POLITICO: BREAKING: Scozzafava suspends NY 23 campaign - The Scorecard - BREAKING: Scozzafava suspends NY 23 campaign
Who should we support for political office? Those we think are likely to win? Or those of our own party? Or perhaps we should "let things take their course"? I think we have an obligation to support the Constitutionalist - Conservative candidates first and last. I am through with the "lesser of two evils". That is what got us into trouble in the first place.
But there is also an obligation on us to encourage like-minded candidates to step forth (as in Hoffman's case) instead of letting things stay in the hands of the existing Party establishment (of whatever stripe.) This NY-23 Scozzofava fizzle came out of a corrupt district Republican Party organization. After all, Hoffman was considered while they voted who to back - and they voted for her rather than him (he was the last choice!). So she was THEIR choice!!! Therefore, we must be leery of any of the existing local Republican organizations (and most certainly local Dem orgs.) I am not saying to abandon them, but rather become engaged and speak out and influence - and if necessary, run for office ourselves.
I think that Scozzofava actually resonates pretty well with many existing country-club RINO types in the Northeast. I say that because I am frequently distressed to dialog with many registered Republicans from an area that was once a bastion of Biblical Christian thought, but now has become nothing more than a Halloween caricature of an abandoned faith. How do you imagine that a major denomination can ordain open homosexuals as Bishops and not really have a major conflagration in the churches?
Again and again, it comes down to standing for the Truth, starting from a Biblical stand. If we fall for the lie we will not be able to resist the illogic of unbelief. That is why we have support for gay “marriage” and abortion among Republicans. It is the fruit of unbelief.
Our entire American Political “experiment” rests on a belief in the supernatural bestowment of rights. We are truly unique as a culture because of that. Abandon God, and you also – even without realizing it – abandon any claim to rights yourself. We won’t retain our Liberty if we neglect and abandon its Cause.
Nor will we win the “culture war” issues which are important, but secondary. We cannot successfully support the right to life of an unborn human if they are only one more animal among the many on earth.
Let the Redeemed of the Lord say so, giving an answer of the hope that lies within us. We must make the case for God's Truth. Did you know that the Opposition has no rational argument or reasoned defense against the Truth? (Rom 1:20 (the English word “excuse” is from the Greek word apologia. “A reasoned answer.”) It is like the Lord said: “their defense is departed from them.” Num 14:9 Believe it. If we fail in this, we fail in all. This is worthy of much serious consideration: no matter how daunting they might appear, they have no real answers. It is all an empty philosophy. To me, that is a very encouraging thought. We fight from a position of strength.
Our present political resurgence is encouraging, but it will come to naught if it is not properly founded. We need to really return to Biblical Truth, however unpalatable that might be to the recent generations who have been raised on intentionally-taught unbelief.
Our position is the only logical and liberating one. We need to make that case over and over and not shrink from the battle. I believe it is THE defining battle today – the battle for TRUTH. Everything else is a side show, a skirmish.
That is what I try to do. Forgive these long posts, but this is where my heart is.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
To Whom Should You Yield Your Conscience? The Government?
My friend Lawrence Reed posted a quote on his FB profile this last week: "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward" -- Henry David Thoreau."
There followed a good series of comments. One commentor in particular caught my eye as he posed s a good reversal of the question: "Equally to the point: Must the legislator ever resign his conscience to the citizen?"
I thought that was a good balancing question. IE: To whom should we yield our consciences? I think this is the correct question, even if some of the other posts did not reflect the precise point. Here was my response:
The system our founders constructed was created by, and assumed a righteous and moral citizenry (a la Christian). The government they created is "wholly unfit for any other" to quote one of the Founders.
Having noted that, let us consider that if righteous and active citizens elect representatives, it must be understood that they would elect people who represented their own understanding of right and wrong.
No one would expect those elected to give up their consciences to the will of the voters, nor would anyone expect the voters to blindly follow those elected. Each reserves the right to take principled stands before God, and to be answerable to both God and man for their positions and acts.
A righteous people could generally trust their elected officials to act as they would, at least on those points of principle that are the foundation of social order.
We no longer live in such a culture. A significant portion of the people are licentious and hostile to Biblical Christianity to some degree, thus they elect officials who have no concept of Biblical convictions or principles. Worse, they are in direct rebellion to any law based on a Transcendent Deity or His will. The move to abolish traditional marriage is only a side show to the whole battle to re-define Truth itself.
These corrupt representatives truly do give their consciences to either small groups who have wicked intent (such as the Abortion lobby which pours huge sums into some coffers), or other power-grab causes such as the Union movement - or simply some political party.
The final answer is that the only one we should ever yield our consciences to is God. If one, in darkness, refuses to be a bond slave of Christ, then he will be the slave of sin, and any lie that comes down the pike. Rom 6:16
There followed a good series of comments. One commentor in particular caught my eye as he posed s a good reversal of the question: "Equally to the point: Must the legislator ever resign his conscience to the citizen?"
I thought that was a good balancing question. IE: To whom should we yield our consciences? I think this is the correct question, even if some of the other posts did not reflect the precise point. Here was my response:
The system our founders constructed was created by, and assumed a righteous and moral citizenry (a la Christian). The government they created is "wholly unfit for any other" to quote one of the Founders.
Having noted that, let us consider that if righteous and active citizens elect representatives, it must be understood that they would elect people who represented their own understanding of right and wrong.
No one would expect those elected to give up their consciences to the will of the voters, nor would anyone expect the voters to blindly follow those elected. Each reserves the right to take principled stands before God, and to be answerable to both God and man for their positions and acts.
A righteous people could generally trust their elected officials to act as they would, at least on those points of principle that are the foundation of social order.
We no longer live in such a culture. A significant portion of the people are licentious and hostile to Biblical Christianity to some degree, thus they elect officials who have no concept of Biblical convictions or principles. Worse, they are in direct rebellion to any law based on a Transcendent Deity or His will. The move to abolish traditional marriage is only a side show to the whole battle to re-define Truth itself.
These corrupt representatives truly do give their consciences to either small groups who have wicked intent (such as the Abortion lobby which pours huge sums into some coffers), or other power-grab causes such as the Union movement - or simply some political party.
The final answer is that the only one we should ever yield our consciences to is God. If one, in darkness, refuses to be a bond slave of Christ, then he will be the slave of sin, and any lie that comes down the pike. Rom 6:16
Friday, October 30, 2009
CBS says WhiteHouse fudging Stimulus job numbers
I want to believe this is significant. The Major News organizations took a small but significant stand recently when the Whitehouse tried to freeze Fox News out of a press conference (I think that is what it was.) It was a refreshing bit of solidarity. I wasn't quite sure of what to make of it.
In my heart of hearts I began to watch what the other News Organizations were doing, hoping that maybe a remnant of decency still lurks in their liberal hearts. Maybe they have stirred uneasily as they contemplate their own places in the future New World Order that is being crafted with their willing acquiescence. It is one thing to cheer on your Liberal hero, all the while still imagining that one can always leave the plantation and return to integrity - but the prospect of losing all possibility of public objectivity in the near future because it would be lethal to try - that might be frightening even them.
If even CBS has been stirred by the Administration’s totally bogus numbers (in so many subject areas – not just the effects of the Stimulus Package) then maybe, just maybe, the Media Ice Dam is beginning to break and the waters of objective reporting might be starting to pour through. Maybe even some in the Liberal media are beginning to have a belly full of Obama.
Now that’s a happy thought! A flood of Truth would truly sweep away the refuge of lies.
In my heart of hearts I began to watch what the other News Organizations were doing, hoping that maybe a remnant of decency still lurks in their liberal hearts. Maybe they have stirred uneasily as they contemplate their own places in the future New World Order that is being crafted with their willing acquiescence. It is one thing to cheer on your Liberal hero, all the while still imagining that one can always leave the plantation and return to integrity - but the prospect of losing all possibility of public objectivity in the near future because it would be lethal to try - that might be frightening even them.
If even CBS has been stirred by the Administration’s totally bogus numbers (in so many subject areas – not just the effects of the Stimulus Package) then maybe, just maybe, the Media Ice Dam is beginning to break and the waters of objective reporting might be starting to pour through. Maybe even some in the Liberal media are beginning to have a belly full of Obama.
Now that’s a happy thought! A flood of Truth would truly sweep away the refuge of lies.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
We Be Brethren
As we expand our circle of Conservative acquaintences, we will inevitably run across some people with views that differ from ours, sometimes considerably. Yet they share a common respect for the Constitution (hopefully) and gravitate toward a common understandings of where our rights come from.
But as we are all at different places in our lives, we may find that others assume that we adhere to certain position politically, or support certain candidates, or causes, which we don't. Perhaps it is because some of this is so new to us, or perhaps we are dismayed by the naivete or wrong thinking that we see in others. Nevertheless, we should not shoot the young because they are not ready for battle, nor dismiss those who seem to be "off track," or into some odd corners of conservatism that we never even heard of before.
Of course, there may be some among us who really are not "of us", and we need to be careful about them. But even then, not every one who offers an opposing view is an enemy. Some are confused, and some have been fed such a steady diet of lies by the enemy that they they have a lot of unlearning to do. If there is a willing mind...
This article is an appeal to all of us to remember that Conservatives of all stripes are ultimately on the same side.
But as we are all at different places in our lives, we may find that others assume that we adhere to certain position politically, or support certain candidates, or causes, which we don't. Perhaps it is because some of this is so new to us, or perhaps we are dismayed by the naivete or wrong thinking that we see in others. Nevertheless, we should not shoot the young because they are not ready for battle, nor dismiss those who seem to be "off track," or into some odd corners of conservatism that we never even heard of before.
Of course, there may be some among us who really are not "of us", and we need to be careful about them. But even then, not every one who offers an opposing view is an enemy. Some are confused, and some have been fed such a steady diet of lies by the enemy that they they have a lot of unlearning to do. If there is a willing mind...
This article is an appeal to all of us to remember that Conservatives of all stripes are ultimately on the same side.
Social Security and Scrooge McDuck's Money Bin
Sad to say, many regard Social Security (or Medicare) dollars as "theirs." Some grow quite angry if they are challenged to see the reality of it. Here is a response I gave to a friend on FB.
The simple answer to your question is that social security is simply not a big piggie bank somewhere drawing interest. It is a tax on the working generation paid out to those who are no longer working. Aside from the fact that that pittance you and I "contributed" has been eaten up by Congress as they enhanced the payout amount to people who NEVER paid enough to justify what they are getting out - aside from that, you don't have a claim on one red cent. Any more than you or I can claim any of our income tax dollars back. It is the same. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme - except on a galactic level compared to Berney Madoff's pitiful $80 some billions.
But to be honest, of course we would all like to see some of what we regard as "our own" back. I am not different than anone else in that regard. But I urge you to consider that the money is already gone. Anything you draw is drawn on the backs of present or future taxpayers - even your kids and grandkids. I don't know how that makes you feel, but I feel ripped off. If they had truly invested it, and let me manage it, I might have been wise enough to have seen it grow. No chance of that now.
Ross Perot had a famous line about "that giant sucking sound" referring to US jobs that would be sucked south of the border under NAFTA. That same sucking sound has been at work on the social security bank account, and like scrooge McDuck's mighty money bin, it has been sucked dry by generations of Beagle Boy robber-baron Congress critters.
Johnny, I hate to tell you, but its gone.
The simple answer to your question is that social security is simply not a big piggie bank somewhere drawing interest. It is a tax on the working generation paid out to those who are no longer working. Aside from the fact that that pittance you and I "contributed" has been eaten up by Congress as they enhanced the payout amount to people who NEVER paid enough to justify what they are getting out - aside from that, you don't have a claim on one red cent. Any more than you or I can claim any of our income tax dollars back. It is the same. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme - except on a galactic level compared to Berney Madoff's pitiful $80 some billions.
But to be honest, of course we would all like to see some of what we regard as "our own" back. I am not different than anone else in that regard. But I urge you to consider that the money is already gone. Anything you draw is drawn on the backs of present or future taxpayers - even your kids and grandkids. I don't know how that makes you feel, but I feel ripped off. If they had truly invested it, and let me manage it, I might have been wise enough to have seen it grow. No chance of that now.
Ross Perot had a famous line about "that giant sucking sound" referring to US jobs that would be sucked south of the border under NAFTA. That same sucking sound has been at work on the social security bank account, and like scrooge McDuck's mighty money bin, it has been sucked dry by generations of Beagle Boy robber-baron Congress critters.
Johnny, I hate to tell you, but its gone.
Monday, October 26, 2009
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/ignoring-milton-friedman.html
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/ignoring-milton-friedman.html
This cogent summary of the "healthcare Reform" debate is just too good not to post on my own blog. Here is the "rest of the story" that the so-called Mainstream media are deliberately ignoring.
This cogent summary of the "healthcare Reform" debate is just too good not to post on my own blog. Here is the "rest of the story" that the so-called Mainstream media are deliberately ignoring.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
They're Expecting Trouble
One more step in the process of making sure that the totalitarians can clamp down on "civilian unrest." Foreign troops are a lot more likely to not identify with Americans who are not rolling over for a government takeover. American troops can hardly be regarded as reliable when it comes to arresting, shooting at, killing or imprisoning their fellow Americans. So the obvious solution is to get foreign troops in here to do the dirty work.
It is likely that we will see more of this, with troops of other nations, and the "United Nations" being stationed here just to keep order.
It is likely that we will see more of this, with troops of other nations, and the "United Nations" being stationed here just to keep order.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Unalienable vs Inalienable Rights
To start, I must confess that I just discovered that I made a mistake about fifteen years ago when I chose the name for my personal website: http://www.inalienable-rights.org
My zeal, hopefully, was commendable, but my lack of knowledge of the fine point of distinction between the two words has, sadly, left me with quite a legacy regarding the subject of our Rights, which I firmly believe, come from God, and are UN-alienable, that is, cannot be taken away from us or given up by us.
That being said, the name I chose for the website is almost a contradiction of my purpose in choosing it, for the word INalienable means that the rights can be taken away or added by government. I certainly did not mean that.
Ah well. Now I have to deal with it. I suppose that I will have to put a disclaimer on the header of the website so others will know of my ignorant good intentions.
There is no substitute for getting things right from the very start.
My zeal, hopefully, was commendable, but my lack of knowledge of the fine point of distinction between the two words has, sadly, left me with quite a legacy regarding the subject of our Rights, which I firmly believe, come from God, and are UN-alienable, that is, cannot be taken away from us or given up by us.
That being said, the name I chose for the website is almost a contradiction of my purpose in choosing it, for the word INalienable means that the rights can be taken away or added by government. I certainly did not mean that.
Ah well. Now I have to deal with it. I suppose that I will have to put a disclaimer on the header of the website so others will know of my ignorant good intentions.
There is no substitute for getting things right from the very start.
White House: Policy 'czars' won't testify - Washington Times
White House: Policy 'czars' won't testify - Washington Times
This is just plain old stonewalling against accountability. This affrontery must be met with force immediately. Congress must assert its constitutional right of oversight and not be put off with the totally disingenuous arguments of the Obamites. These "advisors" are far more than that, exercising power and spending money and making policy. They are not just advisors. Congress, get off your fat backsides and take action. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is Constitutional. Obama is trying an end-run around the Constitution and Congress and must be stopped - spectacularly.
This is just plain old stonewalling against accountability. This affrontery must be met with force immediately. Congress must assert its constitutional right of oversight and not be put off with the totally disingenuous arguments of the Obamites. These "advisors" are far more than that, exercising power and spending money and making policy. They are not just advisors. Congress, get off your fat backsides and take action. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is Constitutional. Obama is trying an end-run around the Constitution and Congress and must be stopped - spectacularly.
This isn't Change - It's Treason.
I thought this article by Jayme Evans is a really good summary of the various depradations caused by Obama and his gang of socialist thugs since taking office. I think this guy has done us a service in taking the time to pull all this together. He names ten "bullet points" of unconstitutional over reaching or just plain power grabs. Read the article.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Is the American System of Governmenet an "experiment"?
I used that phrase in a post today on Facebook. Someone then asked "what is our American Experiment in Self Government?"
I picked up the phrase "American experiment in self-government" many years ago in reading about our government in contrast to societies like the Greeks who set up some of the first city-states run under democratic principles only to see them fall into various forms of despotism as the citizens grew lazy or worse. In the historical sense, we Americans have been doing an "experiment" because all other attempts to run a government that is responsive to the "common man" have been failures. (The “elites” and “Progressives” sneer at the ideals of our Declaration and Constitution, condemning it as wildly optimistic to imagine that common people can – or even should – be able to make decisions about their own and their countrymen’s lives without being "professionals”). Many of our citizens see it the same way.
It remains to be seen whether our political system (and our liberties) will survive the onslaught of welfare bums, socialists, communists and opportunists. I hope the full-speed-ahead run toward totalitarianism can be reversed at the polls or through peaceful political action, but the American experiment is quivering on the knife's edge of failure right now.
I believe the statements in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable rights, and their Author. I know who wins in the end. I just hate to see the carnage that is coming in the name of "compassion" under Obamacare. The ruin of our country will be colossal and world-damaging. But maybe it will take that to wake us up, and to begin the long climb out of the pit of ruin to which we are headed.
I picked up the phrase "American experiment in self-government" many years ago in reading about our government in contrast to societies like the Greeks who set up some of the first city-states run under democratic principles only to see them fall into various forms of despotism as the citizens grew lazy or worse. In the historical sense, we Americans have been doing an "experiment" because all other attempts to run a government that is responsive to the "common man" have been failures. (The “elites” and “Progressives” sneer at the ideals of our Declaration and Constitution, condemning it as wildly optimistic to imagine that common people can – or even should – be able to make decisions about their own and their countrymen’s lives without being "professionals”). Many of our citizens see it the same way.
It remains to be seen whether our political system (and our liberties) will survive the onslaught of welfare bums, socialists, communists and opportunists. I hope the full-speed-ahead run toward totalitarianism can be reversed at the polls or through peaceful political action, but the American experiment is quivering on the knife's edge of failure right now.
I believe the statements in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable rights, and their Author. I know who wins in the end. I just hate to see the carnage that is coming in the name of "compassion" under Obamacare. The ruin of our country will be colossal and world-damaging. But maybe it will take that to wake us up, and to begin the long climb out of the pit of ruin to which we are headed.
A discussion of the moral arguments for Obamacare
This excellent article reasons from the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and other American ideals to demonstrate the falsity of claims that Obamacare (the author does not use that descriptive word) is a moral obligation upon us.
God is not mentioned by this author except perhaps peripherally. I wrote a similar article recently, reasoning from more fundamenetal principles: the Word of God.
http://www.inalienable-rights.org/Obama's%20moral%20obligation.htm
Anyone who claims is it our ethical or moral duty to support universal health care is not only wrong, but straining to accomplish the impossible - removal of the effects of the curse. Gen 3:16-19. Humanity's efforts at the Tower of Babel remind me of the vaunting aspirations of the Socialist State. No one who is Biblically-informed should be taken in by the false arguments of Obama and his henchmen.
God is not mentioned by this author except perhaps peripherally. I wrote a similar article recently, reasoning from more fundamenetal principles: the Word of God.
http://www.inalienable-rights.org/Obama's%20moral%20obligation.htm
Anyone who claims is it our ethical or moral duty to support universal health care is not only wrong, but straining to accomplish the impossible - removal of the effects of the curse. Gen 3:16-19. Humanity's efforts at the Tower of Babel remind me of the vaunting aspirations of the Socialist State. No one who is Biblically-informed should be taken in by the false arguments of Obama and his henchmen.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Recall Provision for Florida
In order to make our government more responsive to the voters, incumbents who ignore voters ought to fear somethiing more than simply being defeated at the next election, which could be years away.
Here is a good summary of the ways that citizens can influence the laws in their states.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7b.teBKZHIACXtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByc2FtNTRpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=13lktgch2/EXP=1256327038/**http%3a//www.ccsf.edu/Resources/VOICE/instructorslessonplans/individualrights/voting/initiative.pdf
Here is a good summary of the ways that citizens can influence the laws in their states.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7b.teBKZHIACXtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByc2FtNTRpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=13lktgch2/EXP=1256327038/**http%3a//www.ccsf.edu/Resources/VOICE/instructorslessonplans/individualrights/voting/initiative.pdf
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Rebellion against constituted government
As a Christian who is obligated to obey God's commands, I find a challenge in the thought that some may want to justify rebellion against constituted government. Aside from the danger in doing that from the "sword" point of view there is the issue of conscience too.
The American colonists justified their rebellion against England, yet they did it during one of the high water marks of American Christianity. This subject would have been dinner time discussion in many households and pulpit-fare for many churches. People really thought about and were serious about such matters then, as we ought to be also.
If the American political beginnings as a free nation were founded on a theological error, than I have to question how we have so obviously obtained, or deserved God's blessing on our "experiment" in ordered liberty.
One huge conundrum the American colonists faced was whether they should rebel or continue to submit. I don’t want to repeat all their reasons here (I’ll post some links to their writings), but it is undeniable that normally God calls us to obey and submit. However, the colonists discerned that Great Britain had an intent to subjugate them beyond the right of human government. At least that is their argument. Their position, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, was that England had unilaterally abrogated the relationship between the ruled and the rulers.
Theologically, I am challenged by that logic. But I have to say that the colonists had some first rate theologians among them, and they were standing on the shoulders of those who had been thinking about the subject of the governed vs the governors for some hundred years or so from a Christian perspective, so their position on rebellion to England was not haphazard or thought up as an afterthought.
The book of Daniel also contains a statement by Nebuchadnezzar to the effect that God places men in charge who are “the basest of men”. So what are we to make of that? Like someone in one of the threads on this subject implied, if God places someone in charge, then who are we to rebel against him?
One further thought. The early Americans based their reasons for rebellion on the assertion that since our rights came from God, anyone trampling on these rights was trampling on what God had given, and thus were themselves in rebellion to God. That is powerful stuff. The Declaration’s entire premise rests on that. Once that is established, we can conclude that we owe submission where submission is possible; when it is no longer possible without giving up something that is “inalienable”, then the only recourse is to change the government.
We ought to study that argument in the Declaration carefully. I think it holds water theologically, but I can find counter arguments based on the scriptures. Take David and Saul for instance. David would not raise a finger to kill Saul and get rid of his pursuer and make himself King (who he was already, actually). That is a penultimate example of submission even in the face of the imminent threat of death.
I have heard an interesting side bar to this argument that incorporates the idea that since our government is founded on the idea that we give assent to those we place in high positions to do "our business", that we are not rebelling when we vote them out of office. They are not kings, we are. That distinction ought to be kept in mind.
Clearly, the Lord is King over all the Earth, so He is not elected. But interestingly, Jesus both "receives a kingdom" from His Father (Ps 2 and other places), but He will also be crowned King by us. There seems to be something of the election principle here also. Those who reject the Heavenly kingdom will participate in another "kingdom" forever in Hell.
Truthfully, I don’t think I have a neat answer to the issue. I certainly invite discussion on it though. Please at least give the following a good read-through:
http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html
Samuel West: On the Right to Rebel Against Governors, 1776-
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2301/default.asp
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms
http://www.patriotresource.com/documents/declcauses.html
The American colonists justified their rebellion against England, yet they did it during one of the high water marks of American Christianity. This subject would have been dinner time discussion in many households and pulpit-fare for many churches. People really thought about and were serious about such matters then, as we ought to be also.
If the American political beginnings as a free nation were founded on a theological error, than I have to question how we have so obviously obtained, or deserved God's blessing on our "experiment" in ordered liberty.
One huge conundrum the American colonists faced was whether they should rebel or continue to submit. I don’t want to repeat all their reasons here (I’ll post some links to their writings), but it is undeniable that normally God calls us to obey and submit. However, the colonists discerned that Great Britain had an intent to subjugate them beyond the right of human government. At least that is their argument. Their position, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, was that England had unilaterally abrogated the relationship between the ruled and the rulers.
Theologically, I am challenged by that logic. But I have to say that the colonists had some first rate theologians among them, and they were standing on the shoulders of those who had been thinking about the subject of the governed vs the governors for some hundred years or so from a Christian perspective, so their position on rebellion to England was not haphazard or thought up as an afterthought.
The book of Daniel also contains a statement by Nebuchadnezzar to the effect that God places men in charge who are “the basest of men”. So what are we to make of that? Like someone in one of the threads on this subject implied, if God places someone in charge, then who are we to rebel against him?
One further thought. The early Americans based their reasons for rebellion on the assertion that since our rights came from God, anyone trampling on these rights was trampling on what God had given, and thus were themselves in rebellion to God. That is powerful stuff. The Declaration’s entire premise rests on that. Once that is established, we can conclude that we owe submission where submission is possible; when it is no longer possible without giving up something that is “inalienable”, then the only recourse is to change the government.
We ought to study that argument in the Declaration carefully. I think it holds water theologically, but I can find counter arguments based on the scriptures. Take David and Saul for instance. David would not raise a finger to kill Saul and get rid of his pursuer and make himself King (who he was already, actually). That is a penultimate example of submission even in the face of the imminent threat of death.
I have heard an interesting side bar to this argument that incorporates the idea that since our government is founded on the idea that we give assent to those we place in high positions to do "our business", that we are not rebelling when we vote them out of office. They are not kings, we are. That distinction ought to be kept in mind.
Clearly, the Lord is King over all the Earth, so He is not elected. But interestingly, Jesus both "receives a kingdom" from His Father (Ps 2 and other places), but He will also be crowned King by us. There seems to be something of the election principle here also. Those who reject the Heavenly kingdom will participate in another "kingdom" forever in Hell.
Truthfully, I don’t think I have a neat answer to the issue. I certainly invite discussion on it though. Please at least give the following a good read-through:
http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html
Samuel West: On the Right to Rebel Against Governors, 1776-
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2301/default.asp
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms
http://www.patriotresource.com/documents/declcauses.html
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Transgender people cause security problems
View the Link above.
Let's cut to the chase people. All this talk of "transgender" is so much garbage. We are sexed to the very cellular level, and any attempts to change any person's sex are superficial (confined to external plumbing with a few hormone shots thrown in) at best. We need to stop paying lip service to the "transgender" philosophy and name it for what it is - a sexual disorder. The original sex of the person cannot, I repeat, cannot be changed. Therefore, if a security search is needed, then let it be according to the original sex of the person. Otherwise, we buy into their insanity and disorder ourselves. Why don't we see this kind of "elephant" in the living room?
http://www.inalienable-rights.org/Suspiciously%20Impressive.htm
Let's cut to the chase people. All this talk of "transgender" is so much garbage. We are sexed to the very cellular level, and any attempts to change any person's sex are superficial (confined to external plumbing with a few hormone shots thrown in) at best. We need to stop paying lip service to the "transgender" philosophy and name it for what it is - a sexual disorder. The original sex of the person cannot, I repeat, cannot be changed. Therefore, if a security search is needed, then let it be according to the original sex of the person. Otherwise, we buy into their insanity and disorder ourselves. Why don't we see this kind of "elephant" in the living room?
http://www.inalienable-rights.org/Suspiciously%20Impressive.htm
Recall Amendments to state constitutions
Here in the State of Florida, amendments can be added to the state constitution and put on the ballot for the voters to approve. I have seen several since I have been a resident of Florida. I suspect, with some variations, such provisions exist in all the 50 states.
We have been having a discussion in some threads about what to do about RINO's and other liberals in congress. One common thread is to dismiss them at the next election. I take issue with that: they will have a chance to do incalculable damage before then. For the most part, they are impervious to the future possibility of being defeated at the ballot box (-and I wonder at that. Perhaps they have been told or assured of something behind closed doors that we don't know about yet). They clearly don't fear any immediate upset to their plans.
that is why I am pushing for more aggressive action than simply agitate and wait. Recall provisions in some constitutions allow the citizens to attack them immediately and where it hurts - their tenure.
So, if Florida, or your state does not have a recall, then I urge you to put the matter on the ballot. If we lack the present tools, let's assemble them.
Also, lets get some legal students or other voluteers to scoure the laws and state constitutions to find other "gotcha" clauses that we can utilize.
I think that our heritage is worth defending against the barbarian Socialists. Let's Roll!
We have been having a discussion in some threads about what to do about RINO's and other liberals in congress. One common thread is to dismiss them at the next election. I take issue with that: they will have a chance to do incalculable damage before then. For the most part, they are impervious to the future possibility of being defeated at the ballot box (-and I wonder at that. Perhaps they have been told or assured of something behind closed doors that we don't know about yet). They clearly don't fear any immediate upset to their plans.
that is why I am pushing for more aggressive action than simply agitate and wait. Recall provisions in some constitutions allow the citizens to attack them immediately and where it hurts - their tenure.
So, if Florida, or your state does not have a recall, then I urge you to put the matter on the ballot. If we lack the present tools, let's assemble them.
Also, lets get some legal students or other voluteers to scoure the laws and state constitutions to find other "gotcha" clauses that we can utilize.
I think that our heritage is worth defending against the barbarian Socialists. Let's Roll!
Monday, October 19, 2009
A new Paradigm
I am deeply concerned that if we wait until another election cycle rolls around it will be too late.
I appreciate the protests, but we need to take note of one important point: many of us learned from watching TV in the latter half of the twentieth century (or watched historical footage in school) that pubic “protests” were the way to affect change. From the Liberal protests we learned that politicians would roll over for us. But maybe we have been led down the wrong path by their example. Note that the causes that the protests espoused were, for the most part, LIBERAL causes, and they were covered and cheered by a largely LIBERAL media who were all too sympathetic to them.
Consider that what we have now is a CONSERVATIVE movement – a genuine grassroots movement – and it is being completely dismissed by that same LIBERAL media. Know why? Because the underlying motive of the Media all along has been to support Liberal causes. Therefore the public protests will not gain traction because they are not going to be allowed to threaten the power base of the Liberals. The old protests dislodged the old line Traditionalists. Now the centers of power are occupied by Liberals (or worse), and the media have an absolutely vested interest in keeping that power base intact.
Protests won’t work.
We need a new paradigm.
That is why I am suggesting use of whatever Recall provisions exist. They have a number of excellent features, but the most outstanding is that they can work very quickly if the citizens are motivated, and also they can fly completely under the radar of the Liberal Media, perhaps until it is too late for them to counter attack.
Perhaps, lying under decades of dust, there are other provisions in our laws and other constitutional provisions that can be used to unseat the plans of the elite. I would hate to see it come down to a genuine civil war. I think there is still time to avert violence. We need to use every peaceful means available to us.
I appreciate the protests, but we need to take note of one important point: many of us learned from watching TV in the latter half of the twentieth century (or watched historical footage in school) that pubic “protests” were the way to affect change. From the Liberal protests we learned that politicians would roll over for us. But maybe we have been led down the wrong path by their example. Note that the causes that the protests espoused were, for the most part, LIBERAL causes, and they were covered and cheered by a largely LIBERAL media who were all too sympathetic to them.
Consider that what we have now is a CONSERVATIVE movement – a genuine grassroots movement – and it is being completely dismissed by that same LIBERAL media. Know why? Because the underlying motive of the Media all along has been to support Liberal causes. Therefore the public protests will not gain traction because they are not going to be allowed to threaten the power base of the Liberals. The old protests dislodged the old line Traditionalists. Now the centers of power are occupied by Liberals (or worse), and the media have an absolutely vested interest in keeping that power base intact.
Protests won’t work.
We need a new paradigm.
That is why I am suggesting use of whatever Recall provisions exist. They have a number of excellent features, but the most outstanding is that they can work very quickly if the citizens are motivated, and also they can fly completely under the radar of the Liberal Media, perhaps until it is too late for them to counter attack.
Perhaps, lying under decades of dust, there are other provisions in our laws and other constitutional provisions that can be used to unseat the plans of the elite. I would hate to see it come down to a genuine civil war. I think there is still time to avert violence. We need to use every peaceful means available to us.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Bumper Sticker or Banner
I admit that the "O" in bondage is kind of cobbled up, but I thought the insertion of the Obama logo was particularly apt - right in the center of the word "bondage." I have permission from the author of the image to edit it. The original work is not my own.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Time to Do Exploits
Right in the midst of the tribulation period as prophesied by the prophet Daniel, a time when Anti Christ will be marauding among the nations, there will come a time for people who “know their God” to “do exploits. (Dan 11:32) That theme came out of a comment thread that I was writing today on the increasing power grab by the Communists and Socialists in power in America. It is a discouraging situation when we consider the battle line arrayed against us.
Friends, I just hope it is not too late for the ballot box. Things are proceeding so quickly now that we may already have passed the point of no return. What we must do is get people involved and educated and active. Right now the "scientific dictatorship" (great term by the way) does not want to be exposed for what it truly is. While the elites are running roughshod over the will of the people (Reid, Pelosi, et al) they are very concerned about the grass roots movement and its public influence on many wobbly congressmen and senators. I have to believe that their "front" is not as solid as they would like to believe. "Blue Dogs" are not their only problem.
And I am an optimist where God is concerned. He can touch a heart of just the right person in just the right way and at just the right time to turn the whole situation around. It could happen. It might not. This whole show may be the Lord's will for us - and we have to freely admit that we (especially people of faith) have been begging for it for many years - but nevertheless, much damage will be done, not to just our cherished institutions, but to human life. Perhaps He will have mercy. Maybe the persecution that is coming for believers will have both a cleansing and restorative effect on the power of the message of Divine Love, which has gotten trampled in the sideline battles. I know that the principle of self-giving after the model of Jesus is a powerful theme with God. If we humble ourselves and repent and seek His face (not even ALL of us) and speak out not just for political freedom, but for the Faith that under girds it and created it, then I know He will hear. Like Mordecai said, "who knows?"
Not all the power and people and media are in their control. Remember Elijah on Mt. Carmel. One man standing for God is more powerful than all the armies of the aliens put together. Maybe this is a time for those who know their God to “do exploits.”
Friends, I just hope it is not too late for the ballot box. Things are proceeding so quickly now that we may already have passed the point of no return. What we must do is get people involved and educated and active. Right now the "scientific dictatorship" (great term by the way) does not want to be exposed for what it truly is. While the elites are running roughshod over the will of the people (Reid, Pelosi, et al) they are very concerned about the grass roots movement and its public influence on many wobbly congressmen and senators. I have to believe that their "front" is not as solid as they would like to believe. "Blue Dogs" are not their only problem.
And I am an optimist where God is concerned. He can touch a heart of just the right person in just the right way and at just the right time to turn the whole situation around. It could happen. It might not. This whole show may be the Lord's will for us - and we have to freely admit that we (especially people of faith) have been begging for it for many years - but nevertheless, much damage will be done, not to just our cherished institutions, but to human life. Perhaps He will have mercy. Maybe the persecution that is coming for believers will have both a cleansing and restorative effect on the power of the message of Divine Love, which has gotten trampled in the sideline battles. I know that the principle of self-giving after the model of Jesus is a powerful theme with God. If we humble ourselves and repent and seek His face (not even ALL of us) and speak out not just for political freedom, but for the Faith that under girds it and created it, then I know He will hear. Like Mordecai said, "who knows?"
Not all the power and people and media are in their control. Remember Elijah on Mt. Carmel. One man standing for God is more powerful than all the armies of the aliens put together. Maybe this is a time for those who know their God to “do exploits.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)