Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share The Liberty Conspiracy Audio Pod, for 5-7-26!
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
The Liberty Conspiracy Audio Pod, for 5-7-26!
Welcome, fellow Conspirators!
Thank you to all the folks who joined us tonight for a fast-paced and fun time as we dug into the big breaking info. Thanks for all the ++ vibes for Theology Thursday about Christian anarchism and Romans 13, as well! Big thanks to the great journalists we got to mention!- Have a great night, everyone! Join us tomorrow at 6PM for Fiction Friday and the full reading of the new novella, "FUEL"! Here are some of the big stories we got to cover, tonight…
Subscribe now
Share
WARIRANBREAKING - TRUMP IS BOMBING AS WE GO TO PRINT
This is the Zionist mindset behind the Greater Israel Project and much of the US aggression (that, plus the desire to prop up the Petro Dollar and pump up the Military-Industrial-Corporate Empire of the US).
And this is how it manifests in rhetoric and policy-murder-theft in the Zionist Genocide Machine of Israel.
(MORE, on LEBANON, A FEW ENTRIES DOWN…)
Share
Share Gardner Goldsmith
Subscribe now
US ATTACKS ON IRAN -NBC reports that Trump ended his “Project Freedom” after getting blank stares from high-ups in Arab states. Here is ANTIWAR adding great insights. And RT has amplification of it. LINK
-But the US attacked that ship we mentioned yesterday, because, evidently, it amused Trump LINK
-Iran rejects Trump’s latest DEMANDS Headline: “Live updates: US awaits Iran’s response to latest proposal to end war | CNN” LINK
-And these are Iran’s new rules for passage. Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth claim that Iran is not in charge, but, something indicates that both US warmongers are incorrect, likely very aware they are lying, of course. LINK
HERE IS AN OVERVIEW:
While the exact wording of all 14 points remains internal/diplomatic, here is the clear, consolidated list of the core demands consistently reported across major sources (Al Jazeera, NPR, The National, Firstpost, and Iranian officials):
Full and permanent termination of the war (not merely a ceasefire extension) — all issues to be resolved within 30 days.
Security guarantees / non-aggression commitments — binding assurances from the US and allies (including Israel) against any future military attacks on Iran.
Complete withdrawal of US military forces from areas surrounding Iran (the region/periphery).
Lifting of all US and international economic sanctions on Iran.
Release of all frozen Iranian assets held abroad (worth billions of dollars).
Payment of war reparations / financial compensation for damages caused by the conflict.
Immediate end to the US naval blockade on Iranian ports and shipping.
Cessation of all hostilities across every front, including a full end to fighting and involvement in Lebanon and other regional conflicts.
Establishment of a new mechanism / framework for secure navigation, shipping, and control in the Strait of Hormuz (including full reopening and guarantees against future disruptions).
Affirmation of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment — as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — with substantive negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program deferred until after a comprehensive peace agreement is reached.
The remaining points (11–14) appear to cover procedural and verification elements, such as timelines for implementation, monitoring mechanisms, regional de-escalation protocols, and a sequencing that prioritizes ending the war before deeper talks on other issues. Iranian officials have repeatedly stressed that this plan is “exclusively focused on ending the war” at this stage.
-A confidential CIA analysis delivered to administration policymakers this week concludes that Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles. The regime has recovered and reopened almost all of its underground storage facilities, repaired some damaged missiles, and even assembled new ones that were nearly complete when the war began. This assessment indicates that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities have not been badly diminished overall, despite weeks of intense U.S. and Israeli bombardment. It suggests Tehran retains substantial launching capacity and stockpiles to sustain operations, including threats to regional targets, U.S. forces/bases, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and allies. The same analysis concludes Iran could survive a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for at least 3–4 months before facing more severe economic hardship—further evidence of its remaining deterrent and fighting ability. This, from the WaPo LINK
HEGSETH CLAIMED $25 Bil for the IRAN MESS, it’s much higher, by orders of magnitude. Steve Semler, whose work has appeared via Brown University’s “Cost of War” Project, and who writes his own Substack (linked here) offers his more honest estimate of the Pentagon’s ledger and the real costs to taxpayers.
Some highlights:
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Acting Comptroller Jules Hurst told Congress last week that the Iran War had cost $25 billion through the first 60 days. The next day, CBS reported that officials familiar with the Pentagon’s internal assessments estimated the cost was actually closer to $50 billion — double the amount department leadership had just stated publicly. However, even the figure reported as the war’s “true cost” is at least $22 billion too low.
Popular Information conducted a cost estimate of the Iran War based on officials’ statements, military procurement and operations data, and reporting on deployments and armament use. Through 60 days, the US spent an estimated $71.8 billion on the Iran War, or $1.2 billion per day on average. This includes the cost of operations, munitions, combat losses, and arming co-belligerents. Like the estimates from Pentagon leadership and unnamed officials, this figure refers only to direct war costs — near-term expenses for military operations, munitions, and the like — and not indirect costs, which include broader economic impacts, interest on the national debt and longer-term expenses like veterans’ care.
Why this figure is higher than the Pentagon’s internal estimateWhy is Popular Information’s estimate so much largest than even the Pentagon’s internal figure? Factors include incomplete accounting of damaged or destroyed military assets, the exclusion of costs outside the department (including billions of dollars in State Department-funded military aid to Israel), and a flawed method for tracking munition expenditures. The last is likely the biggest factor.
The Pentagon tracks munition “burn rate” costs by merging operational logistics (what munitions are fired, and in what quantities) with financial values (how much each one costs). The issue lies in how the Pentagon determines unit cost. The war costs that show up on the Pentagon’s ledger — and that media outlets report — are much lower than the costs the US public will ultimately be forced to pay.
For example, the largest categorical munition cost is for interceptors, which are missiles designed to shoot down other missiles. The cost to fire one SM-2 interceptor is approximately $1.2 million. If 50 are withdrawn from the stockpile and fired, the Pentagon’s ledger would show $60 million in expenses from consuming those munitions. The $50 billion cost estimate unnamed officials gave lawmakers likely reflects this accounting method, as it’s the department’s standard.
This accounting can lead to undercounts when a rapidly consumed munition like the SM-2 isn’t planned to be purchased in the future. The Pentagon no longer buys SM-2s; the interceptor is being replaced by the more advanced and expensive SM-6. So each time an SM-2 is fired in the ongoing war, the Pentagon’s accounting system registers a cost closer to the SM-2’s $1.2 million unit cost from 2010 than the $6.3 million unit cost budgeted in 2027 for the SM-6 that will replace it. For US taxpayers, the cost of firing 50 SM-2s isn’t $60 million; it’s $315 million.
There are many more examples of expended munitions (or destroyed equipment) that are budgeted to be replaced by much more expensive variants.
Foreseen consequencesThe $25 billion war cost given by Pentagon Secretary Hegseth and acting Comptroller Hurst before Congress was a lie. It was a denial of the Iran War’s spiraling costs, one of several foreseen consequences of the Trump administration’s decision to go to war. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz is another predictable consequence. As nonproliferation expert Joe Cirincione told Popular Information last June:
There’s a whole list of things [Iran] could do, including closing the Straits of Hormuz. By closing the Straits of Hormuz, you cut off one-fifth of the world’s oil supply overnight. That will send stock markets crashing. That could tip the world into a global recession, even a depression.
Share Gardner Goldsmith
LEBANONHeadline, from Antiwar “Israel Kills 16 in Lebanon, Expands Attacks Into Eastern Bekaa Valley, Beirut - News From Antiwar.com” LINK
As we know… But it is good that Sky is reporting on this
The BBC tells us what we have known for years, now. But it IS good that they are getting out this information
Another strike by IDF, in Gaza City, on people living in TENTS
And, from yesterday, a reminder of the way the Israelis view “ceasefires”. This, in Gaza
POLANDIf you know folks who thought that news of US troops leaving Germany would mean the US is completely leaving that nation, that is incorrect. Only about 1/4 are leaving, and now, the Polish gubment is inviting them to hang out near the Ukrainian border. Probably not a good idea, for US-Russian relations, for the US budget, or for the US Constitution. Headline “Poland Wants To Host US Troops That Are Leaving Germany - News From Antiwar.com” LINK
Subscribe now
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
US-WORLD ECONOMYMarco Rubio - who “fills” both the slot of US Secretary of State and that of National Security Advisor - actually appears to be oblivious to the fact that the markets for fertilizer and fuel are worldwide. Demand does not stop signaling when it reaches international borders.
A reminder, from last night
ANOTHER BAD SIGN - WHIRLPOOL
Share
RUSSIA-UKRAINERussian political leaders are ready to have a brief ceasefire to celebrate WWII Victory Day, but will Ukraine reciprocate, and what of the upcoming St. Petersburg Economic Conference coming soon? LINK
EPSTEINHis “suicide note” has been released. “Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged ‘suicide note’ unsealed (PHOTO) — RT World News” LINK
NATION OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA SEVERS TIES W BRITISH CROWN“Antigua and Barbuda has sworn in a new government under revised constitutional rules that for the first time removed allegiance to the British monarch from the official oath of office.” LINK
Share
A DIFFERENT CHURCH - THEOLOGY THURSDAY SPECIAL ESSAY - THE BIBLE ROMANS 13 - HOW CONTEMPORARY STATIST CHRISTIANS MISREAD THE TEXT AND MEANING TO MISTAKENLY (OR INTENTIONALLY) SUPPORT STATISMIt is unwise and unbiblical to claim that Romans 13 is a bulwark supporting statism over individual rights and free-will, granted by God. Over millennia, state-pushing political-religious operators, and, perhaps, an easy tendency among people to look towards “the governing authority” stealthily have replaced governance through voluntary means based on social, familial, and tribal hierarchies, with arbitrary political muscle. -
Romans 13:1–7 (ESV)¹ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
⁷ Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.These italicized terms (“governing authorities,” repeated authorities, instituted/appointed, rulers, authority, ministers of God, and the taxes/revenue commands) are the ones most frequently disputed by Christian anarchists and voluntaryists. They argue that the underlying Greek (exousia for authority/powers, tetagmenai for arranged/instituted, archontes for rulers, etc.) refers to any functional “higher powers” that maintain order and justice — not necessarily the coercive territorial state (the polis). In their reading, these words describe the function of governance (punishing evil, rewarding good) that can exist through voluntary, non-monopolistic institutions rather than political government. The ESV’s phrasing (like adding “governing” before authorities) is seen by them as an interpretive layer that tilts the text toward statism.
The original Greek of Romans 13:1-7 does not contain a word directly equivalent to the modern English “government” (as in coercive political statism or the polis/state institution). The key term is exousia (authority, power, right, or jurisdiction), which appears multiple times and is far broader and more general than any specific political system.
Here is the Greek of verse 1 (Nestle 1904 / standard critical text):
Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.
Word-by-word breakdown of the crucial terms (interlinear style):
exousiais hyperechousais → “to the authorities/powers that are superior/higher” (exousia = authority/power/right; hyperechousais = those holding a position above).
hypotassesthe (imperative of hypotassō) → “let [every soul] be subject / arrange itself under / submit” — a military/hierarchical term for orderly positioning under something higher, not the stronger Greek word for “obey” (hypakouō).
exousia (repeated) → “authority” (no implication of a territorial monopoly on force).
tetagmenai (from tassō) → “having been arranged / appointed / instituted / ordained.”
The passage continues in verses 3–4 with archontes (“rulers/officials”) and describes these authorities as God’s “ministers” (diakonoi) who bear the sword to punish evil (kakos — civil wrongdoing/aggression) and praise good. Verses 6–7 mention “tribute”/taxes as something “due,” but only in the context of rendering to all what is owed, immediately followed by the command to “owe no one anything except to love one another” (v. 8).
Modern translations like the ESV render it as “governing authorities” (adding the political flavor), while the KJV uses the more literal “higher powers.” The choice of “government” in many English Bibles is an interpretive gloss that imports later statist assumptions. In the 1st-century context, exousia could refer to any superior power — human officials, spiritual principalities, or even church/parental authority — and Paul uses the same word elsewhere for non-state “powers and principalities.”
Anarchist and Voluntaryist Interpretations
Christian anarchists, voluntaryists, and libertarian Christians (e.g., Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, David Lipscomb, James Redford, and Reformed libertarian writers) generally agree that Romans 13 does not command unconditional obedience to coercive political states or endorse statism as God’s ideal. Instead, they read it as a call for pragmatic, non-violent submission within a fallen world, while insisting that ultimate allegiance belongs to God’s Kingdom and that legitimate authority must serve justice without initiating force.
Key themes in these views:
Submission (hypotassō), not blind obedience: Christians are to “arrange themselves under” existing powers to live peaceably, avoid unnecessary persecution, and not take personal vengeance (context of Romans 12: no repaying evil for evil). This is prudential and tactical — Paul himself repeatedly defied earthly rulers (escapes, preaching despite bans, etc.) without contradiction. Submission ≠ endorsement or participation in evil.
Only authorities that do good are truly “ordained”: Verses 3–4 limit the description to those who are “not a terror to good works” but a terror to evil, God’s ministers for good. Evil or tyrannical rulers who initiate force, steal (via taxation-as-extortion), or terrorize the innocent fall outside this category and are not the “authorities” Paul endorses. Many voluntaryists emphasize that the “sword” is for responsive justice (punishing aggression against persons/property), which aligns with voluntary civil governance (arbitration, restitution, private defense) rather than a coercive monopoly state.
Distinction between de facto power and moral authority: God may providentially permit or “order” even bad rulers to exist (for restraint of chaos in a fallen world), but He does not morally institute or bless coercive statism. Hosea 8:4 (“They set up kings, but not by Me”) and Jesus’ critique of Gentile rulers (Mark 10:42–45) are often cited. True authority flows from God’s moral law, not might-makes-right.
Taxes and “what is due”: The command to pay tribute is rhetorical or limited to what is legitimately owed (e.g., user fees or restitution in a just system). Voluntaryists note that the state’s taxation is coercion, which violates the love command immediately following (Rom 13:8). Pragmatic payment may be wise to avoid conflict, but it does not make the system legitimate.
No endorsement of the polis/state: Governance (rules for interpersonal behavior, justice, order) can and should occur without the coercive polis. Reformed libertarian and voluntaryist readings distinguish “civil governance” (non-monopolistic adjudication of rights via voluntary institutions) from the “state” (territorial monopoly on initiated force). Romans 13 describes the function God wants (justice) but is compatible with stateless mechanisms.
Prominent voices include:
David Lipscomb (19th-century restorationist, often cited by anarcho-Christians): Human governments originated in rebellion against God; Christians live as citizens of Christ’s kingdom and do not participate in coercive civil government.
Jacques Ellul (Anarchy and Christianity): The Bible overall points toward anarchism (“no domination”); Romans 13 is an exception that calls for peaceful non-resistance, not state worship.
James Redford (“Jesus Is an Anarchist”): Paul uses rhetorical misdirection; he never tells Christians to submit to earthly governments as they actually exist.
Reformed libertarian writers: Romans 13 ordains the office of justice but not the state monopoly; it supports stateless civil governance.
reformedlibertarians.com
In short, anarchist and voluntaryist Christians correctly read Romans 13 as explaining that governance is not found through political edicts, that you are granted free will for a reason. You must use your own mind and exercise your free will to see your soul delivered to God, and you must respect the right of others to do the same, so you cannot claim power (as a person or a group) over others.
God’s sovereign use of whatever powers exist for order, means people must be non-aggressive, non-participatory in establishing statism, while, if seeing statism, governing according to non-state, Godly rules, living under God’s higher law. The passage is seen as compatible with (or even supportive of) voluntary modes of governance and justice that reject the initiation of force — exactly the “rules for interpersonal behavior without the polis” I often mention. Mainstream statist readings rely on the later interpretive layer added in English translations rather than the original Greek. Different Christian traditions have long debated this, but the anarchist/voluntaryist line has deep historical and textual roots.
Romans 13 fits seamlessly into Paul’s broader argument in the epistle about living as citizens of God’s kingdom while navigating life under earthly powers. It flows directly from the end of chapter 12 (“Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone”) and leads into the love command in 13:8 ff.
Subscribe now
That’s it for now, all! Many thanks for supporting freedom, and for sharing the links! And remember, you can back us here by becoming a paid subscriber if you would like, and feel free to watch Liberty Conspiracy LIVE on Gardner’s X @gardgoldsmith and on Rumble! Spread the word! Thanks, again! Please feel free to SHARE the links, and join us every M-F at 6 PM on Rumble, and my X @gardgoldsmith — and you also can donate to help the Liberty Conspiracy, itself! Just visit PayPal to help out! You also can mail GG at:
Gardner Goldsmith
PO Box 581
Amherst, NH, 03031 :)
Leave a comment
Share
Subscribe now
View all episodes
By Gardner GoldsmithWelcome, fellow Conspirators!
Thank you to all the folks who joined us tonight for a fast-paced and fun time as we dug into the big breaking info. Thanks for all the ++ vibes for Theology Thursday about Christian anarchism and Romans 13, as well! Big thanks to the great journalists we got to mention!- Have a great night, everyone! Join us tomorrow at 6PM for Fiction Friday and the full reading of the new novella, "FUEL"! Here are some of the big stories we got to cover, tonight…
Subscribe now
Share
WARIRANBREAKING - TRUMP IS BOMBING AS WE GO TO PRINT
This is the Zionist mindset behind the Greater Israel Project and much of the US aggression (that, plus the desire to prop up the Petro Dollar and pump up the Military-Industrial-Corporate Empire of the US).
And this is how it manifests in rhetoric and policy-murder-theft in the Zionist Genocide Machine of Israel.
(MORE, on LEBANON, A FEW ENTRIES DOWN…)
Share
Share Gardner Goldsmith
Subscribe now
US ATTACKS ON IRAN -NBC reports that Trump ended his “Project Freedom” after getting blank stares from high-ups in Arab states. Here is ANTIWAR adding great insights. And RT has amplification of it. LINK
-But the US attacked that ship we mentioned yesterday, because, evidently, it amused Trump LINK
-Iran rejects Trump’s latest DEMANDS Headline: “Live updates: US awaits Iran’s response to latest proposal to end war | CNN” LINK
-And these are Iran’s new rules for passage. Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth claim that Iran is not in charge, but, something indicates that both US warmongers are incorrect, likely very aware they are lying, of course. LINK
HERE IS AN OVERVIEW:
While the exact wording of all 14 points remains internal/diplomatic, here is the clear, consolidated list of the core demands consistently reported across major sources (Al Jazeera, NPR, The National, Firstpost, and Iranian officials):
Full and permanent termination of the war (not merely a ceasefire extension) — all issues to be resolved within 30 days.
Security guarantees / non-aggression commitments — binding assurances from the US and allies (including Israel) against any future military attacks on Iran.
Complete withdrawal of US military forces from areas surrounding Iran (the region/periphery).
Lifting of all US and international economic sanctions on Iran.
Release of all frozen Iranian assets held abroad (worth billions of dollars).
Payment of war reparations / financial compensation for damages caused by the conflict.
Immediate end to the US naval blockade on Iranian ports and shipping.
Cessation of all hostilities across every front, including a full end to fighting and involvement in Lebanon and other regional conflicts.
Establishment of a new mechanism / framework for secure navigation, shipping, and control in the Strait of Hormuz (including full reopening and guarantees against future disruptions).
Affirmation of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment — as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — with substantive negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program deferred until after a comprehensive peace agreement is reached.
The remaining points (11–14) appear to cover procedural and verification elements, such as timelines for implementation, monitoring mechanisms, regional de-escalation protocols, and a sequencing that prioritizes ending the war before deeper talks on other issues. Iranian officials have repeatedly stressed that this plan is “exclusively focused on ending the war” at this stage.
-A confidential CIA analysis delivered to administration policymakers this week concludes that Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles. The regime has recovered and reopened almost all of its underground storage facilities, repaired some damaged missiles, and even assembled new ones that were nearly complete when the war began. This assessment indicates that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities have not been badly diminished overall, despite weeks of intense U.S. and Israeli bombardment. It suggests Tehran retains substantial launching capacity and stockpiles to sustain operations, including threats to regional targets, U.S. forces/bases, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and allies. The same analysis concludes Iran could survive a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for at least 3–4 months before facing more severe economic hardship—further evidence of its remaining deterrent and fighting ability. This, from the WaPo LINK
HEGSETH CLAIMED $25 Bil for the IRAN MESS, it’s much higher, by orders of magnitude. Steve Semler, whose work has appeared via Brown University’s “Cost of War” Project, and who writes his own Substack (linked here) offers his more honest estimate of the Pentagon’s ledger and the real costs to taxpayers.
Some highlights:
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Acting Comptroller Jules Hurst told Congress last week that the Iran War had cost $25 billion through the first 60 days. The next day, CBS reported that officials familiar with the Pentagon’s internal assessments estimated the cost was actually closer to $50 billion — double the amount department leadership had just stated publicly. However, even the figure reported as the war’s “true cost” is at least $22 billion too low.
Popular Information conducted a cost estimate of the Iran War based on officials’ statements, military procurement and operations data, and reporting on deployments and armament use. Through 60 days, the US spent an estimated $71.8 billion on the Iran War, or $1.2 billion per day on average. This includes the cost of operations, munitions, combat losses, and arming co-belligerents. Like the estimates from Pentagon leadership and unnamed officials, this figure refers only to direct war costs — near-term expenses for military operations, munitions, and the like — and not indirect costs, which include broader economic impacts, interest on the national debt and longer-term expenses like veterans’ care.
Why this figure is higher than the Pentagon’s internal estimateWhy is Popular Information’s estimate so much largest than even the Pentagon’s internal figure? Factors include incomplete accounting of damaged or destroyed military assets, the exclusion of costs outside the department (including billions of dollars in State Department-funded military aid to Israel), and a flawed method for tracking munition expenditures. The last is likely the biggest factor.
The Pentagon tracks munition “burn rate” costs by merging operational logistics (what munitions are fired, and in what quantities) with financial values (how much each one costs). The issue lies in how the Pentagon determines unit cost. The war costs that show up on the Pentagon’s ledger — and that media outlets report — are much lower than the costs the US public will ultimately be forced to pay.
For example, the largest categorical munition cost is for interceptors, which are missiles designed to shoot down other missiles. The cost to fire one SM-2 interceptor is approximately $1.2 million. If 50 are withdrawn from the stockpile and fired, the Pentagon’s ledger would show $60 million in expenses from consuming those munitions. The $50 billion cost estimate unnamed officials gave lawmakers likely reflects this accounting method, as it’s the department’s standard.
This accounting can lead to undercounts when a rapidly consumed munition like the SM-2 isn’t planned to be purchased in the future. The Pentagon no longer buys SM-2s; the interceptor is being replaced by the more advanced and expensive SM-6. So each time an SM-2 is fired in the ongoing war, the Pentagon’s accounting system registers a cost closer to the SM-2’s $1.2 million unit cost from 2010 than the $6.3 million unit cost budgeted in 2027 for the SM-6 that will replace it. For US taxpayers, the cost of firing 50 SM-2s isn’t $60 million; it’s $315 million.
There are many more examples of expended munitions (or destroyed equipment) that are budgeted to be replaced by much more expensive variants.
Foreseen consequencesThe $25 billion war cost given by Pentagon Secretary Hegseth and acting Comptroller Hurst before Congress was a lie. It was a denial of the Iran War’s spiraling costs, one of several foreseen consequences of the Trump administration’s decision to go to war. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz is another predictable consequence. As nonproliferation expert Joe Cirincione told Popular Information last June:
There’s a whole list of things [Iran] could do, including closing the Straits of Hormuz. By closing the Straits of Hormuz, you cut off one-fifth of the world’s oil supply overnight. That will send stock markets crashing. That could tip the world into a global recession, even a depression.
Share Gardner Goldsmith
LEBANONHeadline, from Antiwar “Israel Kills 16 in Lebanon, Expands Attacks Into Eastern Bekaa Valley, Beirut - News From Antiwar.com” LINK
As we know… But it is good that Sky is reporting on this
The BBC tells us what we have known for years, now. But it IS good that they are getting out this information
Another strike by IDF, in Gaza City, on people living in TENTS
And, from yesterday, a reminder of the way the Israelis view “ceasefires”. This, in Gaza
POLANDIf you know folks who thought that news of US troops leaving Germany would mean the US is completely leaving that nation, that is incorrect. Only about 1/4 are leaving, and now, the Polish gubment is inviting them to hang out near the Ukrainian border. Probably not a good idea, for US-Russian relations, for the US budget, or for the US Constitution. Headline “Poland Wants To Host US Troops That Are Leaving Germany - News From Antiwar.com” LINK
Subscribe now
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
US-WORLD ECONOMYMarco Rubio - who “fills” both the slot of US Secretary of State and that of National Security Advisor - actually appears to be oblivious to the fact that the markets for fertilizer and fuel are worldwide. Demand does not stop signaling when it reaches international borders.
A reminder, from last night
ANOTHER BAD SIGN - WHIRLPOOL
Share
RUSSIA-UKRAINERussian political leaders are ready to have a brief ceasefire to celebrate WWII Victory Day, but will Ukraine reciprocate, and what of the upcoming St. Petersburg Economic Conference coming soon? LINK
EPSTEINHis “suicide note” has been released. “Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged ‘suicide note’ unsealed (PHOTO) — RT World News” LINK
NATION OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA SEVERS TIES W BRITISH CROWN“Antigua and Barbuda has sworn in a new government under revised constitutional rules that for the first time removed allegiance to the British monarch from the official oath of office.” LINK
Share
A DIFFERENT CHURCH - THEOLOGY THURSDAY SPECIAL ESSAY - THE BIBLE ROMANS 13 - HOW CONTEMPORARY STATIST CHRISTIANS MISREAD THE TEXT AND MEANING TO MISTAKENLY (OR INTENTIONALLY) SUPPORT STATISMIt is unwise and unbiblical to claim that Romans 13 is a bulwark supporting statism over individual rights and free-will, granted by God. Over millennia, state-pushing political-religious operators, and, perhaps, an easy tendency among people to look towards “the governing authority” stealthily have replaced governance through voluntary means based on social, familial, and tribal hierarchies, with arbitrary political muscle. -
Romans 13:1–7 (ESV)¹ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
⁷ Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.These italicized terms (“governing authorities,” repeated authorities, instituted/appointed, rulers, authority, ministers of God, and the taxes/revenue commands) are the ones most frequently disputed by Christian anarchists and voluntaryists. They argue that the underlying Greek (exousia for authority/powers, tetagmenai for arranged/instituted, archontes for rulers, etc.) refers to any functional “higher powers” that maintain order and justice — not necessarily the coercive territorial state (the polis). In their reading, these words describe the function of governance (punishing evil, rewarding good) that can exist through voluntary, non-monopolistic institutions rather than political government. The ESV’s phrasing (like adding “governing” before authorities) is seen by them as an interpretive layer that tilts the text toward statism.
The original Greek of Romans 13:1-7 does not contain a word directly equivalent to the modern English “government” (as in coercive political statism or the polis/state institution). The key term is exousia (authority, power, right, or jurisdiction), which appears multiple times and is far broader and more general than any specific political system.
Here is the Greek of verse 1 (Nestle 1904 / standard critical text):
Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.
Word-by-word breakdown of the crucial terms (interlinear style):
exousiais hyperechousais → “to the authorities/powers that are superior/higher” (exousia = authority/power/right; hyperechousais = those holding a position above).
hypotassesthe (imperative of hypotassō) → “let [every soul] be subject / arrange itself under / submit” — a military/hierarchical term for orderly positioning under something higher, not the stronger Greek word for “obey” (hypakouō).
exousia (repeated) → “authority” (no implication of a territorial monopoly on force).
tetagmenai (from tassō) → “having been arranged / appointed / instituted / ordained.”
The passage continues in verses 3–4 with archontes (“rulers/officials”) and describes these authorities as God’s “ministers” (diakonoi) who bear the sword to punish evil (kakos — civil wrongdoing/aggression) and praise good. Verses 6–7 mention “tribute”/taxes as something “due,” but only in the context of rendering to all what is owed, immediately followed by the command to “owe no one anything except to love one another” (v. 8).
Modern translations like the ESV render it as “governing authorities” (adding the political flavor), while the KJV uses the more literal “higher powers.” The choice of “government” in many English Bibles is an interpretive gloss that imports later statist assumptions. In the 1st-century context, exousia could refer to any superior power — human officials, spiritual principalities, or even church/parental authority — and Paul uses the same word elsewhere for non-state “powers and principalities.”
Anarchist and Voluntaryist Interpretations
Christian anarchists, voluntaryists, and libertarian Christians (e.g., Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, David Lipscomb, James Redford, and Reformed libertarian writers) generally agree that Romans 13 does not command unconditional obedience to coercive political states or endorse statism as God’s ideal. Instead, they read it as a call for pragmatic, non-violent submission within a fallen world, while insisting that ultimate allegiance belongs to God’s Kingdom and that legitimate authority must serve justice without initiating force.
Key themes in these views:
Submission (hypotassō), not blind obedience: Christians are to “arrange themselves under” existing powers to live peaceably, avoid unnecessary persecution, and not take personal vengeance (context of Romans 12: no repaying evil for evil). This is prudential and tactical — Paul himself repeatedly defied earthly rulers (escapes, preaching despite bans, etc.) without contradiction. Submission ≠ endorsement or participation in evil.
Only authorities that do good are truly “ordained”: Verses 3–4 limit the description to those who are “not a terror to good works” but a terror to evil, God’s ministers for good. Evil or tyrannical rulers who initiate force, steal (via taxation-as-extortion), or terrorize the innocent fall outside this category and are not the “authorities” Paul endorses. Many voluntaryists emphasize that the “sword” is for responsive justice (punishing aggression against persons/property), which aligns with voluntary civil governance (arbitration, restitution, private defense) rather than a coercive monopoly state.
Distinction between de facto power and moral authority: God may providentially permit or “order” even bad rulers to exist (for restraint of chaos in a fallen world), but He does not morally institute or bless coercive statism. Hosea 8:4 (“They set up kings, but not by Me”) and Jesus’ critique of Gentile rulers (Mark 10:42–45) are often cited. True authority flows from God’s moral law, not might-makes-right.
Taxes and “what is due”: The command to pay tribute is rhetorical or limited to what is legitimately owed (e.g., user fees or restitution in a just system). Voluntaryists note that the state’s taxation is coercion, which violates the love command immediately following (Rom 13:8). Pragmatic payment may be wise to avoid conflict, but it does not make the system legitimate.
No endorsement of the polis/state: Governance (rules for interpersonal behavior, justice, order) can and should occur without the coercive polis. Reformed libertarian and voluntaryist readings distinguish “civil governance” (non-monopolistic adjudication of rights via voluntary institutions) from the “state” (territorial monopoly on initiated force). Romans 13 describes the function God wants (justice) but is compatible with stateless mechanisms.
Prominent voices include:
David Lipscomb (19th-century restorationist, often cited by anarcho-Christians): Human governments originated in rebellion against God; Christians live as citizens of Christ’s kingdom and do not participate in coercive civil government.
Jacques Ellul (Anarchy and Christianity): The Bible overall points toward anarchism (“no domination”); Romans 13 is an exception that calls for peaceful non-resistance, not state worship.
James Redford (“Jesus Is an Anarchist”): Paul uses rhetorical misdirection; he never tells Christians to submit to earthly governments as they actually exist.
Reformed libertarian writers: Romans 13 ordains the office of justice but not the state monopoly; it supports stateless civil governance.
reformedlibertarians.com
In short, anarchist and voluntaryist Christians correctly read Romans 13 as explaining that governance is not found through political edicts, that you are granted free will for a reason. You must use your own mind and exercise your free will to see your soul delivered to God, and you must respect the right of others to do the same, so you cannot claim power (as a person or a group) over others.
God’s sovereign use of whatever powers exist for order, means people must be non-aggressive, non-participatory in establishing statism, while, if seeing statism, governing according to non-state, Godly rules, living under God’s higher law. The passage is seen as compatible with (or even supportive of) voluntary modes of governance and justice that reject the initiation of force — exactly the “rules for interpersonal behavior without the polis” I often mention. Mainstream statist readings rely on the later interpretive layer added in English translations rather than the original Greek. Different Christian traditions have long debated this, but the anarchist/voluntaryist line has deep historical and textual roots.
Romans 13 fits seamlessly into Paul’s broader argument in the epistle about living as citizens of God’s kingdom while navigating life under earthly powers. It flows directly from the end of chapter 12 (“Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone”) and leads into the love command in 13:8 ff.
Subscribe now
That’s it for now, all! Many thanks for supporting freedom, and for sharing the links! And remember, you can back us here by becoming a paid subscriber if you would like, and feel free to watch Liberty Conspiracy LIVE on Gardner’s X @gardgoldsmith and on Rumble! Spread the word! Thanks, again! Please feel free to SHARE the links, and join us every M-F at 6 PM on Rumble, and my X @gardgoldsmith — and you also can donate to help the Liberty Conspiracy, itself! Just visit PayPal to help out! You also can mail GG at:
Gardner Goldsmith
PO Box 581
Amherst, NH, 03031 :)
Leave a comment
Share
Subscribe now