South Carolina Traffic Cameras

Just watching out for your benefit...Well besides the overtones of surveillance, this could be helpful in avoiding highway traffic...Who am I kidding it's practically worthless. But check it out anyways.

http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/cams/

Discriminatory Tax Cuts

If I were to vote solely on the basis of who gave me a larger tax cut, I would vote for Barack Obama. The Washington Post article Obama and McCain Tax Proposals shows us something of politics and media. John McCain caters to the capitalists; Obama caters to the populace (or at least 60% of taxpayers). So who wins out?

McCain gets the backing of the wealthy; money is necessary to a campaign and the backing of those with money. Obama gets the backing of a large voting block; votes are necessary to a campaign and the accompanying charisma. Will money and advertising sway the voting public or will popularity and the vague doctrine of "change" rue the day?

We also see what the Washington Post wants us to see. "Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy." This appeal to emotion fails the test of logic. Is it right or better to give tax cuts to those who make the least? Is it right that those who work harder/smarter bears the larger burden because they make more money?

This is a case of "politics of envy." Show me someone who votes to raise the taxes on America's wealthiest and I'll show you a hypocrite who would vote the contrary if his economic position improved to the point where he was in the top 1% of wage earners. Is Obama supposed to be some kind of "Robin Hood" because he "steals from the rich to give to the poor?" The reality is that he will "rob Peter to pay Paul."

Under Obama's plan capital is transferred from the few experienced and knowledgeable investor to themany fractious and divided mass of consumers who spend what they do not have, do not save money and do not know how to successfully invest their money. This is not a good economic plan. This is a good political ploy. This country needs sound money not political pandering.

My view is that our current state of taxation is unethically high for everyone. Although McCain is giving back more than Obama by an average of almost 7X as much. This would benefit the economy more if that is what your aiming for in the tax cut.

Comparatively Obama will be far more ruinous to this country's economy than McCain will. But McCain will not provide a means of restoring sound money either. I vote for the clssic liberal who promotes freedom and liberty. For that is what this country needs (meanwhile I will concurrently promote attending to the deplorable spiritual state of this country as well).

But what about throwing your vote away when you could have a Republican with some adherence to the conservative agenda? This country needs long term vision. Short term gains and long term losses are unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience vote for the "lesser of two evils." You cannot split rotting wood (Gresham Machen). The war must be over the long run and short run battles must be in the direction of less not more government. Tactics must be consistent with strategy.

Both candidates will bring more government, not because they personally will seek its augmentation but because they will not resist those who do. We need a president who is keenly aware of the unwritted alliances and seek their abolishment. It is common knowledge that "politics is dirty." Then why are we upset by those who act in terms of that thinking? The policy setters are not the same people who are the policy makers. Who then set policy? Follow the money.

Why the title Discriminatory Tax Cuts? Because our entire tax structure is currently discriminatory and to give so little back (both candidates stop far too short) is discriminatory. Taxes discriminate against Americans. We fought for our indeppendence under a system of taxes lower than today's...Where have we gone wrong?

We need to get rid of income taxes altogether and support our fiscal needs on something like an excise tax(es). We need people like Ron Paul (R) and Chuck Baldwin (CP). But we need them all over this country and in every level of politics from the "dog catcher" to the president.

The Covenant in the Sermon

Picture borrowed from http://allgodsword.com/Btl/

August 10, 2008
Sermon text: Revelation 1

Amidst training my child to sit still during the Sunday service for the last several months, I somehow manage to catch the main points of the sermon. I attribute this to my pastor's explicit enumeration of the key thoughts..."My first point...point three is...and finally..."

Pastor John Olson wants to make this point clear: Our Lamb has conquered; Let us follow Him. This is the central message of Revelation for Christians in every age. His five points are as follows:

1. We are to follow Him "on our faces." Revelation 1:17, Matthew 17:1-8
2. We are to follow Him in faith and repentance. (Did not catch the citation.)
3. We are to follow Him with confidence. Revelation 4 & 5
4. We are to follow Him with perseverance. Revelation 12:10-11
5. We are to follow Him in hope. Revelation 17-22

This was a great reaffirmation of truths that most Christians already know. That does not make the sermon less noteworthy. What is noteworthy however is that the five points fit the Five Point Covenant Model. Most Christians even Reformed Christians are unaware of what the Covenant really is (Reformed Theology/Calvinism aka. "Covenant Theology").

The Five Point Covenant Model:

1. Transcendence
2. Hierarchy
3. Ethics
4. Oath
5. Succession

What is the point of knowing this? Well, what is the point of knowing about the trinity? It enriches our understanding of Biblical truths, that is the point. When we survey the Scriptures we see patterns of "threes" all throughout. This comes to mind because we know the significance of what trinitarian "three-ness" represents. The Five Point Covenant Model shows us significance of things of five.

It has also been noted that the near eastern suzerainty treaties resemble this Biblical model. The suzerainty treaties have been broken down as preamble, historical prologue, [ethical] stipulations, curses and blessings or sanctions, and provisions or succession arrangements.

The Hittite treaties have six characteristic elements, though the order in which they occur is not fixed.

1. Preamble: this element identifies the author of the covenant.

2. Historical Prologue: this describes the previous relations between the two parties.

The historical prologue places great emphasis upon the benevolent deeds which the suzerain has performed for the benefit of the vassal. It is never lacking in any of the Hittite treaties, though it has been minimized or is often absent in later Assyrian treaties. The historical prologue functions to give the reasons for which the vassal should be loyal to the suzerain. That is, the vassal will promise future obedience to specific commands for the past benefits which he received without any real right. The language of this section is usually in the I - Thou form of address. The covenant is thought of as a personal relationship of friendship rather than an objective, impersonal statement of law. In the parity treaty this element is much more brief, for the obvious reason that the previous relationship between the two parties was generally one of antagonism.

3. Stipulations: this section states in detail the obligation imposed upon and accepted by the vassal.

The treaty typically includes the prohibition that the vassal cannot establish treaty relations with other foreign states. The suzerain does not want the vassal to have divided loyalties. Other typical stipulations of the treaty include: the prohibition of enmity against anything under the sovereignty of the great king; the vassal must answer any call to arms sent him by the king; the vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the king; the vassal must not give asylum to refugees whatever their origin; the vassal must appear before the king once a year, probably on the occasion of annual tribute; and controversies between vassals are without exception to be submitted to the king for judgment.

4. Provision for deposit in the temple and perodic public reading: the treaty was under the protection of the deity, thus it was deposited as a sacred item in the temple of the vassal.

The treaty was to be read publicly, usually once a year on the anniversary of the treaty, in order to remind the people of their obligation to the suzerain.

5. List of gods as witnesses: both the gods of the suzerain and the vassal are listed.

6. Curses and Blessings: treated as the action of the gods, though the suzerain might himself serve as the agent in administering the curses.

Borrowed from http://moses.creighton.edu/simkins/203/lectures/lecture15.html emphasis mine.

It is not very difficult to see that the unbelieving Hittites loosely followed a God-given model of the covenant. For the benefit of the western world this suzerainty treaty structure should be studied and understood. Of course you should not force the Bible to a human conception but you should merely benefit from a brief study of this ancient form.

Transcendence (includes the idea that God is a witness) and Preamble
Hierarchy and Historical Prologue
Ethics (includes the idea that man is a witness) and Stipulations
Oath and Sanctions
Succession and Provisions

Now that we understand a little something of the covenant model, how did Pastor Olson's exposition fit this model?

1. When we follow on our faces we are affirming the transcendence of God. He is in charge and we will follow Him.
2. When we follow in faith and repentance we are affirming that we are sinners saved through faith and are bound to a code of ethics requiring our repentance.
3. When we follow with confidence we are affirming that we know our place in the hierarchy of the Kingdom of God. We know what God had done for us and we know our place before Him, coram deo.
4. When we follow with perseverance we are affirming by how we live the succession of the covenant. We love Him because He first loved us. We will keep His commandments because we love Him and we will not neglect to teach them to our children.
5. When we follow in hope we are affirming that we know the oath that God has made to us as believers. We know there are curses for disobedience but more so do we look to the blessings of obedience. In this there is much hope, even maybe a puritan/postmillenial hope.

We know God's word is sure. We know that God has promised a new heaven and a new earth. We know that He has taught us to pray "Thy kingdom come...on earth as it is in heaven..." We know that there is much more in Revelation than meets the eye.

Pastor Olson I eagerly look forward to your exposition of Revelation.


Notes:

Source: Introduction to Days of Vengeance, by David Chilton;

For more information read That You May Prosper, by Ray Sutton; Treaty of the Great King, by Meredith Kline; definitions of parity treaty, suzerainty treaty and covenant formulary.

Classic Liberalism

Scandals, wars, economic ruination...Just a hard day at work for a politician.

There seems to be no end to the bad news. John Edwards had an affair? Of course he did. What drives men like Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, et al. to become politicians in the first place? Are they after the money? Not likely. Most politicians are independently wealthy. There are numerous senators that are millionaires. Is it the power? Probably has something to do with it. Is it the sex? For sure. Money, power and sex are the drives, although money is not a great incentive for American politics. It seems like you already have to have money in order to join the fray.

Why does nothing ever change? The complaints my father had are the complaints I have. The complaints my father had are the complaints my grandfather probably had. Why?

It doesn't really matter who is elected to office, nothing changes. But that doesn't answer the real question. Can it be changed? Yes. But we have had no one willing to change the system. Until now...In 2008 we have witnessed a resurgence of "classical liberalism." It started when Ron Paul announced his candidacy for President. It still continues though the establishment has chosen its candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Campaign for Liberty, Restore the Republic, Constitution Party and many other grassroots efforts are committed to the long term vision of restoring freedoms and liberties in America. Slowly our freedoms are being eroded in guises of safety and environmental and social concerns.

I have no fear that the establishment will maintain their stranglehold perpetually. It may get worse before it gets better but it will get better. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley amongst others may have foreseen where the evils of humanity would take us, but they did not figure God into their calculations. Without God their dystopian conceptions of the future would well play out as history, but God has different plans for our future. God grants freedom not slavery. Thus how can we even think that man could be enslaved in such "novel" ways?

The truth shall set us free. Ultimately evangelism is the spiritual answer to the "kingdoms of this world." They try and "lord it over us" and may succeed in their own goals, but we know that greatness comes from servanthood. So how do we reconcile our spiritual understanding with the politics of the day? Should we as good men sit idly by while evil men take the reigns of power? We are not talking about a monarchy here; we are talking about elected representative government.

Good men need to get involved. It is remarkable to note how a single man could change the attitude of a nation in the O.T. He would tear down the "high places" and bring God's blessing upon the land. He restored the Law-Word of God to its rightful place. Do I say we should foist a theocracy on America? No. It would not work. It would not be right. It would be missing the point.

Evangelism and changed hearts will precede a nation becoming godly. It has to come from the bottom up and inside out rather than from top down and outside in. Then and only then could we even start talking about theocracy.

But what of today? What should be our political goals and aims for this modern era? I would suggest that we start digging our heels in and slow the drift towards authoritarianism. In the short term we can work with the "freedom movement" to take back some of our God-given rights. Christian ideals lineup very closely with classical liberalism in most of its political ideals. The decentralization posed by Scripture meshes very well with individualistic libertarianism.

Philosophically the "only" problem with individualism is its neglect of man as a corporate entity. The rights of the individual supersede the rights of the group. Socialism goes to the other extreme and says the rights of the many supersede the rights of the few. Is there a moderate position to hold? I think the Christian position explains the apparent paradox between the rights of the one versus the rights of the many.

God is trinity. God is one. God is many.

Man is one. Man is many.

Socialism claims to care for the poor and libertarianism says that private charity can deal with that issue. Socialism has stated as its goal the eradication of poverty. Jesus said "The poor you have with you always." But it is also written that if you have power to do good and you neglect to do it, you have sinned. In Christianity charity is not an option.

So we can work within the confines of the "Freedom Movement" without conflict of conscience but we must note its inadequacies and make up for them with our doctrines. What if we do nothing? What if we allow evil or even aid and abet the evil by encouraging Christians to get out of politics? Will we slip into the modern "dark ages" when we are under a "one world government?" The U.N. is poised to accept a nomination...

"I motion..."

"I second..."

"All in favor..."

"Aye!"

Welcome to the "New World Order." Oh wait we are not there yet. Remember, baby steps. First it's the European Economic Community or Common Market; tomorrow it's the European Union. Today it's Canada, America and Mexico; tomorrow it's the North American Union.

Will humanity suffer it? They'll suffer it before they fight it. History bears this out. But you can bet they will fight it, eventually. These freedom loving philosophical movements all seem to begin in conditions of squalor. They all seem to originate under the most extreme of circumstances. Authoritarianism breeds a desire of freedom in people. It will happen again. There is no new thing under the sun.

Every empire has crumbled; every empire will crumble. Even this new type of empire will crumble. It is not an empire forged by war. It is not an empire built by imperialism. It is not an empire derived from politics at all. It is economic. Banking and economic alliances and economic treaties all serve to centralize the control of the monetary unit. The elitists think they are impervious to the plight of historical empires but they are wrong. People will eventually figure out who holds the reins. "Follow the money." And they will. Revolution will probably be bloody and violent. God has coded something in us...A desire to be free? Yeah. Freedom.

So what is this classical liberalism? It was a freedom movement that started under the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Think authoritarianism, then think about the opposite; whatever is diametrically opposed to absolutism is classical liberalism, pretty much. These were the first "liberals." The "conservatives" during this period were the authoritarians.

Today the "conservatives" and the "liberals" are authoritarian parties. It seems as if the swapped ideologies; I guess it is the evolution of the movements. But liberalism did not maintain its freedom loving status. Today we generally say the liberals want civil freedoms while conservatives want economic freedoms and the inverse also being true. But where then did the classical liberals go? Today the expressions of classical liberalism can be found in the libertarian camp. Spawned by the free-market "Austrian" school of thought, libertarianism fights the fight of classic liberalism in the modern age.

I have a basic faith in humanity, that even if good men fail them, that they will not tolerate tyranny forever. I hope for my future and my children's future and so on that good men indeed will rise to the occasion to show the world what good people in positions of influence would do.

The status quo is no longer a good quid pro quo, when it is our liberties being traded for tyranny.

God Ordained Institutions

Lately my thinking has been on the subject of the relationship between the family and the church. It has led me to such questions as; "Which is more important, the family or the church?". I think that I err in making the assumption that there is a disparity between any of the God-ordained institutions.

Which is more important: prophet, priest or king? I do not think that question can be answered. Likewise I do not think that an importance of the family over church or vice versa can be argued.

Will there be marriage in heaven? No. What implication does that have for the family? Will there be a non-theocratic 'state' in heaven? I am pretty sure there won't be, but I don't know what source to cite as evidence. On the other hand you could argue that there will be a 'state,' though it will be a theocratic one. Likewise you could argue that we are all the 'family' of God and so there will still be the concept of 'family' even in heaven. Does the church exist in heaven? It ought to. I believe it is orthodox to look at the visible and invisible aspects of the church as the "church."

In one sense you could say that the institutions of family and state go away in the new heavens and new earth. From this you could argue that the church is the only lasting institution and therefore somehow most/more important than the others. I think this is where I have been recently, but I think I am coming to a more moderate position.

Neither institution is any more important than the other. I believe they are all aspects of God's administration of His creation (that is, covenantal aspects). The state represents a kingly institution, the church represents a priestly institution, and the family represents a prophetic institution. At the end of time I think we will see these earthly types melt away revealing God's singular covenantal ordering of the new heavens and the new earth. It will resemble something of a conglomeration of these institutions, not because God will combine them but because God separated them at the beginning of time for our benefit (a decentralization with 'checks and balances,' if you will; maybe so that no one could gain preeminence and proclaim himself as god).

What we shall see will be more comprehensive a covenantal governing than what a conglomeration of church, state, and family would look like. In every way God is inexhaustible and in general He is incomprehensible.

[As an aside, some of my favorite visualizations/ideations.

God is like a diamond with its many facets. Anyone person may see several facets of God but no one person can see them all at the same time. This is what I refer to whenever I use the term "multi-faceted." There are always aspects of every issue that go unconsidered by men in their thinking. This is why I try (hopefully) to always be humble and open to a fresh perspective. (Source: I dunno)

God is like an onion. There are many layers. But unlike an onion which gets smaller as you peel away another layer, God (or at least your view of Him) gets larger with each layer peeled away. (Source: C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle" if I'm not mistaken)

God has not told us everything. But everything He has told us He wants us to know. John heard the voice of seven thunders but was commanded to not write what he had heard. So we know God has not revealed all there is to know. But what He has given, He wants us to know, understand and apply (I take this as a presupposition, I think or maybe I'm just copping out of a defense for it; well hit me up if you want more on this issue). (Source: Bible)

God is triperspectival. This is my latest discovery, courtesy of John Frame. Epistemology deals with convoluted thinking. We don't just "think" when we are thinking epistemologically, but now we are thinking about our thinking. Why do we believe what we believe? These are the sorts of issues epistemologists deal with. They also consider such things as the knower, the object that is known and the rules/norms governing this knowledge. God at all times and in every way knows all three perspectives about everything. (Well I suppose it helps that He sustains everything concurrently through His covenant with creation.) But we as humans never get beyond seeing things uniperspectivally. Barring any "out of body" experiences, we cannot not be ourselves. We can never go outside of ourselves to see something from a different perspective, not truly. It helps when someone shares their perspective with us. (But even then you are understanding what they are saying through your own perspective.) I guess when you are "one" with someone you've come the closest any man will come to biperspectivalism. If you and your wife are truly one, then you have something of two differing perspectives working to the mutual benefit of the parties invovled. In some ways we may speculate at what triperspectivalism looks like. Again we cannot elucidate it in any situation comprehensively, but we can "give it a go." (Source: John Frame, "A Primer on Perspectivalism," I do not give justice to this concept here. If you want to know more click the link.)

Alright, so those are the thoughts that go through my head when I deal with ideas beyond the grave.]

In summary, all institutions are equal and equally necessary. All three social institutions represent some aspect of prophet/priest/king.

But can we emphasize family over church? I don't think we can. God has no grandchildren. The family exists to provide conception and maturation of the children of God, but at some point it ends (and begins for the next generation). The father no longer has authority over their adult children. There is a certain respect due, but it is due to any elder regardless of family "ties." After a child is "liberated" he joins the church as it is now his "family." The church is not a family of families; the church is a family. The relation you have to your pastors, elders, deacons, and members are not mediated through your father any longer. Instead of viewing the church as a family of families it is more like a "little church." As we are "Christians" (little-christs), so are families "churchians" (little-churches). In other words the family is not an atomical(ly a) building block of the church but sub-atomical(ly) to the church; the church being the essence of society.

I know it really sounds as if I denigrate or even despise the family to those raised in our family-worshiping culture, but I do not. In fact I adore the family for its God-given role. I love being a father and have had the unction for it in me since I was five years old (am I strange?). I would not trade it for the world. But is my role more important than a pastor's role? No. Is it less important than a pastor's role? No. These are different callings and all equally valid and beneficial to the kingdom. They really are the same job; they deal with Christians at different levels of growth/maturity. Fathers are first in chronology, but pastors are final (in the earthly sense). Pastors pastor from ones birth to ones death. Fathers only father from birth to liberation. Each is necessary but pastoring is the permanent 'fathering.' Likewise the church is the permanent family.

I am saying all of this in my defense of my emphasis on the church. I am not saying that the church is more important than the family. I am merely placing a slight emphasis on the role/work of the church. I am not here debating importance but emphasis. Neither institution is any more important than any other. Thus no institution deserves an inordinate/disproportionate share of our attention. But I think this is where we fall apart. Most Christians hold the family to have greater importance and give an inordinate/disproportionate amount of attention to the family. I think they do this to the neglect of the church. Does this mean that no institution needs to be emphasized? I don't know? But I do know that until Christians in general give equality to the church in importance with the family I will continue to emphasize the church.

We do not get the sacraments in the family. The evangelical institution is the church. The mechanism of discipleship is the church (discipleship may take place in the family but it is not the family's work necessarily; it may be argued that any discipleship taking place in the family is the outworking of the fact that your children are your fellow heirs in Christ. I think many parents have a hard time looking at their snobby two-year-old as a fellow heir. This emotional or psychological detachment is not a reflection of reality however.).

State = legal, negative sanctions, order
Church = spiritual, sacramental, covenantal, worship, evangelism, discipleship, common grace, positive sanctions, Kingdom of God, "Christendom," Christian community
Family = economic, life, entrepreneurial, educational

If nothing else, take this away: We need more fellowship and the gathering together of believers.

Quaestiones and Rhetoric

What is it that drives a man to seek the truth? What causes him to hunger and yearn for that which he does not know?

At what point does this go away? Why does a man think he has found the ultimate truth? What makes him spew forth bile in defense of his [probably] erroneous views?

To be sure, we as Christians ought to be valiant for truth. We should know what we believe and why we believe it. If you are being questioned then you ought to be sure in what you believe. But when you debate, not being any less sure, you ought to present yourself in such a way as to have a winning spirit/attitude.

I guess this spirit of animosity between people who like to debate their beliefs is due in great part to lack of study of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the use of forms and methods in speech or writing that serve to convince the listener or reader of what you are saying. Obviously it should not be used for spreading lies, but has been and can be abused this way. If you believe that you hold to the truth, then win people to your belief.

Take the time to study rhetoric. Learn about logos, ethos, and pathos. Learn rhetorical forms such as alliteration, several variants of repetition, and so many others. This is assuming that you have also studied logic or will simultaneously study logic; it is also necessary.

It is shameful that we as Christians do not follow our Lord. He was gentle and winning to the lost...He was scathing and accusing to those who knew better...He was true and righteous altogether.

Privacy is Sovereignty

If "knowledge is power," then privacy is sovereignty.

The contemporary age we live in is referred to as the information age. We are becoming more of a surveillant society ("This call may be monitored for quality control purposes." Or notice that every bank, gas station, etc have cameras the Feds can requisition the data from if "necessary."). Everything that can be stored digitally is stored digitally. This has led to the modern policy called "data mining."

Recently public opinion has been questioning whether the Constitution does not protect the right of privacy. Well then what does it protect? 'Obviously' it does not protect God-given rights...They are being trampled on. Regardless of the issue, the Feds will "wiretap illegally until it becomes legal," or in this case they will data mine personal information even if it goes against the sense of the Constitution.

Safety will not be found in "giving up a few rights" but in the protection and defense of privacy rights.

Excerpt from Constitution Party Email Update

Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate for president, is a minister, radio talk show host and writer. He has been an outspoken critic of the United Nations’ aggressive Agenda 21, a program Baldwin calls “the mechanism by which Americans are rapidly losing their sovereignty, their Constitutionally- guaranteed rights and their liberties”.

Baldwin points out: “The United Nations’ stealth policies, through so-called Sustainable Development will serve only to create a tyrannical New World Order. Americans must begin to connect the dots on global schemes to advance gun control, promote a globalist education agenda in our classrooms and take away our freedoms under the guise of ‘environmentalism’. The U.N. is behind the push for national ID cards, higher taxes, denigration of the Judeo- Christian world view and the coming North American Union”.

Agenda 21 wiki-page.

Agenda 21 Document.

It is so easy to be a Politician

Rule #1. Deny everything.

Rule #2. If you want to be popular with your opponents supporters propose something you know will not pass. "But, hey you tried. And that's all that counts, so I'll vote for you instead of McCain."

Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new

Anthrax, Vaccines and Terrorists

First of all what is anthrax? It is a bacteria and can be deadly, that is what you need to know. If you want to know more check out the wiki-profile.

Why is it important to us? We had a scare in 2001, the "anthrax attacks." The fear is that terrorists will get a hold of anthrax and release it in a major city or something like that. Is this plausible? Well the record for the controls of anthrax are not promising (in light of this, of course the control will become more stringent or more strictly enforced).

Here is the article: Anthrax slip-ups raise fears about planned biolabs But are terrorists likely to get a hold of an anthrax strain that leaked out of a lab? No, what you would need is a scientists who defected or was a "sleeper" for the enemy. Now, is that possible? Anthrax suspect, scientist, kills self as FBI closes in You be the judge.

If fears of a weaponized anthrax are a reality what do we do? There are vaccines. But are they safe? Check out Squalene is a no, no. Remember the Air Force Officer who refused the vaccine? Air Force officer faces court-martial for refusing anthrax shots

Ed: The Major did not get court-martialed. Others did however. Question: Is there still squalene in anthrax vaccines? If so, I will refuse it too if so ordered. I will give my life for this country, but to give my life over an inoculation is absurd.