Gun Control

Gun Control

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was written in 1988.]

    Gun controllers are out to disarm the country. They use many false arguments to support their untenable position. They seek to disarm private citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals and omnipotent government, which is the ultimate criminal.
    Most gun controllers are liberals, and nearly all liberals are gun controllers. All gun controllers are statist, and most are political, social, and economic egalitarians, who abhor the physical equality that guns bring.
    Gun controllers display their hypocrisy by advocating harsh laws against law-abiding gun owners while cuddling criminals. They have a lax attitude toward real crime. They persist in putting dangerous criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. Then they propose to disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are threatened by these thugs. (The American Civil Liberties Union shows the perverse hypocritical mind of a good liberal. It has advocated registering firearms and licensing owners, yet it is ready to go to court to prevent school officials from checking student lockers for illegal weapons.) Their objective appears to be to use criminals to frighten a disarmed populace into demanding more oppressive laws and a stronger police state.
    Gun controllers plan to disarm the population piecemeal until all handguns and long guns are removed from the general population. If they were to try to ban all guns at once, their opposition would be too great; and they would be trounced and routed.
    Gun controllers usually take the approach of advocating banning “Saturday night specials” (whatever that is) in the name of fighting crime. (Is it not amusing that these worshipers of the “poor” want to disarm the poor, who are victimized by criminals more than the well-to-do, by outlawing cheap guns?) Eliminating this class of firearm will not reduce crime. Then the gun controllers will push for abolishing all handguns in the name of reducing crime. Even this ban will not reduce crime — as will be shown below. Next, the gun controllers will go after rifles and shotguns. He can now achieve his goal of banning all privately owned guns, but crime will still not be reduced.
    If everyone, except the police and military, were completely disarmed, the government (police and military) would possess a monopoly of legal firepower. The disarmed civilians would stand naked before the government and would become, like the Chinese peasants, defenseless victims of whatever the government wishes to do with or to them. To have a defenseless populace is the gun controllers’ goal. Only when the people lack the means to resist effectively oppressive government will the liberals feel secure in remaking mankind in their own image. (A government that cannot trust an independently heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted and is in need of replacement.) Even if criminals were initially disarmed along with the law-abiding, they would soon rearm themselves by stealing weapons from the police and military. The disarmed population would be easy prey for them.
    Great Britain has very stringent gun laws. Private ownership of a gun is allowed only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Carrying a gun is illegal. Since Great Britain abolished the death penalty in the late 1960's, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes has risen dramatically: thus evidencing the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
    Great Britain also depicts the path followed by gun controllers. Handguns were banned to curb violent crime. Naturally, this ban proved a failure. So the government did what governments are prone to do; instead of admitting that it was wrong and repealing its bad laws, it extended controls to long guns. There is much greater use of guns in crimes today with stringent gun control laws than there was before 1920 when there were no gun control laws.
    To conceal their real reason for disarming private citizens, gun controllers resort to a number of sophisms.
    Gun controllers often claim that much of today’s crime problem arises from a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness. This myth is debunked by a study done by Roger McGrath, a professor of history at UCLA.
    McGrath’s study shows that shootings generally occurred among roughnecks, badmen, hoodlums, and other similar characters. The law-abiding citizens, the young, the old, and women (except prostitutes) were seldom involved in shootings. These people have now become the principal victims of many of today’s shootings.
    His study also shows that the crimes that are most common today — robbery, theft, burglary, and rape — were of no great significance in the old west. Rape was almost nonexistent. A principal reason for the lack of these crimes was the widespread ownership of firearms. This widespread ownership of firearms and the willingness to use them contributed greatly to the relative safety of the average citizen.
    Highwaymen hesitated to rob stagecoaches with armed guards. Instead, they held up unguarded coaches. Then they usually limited their theft to the express box. They feared taking money and valuables from passengers, for they knew such action would put an angry posse of citizens ready to turn to vigilantism on their trail. Fear of swift and sure penalty deterred their greed.
    Banks were seldom robbed because employees were armed. Individuals were seldom robbed because most were armed and willing to fight. Most victims of robbery were staggering drunk. Again fear of swift and sure penalty deterred the thief's greed.
    McGrath’s study shows that instead of encouraging crime and violence, the widespread private ownership of guns discourages them. The law-abiding citizen is more secure armed than he is disarmed.
    Gun controllers claim that guns need to be controlled to prevent accidental death by shooting. They claim that accidental death by gunshot is at or near the top of the list of accidental deaths. On the contrary, accidental death by shooting is near the bottom. Less than 2 percent of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Almost 27 times as many people die of automobile accidents as from accidental shootings. More than six times as many die of falls; and three times as many, from drowning. If the objective is to reduce accidental death, causes other than firearms need to be emphasized.
    Gun controllers claim that registration and licensing will reduce death by shooting as well as the number of violent deaths in general. Unfortunately, this claim is false. Two deadly objects exist in the United States in approximately the same number. One object is registered, and its users are licensed while the other object is seldom registered and its users are seldom licensed. Which object is involved in the greater number of deaths? The gun controllers would claim that the unregistered object with unlicensed users would cause a greater number of deaths. They would be wrong. More people in the United States die by automobiles than by firearms. There are about as many privately owned firearms in the United States as automobiles. Most firearms are unregistered and most of their users are unlicensed. Automobiles are registered, and their users are licensed. Yet the automobile is involved in more deaths. Almost 40 percent more people die of automobile accidents than from gunshots, including murder and suicide. Registration and licensing do not deter death.
    Registration is often more of a hindrance to police than a help. Criminals steal most guns used in crime. Registration does not lead police to the criminal but to the unfortunate person whose gun has been stolen and who must now prove his innocence.
    Cuba and Germany offer examples as to why the registration of firearms needs to be opposed. In Cuba Batista, who ruled Cuba before Castro, required gun owners to be licensed and to register their guns. The police records contained a description of the weapon along with its owner’s picture and fingerprints. When Castro overthrew Batista, he confiscated all the guns in Cuba: A task that Batista’s registration system made very easy.
    In Germany, Hitler enacted a law that required a person to have a permit to buy a gun and another permit to own a gun. Of course, Jews and other undesirables, those in the greatest need of weapons to protect themselves from Hitler’s oppression, were denied permits. The permits left a paper trail that made the confiscation of guns very easy. Hitler was, however, thoughtful enough to exempt high-ranking governmental officials, the police (regular and secret), and certain other governmental agents from his gun control law. Thus, he disarmed the victims of his oppression while arming their oppressors.
    Gun controllers claim that homeowners are safer if they offer no resistance to burglars and that homeowners are more likely to be injured if they resist with a gun. Gun controllers often claim that a person who uses a gun for protection is more likely to be injured than someone who offers no resistance. They also claim that private ownership of guns does not deter crime. A study by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University refutes these claims.
    He estimates that firearms are used defensively by private citizens about one million times per year in the United States. In more than 60 percent of these incidents, handguns are used. He has found that guns are used more often defensively than criminally. Most of the time the weapon is not fired and the criminal is not injured. Less than 2 percent of the time is anyone killed or wounded. Between 1500 and 2800 criminals are killed annually by private citizens using firearms in self-defense. This is about two and a half to seven times as many as are killed by police.
    Kleck’s study shows that victims of robbery or assault who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than are victims who respond otherwise, including not resisting at all. There is a much greater chance of being hurt during an assault (two and a half times as great) or robbery (one and a half times as great) by not resisting at all than by using a gun for protection. In a majority of cases where a person who uses a gun for protection is injured, the injury preceded the use of the gun to resist. Also, those who use guns against would-be robbers are less likely to lose their property than those who use other means of resistance or who do nothing.
    The chances of a burglar or other violent criminal encountering a private citizen who will use a gun against him is as great as being arrested. Of course, the potential victim wielding a gun is much more of a deterrent than the future threat of an arrest because the consequence is immediate and potentially more severe than any punishment offered by the legal system.
    In the United States where many households are armed, burglars tend to avoid occupied dwellings. In countries where private gun ownership is much less than in the United States, burglars are much more likely to enter occupied houses. Burglars fear facing an armed homeowner. This fear reduces confrontations between burglars and victims. The result is fewer deaths and injuries. Thus, firearms reduce death and injury.
    The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a much greater deterrent to crime than do the police and court system. The police and court system are not designed to prevent crime, but to apprehend and punish after a crime has been committed. The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a quick, sure, and severe penalty that is directly and immediately related to the crime. This action is a much greater deterrent to crime than the police and court system where arrest and conviction are lengthy and uncertain.
    Kleck’s study also shows that where gun ownership and training are highly publicized, crime tends to decline. His study clearly demonstrates that laws that reduce the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens would benefit the criminals of society. Widespread ownership of guns by the law-abiding reduces crimes and their concomitant injuries and deaths.
    Gun control laws make self-defense a crime. Perhaps the most notable case is the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz shot four men in self-defense on a New York subway. The jury found him innocent of all charges brought against him except violating New York’s gun law. For violating that law he was sentenced to six months in prison, fined $5000, and directed to undergo psychiatric treatment (shades of the Soviet Union) plus other penalties. There are other examples of people being punished for using a gun in self-defense. A man in the District of Columbia holds three burglars with his pistol until the police arrive to take them into custody. The three thieves are set free while the man is charged with possessing an improperly registered handgun. In Massachusetts, a man shoots and kills another man who is trying to knife him. The jury acquits him of all charges, but the judge sentences him to the mandatory one-year imprisonment for failing to obtain a license for his handgun. In Oak Park, Illinois a filling station operator is arrested for possessing a handgun (private ownership of handguns is prohibited in Oak Park) when he used it to shoot at some robbers that held him at gunpoint. The result of gun control laws is to penalize an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
    Firearms are the “great equalizer.” They enable a small weak person to stand on equal footing with a larger, stronger adversary. Is it not odd that the same egalitarians who constantly aver the political equality of democracy, economic equality of socialism, and social equality of integration object so strongly to the greatest physical egalitarian invention of man, the gun? They oppose private ownership of guns because they realize that their mad dreams of equality can only be achieved by oppression. If the victims of their egalitarian nightmare are armed, then the victims are on more equal footing with the government and are more capable of successfully resisting oppression.
    In the present union, which Yankeedom controls, law-abiding Southerners must always fear having their guns confiscated and, thereby, being placed at the mercy of criminals and despotic government. The time has come to alleviate this fear. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States in which law-abiding Southerners may possess guns without fear of molestation and may use them to protect themselves from criminals and despotic government.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro

Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro

   
Sherman’s Opinion of Blacks
    General W. T. Sherman wrote the following in a letter written from Atlanta in 1864, which was printed in the St. Louis Republican in 1889:

I don’t see why we can’t have some sense about negroes, as well as about horses, mules, iron, copper, etc.; but say “nigger” in the United States, and from Sumner to Attorney Kelly the whole country goes crazy. I never thought my nigger letter would get into the papers, but since it has I lay low. I like niggers well enough as niggers, but when fools and idiots try to make niggers better than ourselves I have an opinion. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), p. 295]

Miscegenation in the 1880's
    In the 1880’s a wedding of note occurred between a Negro man and an Aryan woman. A Northern newspaper, the Independent, wrote the following editorial praising this marriage:

We shall be pleasantly surprised if the newspapers edited by colored men do not treat somewhat coldly Mr. Douglass’ marriage. They ought to welcome it heartily. It is one of the best things that could happen for the race in America. A man whose color is marked, a man of culture and ability, and one of the first of his race to achieve social standing in the very capital of his country, where he is known and honored, was taken to wife a worthy white woman. It is miscegenation in Washington. It is an example which will be followed, and which must be followed before the prejudice against color will die out, as it has died out in some countries. Decency of morals requires honest, sanctified wedlock to take the place of thousands of illegitimate unions. We are heartily glad that such an event has taken place, and the colored people of the country — certainly those who have also white blood in their veins — should, for their mothers’ sake and their daughters’ sake, be far-sighted enough to see the meaning and drift. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), p. 271.)

    As this editorial shows, liberal thought has not changed over the last century. Unfortunately, such people have only become much more successful in creating their nightmares. Then as now, Blacks seem to resist the destruction of their, the Negro, race through miscegenation more than Whites resist destructing their, the Aryan, race through miscegenation. Liberal newspapers continue to see miscegenation as the solution to America’s race problem. They claim to believe that the resulting mongrel race will be superior to the two parent races. Further, they degrade Blacks by claiming that they are nothing unless they mix with Whites. They are nothing unless they are mulattoes.
    At least then another leading Northern newspaper, the Interior, condemned this marriage and editorial. (When was the last time that a newspaper of note condemned the sin of miscegenation? When was the last time that a newspaper praised racial prejudice?) The Interior wrote in response to the above editorial,

This strikes us a morbid sentimentalism. The law of God requires sanctified wedlock, but the existence of a greater is no justification of a lesser evil. The policy of righteousness is not to substitute one evil for another, but to eradicate both. To level down a splendid race in order to destroy race prejudice is to burn a barn to destroy a rat — or that which is erroneously supposed to be a rat. Race prejudice is good: we wish there were enough of it to entirely prevent the commingling of the blood of the higher with that of the lower races of men. The meaning of miscegenation is a downward drift — a fact so obvious that it scarcely needs arguing — and race prejudice is founded, and well founded, on that fact. The negro race is a weak race everywhere, and has been such in all its known history — its sad aptitude, in all time, being for servility and slavery. The Arabs prey upon them to-day as if they were so many black sheep; and their only defense is in distant England and America. They could not maintain a traffic in slaves of any other people. Suppose it were tried upon the American Indians! We say that it is a cruel wrong to his posterity for a white person to marry a negro — and it would be a wrong no less if there were no social distinctions; and it is almost as great a wrong to his or her posterity for a negro to marry a white person. The mixed race is not equal to either of the originals — they are weaker than the weaker of the two. A thorough commingling of the blood of the two races in America would take us as a nation from a place among the highest of a splendid race, and set us low among the lowest. Shall we, as a people, have less regard for the physical symmetry and beauty and stamina, the intellectual vigor, courage, energy and keenness of our posterity — less regard for them than we have for the excellence of our horses? The negroes are an inferior race, but it does not follow that because they are weak the strong have any right to oppress or to wrong them. They are human beings, entitled to all human rights; and manly magnanimity will concede them their human rights all the more because they are weak. The white race in this country are bound in honor to do all they can for the elevation and happiness of colored race; but they are even more profoundly bound in duty and in honor to transmit pure Caucasian blood to their own posterity. No greater wrong would be possible for us to do those who are to come after us in America than to put them at a natural and an irreparable disadvantage to the white nations of Europe. We must be impartially just and kind to all races of men, do them good and do them no harm; and this not only to all now living, but to those who are to live after us. The colored race is fitted for, and can live in and thoroughly enjoy, torrid climates, that are not only inimical, but fatal to white people. Deprive them of their pure tropical blood, and they are not fitted either for the cold which we enjoy nor for the heat which they enjoy. Every reasonable consideration is against the position of the Independent on this subject. ([William H. Campbell,] Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races (Richmond, 1891), pp. 271-273.)

    If the wisdom of the Interior had been followed over the last century instead of the folly of the Independent, the race problems in America would be almost nonexistent. If Aryan leaders had expended the resources and energy that they had wasted in trying to destroy the Aryan race to advance the Aryan, America would be a much better place to live — both spiritually and materially. Not only would the Aryan race be much better off today, but so would the Negro and other races.

Dr. Daniel G. Brinton on Miscegenation
    The following comment was made by Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, Professor of Ethnology at the Academy of Natural Science and of American and Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania and President of the American Folk-Lore Society and of the Numismatic and Antiquarians Society of Philadelphia, in his lectures delivered at the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1890 as given in Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, [1901]). (This was an era when a man of science could speak frankly without fear of ostracism.)

There can be no doubt but that any white mixed race is lower in the scale of intelligence than the pure white race. A white man entails indelible degradation on his descendants who takes in marriage a woman of a darker race; and any relation other than that of marriage, no matter if it does lift the lower race, is unauthorized by any sound moral code. Still more to be deplored is the woman of the white race who unites herself with a man of a lower ethnic type. It cannot be too often repeated, too emphatically urged, that it is to the women alone of the highest race that we must look to preserve the purity of the type, and with it the claims of the race to be the highest. They have no holier duty, no more sacred mission, than that of transmitting in its integrity the heritage of ethnic endowment gained by the race through thousands of generations of struggle. That philanthropy is false, that religion is rotten, which would sanction a white woman enduring the embrace of a colored man.

Physical Criteria of Racial Superiority
    Dr. Daniel Brinton, a professor of Ethnology, identifies in Races and Peoples: Lectures on the Science of Ethnography (Philadelphia, [1901]) several traits that can be used to identify the superiority or inferiority (here superiority and inferiority mean less apelike and more apelike) of a race. The more of these traits a race possesses the closer it approaches apes and the lower or more inferior it is. Conversely, the fewer of these traits a race possesses the farther it is removed from apes, i.e., the more it approaches the characteristics of true man, and the higher or more superior the race is. The traits that Brinton identifies are:
    Simplicity and early union of cranial sutures.
    Presence of the frontal process of the temporal bone.
    Wide nasal aperture, with synostosis of the nasal bone.
    Prominence of the jaws.
    Recession of the chin.
    Early appearance, size and permanence of the “wisdom” teeth.
    Unusual length of the humerus.
    Perforation of the humerus.
    Continuation of the “heart” line across the hand.
    Obliquity (narrowness) of the pelvis.
    Deficiency of the calf of the leg.
    Flattening of the tibia.
    Elongation of the heel (os calcis).

A Mulatto’s Thought
    The following was written about a century ago by Thomas, a mulatto, in The American Negro, who witness Reconstruction in the South:

. . . It may have been the outcropping of gratitude to Federal victors or reckless abandon to lust, but the exciting cause is immaterial so long as the shameful fact is true that, wherever our armies were quartered in the South, the negro women flocked to their camps for infamous riot with the white soldiery. All occupied cities, suburban rendezvous, and rural bivouacs bore witness to the mad havoc daily wrought in black womanhood by our citizen soldiery. . . . Nor do we doubt that the present lax morality everywhere observable among negro womenkind is largely due to the licentious freedom which the war engendered  among them. Slavery had its blighting evils, but also its wholesome restraints.

    If the records were available, many more mulattoes would find their white ancestry in the noble soldiers of Yankeedom than they would in the slave owners and their families and overseers.

Comments on the Negro Problem
    The following was written by A. H. Shannon in 1907 in Racial Integrity and Other Features of the Negro Problem:

The negro problem is not, primarily, one in the realm of economics. It is essentially a moral problem. It is reduced to this: Which is better, a mongrel race whose origin is in sin, and which represents the worst of all the races; or a race, whatever its limitations, yet true to its own racial peculiarities and striving to attain, intact, the best and highest of which it is capable?

    Today, liberals and most conservatives of note would answer a mongrel race is preferable — so great must be their hate of the Black man.

Abraham Lincoln the Racist
    In Lincoln’s Peoria speech, on Oct. 16, 1854, he said, “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary.”
    In his response to Steven Douglas, Lincoln said, “In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.”
    In his speech at Bloomington, Ill., on May 29, 1856, Lincoln said:

Judge Douglas . . . avows that the Union was made by white men and for white men and their descendants. As a matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically true; the government was made by white men, and they were and are the superior race. This I admit. . . . Nor is it any argument that we are superior and the Negro inferior — that he has but one talent while we have ten. Let the Negroes possess the little he has in independence; if he has but one talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has.

    In his speech at Springfield, on June 26, 1857, a few months after the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln said:

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once — a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. . . . A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. . . . I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. . . . Such separation, if ever effected at all, must effected by colonization; and no political party, as such is now doing anything for colonization. . . .

    In his speech in Chicago, on July 10, 1858, Lincoln said, “I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic, which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. . . .”
    In the Lincoln-Douglass debate at Ottawa, Ill., on August 21, 1858, Lincoln said:

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, — to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they all would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. . . . What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

    In the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858, Lincoln said, “I give him [Douglas] the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State [of Illinois] which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”
    Also, in the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858, Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the whiter race. . . .

    Again in the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, in response to Douglas’s speech, Lincoln said, “. . . I tell him [Douglas] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. . . . Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it.”
    On Oct. 1, 1858, Lincoln said, “. . . the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature.”
    In a statement to a committee of black men at the White House, on Aug. 14, 1862, Lincoln said:

Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

    In a conversation with Gen. Butler, on April 9, 1865, Lincoln said:

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us, to the amount, I believe, of some one hundred and fifty thousand men. I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. . . . Now, we shall have no use for our very large navy; what, then, are our difficulties in sending all the blacks away?

Time to Emancipate the Negro
    Reverend Edward Fontaine was a New York professor of theology and natural science during the nineteenth century. He was a negrophile, but unlike twentieth-century negrophiles, he had a realistic and loving attitude towards Negroes instead politically correct maudlin and paternalistic attitude of the twentieth century. He had “tough love” for Negroes instead of an over-mothering attitude that treats them like an infantile race as is done today.
    In a lecture, How the World Was Peopled: Ethnological Lectures, that he gave in 1872, he said the following about the Negroes who were emancipated following the War:

The immediate effect of their emancipation in the Southern States has been to diminish their number fearfully. On one healthy plantation in Hinds County, Mississippi, from 1860 to 1865, there had occurred among fifty of the negro slaves only six deaths in five years. They were generally pious members of different churches, and had been the slaves of the same Christian family, as their ancestors had been before them for several generations. They were emancipated, and left their owners in May, 1865, and, before January, 1868, only nineteen of the original fifty were alive. The [sic] most of the children had died, and only a few others were born. They were generally excellent servants. But their condition was changed. They were in competition with the whites, and they died; how, and by what causes, I cannot say. I mention this as a representative, and not an exceptional, case of many others which have occurred under my own observation.

According to his observations, most Negroes faired better under the cruelty of slavery than under the compassion of federal welfare.
    After describing the price in wealth and lives expended to emancipate the Negro slaves, he describes all that had been done following their emancipation:

They are not only emancipated from slavery, after having been taught practically every kind of labor in agriculture, in mechanics, and in all the arts of our country, and instructed in all the forms and doctrines of Christianity, but they have been clothed with all the rights of citizens of the United States, and favored with peculiar and extraordinary privileges, such as were never conferred before upon any of the freemen of America. Special and liberal grants of money are made from the public Treasury for their education. They are now subjected to the fearful experiment of a competition in the race of life, for all its prizes, with the white people among whom they are mingled, with all the advantages in their favor. In addition to the strong support of the United States Government, they are also favored with the prayers and heart-felt good wishes of the Christians of every land for their success, and it may be safely asserted that they also have the sympathy and aid of their former masters. Surely they ought, under these favorable circumstances, to redeem the character of their race, and become a great and prosperous people. If they have been wronged by the people of the United States, all their wrongs have been thoroughly redressed. Never, since the emancipation of the Israelites and their settlement in the land of Canaan, have any people been so highly favored and abundantly blessed.

    Never have a people since ancient times been more blessed than the American Negro. This negrophile of 125 years ago felt that the time had come to cut the apron strings and let the Negro stand on his own two feet. Instead, the Negro has been pampered like a spoiled brat. Until the Negro stands on his own without special consideration, aid, or privileges, and in spite of any discrimination, real or perceived, he can never be a true man. The time is long past to do what Mr. Fontaine suggested should have been done 125 years ago. The emancipation of the Negro is way overdue.

More articles on social issues.

Returning to the Gold Standard

Returning to the Gold Standard

Thomas Allen

    The following is written for the United States. With minor modifications, it could be applied to most countries.
    Several recommendations have been proposed for returning to a gold standard or a monetary system that incorporates gold. One is returning to the true gold standard. Nearly all of these recommendations require fixing or defining gold at a specific price, generally between $1000 and $10,000 per ounce.
    Because of falsely perceived problems with returning to the true gold standard, several pseudo gold standards have been proposed. One is backing the currency by some arbitrary amount of gold, usually between 5 and 25 percent. Another is to use the price of gold as an index. The central bank expands and contracts the money supply to keep the price of gold within a specific, but arbitrary, range. Related is making gold part of a commodity basket index. Then the central bank expands and contracts the money supply to keep this arbitrary index within an arbitrary range.
    Although the gold exchange standard fell quickly the two times that it was tried, it is still popular in some circles. Presumably, its proponents will make it work this time.
    The following recommendations can return the country to the true gold and silver standards without the problems of the aforementioned recommendations. They take the control of the money from the government and its central banks, the Federal Reserve, and return it to the people where the U.S. constitution originally placed it. These recommendations call for phasing in the gold and silver standards. Many pertain to reforming banking as poor banking practices cause many of today’s economic problems.
    1. All U.S. debt securities held by the Federal Reserve are voided and the Federal Reserve is abolished. The Federal Reserve returns the gold certificates that it holds to the U.S. government. Federal reserve notes are no longer printed unless the U.S. government needs to print more federal reserve notes to pay its existing debts made in terms of federal reserve dollars.
    2. As part of abolishing the Federal Reserve, the U.S. government buys all the stock of the Federal Reserve banks owned by member banks and pays for the stock with federal reserve notes. All member banks receive in federal reserve notes all their reserves held by the Federal Reserve.
    3. All gold held by the U.S. government or the Federal Reserve is distributed equitably among the people who lived in the United States in 1933 or their descendants if they have died. The distribution is in gold coins minted in denominations 5, 10, and 20 pennyweights.
    4. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is phased out. Its coverage could be reduced by one-fifth per year for five years after which it ceases to exist. Any bank could opt out of the FDIC earlier and cease being subject to its regulations.
    5. The U.S. government immediately opens the mint to gratuitous free coinage of gold and silver. Private mints may also coin gold and silver provided the minter and the content of gold and silver of the coin are identified on the coin.
    6. Gold and silver coins replace the federal reserve dollar. The coins are denominated in troy pennyweights of gold or silver. The pennyweight value is stamped on the coin. Also stamped on the coin are the grains of gold or silver that the coin contains. (Also, stamping on the coin the number of grams of gold and silver in the coin is desirable.)
    7. No fixed exchange rate or legal ratio exists between gold and silver. No fixed exchange rate exists between federal reserve dollars and gold or silver.
    8. Legal tender laws are repealed; people are required to accept the type of money (gold, silver, or federal reserve dollars) for which they have contracted.
    9. Sound banking needs to be restored as quickly as possible. Banks issuing banknotes for real bills of exchange need to be physically separated from other types of banking.
    10. Banks issue only gold and silver banknotes and checkbook money to buy real bills. Banks do not issue banknotes or create checkable deposits for any purpose but to buy real bills.
    11. Other banks do not issue banknotes and do not create checkable deposits. They make loans by transferring money from savings and bank capital. Borrowing short and lending long is prohibited.
    12. Banks and others may issue gold and silver certificates provided such certificates are fully backed by gold and silver. The government should not issue certificates.
    13. All banknotes and certificates clearly identify the issuer and whether it is in gold or silver.
    14. The smallest denomination of banknotes and certificates is 50 pennyweights of gold and 100 pennyweights of silver.
    15. The States penalize the issuer of banknotes and certificates that refuses or fails to redeem its banknotes or certificates on demand.
    16. Within 12 months, no new checkable deposits are created in federal reserve dollars; they are in silver or gold. Within 12 months, no new loans are made in federal reserve dollars; they are in silver or gold.
    17. Federal reserve dollars are withdrawn from circulations as debts made with federal reserve dollars are paid off. Debts contracted in federal reserve dollars are paid with federal reserve dollars although the debtor may pay with gold or silver if he so chooses and the creditor willingly accepts.
    18. Banks maintain 100-percent reserves in gold and silver for primary gold and silver demand deposits. Banks that buy real bills maintain 100-percent reserves for derivative demand deposits in real bills and maintain adequate reserves of gold and silver to redeem in gold and silver checks drawn on derivative demand deposits. All other banks maintain 100-percent reserves for derivative demand deposits by transferring money from savings or bank capital to them.
    19. Banks are prohibited from buying government securities, using government securities as reserves, lending money to buy government securities, or accepting government securities as collateral for loans.
    20. Banks do not pay out banknotes or certificates of other banks.
    21. No bank keeps any of its reserves in another bank.
    22. The U.S. government and States keep their money in their own vaults and write checks against money in their vaults. They do not deposit money in banks. The U.S. government and States belong to clearing houses to clear quickly checks, banknotes, and certificates that they receive and checks written on their accounts.
    23. Within 12 months, the U.S. government and States begin paying their employees in physical silver coins and continue to pay them in physical silver coins for at least five years. After five years, they may pay their employees with silver checks or silver transfers to the employees’ checking accounts.
    24. The U.S. governments and the States start collecting taxes in gold and silver within six months. They should continue to collect enough taxes in federal reserve notes to pay their debt obligations made with federal reserve dollars.
    25. Within 30 days, the U.S. government and States cease contracting and issuing securities in terms of federal reserve dollars and start contracting and issuing securities in terms of gold or silver.
    26. All capital gains taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes on the exchange, sell, or purchase of gold and silver in any form that is at least 18 carats or on any other currency are eliminated.
    27. People may make contracts in gold and silver or any other commodity, good, or service, that they choose. Contracts are paid as specified in the contract. If the value of the contract when completed has risen in terms of federal reserve dollars, no taxes are paid on the increase. Tax laws in general are revised so as not to penalize using gold or silver as money.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.

Analysis of “Can Christians Wield the Sword?”

Analysis of “Can Christians Wield the Sword?”

Thomas Allen

    The following is the impression that Mr. Shawn Lazar gives in his article  “Can Christians Wield the Sword?” in Grace in Focus, November and December 2014, pages 21-25.
    Mr. Lazar presents Jehovah as a god of war. He is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek god Ares and the Roman god Mars. According to Mr. Lazar, war and violence are love: They are the highest form of love that Jehovah can express.
    Whether against their subjects or foreigners, rulers show their love through war and violence. War and violence are expressions of God’s will and love. Likewise, oppression expresses God’s will and love. The only time that war and violence are sinful is when oppressed people rebel against their oppressive rulers.
    Mr. Lazar argues that Christian pacifism is not only wrong; it is unscriptural. The primary purpose of his argument is to justify Israel's warring against and oppressing the Palestinians. However, when the Palestinians resist their overlord, the Israelis, they are committing a great evil and sin.
    Like most Zionist Christians, Mr. Lazar quotes Romans 13:1-4 and claims that Christians should do whatever their rulers tell them to do. Civil disobedience is their only option if they disagree with their rulers’ orders.
    He states that those who control governments are God’s ministers for good. If his understanding is correct, he must support Stalin’s and Mao’s slaughter of their people. These slaughters were good, for government can do no evil and always act according to God’s will. Everyone whom rulers kill or order killed is an evildoer.
    Moreover, if Mr. Lazar is correct, the United States were founded in iniquity. The founding fathers committed a great sin against God and their oppressive rulers when they led a rebellion against their British rulers. Likewise, several Old Testament Judges were guilty of the sin of rebellion as they revolted or led revolts against their overlords.
    According to Mr. Lazar's reasoning, whenever the ruling tribe in an African country hacks to pieces people of other tribes in their country, that is love — Divine love. However, if the victims resist being slaughtered, that is sin — a great sin.
    Israel was born out of the great sin and iniquity of rebellion. Using terrorism, the Jews rebelled against their ruler, the British, and eventually forced the British to leave Palestine. How Mr. Lazar can support such rebellious countries as Israel and the United States, he does not explain. He seems to go as far as to fawn over Israel.
    Contrary to Mr. Lazar’s implications, Jews stealing Palestinian land and slaughtering Palestinians when they resisted the thief is hardly comparable with the death penalty for murder or Abraham rescuing his nephew. Abraham’s use of violence to rescue his nephew is much more comparable to Hamas's using violence to restore stolen land to the Palestinians.
    The Jews’ drive to exterminate the Palestinians is similar to God’s commanding the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites when they entered the promised land. (The Israelites of the Old Testament should not be confused with today’s Israelis, who according to Jewish sources have no claim to being descendants of Jacob.) However, then God spoke through the great prophets Moses and Joshua. Who is the prophet, great or small, who has heard the voice of God and told the Jews to invade Palestine and exterminate the Palestinians?
    According to Mr. Lazar, a Christian is obliged to defend his neighbor from violent acts. However, if the ruler is the perpetrator, he is obliged to take no action except perhaps civil disobedience. (Civil disobedience did not do the tens of millions that Stalin and Mao killed much good. At least they were obedient to death.)
    Apparently, the sixth commandment (Thou shalt not kill) does not apply to people in government when they act in the name of the government or the state. It only applies to those who try to defend themselves from the government.
    Perhaps Mr. Lazar has explained why God almost never answers prayers for peace. His warmongering God loves war so much that He ignores the promise that His son made in Matthews 7:7. Moreover, Jesus must have erred when teaching “blessed are the peacemakers.” He should have taught “blessed are the warmongers.” Contrary to what Jesus claims, warmongers, not peacemakers, are the sons of God. At least this is what Mr. Lazar implies.
    By following the policy that war and violence are the solutions to all problems, rulers are obeying God’s will. When done by rulers, war and violence solve all problems. When oppressed people resort to war and violence, they solve nothing for themselves other than to commit a great sin and act against the will of God. Such Mr. Lazar implies if not outright claims.
    Mr. Lazar is obviously an Israeli-firster, and like most Zionists, he seems ready to defend Israeli imperialism to the last American. Why should anyone who claims to be a Christian want to support the Antichrist? According to John’s definition of the Antichrist (1 John 2: 22), both Jews and Muslims are Antichrist as they deny Jesus is the Christ. If a Christian is to choose sides, should not he support the one whose holy book considers Jesus to be a great prophet and oppose the one whose holy book considers Jesus to be a sorcerer and a bastard? The Koran presents Jesus as a great prophet. The Talmud presents Jesus as a sorcerer and a bastard.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Analysis of Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians

Analysis of Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians

Thomas Allen

    This article analyzes Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians (Omni Publications, 1968). His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words are in italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Porter states, “A  bank’s basic function is to transfer credit (wealth) from one account to another. Banking is a bookkeeping business” (p. 3.). When a person deposits money in a checking or savings account, he is lending to the bank receiving the deposit. Banks use these deposits as reserves or as the basis for their loans.  Although most loans are in the form of entries in checking accounts, some are in the form of cash. Although most people deposit checks that they receive in banking accounts, some convert their checks to cash. This cash comes from deposits, which serve as the bank’s reserves. (Mr. Porter acknowledges using deposits as reserves [p. 2.].)
    Mr. Porter claims that “a bank does not loan money, but instead accepts the customer’s wealth in the form of property and agrees to transfer that wealth from the customer’s account to others as ordered by the customer’s checks” (p. 3.). Contrary to his assertion, a bank does not accept the customer’s wealth in the form of property. The customer’s property is used as collateral for the loan (Mr. Porter notes this purpose on page 2.) The customer retains ownership and use of the property during the term of the loan. However, the bank may place restrictions, such as, the customer may not sell the property during the term of the loan without the bank’s consent. What the bank does when lending is to convert the borrower’s credit, usually in the form of a promissory note, into the bank’s credit, usually in the form of a checking account entry. Bank notes (federal reserve notes) are another form of credit in which the borrower’s credit is converted.
    Moreover, not all loans are collateralized. Credit cards are a good example. When a buyer charges a purchase with a bank credit card, he has borrowed money from the bank to pay the seller He provides no collateral for the loan. (Mr. Porter expresses great concern about bank credit cards supplanting all currencies. [p. 28.].)
     Also, contrary to Mr. Porter’s claim (p. 2), banks do not claim the borrower’s property as an asset. They list loans as assets. Borrowers list loans as liabilities. (When a person deposits money in a savings account, he lists the deposit as an asset although it is a loan to the bank. The bank lists the deposit as a liability.)
    The primary reason that people convert their credit, their promissory notes, into bank credit, checkbook money and bank notes, is that buying goods and services with bank credit is easier than buying them with personal credit. (One can buy with personal credit without involving banks — even large purchases. I bought my land with a promissory note to the owners; I did not use a bank loan.)
    Mr. Porter states that banks do not normally lend cash money; they lend credit money (p. 2). What he fails to explain is that all money, including cash money, is credit money. Since 1933, all money in the United States has been credit money.
    Mr. Porter remarks, “Checks are the commonest form of money (p. 3).” When he wrote his book, he was correct about checks being the commonest form of money. Now electrons in computers, electronic money, is rivaling, if not surpassing, paper checks as the predominant form of money.
    He states “Bank credit must be ‘borrowed’ to create it and is destroyed when paid back” (p. 4). He is correct. To prevent inflating the money supply, credit money needs to be removed from the economy and destroyed once its work is done.
    Mr. Porter notes, “Currency is no longer a tangible thing, but is an order to pay, like a check” (p. 5.). This is true. It was true for all three types of paper money in circulation in 1969, viz., silver certificates, U.S. notes, and federal reserve notes. Like checks, all three are forms of credit money. (At the time that he wrote this book, silver certificates were being withdrawn from circulation. A few years later, U.S. notes would be phased out.)
    Mr. Porter writes, “United States Notes, Silver Certificates and coins are paid into circulation. They are not borrowed into circulation” (p. 6). This is true. However, he fails to inform that U.S. notes are forced loans that pay no interest and promises to pay nothing. He errs when he writes that “U.S. notes have never been redeemable in anything” (p. 4.) Between 1879 and 1933, U.S. notes were redeemable in gold coin on demand. One-third to one-half of them were backed by gold.
    He claims that the value of U.S. notes had “been stabilized by being exchangeable for silver certificates whose value has been stabilized by their value in silver” (p. 4.). This claim is false. Silver certificates ceased being convertible in silver in 1964. At the time of his writing the value of silver in a silver dollar exceeded the value of a one-dollar silver certificate. As silver certificates, U.S. notes, and federal reserve notes had the same purchasing power, what fixed the value of one to the other two? It was not silver as Mr. Porter implies.
    The U.S. government may have spent U.S. notes into circulation, it did not spend gold certificates into circulation as Mr. Porter claims (p. 4). The owners of gold deposited their gold with the U.S. Treasury Department for gold certificates. If no one deposited gold in exchange for gold certificates, there would be no gold certificates in circulation.
    Mr. Porter correctly notes that federal reserve notes are orders to pay like checks. Also, he notes that they are a private bank note (p. 5.) Unlike most fiat money reformers, he at least mentions that federal reserve notes are obligations of the U.S. government. However, he implies that this obligation only existed under the gold standard and that this was the cause of Roosevelt’s great gold thief of 1933 (p. 5). (He does not use “thief.”) As the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Bank held nearly all the monetary gold, Roosevelt did not have to steal privately held gold. If the gold coins in circulation were approximately equally distributed, each person would have held $2 to $ 3 in gold — well below the $100 limit. (I discuss this in detail in “Review of Daniel Carr’s ‘FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank.’”)  As nearly every country besides France had left the gold standard by the time that the United States did, few foreign claims for gold payment remained. The U.S. government and the federal reserve bank had plenty of gold to pay the few, if any, that remained. The purpose of abandoning the gold standard was to relieve the government and banks of the burden of paying in gold and of keeping their promise to redeem their notes and checks.
    Mr. Porter remarks that the U.S. government pays the federal reserve bank interest on U.S. bonds (p. 5.). He fails to mention that most of this interest is returned to the U.S. government.
    Mr. Porter lists three things that give currency value:
    “1.   Need of the currency to pay taxes.
    2.   Legal requirements to accept it in payment of debt.
    3.   Direct or indirect exchangeability for something of value such as gold or silver” (p. 6.).
    Number 3 ceased to exist long ago and was not even in effect when Mr. Porter wrote his book. However, number 3 is what originally gave today’s currency its value. The nonmonetary uses of gold and silver gave gold and silver money its initial value After gold and silver began to be used as money, the combination of their nonmonetary uses and monetary use fixed their value. Numbers 1 and 2 are what now gives currency its value albeit at a decaying rate. Also, the service that currency provides as a medium of exchange gives it some value. (One of the great monetary mysteries is why fiat money, which is a promise to pay nothing, has any value at all.)
    Mr. Porter correctly notes “that cash is only a slightly different form of credit money” (p. 6.).
    He claims, “The only thing backing the money in the U.S.A. is the property of those who ‘borrowed’ it into circulation” (p. 11.). What really backs money in the United States is the taxing power of the U.S. government — its military might to take people’s property. All checkbook money is built on a foundation of federal reserve notes and bank deposits at the federal reserve banks. Federal reserve notes into which these bank deposits are convertible on demand are backed by the U.S. government. Likewise, U.S. government securities that the Federal Reserve uses to cover its liability of bank deposits are backed by the U.S. government. The U.S. government stands behind the country’s monetary system. This governmental control and guarantee of the U.S. monetary system seems to be what Mr. Proter advocates although in a different form.
    He claims, “The  total debt of the nation must increase by the  amount of interest removed from circulation or it will be made up by foreclosure on property” (p. 11.). He focuses negatively on interest paid to bankers on loans. He ignores interest charged to banks for loans, i.e., interest paid on savings and checking accounts. Interest is also paid on personal nonbank loans, government securities, and other nonbank loans. Rent for a house or an apartment, car, equipment, or anything else is interest (See Usury by Calvin Elliot and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.) If most of the interest that bank charge “is not legitimate profit but gained under false pretenses” (p. 10) is true, then most of the interest charged by nonbank lenders, landlords, equipment leasers, etc. must be profit gained under false pretense.
    The U.S. government does not have to increase its debt to “borrow” money into existence or resort to using noninterest loans, like U.S. notes, to provide money to pay interest. People do not buy with money. They buy with production, labor. Products and labor buy products and labor — Say’s law. (As stated in Wikipedia , Say’s law is as follows: “As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions — as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.”) Money merely serves as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange. Ultimately, borrowers pay interest with their production.
    Mr. Porter claims that “all interest is charged unjustly” (p. 13). If true, banks should not pay interest on deposits or certificates of deposit. Governments should not pay interest on their bonds. Corporations should not pay interest on their bonds or dividends (a form of interest) on their stock. Landlords should cease offering their property for rent. Without interest, our society would revert to the agrarian society of the Middle Ages or of ancient times.
    In Chapter V, Mr. Porter gives his solutions. When a person borrows from a bank, he should pay a fee adequate to cover the cost of the loan with a reasonable profit and to protect the lender from possible loss (p. 30.). What the difference between this fee and interest other than how it is computed, he does not explain. As any good anti-usurer knows, fees related to loans is just another name for interest.
    Borrowers should not be allowed to convert checkbook money resulting from loans into currency, precious metals, or anything other than credit. However, people who deposit precious metals or currency should receive precious metal or currency when demanded (pp. 30-31). Precious metal is no longer an issue — and it was not when Mr. Porter wrote as silver coins where no longer used. By currency, I assume that he means U.S. notes and federal reserve notes, i.e., paper money. Whether federal reserve notes are considered credit or currency may not matter, as he favors eliminating the federal reserve banks and by that their notes. He probably means U.S. notes. If bank notes are considered currency, why the restriction? Bank notes are functionally the same as checkbook money. Prohibiting banks from converting checkbook money created by lending to paper money, i.e., U.S. notes, removes an important limitation on the amount of loans that a bank can make.
    Mr. Proter wants to make checks legal tender (p. 31.) He states, “Coin, United States Notes, Credit and silver at a definite value per ounce, should all be made legal tender for all debts, public and private by Federal law” (p. 32.) A major cause of monetary problems comes from legal-tender laws. These laws should be repealed instead of extended. Real money, such as gold and silver, do not need the protection of legal-tender laws. Fraudulent money like U.S. notes and federal reserve notes do. Without declaring them legal tender, they may have difficulty circulating and would circulate at a discount to specie. Mr. Proter states, “What is needed is a Federal law chartering institutions to issue credit backed by property, without maintaining any reserves and without being required to pay their debts in anything other than credit” (p. 31.).
    Mr. Proter favors repealing then entire Federal Reserve Banking Act (p. 32.) This is the best proposal that he makes.
    He seems to favor returning to some kind of bastardized silver standard. He remarks, “Making all debts payable in either silver, credit or currency at a definite ratio and as the person paying chooses, will maintain and stabilize the value of all money the same as making it redeemable in silver would. Yet the government will not need to invest in the silver and the silver will not be withheld from the market or the use of the consumer” (p. 32.). Obviously, he has little understanding of the true silver standard. Under the true silver standard, the government does not invest in silver. It merely coins all silver presented to the mint for coinage. The coins minted are the property of the person presenting the silver. They are not the property of the government until it obtains them via taxes, fees, or fines. The only way that U.S. notes and bank credit can maintain the same value as silver is for them to be converted to silver on demand. That requires the U.S. government to maintain silver reserves for U.S. notes, and banks, for bank credit.
    He supports the Friedman concept (although he does not credit it to him) of free floating exchange rates for currencies. Currencies change value relative to each other instead of being a fixed weight of gold or silver or fixed in terms of another currency. Thus, neither gold or silver would be used in international exchange or for balance of payments (p. 32.). Essentially, this system is the one that the United States and most countries use today. Some countries do fix their currencies in terms of the U.S. dollar. This part of his proposal has been mostly implemented.
    Floating exchange rates make foreign trade more speculative. Exporters and importers need to account for variable and unknowable future-value changes between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies. Such changes were not a problem for countries on the gold standard because they did not occur. Countries defined their monetary unit as a specific weight of gold. Moreover, variable exchange rates leads to the U.S. government speculating in foreign exchange markets in an attempt to maintain stability — a task that it did not have to do under the gold standard.
    Mr. Protor claims that “the  Constitution empowers Congress to issue our money” (pp. 32-33.). He makes a mistake common to all fiat money reformers and federal judges and to most Congressmen. The Constitution does not empower Congress to issue money. It empowers Congress to coin money. That is, the U.S. government coins (not issues) all gold and silver presented to the mint for coinage. If no one presented any gold or silver for coinage, there would be no money other than perhaps some previously issued credit money, such as script. (As I have discussed this in detail in Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money and other articles, I will not do so here.)
        Mr. Protor states, “A dollar bill is a token of a definite amount of wealth. It represents a definite amount of work done. As long as it represents a definite amount of wealth or work done its value obviously will not change and inflation or deflation cannot occur (p. 33). The “dollar” as used in the Constitution has nothing to do with work. It is the weight of silver in the Spanish milled dollar. Congress found the average weight of silver in the Spanish milled dollar in circulation was 371.25 grains of silver when adjusted so that 15 grains of silver had the same value as 1 grain of gold. Mr. Proter does not define how much of what kind of work equals one dollar. He seems to follow the classical concept of wealth and value of Adam Smith and other classical economists. As Carl Menger proved, value is subjective and has nothing to do with work.
    If he is correct, we should have experienced no inflation over the past several decades. As we have had inflation, his definition of the dollar is flawed. Otherwise, wealth and work done in the U.S. has been declining over these decades.
    Mr. Proter goes on to remark that “inflation is caused by labor demanding more money without more production or work done” (p. 33.). Thus, according to him, whenever labor demands an increase in pay without an increase in production, the dollar loses value. He is not alone in this belief. However, the purchasing power of the money is independent of the income of workers. Its purchasing power depends on its quality. High quality money like gold and silver maintains purchasing power better than low quality money fiat paper money like U.S. notes.
    Mr. Protor claims that the economic problem in the United States is not over-production. The problem is under-consumption (p. 33-34). This is a commonly held belief by fiat money reformers.
    He notes, “Unemployment is caused by a shortage of money in circulation. Every time considerable money is put in circulation, unemployment drops sharply, until the money is in some manner removed from circulation as soon happens” (p. 34.). The decade of the 1970s proved him and others who held this belief wrong. During the 1970s, the money supply, unemployment, and prices soared. Unemployment usually does decline with a significant increase in money supply. It does so because when “considerable money is put in circulation,” the purchasing power of the monetary unit declines. Declining purchasing power lowers the cost of labor.
    His proposal of returning to a free enterprise economy (p. 34) is sound. However, his proposal to prohibit charging interest would devastate the economy (v.s.).
    Mr. Proter also supports the Liberty Amendment, which he quotes (pp. 35-36).  The Liberty Amendment is a great proposal, which would eliminate many problems that the country faces. It would eliminate all the so-call free trade agreements, which are actually managed trade agreements, like NAFTA. It would prohibit the U.S. government from engaging in any business or enterprise. Also, it prohibits subjecting the laws of the United States and the States to any foreign or domestic agreement.
    Like most fiat money reformers, Mr. Porter believes that only two approaches exist in providing the economy with the money it needs. One is having the government print and spend money into circulation — his preference. The other if for people to borrow money into circulation. That is, banks create checkbook money to lend to borrowers. This approach he adamantly opposes.
    He ignores the one monetary system that can provide the economy with all the money that it needs without governments or banks. That monetary system is the gold-coin standard accompanied by the real bills doctrine and ideally the silver-coin standard. It automatically inserts money into the economy when it is needed and where it is needed far more accurately and precisely than governments can. Moreover, it inserts the amount needed far more accurately and precisely than governments can. Furthermore, unlike governmentally issued fiat money, which remains in the economy indefinitely and leads to inflation, it removes money from the economy once it is no longer needed.

Copyright © 2013 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: The following article has been significantly revised from the earlier version that appeared.  Revised January 13, 2018; revised May 5, 2018, by adding 35-37; revised March 18, 2019, by adding 38; revised September 28, 2024 by rewriting 14 and adding 39.]
    Why was Elijah able to defeat Baal’s priests in his duel with them (1 Kings, chapter 18)? The traditional explanation is that Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH is the supreme God or that He is the only true God.[1] Naturally, Baal apologists object to Jehovah being the supreme god, much less being the true god.
    Jesus said in Matthew 7:7, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As many prayers go unanswered, prayer apologists have come up with excuses for unanswered prayers. Baal apologists can easily use these excuses to explain Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests. Some of the favorite and most popular excuses of the prayer apologists for unanswered prayers follow.
    1. Doubt. God does not answer prayer because of doubt, i.e., the prayer has some doubt that God would answer the prayer. Thus, doubt is more powerful than God. How much doubt is necessary is not usually stated other than if the prayer has one iota of doubt, his prayer will not be answered. According to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some doubt that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that all of them have doubt. Of the few who pray for war, apparently one of them has no doubt that God will deliver war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (In this article, peace means the absence of war; it does not mean the unmeasurable internal peace of God.)
    2. Lack of Faith. God does not answer prayer because of a lack of faith, i.e., the prayer does not have enough faith. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer has enough faith. If it is not answered, the prayer does not have enough faith. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have enough faith that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that none of them have enough faith. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough faith to ensure that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    3. Serious and Earnest. God only answers prayers when the prayer begs seriously and earnestly. Otherwise, He ignores the prayer. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not beg seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude who pray for peace, none begs seriously or earnestly enough. Of the few who pray for war, at least one begs seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    4. Not God’s Will. God does not answer the prayers of His people unless He so desires, i.e., it is His will to answer them, or the prayer is consistent with His will. Presumably, His refusal to answer serves some higher and usually hidden purpose and is not whimsical. Moreover, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal’s will was that they lose. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, is that none are praying for God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying for God’s will, which means that God’s will is war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    5. God Answers Those Who Seek His Will. If what the prayer is seeking with his prayer is God’s will, God answers the prayer. If the prayer’s prayer is contrary to God’s will, God does not answer the prayer or answers it negatively.  Again, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not seeking Baal’s will when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that people who pray for peace are not seeking God’s will. The few who pray for war apparently are seeking God’s will, which is war.
    6. Gives Things Asked for That He is Willing to Grant. The prayers must ask for things that they know that God is willing to grant. This excuse leads to much groping around in the dark, for who knows the mind of God. Thus, prayer is mostly a trial and error thing with the prayer searching for what God will grant. Even then, he does not know whether it is answered prayer or coincidence. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not ask for that which Baal was willing to grant when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, we have war instead of peace because those who pray for peace are not praying for that which God is willing to grant. The few who pray for war are praying for that which God is willing to grant, which is war.
    7. God Answers But the Answer Is “No.” God answers all prayers. Sometimes He grants the prayer what he asks for, and sometimes He does not. How this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained — especially when compared to nonprayed-for events. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests negatively. Therefore, Baal did answer their prayers, and his answer, contrary to their petition, was to allow Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace negatively. However, He answers the prayers of the few who pray for war in the positive and gives them and those who pray for peace war.
    8. The Answer Is Not What Was Expected. God answers all prayers. However, the answer is frequently not what the prayer wanted or expected. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. However, the answer was not what they expected. They expected Baal to give them victory over Elijah. Baal decided to answer their prayers by giving Elijah victory over them. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests in a way that was not expected. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace with war, which is not what the prayers for peace wanted or expected.
    9. Has Something Better. God answers all prayers, but He often answers by giving the prayer something better than what he asks. Evidently, this is true even, and especially, when the prayer never perceives the thing received as better than what was requested. Apparently, the “something better” for Baal’s priests was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests something better than victory over Elijah: defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God is giving the prayers for peace something better than peace and that is war.
    10. Gives What Is Needed, Not What Is Wanted. God answers prayers by giving the prayer what he needs instead of what he wants. A corollary of this excuse is that God does not answer prayers for wants; He only answers prayers for needs. What does God do when the request is for something that is both needed and wanted? Does He grant the request because it is needed? Does He withhold answering because it is wanted? Or does He only partially answer it? Obviously, Baal’s priests merely wanted victory over Elijah. What they really needed was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests what they needed (defeat, humiliation, and death) instead of what they wanted (victory). Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that prayers for peace merely want peace. What they really need is war. Presumably, those who pray for war merely want war, but what they really need is war, so God gives them war.
    11. Not Yet. God answers all prayers, but He often delays in answering, even when the prayer is time sensitive. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Also, not explained is time running out without the prayer being answered. When was Baal going to answer the prayers of his priests? After Elijah defeated, humiliated, and killed them? According to the Baal apologists, Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. He just did not answer them in a timely manner. He delayed answering their prayers to some future date. Evidently, Baal plans to answer the prayers of his priests in the future when he has reincarnated or resurrected them and Elijah and has the duel between them reenacted. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal decided to answer their prayers later. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God will grant peace sometimes in the future — perhaps when no one is left to fight.
    12. Unconfessed Sin. God does not answer prayer because the prayer has unconfused sin, i.e., the prayer has not confessed all his sin. Therefore, God will not answer the prayer. If this excuse is true, then God seldom answers many prayers as many prayers have unconfessed sin. Many people cannot even remember all their unconfessed sins, so their prayers are never answered. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some unconfessed sin. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, all have unconfessed sin. Of the few who pray for war, apparently at least one does not have any unconfessed sin, so God answers his prayer for war.
    13. Dire Need. God only answers the prayers of people in dire need. When does a need become a dire need? What is a dire need? Cemeteries are full of people who thought that they had a dire need. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have a dire need to win. Apparently, they had a dire need for defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, prayers for peace do not have a dire need for peace; however, prayers for war do have a dire need for war. Therefore, we have war.
    14. Not Praying the Correct Way. According to this excuse, one needs to follow the correct formula in praying before God will answer the prayer. That is, in order for God to give the prayer his request, the prayer must follow the correct formula for prayer. (This excuse sounds like Gnosticism in that a hidden formula for prayer exists. One only needs to be enlightened enough to find it.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray the correct way. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one follows the correct formula. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none uses the correct formula. To the extent any formula for prayer is given in Matthew 7:7, it is simply to ask; then God will grant the request.

     15. Failing to Deal with the Spirit Behind the Problem. The prayer has one or more spirits causing the problem for which he is praying, and he has not dealt with these spirits. He must first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command these spirits to depart before his prayers are answered. (To the extent that this excuse has validity, the rebuking, confessing, acknowledging, and commanding the departure of these spirits is implied in most prayers even if they are not explicitly stated. Often the prayer may not even be aware of such spirits.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command the departure of the spirit behind Elijah’s challenge although their prayers did imply, if not explicitly command, etc., such departure. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind peace. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind war.
    16. Not Praying to the Right God. God will not answer one’s prayer if he prays to the wrong God. Presumably, the wrong God will not answer his prayers either, although the prayer prayed to him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed to the wrong god. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them is praying to the right God. All are praying to the wrong God. Apparently of the few who pray for war, at least one is praying to the right God.
    17. Asking God to Perform Magic, Miracles. One should never pray for a miracle because that is asking God to perform magic. God does not do magic because that is interfering with the natural course of events, and God does not interfere with the natural course of events. Therefore, one should only pray for unmeasurable intangibles like courage and wisdom. One should never pray for measurable tangibles like curing someone of a disease or world peace. Apparently, people who use this excuse do not believe Jesus when he said, “Ask and it shall be given you” (Matt. 7:7). An unanswerable prayer for a measurable tangible shows that Jesus lied. A prayer for an unmeasurable intangible cannot be shown whether it is answered or not. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for a miracle, i.e., they asked Baal to perform magic. However, Jehovah interfered with the natural course of events and performed an act of magic by lighting Elijah’s water-soaked wood (1 Kings 18:32-38). Therefore, proponents of this excuse must reject Jehovah as the true God because He performed magic. Baal apologists would add that since the true God does not do magic since Baal did no magic, and since Jehovah did do magic, Baal must be the true God. Moreover, God refuses to answer prayers for peace because to do so requires magic, a miracle. War is the natural course of events.
    18. Lack of Fervor. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who pray fervently. How much fervor does it take before a prayer is fervently prayed? Apparently, the fervor displayed by Baal’s priests was not enough. For anyone to display more fervor as the Bible describes them doing (1 King 18:28-29) is hard to imagine. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray fervently enough. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them prays fervently enough. However, out of the few who pray for war, at least one prays fervently enough.
    19. Praying for the Wrong Thing. God does not answer the prayers of people who do not pray for the right thing, i.e., they pray for the wrong thing. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray for the right thing. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah; they prayed for the wrong thing. Presumably, they should have prayed for Elijah to win; then Baal would have answered their prayers because they would have prayed for the right thing. Likewise, the multitude who pray for peace prays for the wrong thing: peace. However, the warmongers pray for the right thing: war. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongers and ignores the prayers of the peace lovers.
    20. Asking for Things Not Good for the Prayer. If a person prays for something that is not good for him, God will not answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for something that was not good for them. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah, which was not good for them. Presumably, defeat was good for them. Likewise, God does not answer the prayers of those who pray for peace because peace is not good for them. Therefore, war must be good for them.
    21. Sinner. God does not answer the prayers of sinners. If true, then God would never answer any prayers as everyone is a sinner. Possibly, the only exception is a prayer for salvation and that is iffy. So why did Jesus bother promising that people would receive whatever they asked? Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were sinners. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that every one of the multitudes who pray for peace is a sinner. At least one prayer for war is not a sinner. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the nonsinning warmonger.
    22. Not a Christian. God only answers the prayers of Christians. This excuse is a good test for someone to use to decide if he is really a Christian. If God answers all his prayers, he is a real Christian. If God fails to answer at least one of his prayers, he is not a real Christian; he is a pseudo-Christian. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not real Christians. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Because Elijah was not a Christian either, Jehovah could not have answered his prayer. Moreover, of the multitude who pray for peace, not one of them is a Christian. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is a Christian. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongering Christian.
    23. The Prayer Must Be Prepared to Receive What Is Being Asked For. God only answers the prayers of those who are prepared to receive that for which they pray. He does not answer the prayers of those who are not prepared. How one becomes prepared is anyone’s guess. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to receive victory. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to receive peace; none can handle peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to receive war; this one can handle war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    24. Must Adhere Only to Christ.  Before God answers a person’s prayer, that person must adhere only to Christ. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not adhere only to Christ. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Although evidence is given that Elijah adhered to Jehovah, no specifically stated evidence is given that Elijah adhered only to Christ. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none adhere only to Christ. Presumably, of the few who pray for war, at least one adheres to only Christ. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    25. Prepared to Live God’s Will. Before God answers a person’s prayer, the prayer must be prepared to live God’s will. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to live Baal’s, will. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to live God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to live God’s will. If correct, then living for war appears to be God’s will.
    26. Praying for God’s Will to Be Done. Only when a person prays that God’s will to be done, does God answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray that Baal’s will be done. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none is praying that God’s will to be done. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying that God’s will to be done. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace, then God’s will must be war. However, according to Matthew 7:7, God’s will seems to be simply to ask so that He can give whatever is asked for.
    27. Must Know God. God only answers the prayers of those who know Him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not know Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none knows God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one knows God Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    28. Must Keep the Commandments of God. God only answers the prayers of those who keep His commandments. This excuse is the ultimate excuse because we are all sinners, and no sinner can keep the commandments of God. To break one commandment is to break all commandments. Based on this excuse, God never answers anyone’s prayer, which makes Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 a hoax. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not keep Baal’s commandments. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none keep God’s commandments. Of the few who pray for war, at least one keeps God’s commandments. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    29. Must Have Accepted Jesus as Savior. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who have accepted Jesus as their savior. This excuse is a good test for one’s salvation. If the prayer has one unanswered prayer, then he is not saved. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they had not accepted Jesus as their savior. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no specific evidence is given that Elijah had accepted Jesus as his savior, so accepting Jesus as his savior had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none has accepted Jesus as his savior. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has accepted Jesus as his savior.
    30. Must Pray in the Name of Christ Jesus. According to this excuse, a person must pray in the name of Christ Jesus before God will answer that prayer. However, Matthew 7:7 does not require asking in the name of Christ Jesus. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had not prayed in the name of Christ Jesus. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no evidence is given that Elijah prayed in the name of Christ Jesus, so his prayer had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, none pray in the name of Christ Jesus. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has prayed in the name of Christ Jesus.
    31. Asking with Incorrect Motive. God does not answer prayers when the prayer is praying with incorrect motives. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priest did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed with an incorrect motive. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none ask with the correct motive. Of the few who pray for war, at least one asks with the correct motive. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace. Apparently, a desire for war is the correct motive, while a desire for peace is an incorrect motive.
    32. Asking from a Selfish Heart. God does not answer the prayers of a prayer who prays from a selfish heart. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed from a selfish heart. Selfishly, they want to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray from a selfish heart. Of the few who pray for war, at least one does not pray from a selfish heart. Apparently, praying for peace is selfish, while praying for war is altruistic. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    33. Pray Continuously. One must pray continuously for God to answer a prayer. Although the record shows that Baal’s priests prayed continuously, apparently, they did not pray continuously enough — much more continuously than Elijah prayed. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not continuously pray. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all failed to pray continuously. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays continuously. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    34. Seeking to Receive the Blessing More Ardently than Desiring to Commune with God. God does not answer the prayers of prayers who desire the object of the prayer more than they desire to commune with God. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they desire victory over Elijah more than they desired to commune with Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray desire peace more than they desire to Commune with God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one desires to commune with God more than he desires war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    35. Sowing and Reaping: One Reaps What He Sows. God answers prayers using the principle of what one sows is what one reaps. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had been sowing defeat, so he let them reap defeat by letting Elijah defeat them. Thus, all of the multitudes of those who pray for peace have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war. Likewise, the few who pray for war have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war.
    36. Lack of Humility. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack humility.  Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they lacked humility. (Based on his actions, Elijah displayed much more arrogance than humility.) Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers; consequently, he let Elijah win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none prayed with humility. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays with humility. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    37. Lack of Trust. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack sufficient trust in him. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer trusts God, even if the prayer is an atheist who prays sarcastically. If it is not answered, the prayer does not trust God. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not trust Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them trust that God will deliver peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough trust that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (Promises kept build trust; promises broken destroy trust.)
    38. Pleasing in God’s Sight. The prayer must ask for things that God finds pleasing. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because prayed for something that was not pleasing to Baal: namely, victory over Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that the multitude of people praying for peace are praying for something that is not pleasing in God’s sight: peace. The few who pray for war are praying for something that is pleasing in God’s sight: war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.

39. Pray as Though the Prayer Has Already Been Answer.  According to this excuse, one should pray as though God has already answered the prayer. If the prayer thanks God in advance for answering the prayer, God will grant the prayer's request. That is, in order for God to give the prayer his request, the prayer must thank God for answering the prayer before he begins to pray. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal's priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not thank Baal for answering their prayers before they began praying. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one thanks God for giving them war before praying. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none thank God for giving them peace before praying. 
    As shown above, the traditional explanation of Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests may not be correct if the prayer apologists are correct. Prayer apologists need to find a better excuse for unanswered prayer. They need to find an excuse that the Baal apologists cannot possibly use to explain Elijah’s victory.
    Now let us examine Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7. According to this verse, God’s will it to ask so that He can give. All one has to do is merely ask in order to receive that for which one asks. If this verse means what it says, conditions necessary have prayers answered, i.e., the excuses, given above are irrelevant. Taking as Jesus spoke it, this verse contradicts the above excuses offered by the prayer apologists.  If one or more of the above conditions, excuses, must be met before a prayer is answered, then Matthew 7:7 is deceptive. In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists do not believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7; they are calling him a liar.
     When the prayers for peace are considered, one must wonder why we have more war than peace. Is it because God gives more weight to the few who pray for war than He gives to the multitude who pray for peace? Is it because, as some critics claim, Jehovah is a god of war who relishes in war? Parts of the Old Testament seem to suggest such. Is it because one or more of the above excuses are correct and, therefore, God refuses to answer prayers for peace?
    As for war, a typical retort is that sin is the cause of war. True. Yet this argument also rests on making sin more powerful than prayer. Sin is more powerful than God Himself. It is so powerful that it prevents God from keeping the promise that His Son made in Matthew 7:7.
    To mask unanswered prayer, many pray for intangibles that cannot be measured, such as comfort or guidance. An exception is the prosperity preacher. His prayers or at least those of his followers can be measured. As many of these prayers are not answered, the prosperity preacher qualifies prayer and praying away as meaninglessness. The favorite excuses of the prosperity preacher for unanswered prayer are doubt and lack of faith. Thus, he does not really believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7. If his followers do not become wealthy, the followers doubted or lacked sufficient faith.
    In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists are claiming that the Bible is written as a good shyster lawyer writes contracts and laws. Grandiose promises are simply and concisely stated upfront. Then the promise is qualified as meaningless with the fine print.
    Apparently, Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 does not really mean what is so plainly stated. So, what does it really mean? Is the Bible written as a shyster lawyer writes a contract or law? Are the atheists right? Is it all coincidence? Was the little boy right when he said that faith was believing in what one knew was not true? Is it all caprice?

Endnote
1. If He is the only god, then the first of the commandments (“You shall have not other gods before me:”) is meaningless.

Copyright © 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

 More articles on religion.