul stated that he does not want Iran to become nuclear, but he understands their right to be such as a sovereign state.

The proposed solution — among others — of more sanctions are useless and more dangerous than helpful. These sanctions have left a crippling effect upon the already poor country of Iran. The president of Iran flies around in a jet from the 1960′s. Sanctions hurt the poor more than the rich, because Ahmadinejad is faring well in spite of his outdated vehicle. Remember, the sanctions on Japan led to Pearl Harbor, so we should exercise caution when trying to further cripple a nation so that it subjects itself to the will of the West. This sort of empirical behavior is exactly what the prophet Habakkuk warned about when he spoke against Babylon (see 2:6-20). This is immoral. Furthermore, since we have close to fifty military bases surrounding the country, we have no reason to fear Iran given our military position and their weak economic reality. Although, these bases present to the Iranians another Crusade-like episode that is sure to not be tolerable to them given the history of that event. We just need to get out while the getting is  good.

Another concern is for the well-being of Israel. They have a stockpile of nukes that would let them level the Middle East and build a Disneyland if they desired. Netanyahu has said that Israel doesn’t need American protection, money, or troops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVORRHn7rg8

‘Nuff said.

Oh yeah, since Kim Jong Il has died, North Korea’s stance as a nuclear power is now more dangerous than a year ago when they sank a South Korean ship. If history proves true, the change of power will create an unrest — or coup — until the new leader of the North asserts his dominance. While a nuclear Iran is not a good thing, a nuclear North Korea in such a transition is an even worse reality. However, if either of these two countries are engaged, China and possibly Russia are likely to throw their hats in with Iran and North Korea.

This is truly a mess, but if American followed the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy of Dr. Paul, safety is a better possibility. If we did not occupy foreign lands, and if our monetary policy was more sound, we would have no reason to fear. The greatest vindication for these points to which Dr. Paul alluded was Sweden and Switzerland. Both are non-interventionists, and they are not attacked because they are free. They are not attacked at all. Why? Because they occupy no foreign land, and they mind their own business. If you like this idea, listen to Ron Paul’s foreign policy a little closer.