THE CONSERVATIVILLAIN

You're Stupid, So I Win

2010-11-07T05:27:00.000-08:00

Many cite as reinforcement for bad ideas that the opposing viewpoint when challenged is not always immediately prepared to answer. Atheists, for example (which do not actually exist--they are instead when pressed admittedly merely agnostic because their feeble brains cannot comprehend justice), seem to accept as gospel that if a person is unsure why they believe, it must be conditioning, and therefore either unreliable or patently false. I would suggest, instead, that a sound doctrine unchallenged by daily observance of evidences falls so far back in the psyche that, when pressed, it may take some time to uncover. Let me (again) say it this way; when you flip a light switch, there is no doubt the light will come on, and you needn't think about it. It makes no difference whether you recall the experimentation or processes that led to such reliance, and it does not matter to the light whether you understand how it works--it simply does, and you may or may not be grateful or even aware of the depth of such reliance. Or put another way, the idea of carrying a phone around all the time used to seem excessive and absurd; now I rarely think about it. I don't need to know the technology behind my devices; I only need to know how to use them. I don't need to know what a mechanic does to my car, but I'll notice if he doesn't do it right. Does it make sense, then, to conclude that if a person cannot articulate the intricacies of design and implementation behind a thing or idea that the thing or idea itself cannot stand up to scrutiny? Of course not. Let's say as a parent you sit down to help your child with algebra or calculus, and suddenly realize it's been so long since you've had to think about such things that you're not quite sure where to begin. Is algebra or calculus, then, bosh? No, but it may be necessary for even a good parent to reconsult the textbook to find the particular answer the child is looking for. An atheist/agnostic is like a child exposed for the first time a new subject, while a believer tends to be more like a parent who lives day by day having already found the relevance or application and often hasn't thought about it in quite some time. It is this way for all areas of learning; one retains what one needs to know in order to function, and the rest doesn't so much matter. Political and intellectual elitists often fail to understand that truths are truths whether we register them as such or not, and such people often never progress to application, remaining quite primordial in their perceptions of how such things effect the real world. A theory or concept can be useless if never applied. Or worse, if never tested it cannot be found untrue, which is why a lot of people never challenge their beliefs--they know that held under scrutiny they would be found lacking. That is why liberalism needs suppression and heavy-handedness to assert dominance, whereas conservatism knows that when all evidence is thoroughly examined it will be found most reasonable, most likely and most appealing.

Let's take, for example, The Huffington Post--by design, part of the George Soros empire. The people who use that as a news source--although it is unabashedly a left-leaning blogger collective--think that FoxNews and Glenn Beck are bad, and biased, and therefore either incapable of honest portrayal or unqualified to so much as be heard (which is weird since so much effort is devoted to painting them as such). You would think that Huffy readers would consider themselves intelligent and discerning enough to sift through the Fox or Beck presentations and glean for themselves any kernels of truth that might be found, without it disrupting their lives. You would think they would welcome a challenge to their one-sided sources in order to flesh out a larger, more encompassing perspective. You would think that at the mere suggestion that they are being willfully manipulated or that there is a glaring deficiency in their sources, they would look into such claims and have a ready defense. Instead, they mock. They do not dispel, challenge, discuss, debate or take to task; they simply cut off the source and attempt to discredit by perception rather than actual fact. And they are unfortunately at times successful when perception is guided by (we're back to the beginning here) individuals' all too frequent inability to invoke the basis for held beliefs. I've written for a long time about the unchanging nature of truth, but the sad thing is that in the muddle of perception many people have simply given up on the hope of ever finding it, and so are content with consensus, which is the path of least resistance, and that is how the enemies of truth win. They have beaten you down to the point of submission, and that remains their mode.

Arrogance, Ignorance and Folly

2010-09-12T05:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Progressivictim, henceforth to be called just the P-Word,

Let's talk about Beck, shall we? Your ilk imagine him the head of a sociopolitical movement of non-thinking people driven by hate and misunderstanding. Strangely, Rupert Murdoch--despite having supported liberal Democrats--is also being portrayed that way, as the puppet master behind FOX News, though somehow George Soros is not the force behind liberal activism. Yes, that's right, you Progressives (who are actually Regressive) are the free-thinking, open-minded saviors of earth-kind and defenders of truth and liberty, while we who are blinded by tradition stand in the way of the ONE LOVE utopia; if we would just listen to your reasonable appeals the world could finally heal and live in peace. Is it really open-minded to think Conservatives can't be right if you don't believe they're right? Is it open-minded to say Evolution is fact (though unprovable), but Creationism can't be right because it can't be proven? Is it really open-minded to believe only what you can perceive or accept, and allow only for possibilities that suit the framework of your lifestyle? Is it open-minded to say that unless one agrees that homosexuality is in all respects equal to heterosexuality, one cannot be driven by tolerance or understand love? Not only is that not an open-minded belief set, it is baseless, cyclical and counter-intuitive--it is not possible to believe these things, only to feel inclined toward and want to believe them despite a nagging still small voice that it is not so.

What makes something true? Is it consensus? Provability? Appeal? Consensus and appeal have shown themselves unreliable measures (i.e. the world is not flat, leeches are not the medical end-all, Hitler had a nation's support, George W. was elected twice, Obama was elected once, global warming is found to have been based on dishonest manufactured data), yet those both influence and shape academia and politics, so they cannot be trusted. So is it enlightenment? By whose measure? It's interesting to me that liberals will trust men of esteem while humans remain fallible and consistently disappoint, yet are not open-minded enough to allow for the possibility that there might be an infallible yet incomprehensible God. I, for one, would have difficulty believing in a God I could fully grasp, because if he were limited enough for me to grasp, he would not be so impressive, and certainly not worth reverence or worship. Yet the liberal elite revere and worship men of "learning" and never quite come to the realization that they are putting their faith in nothing more than consensus--the accumulated "wisdom" of those who came before--even though they frequently break with said "wisdom" which is no more than tradition, even though we are supposedly evolving into a more enlightened society. Enlightenment ends where, exactly? Wouldn't it have to be at godhead, as eventually we would know all? Is the atheist or agnostic not essentially saying "I believe that I can know everything, so if I cannot know it, it cannot be true"? Unless enlightenment ends with omniscience, it is useless, and since we have not yet reached it (or do you suppose you have?), it is not good enough to say you are "seeking" enlightenment if you are ruling out the possibility that you may be wrong about God. A true atheist cannot exist, because it is admittedly impossible to definitively say there is no God, because even "atheists" admit there are limits to their knowledge, so to attack institutions or individualism based on limited knowledge is careless, selfish and potentially damaging--which is what some claim of religion, especially Christianity. The difference is this; while atheism or disbelief is based on the absence of evidence, Christianity itself (though not always individuals' grasp or practice of it) is based entirely on evidence. They say "No one was there, so no one can know", when they in fact mean "I wasn't there, so I can't know". But if God is indeed real, he must have been present at the conception of the world, if there was one, and so his account should be valid; so the most logical thing to do is allow for the possibility that such an account should be true, and--if it is to be fair--every case for or against Christianity (which is based upon such an account) must begin with the account itself and see if it measures up. So a fair-minded person cannot say the Bible is an unreliable source simply because it falls outside the constraints of their own comprehension; they must instead treat it as if it might be true, and evaluate each claim according to ITS terms. If God claims that he is true and knowable, and you cannot prove--but only suspect--otherwise, a fair-minded person must do exactly what God outlines in order to test it. Non-believers, unbelievers, are simply unwilling to test God in a way that allows him to reveal himself; if God says there is only one way to know him, he will remain unknown to anyone who does not proceed along that path. It is not possible to see the course from outside it, but from the inside it is familiar, reliable and obvious. Knowledge and understanding walk hand in hand, but do not guarantee wisdom, while wisdom can lead to--but does not require--either. Faith is not believing something in spite of contrary evidence, it is accepting the parameters that allow evidence to be understood. God has made a case for himself and said his evidence is sufficient if understood (and if God is who he says, that is true whether we believe it at the outset or not), so mans' task is to test it on its own merits according to its own guidelines; anything short of this is incomplete and will not yield the fruit that faith does... and so, quite honestly, is foolish.

So we agree that atheism is nothing more or less than arrogance--the idea that you can comprehend truth without experiencing it. Instead of allowing for the possibility that God--and by extension, the gospel of Christ--is true, man's arrogance demands that we only allow for the possibility that it might not be true... and when in doubt, everyone must live as if it is not. That would even be fine if there was no evidence of God, but there is:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

"...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Romans 1:19-23

Those blind to the testimony of science--or, really, any discipline--are intentionally misreading evidence of God because their predisposition and premise are wrong as they set out to disprove God rather than test him according to his claims. Despite clear expositions and revelations of himself, men continue insisting he is unknowable, and that therefore anyone who claims to know him must be lying or deceived. They validate themselves with the testimony of those who falsely claim to know or speak for him; they say that every religion claims to know the true God, so since they cannot all be right, we must assume they are all wrong. That is saying, though, that since there are counterfeits, there can be no authentic, and I should think you wouldn't be that stupid. When evaluating an item's worth (think "Antiques Roadshow" here), do you go to a counterfeiter, or someone with no expertise, or do you take it to someone with intimate knowledge and familiarity of the original? The closer to the source, the more devoted to the subject, the better equipped that person is to advise you on authenticity. In the same way, it is foolish to accept the word of men who do not know God as authorities on who he is or is not, whereas a man who knows God intimately will be reliable to identify the counterfeits and dispute false claims. So to learn who God is, you must drop the arrogance of assuming his character has anything at all to do with your suppositions about him. That is ignorance and folly.

Such arrogance, ignorance and folly are the basis of humanism, and humanism is responsible for progressive liberalism, and since social justice is a liberal activism, it is incompatible with conservatism which is grounded in truth. Does that mean it is impossible for some who subscribe to each doctrine to be unworthy of the title, to misunderstand or be ignorant of their core or inceptions? Certainly not, just as how many who are paid to teach for a living are damaging our children, or how many who record albums are neither artists nor musicians, yet were drawn to the allure and learned to fake it with some measure of success. So being called a Conservative (or a Christian--I know it's hard for outsiders to make the distinction, since they know neither--or even a Tea Partier) does not guarantee the individual will be able to account for the movement, but it also does not mean they cannot be valuable in advancing a true and noble cause in spite of themselves. Since an open-minded and fair person has to allow for the possibility of God (which is an active allowance, meaning it requires non-passivity--because if he is who he says, it is your duty to know him) in at least equal proportion to uncertainty of him, an open-minded and fair person cannot unilaterally exempt from trust or respect those on track to comprehend conservatism. Movements are able to be demonized because individuals in the composite can under scrutiny be found wanting; this is not a fair measure of the movement, but an unfortunate consequence of human nature. Politicians as a unit exploit the weakness and depravity of man with dishonest, unrealistic rhetoric portraying themselves as being able to somehow rise above the standard of a failed mankind, but this is impossible without a firm grasp of truth, and since God through the person of Jesus claimed to be "the Truth", it is impossible to serve others in any meaningful way (apart from sheer accident) without first settling whether the claim is valid or not. If the gospel is true, everything hinges on it, because it says as much; if it is not true, it should be possible (even easy) to disprove, so if debate remains--and it certainly does--it is not unprovable and we must respect it as such, especially if there are witnesses attesting to its power. A critically analytical person (I'm thinking of Bill Maher here) should not accept a bad answer--or ten bad answers, or seventy--as proof that there is not a good answer, but should instead reason for himself, free of predetermination, what the correct answer would be. Atheists and humanists do not ask questions because they think there are answers, but because they think there are not; because they have not gone far enough fleshing out the concept, but have instead reached the conclusion they hoped for and settled there comfortably, ending the discourse in their heads despite there being a good deal left unconsidered. Faith is simply a measure of confidence, not a replacement for it. We arrive at faith after much searching, much testing, and much revelation, and jealousy burns against it when those in unrest see us at peace. You can know someone has the truth when it allows them to live freely, but you must understand and be able to correctly identify freedom; it walks in unison with its companions grace, love and mercy.

Glenn Beck is just one man--off-putting to many, wrong about certain things--but a man with a redemption story, who has come out on the other side of questioning to arrive at the singular simple truth that God is who he says he is, and for that reason many will hate him who have not yet had that revelation. Beck is not the movement, not the leader, not the voice or symbol, but just one man who accepts the transformative wisdom that comes from knowing God personally. Does that mean he fully grasps all associated doctrine or correctly processes or fairly relays all the information he comes across in his political life? No, and if any conflicting message that contradicts the gospel becomes a platform or staple of his teaching or entertainment, he will be abandoned by those who understand the gospel or are more intimate with Christ. He has supporters from different backgrounds for different reasons, but he is increasingly focused on knowing God, a concept and an ideal that leads to knowing truth and understanding love with all its associations. Since all authentic Christians and most Conservatives embrace God (and therefore truth), they share attributes with the Tea Party and with Glenn Beck that many still resent and fight, who have fallen prey to the arrogance, ignorance and folly of humanism's progressive liberalism. The left--the increasingly secular Democrat party--treat with disdain and contempt what they do not understand, mischaracterize it out of both hatred and ignorance (somehow under the guise of the opposites), and still say with a straight face that they are fair, open-minded and tolerant. Tolerance is a far different thing than grace--which is not in their lexicon; the fruits of love and truth are nowhere to be found (except by accident) in the secular movements of the left despite their claims otherwise. They misspeak because they do not understand the fruits of the spirit (of Christ, of God--the mark of a believer's life), and therefore have no concept of, or frame of reference for, truth. Every single thing a secular humanist stands for stands outside the benefits or context of truth, and so progressive liberalism (or liberal progressivism) is detrimental when activism attacks the true spirituality of Godly wisdom (not the meaningless hippie drivel that says we are all god-forces--such passivity is useless for any other purpose than defiling the adherent by making them feel good without acknowledging responsibility). In advocating abortion, you are not only devaluing life and submitting to a culture of death that evaluates worth by arbitrary means--leading to class-ism, racism and genocide; and contributing to suicide, violence, rape, substance abuse and murder--but you are elevating a lifestyle of irresponsibility without consequence, and advocating promiscuity. In advocating promiscuity (and let's throw in pornography), you are stripping sex of its intimacy and benefits and reducing it to a merely physical or fleeting exchange, cheapening and robbing it of its power and devaluing the sanctity of marriage--which accounts for the increasing divorce rate and contributes to sexual abuse and misuse, demoralizing prostitution, human trafficking, depression and low self esteem. By advocating homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, you are taking the promiscuity issues even further, but also failing to understand, address or treat the issues of neglect and abuse that underlie the brokenness and desperation of the individual under its oppressive delusion--you are facilitating a course that leads to spiritual (and sometimes physical) death, essentially enabling an addict to continue toward self-destruction without counseling or treatment. By advocating race activism or falsely accusing a party or its constituents of being "racist", you are showing yourself to in fact be racist over individualistic, because you are segregating where there is no segregation, demanding it exist where it does not, making it an issue when it is not; thereby negating the claim that you seek equality, but are instead looking for either special treatment or role reversal. By championing social justice over charity, you are wrongly saying God's (and America's) system failed and we must be tyrannically forced into equality regardless of effort, responsibility or accountability by a superior elite ruling class who somehow know better (and are therefore somehow exempt)--you fail to understand that the rise of secular humanism and subsequent waning influence of the church is precisely to blame for the decreased scope of charity. You contradictorily think that increasing regulation translates to more freedom, yet willfully ignore regulations or laws found to be inconvenient or unpopular--like speed limits and red lights, immigration and tax laws, and especially in California, marriage and drug laws. (It is not possible for a state to "legalize" marijuana while there is still a federal law against it, just as "sanctuary cities" are federally illegal. And still California gets a lion's share of electoral votes? Lawbreakers making laws? WTF!?)

Anyway, I hope you found this helpful. You're an idiot because you choose to be an idiot, because growing up into a responsible adult is hard. Overcoming arrogance, ignorance and folly takes humility, devotion and wisdom, and in the end leads to faith, hope and love. I speak to you plainly out of tough love (but perhaps a bit of mischievous prodding), and not political correctness, because the truth can set you free if you allow it to, whereas pride will lead to a fall, and is unbecoming in a grown-up.

Yours with all sincerity, and the added benefit of wisdom,
Conservativillain

P.S. Sorry for the delayed response. I have a real life to tend to, and don't feel the responsibility or urgency to convince you of things you should be able to come up with on your own. I'll allow you to continue posting to my account since you went to the trouble of hacking it, but I can guarantee you will never win a debate.

Prop H8 Gets A Blow

2010-08-04T22:45:00.000-07:00

Dear C-Word,

For one, you've not responded, which leads me to believe I've bested you and you have nothing to articulate in reply. Secondly, Prop 8 has been found unconstitutional, a great victory for liberty and justice. What have you to say about that, now that you right-wingers can no longer rely on crusades of fear and propaganda to push your prudish agenda? And actually, I'd be a little surprised--if I thought you had an original or defensible thought that wasn't rooted in lore--if you weren't silently pleased to see what you must know is right carried out, since you profess "love" and "wisdom", but seem to so lack both. You know in reality that it is discrimination to ban gay marriage, but you're unable to see past your unquestioned, hate-fueled "tradition" when it makes you uncomfortable. Now perhaps you can see the merits of progressive advocacy and laws, since your position has been found empty and wanting.

Any defense, or are you too busy making anti-gay bumper stickers?

Yours with warmth,

Progressivillain

Introducing Progressivillain

2010-07-26T09:33:00.000-07:00

Dear Conservativitriol, henceforth to be called just the C-Word,

How can you criticize the "left" for things you are guilty of? Is Glenn Beck not as much a cult leader as you Baggers thought Barack Obama was? And Sarah Palin too?

Yours very sincerely,

Progressivillain

PS. You brought this on yourself.

Teabaggers, Eh? Okay.

2010-06-06T21:01:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to understand how "teabagger" is derogatory. If I, as a man, am called a teabagger, you're suggesting that I'm having sex acts performed regularly on me, and if a female Tea Partier is called it, that she is regularly performing sex acts? Um, okay... so how is that an insult? Unless, of course, you think sex is dirty or wrong or in some way bad, which would be an odd stance, since that's how you portray the religious right. Or perhaps you're insinuating a homosexual encounter, in which case you're undermining your progressive liberal agenda of advocacy, and quite possibly guilty of discrimination and hate crimes (which I also thought you condemned the right for). So I guess you can continue sneering "teabaggers" when referring to your fellow Americans, but be aware that it exposes you for the hypocritical discriminatory homophobic prudes you are. Morons.

Atheism Is Stupid On Its Face

2010-06-06T16:53:00.000-07:00

It's interesting (or it isn't, and that's just something one says) that an atheist will conclude there is no God because there is bad in the world, but will not conclude there IS a God because there is good.

Arizona: May It Be the First of Many

2010-04-30T20:41:00.000-07:00

I should point out that those who oppose Arizona's immigration law on the grounds that it is necessarily "racist" are themselves profiling by automatically assuming "immigrant" means "hispanic". That is equally as hypocritical and discriminatory as assuming that hatred of Obama's policies and bleak worldview has anything at all to do with skin tone. The simpletons who promote this type of knee-jerk default response show only that they cannot get beyond their own obsessions with race. It is neither diversity nor equality they want, but favoritism, which in no way leads to unity or depolarization.

If you are opposed the Arizona's law, you should go there and test it by being as stereotypical of whatever it is you imagine they consider suspect, then sue for discrimination if you're civil rights (assuming you are actually a citizen) are in fact violated. That's a far more creative solution than bitching about it looking to the government to resolve "comprehensively". What you seem to have forgotten is that the mammoth federal government you so trust is comprised entirely of individuals you do not. If you do not believe a free man under the gravity of responsibility will make the right choices, why would you trust thousands of free men without accountability to make better choices?

To House Members Who Voted Yes For The Health Care Bill

2010-03-22T15:22:00.000-07:00

By voting yes for the misnomered "Health Care Reform", you showed yourself to be wholly unaware of the implications of your actions, and thus rendered yourself irrelevant. No one dies because they don't have insurance; they die because they get sick or injured, or because that's just what mortals do. It's sad, but that's life. You seem to operate under the premise that Americans are guaranteed health, wealth and happiness, that all are guaranteed success, and to be spared from misfortune. You seem to harbor the delusion that it is government's role to remove the struggle. It isn't. You're not gods. You don't have the authority. America was founded on freedom, and with freedom comes liability and responsibility. Everyone must make their own path. Government has the capacity to assist where it can, but must never assume the full burden of being everyone's caretaker. If Sherry in Rutherford and Rita in DeKalb and Beverly in Putnam needed assistance, those communities should have stepped up and helped out. If you gave nothing of your personal wealth, and their communities also let them down, you can't push the burden onto those outside your district. Your constituents are your friends and neighbors, not your dependents. They have touching stories because everyone has a touching story if told right. But you're not the hero. They are their own heroes when they persist through adversity and take responsibility and find solutions and better their own situations, with their own ingenuity and through their own efforts--or even with the help of a little charity. Those are the inspiring stories of realizing the American dream, not government evening the score by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I need you to understand what you did, and why the effort is underway to remove you from office. The problem you faced was that medical care is expensive. Because medical care is expensive, a clever business person once had the idea of offering a sort of lottery, where several people could pay regular, manageable amounts of money to a large pool, with the understanding that if one of the payers required medical care, it could be paid from the collection and there would still be a surplus (from which the clever businessman could take a portion), since it is likely that many in the collective would never incur such costs. It's win-win as long as paying into the pool in regular, manageable doses is cheaper than paying for medical care, and as long as the cost of medical care for the payers requiring it never gets higher than what's been collected. That was one solution for the high cost of medical care, but there's another, more direct solution that cuts out the clever businessman altogether and forces him to be clever elsewhere and make money by other means, and that is simply to lower the cost of medical care. An even more clever businessman might come into hospitals with more efficient supplies or equipment, enabling the hospital to lower the cost of care, making that hospital more attractive to potential care-seekers, and... voila! Capitalism and ingenuity works again! What Congress just did, instead of focusing on how to reduce the cost of health care, was to steal the collection from the clever businessman and assume his business, and additionally to demand that everyone else subscribe to this same model (so that the cost never exceeds the collection). But you did nothing for the actual cost. You did not address the correct problem, or choose the better of the solutions. What you did amounts to thievery, thuggery, and tyranny--the very things America was founded against. And since this is your pattern and you are unable to see it, and because you self-congratulating narcissists are actually basking in the glory of trampling our founding principles, you will be unseated.

This 111th Congress of the United States of America is a bewildering, embarrassing disgrace. You are not fit to serve the great American people.

Open Letter to the 111th Congress

2010-03-20T14:44:00.000-07:00

“Yea” to betray; “Nay” saves the day. Stop this Health Care takeover!

An open letter to the 111th Congress of the United States, Saturday March 20, 2010.

Dear Representatives,

Tomorrow you will most likely vote to expand the role of government far past the essential constraints that were the foundations of liberty and freedom, and which remained in place for over 230 years. You may not see it that way because you’ve been swept up and sucked in by the momentum of an ideal that cannot peaceably coexist with what our founders intended. You have become the very thing you were meant to protect us from, and are no better than the industries you demonize. We have tried to make our voices heard, but we are apparently no match for money or the allure of power and prestige.

The President and leaders of the House and Senate have been lobbying you, our Representatives, to act against our will in favor of ideals we do not believe in, manipulating terms and exploiting human tragedy and empathy for a tactical political objective. They have framed this as being about kindness, goodness, fairness and morality, when it is really about power. They have been able to persuade many of you—and some of us, but not enough—that it is the government’s duty to balance things out so that everyone is equal. What they’ve missed, though, is that the premise that all men are created equal does not mean all are destined to the same path. America is about allowing people to pursue their own path, and to learn lessons and adjust and adapt along the way, and if they are faithful and fortunate, reaping rewards. It is about ingenuity and personal responsibility; the only resource required for the American dream is the freedom to seek it.

You have no doubt been overwhelmed with the details of this legislation, and have heard emotional appeals by people who truly need compassion and charity, and in the muddle of public scrutiny and intense pressure and everyone clamoring for your attention and response, you are no doubt ready to do anything to get it over with and be done with it. We are too. But absolutely nothing—no fix, no amendment, no promise, no tweak, no clarification or correction—can make this legislation right for America. The individual issues—the kickbacks, the abortion funding, the cost—don’t even matter; the problem is with the very premise that government is the solution to the problem. Can government contribute to finding the solution? Yes. But it is not the government’s place, or even within its capacity, to effectively solve all of the unfortunate aspects associated with freedom. Regulations cannot solve death or selfishness or accidents or the unknowable, cannot change people’s hearts or minds, cannot make people essentially good or educated or wise. Government can provide resources, but it is individuals within communities who must live and work together and support each other to meet the demands of an often-difficult life, and that must be done on a personal level. If you think laws can change hearts or correct behavior—or even be adequately enforced—just look at the people sharing the road with you and tell me laws will be followed. Or look at the over-burdened judicial and prison systems and emergency response teams. Laws can only be a measure of the human heart, they cannot change it. The more laws you make, the more people will challenge, subvert or ignore them, and the more they must be refined and the more burdensome they become. That is not where reform comes from.

A “Yea” vote means that you do not have faith in individuals, that you have given up on society as potentially moral, responsible, charitable people, and that you believe an elite class of all-powerful, all-knowing people must remove the choices of the ignorant working class for the greater good. That sounds to me like tyranny. That feels like a betrayal and abandonment of the principles of America. You say “We can’t afford to do nothing.” No one is suggesting that. What we’re saying is that what we do must be closer to home, more personal, and freedom itself must not be surrendered in the process. If the President wants to help Natoma, I’m sure he has the resources to do it. Likewise, when someone in our churches or families or workplaces is presented with something outside of their resources, we’ll pitch in and help on a person-by-person basis. Are charities, churches and non-profits no longer in existence? Is the real problem that insurance has a high cost, or that an a box of hospital tissues can cost $100? Mandating that everyone must buy insurance doesn’t address that; it only shifts money around. This plan is really the precursor to a single-payer system, and that is really about power. If you truly believe in a single-payer system, you’re saying you believe competition is not the best motivator for ingenuity or success, and if you believe that, you must apply the same belief to sports, art, music and everything else you care about; if you cannot, you’re either a hypocrite or an idiot.

We gave you this last chance—your intervention—to see if you could acknowledge your destructive patterns and clouded judgment and commit to turning things around. On Sunday we will most likely watch you deny the problem and turn back to your addictions, and we will have no choice but to cut you off. We made our positions clear. If you do not vote “Nay” and end this madness, and commit to helping us find real, personal solutions that do not threaten our greater principles of liberty and freedom, we must conclude that you are not interested in representing your constituents, but are instead looking to the President and your elitist ruling-class colleagues to honor you with prestige at the expense of the integrity of America. The President should not be lobbying you to persuade us he's right, he should be encouraging you to reach out and listen to what we're saying so that you can report it back to him to shape our policy.

I, for one, give up. You win. I can’t keep calling and emailing and faxing you every time you betray us with self-interest and allow yourselves to be bought. I have a life. I have responsibilities. I have a family and a job. There’s a tipping point where I just have to accept that you’ll never get better, and I have to give up on you. If on Sunday night the 111th Congress of the United States of America passes this bill and effectively sell us into slavery, I am refocusing my efforts. Instead of attempting to work with you, reason with you, appeal to your respect for the inalienable rights you were supposed to defend, I will set about on a grassroots, person-to-person campaign to remove you from public office. You have proven unsalvageable, so you will simply be replaced.

There is something more powerful than money, and that is faith. Faith, hope and love will work together to overcome a Congress whose cynicism has rendered it an impediment, an obstacle to the American dream. One by one we will unseat you. We’ll establish residencies in your “safe districts” and overtake them. We’ll use better ideas and integrity and principles to topple big-business and cut off your funding. We’ll use personal relationships to have the dinner table conversations that will ultimately destabilize and dismantle the unions, and you will have no one left on your side. If you don’t stop this, you end your careers. You end the status quo and structure you’ve been protected by. Anything you do can be undone. Anything you take from us we can take back. You will not have saved your standing, but will have set in motion a whole new movement toward reformation, that will at the end leave you broken, defeated and friendless.

If you think this Health Care bill is good enough, you’re wrong. This is exactly bad enough to get us engaged in a way you could never have imagined. You can take our money—for now—and even take control of many aspects of our lives, but you cannot take the greatness, resilience, endurance and ingenuity of the American people. We will overcome.

Vote "No!" Message Sent

2010-03-17T14:13:00.000-07:00

VOTE NO on this toxic health care restructure! Bureaucratic government encroachment is not the answer. This sham bill is about nothing more than egos; your country demands that Washington elitists step outside their pretentious, delusional bubbles, and that you stand up and represent us and stop this grotesque abuse of powers. This is not reform, not moral, not right, and not American. Something this large needs widespread support, agreement and understanding—we do NOT need “representatives” hiding behind district lines and selling out their fellow countrymen and women for power and money. The true solution lies in public discourse, and Congress has done its part in bringing that discussion to the forefront, but mandates and over-regulation and the formation of monstrous new bureaucracies and programs is NOT the right course for the unique American ideals of liberty and freedom. Don’t think that if you can’t hear us, we aren’t there, or that if we’re not as vocal as the unions and PACs, that we aren’t passionate enough to make a difference. We are the responsible working middle class funding what you do! If you don’t hear from us, it’s because we’re too busy working hard to provide for our own families and find our own health care solutions—and yes, even give generously to charities of our own volition, not by government mandate or selfish incentives. A 17% approval rating should suggest that out of 100 decisions, you’re making about 17 good ones; your colleagues had probably better start listening to people outside their buffered little comfort zones. We don’t have time to—and shouldn’t have to—call and write and correct you on the 83 bad decisions. But something THIS BIG merits a harsh rebuke even for getting this out of hand; unless you stop it, you will be complicit in the intentional destruction of the liberties and freedoms that afforded you your lifestyle, and We The People will NOT forget it.

True Hypocrisy

2010-03-06T16:08:00.000-08:00

Hypocritical behavior does not a hypocrite make. Not always.

Let’s take California State Senator Roy Ashburn, for instance. Most people never heard his name or gave a damn who he was until he got a DUI leaving a gay club. Overnight, he became the new poster boy in a long line of politicians displaying supposed hypocritical behavior. The headline was enough for weblog politicos to feign outrage and retry their rally cries of “See? See? Morality is subjective!” But for that to be your knee-jerk reaction default position, you’re intentionally overlooking some very key details. Which part of that story caused people to repost it? The gay part—that he was leaving a gay club, while his voting record was opposed to pro-LGBTQ legislation. My liberal friends thought, “Aha! We caught another one!”… which must therefore mean everyone opposed to LGBTQ legislation is a hypocrite, that it must only be prejudices and unenlightened thinking that causes people to act out of fear of the unknown, and therefore if we can only make it mainstream enough, everyone will understand that it’s just about love, and the world can finally live in peace. Really, that is where their thinking goes. But let’s think about this. This was not a “gotcha” moment, because the guy’s lifestyle was not hidden. He was at a popular gay club; he was out in public. No doubt people knew who he was, and many likely also knew his voting record. If he were hiding something, he would not have been there, or someone would have exposed him long before that. The parts of the story that matter were overlooked by the agenda-crazed imbeciles who tried to make it about something else. The most significant point—the part he apologized for—is that he was driving under the influence. That’s wrong. What isn’t wrong is that a gay man can vote against pro-LGBTQ legislation. A gay man voting against pro-LGBTQ legislation is not by nature hypocritical if he isn’t purporting to be something he is not. In fact, Senator Ashburn represented Bakersfield. I’ve been to Bakersfield, and it isn’t exactly known for its flamboyancy. The elected official was voting how his constituents wanted him to, which is what they are elected to do. A hypocrite would be someone who believed one way but said they believed another, and there is not evidence of that anywhere in this story. In fact, that he was in a well-known and entirely visible public place kind of shoots that down. Instead what it suggests is that a person can be gay without being obnoxious and activist about it. One can hold their beliefs and act on them while still being respectful of others. Are some people hypocrites? Yes. Is everyone who does not promote a liberal agenda a hypocrite? No. Is everyone you who holds a view contrary to your own a hypocrite? No. Is everyone who messes up a hypocrite? No. Is every conservative a hypocrite? No.

Let’s take it even further, since liberals love to tout as validation when evangelicals fall. Are Christians hypocrites when they get divorced, since they so firmly advocate for family values like faithfulness and monogamy? Are Believers with homosexual feelings hypocritical to acknowledge that the Bible speaks against homosexual acts? Is it hypocritical to raise a child according to standards you yourself did not entirely live up to? In each case, no. A hypocrite is someone who does not own up to what they believe, who misrepresents their position—a liar, essentially. So, in order to call someone a hypocrite, we would need to find out that they do not actually believe what they say. Can a failure to act accordingly sometimes indicate that a person does not believe what they say, and is therefore a hypocrite? Yes. But does the very act make them a hypocrite? No. Though Ted Haggard was caught in homosexual patterns, that does not mean he didn’t believe his own sermons that such acts were destructive—indeed, I’m sure he found the acts more detrimental than he’d imagined. Though Amy Grant and Sandi Patty—and countless others too little-known to mention—each scandalized the gospel music industry with divorce, their faith and commitment to God did not alter, and the message never changed. Are these people hypocrites for saying they believe the gospel? To think so shows a crippling misunderstanding of the gospel. Unlike any other religion, Christian doctrine holds that there is only one way to God, and it has nothing to do with rules or laws, but it is simply in accepting the gift of salvation through the settling of debts brought about by Jesus (one with and son of God) submitting to death on the cross—the historically accepted event that changed the world forever. The whole point of “the Word”, the “Good News”, collected and canonized and now known as The Bible, is that God the Father, the Creator, offers perfect eternal life to whoever accepts it. The surprising number of people who do not accept it reject it out of pride, and that is the whole experience of mankind. Man fails. Man will always fail. Man cannot live up to the ideal, and so God has put within us his own Spirit, so that by submitting to God’s guidance through the Holy Spirit who lives inside us we can take part in and benefit from his redemptive plan. So if a Christian believes all mankind is fallen and no one can by the works of their own hand achieve salvation, can it be hypocritical when a person of sinful nature displays that nature? Not if the person believes and understands that God’s sole requirement is accepting him. In so doing, yes, a person’s path will change course, because once the light is on, you can see more clearly what you’re doing and less likely to make a mistake. But do not think that a believer cannot make mistakes. One of the wonderful things about being a Christian, is that the reliance on works is shattered and you can no longer do anything to jeopardize your standing in Christ. So indeed, when an evangelical falls publicly, it is only a demonstration that salvation is not earned, but simply accepted, and so the focus must always rightly be on God’s love and redemption, regardless of who is particularly illustrating his grace. So does the message ever change? No. God’s word is eternal. And that is why no acts of man, no matter what they are, can be seen as anything but validation of the truth and power of the gospel of Christ.

Is Roy Ashburn a hypocrite? I don’t know, and I don’t really care. He did his job and voted the way his constituents wanted, which was probably difficult to do given that it probably did not make his personal life easier. Contrast that to the majority party of Congress pushing bills with only self-interests represented, despite overwhelming sensible opposition. Do I care at this point if anyone in office believes what they say? No, I care that they do their jobs and uphold the Republic and defend the Constitution regardless of how they feel about it. Obama and the liberal elitists might believe their misguided policies and ignorant ideals are best. Fortunately, many of us with the lights on know otherwise, and we have a system where if there is disagreement, one group does not force itself on the other, which is why at this time in America we need government to diminish, relent, to ease some of the stranglehold so the people can breath and recoup, and then American innovation and greatness can refresh and restore what got lost as progressivism spread like cancer through thoughtless unionized masses of selfish, lazy, irresponsible thugs. Senator Ashburn may be gay, but he had the good sense to not impose that on people. Is it hypocritical to be respectful of differences? No, it’s hypocritical to claim you’re for “equality”, but believe the masses are not entitled to hold a Biblical view that cannot be discredited.

Did I just say a Biblical view cannot be discredited? What!?! How could I possibly think that? Damn me with my religiosity—I’m the problem with America! Yes, some people actually feel that way (notice I did not say “think”). Sometimes when I’m bored I google things like “prove God doesn’t exist” and see all kinds of moronic attempts to explain God away. That anyone can even post some of these idiotic gems is so utterly bereft of sense that I can’t even address the bulk of it. Such “god is imaginary” drivel is so devoid of substance and open to attack that it’s really not worth my time. Suffice it say the agnostics’ and atheists’ “arguments” and rationale for not believing—what they laughably put forth as “evidence”, or try to call “proof”, and actually stand by—is essentially that they cannot understand him. Go ahead, pick any argument they offer and it will be predicated on a presumption and subsequent misunderstanding of who God is, who Jesus was, what the gospel claims and how it is to be understood. By applying your underdeveloped impressions of what constitutes “good”, you render yourselves total imbeciles and I just can’t take you seriously. It’s like this: truth is earth, and there are varying levels of earth you must penetrate before arriving at the core. I don’t have the time from the depths I’m in to trudge back to the surface to compel you to dig. I’ll just leave the hole, and if and when you feel so inclined as to jump in, fine. If not, fine—let the crows eat you. I don’t care. I’m not going to lose any sleep because you’re an idiot. They like to say, “I don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist; you prove he does.” You know what? You’re right, you don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist… until you base legislation on that belief, then you need to support it. The moment your political premise becomes based in “morality”, you are obligated to define where that morality comes from. Since the liberal agenda tends to want government in an increasingly intrusive role, it is their duty to prove that they have authority from the highest supremacy to define the mandates of lifestyle, and therefore morality. If they can prove beyond any doubt that there is no God, and therefore nothing beyond the scope of humanity, then there is no rational basis for me to object to an oppressive human regime. But if they cannot prove it, they must allow for the possibility that it is true. The only fair solution then, is for government to remain silent in such matters, and as our founders said, to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and therefore no law respecting an establishment of anti-religion, which is essentially what a pro-LGBTQ agenda—and in fact most liberal agendas—push. By contrast, all we conservatives advocate is for government to stay the hell back and let us live our lives as led, with very basic constraints for the mutual protection of a great diversity and vast array of individuals. It is not we who oppose activist legislation who must prove our merits, because our lifestyle and belief system is by very nature inclusive of all fallen people, and therefore by nature not discriminatory, since anyone can choose to reject their sinful nature and be saved, whereas liberal activism requires subjugation and tyranny to impose unjustifiable, ever-altering views. Have people done horrible things misrepresentative of God, blaspheming his name? Yes. Do those human failures invalidate God? No. Does misunderstanding invalidate God? No—if he were wholly comprehensible by the limited scope of our experience of a minute subfraction of a subfraction of the universe, he wouldn’t be much of an impressive God, would he? What kind of fool would submit to a God he could fully comprehend? Rather, by the wealth of evidence that supports the inspired accounts of God’s continuing presence and work on this planet, it is no great leap to accept that God is exactly who claims to be, and that we need his direct communion to grasp the substance of that. An atheist or agnostic can say that from the outside something looks unbelievable, but they cannot say it is untrue if they are unwilling to be in its presence. They can say a building from the exterior does not appear how they imagine it should look, but they are baseless in claiming the interior must therefore not exist. Indeed, if I have been inside for quite some time, communing with a magnitude of others, and it is quite spectacular, I have very little reason to waste my breath trying to convince some skeptic to come inside when he has professed his total resolution not to do so. His ignorance does not lessen my experience or threaten the reality or integrity of the building. But if he tries to bar the door, I will not accept the impediment. The liberals would like to condemn the very real building I’ve been residing in, whereas conservatives are simply saying, “Let the building stand; then if you’d like someday to enter, you may.” A pro-liberal agenda dictates what happens inside the building, but if they’ve never been inside, they certainly cannot be expected to know how best to manage it. That is why in a free society with even the possibility of God, government must remain small and relatively neutral. Hypocrisy is saying you believe in freedom, but thinking you can impose it. Presenting a view—as religions do—is not imposing it, whereas legislation is. The one is freedom; the other is slavery. So, after all this, Republicans are once again the advocates of equality and freedom, and Democrats are once again the proponents of slavery—though now in a more presentable form. It should not take a genius to figure this out, but it does require attention and critical thinking.

What’s worse, a gay politician voting the way his non-gay constituents want, or politicians who swore to uphold the Constitution aggressively attempting to subvert it despite the known will and vocal opposition of the people? I think I’ll vote for the people who know and will fulfill their duties, not those who overstep in the name of some vague, delusional, imagined “good” where there is no defensible case or consensus—and could in fact damage loftier ideals if they exist. Ashburn is no role model, not because he’s gay, not because he’s not an activist, but because he broke the law and endangered lives by driving under the influence of alcohol—government property, no less. But I’d rather have flawed representatives actually representing me than arrogantly dismissive ideologues blatantly opposing me. You in public office should keep that in mind. To say you believe in a representative government when you believe in tyranny—that is hypocrisy. That is intolerable.

Sexuality in Physiological, Philosophical, Moral Relation to Church & State

2010-02-04T13:58:00.000-08:00

Let’s talk about sex, and particularly its role in the sanctity of marriage. Now, I don’t like talking about this unless specifically asked, because for the most part anyone with differing views on these matters will not be receptive to mine, and it is quite futile to address the surface with those unwilling to consider the root. But quite frankly, you liberals are pissing me off, so I’m going to have to lay out the case as to why your views are destructive and the conservative Christian view of sex and marriage should be restored where broken and afterward preserved.

Some things have bothered me lately. For one, an enraged vocal minority have continued attacking California’s Prop 8, slandering its supporters (who, I remind you, were the clear majority) and trying to overturn it. I have no problem with initiatives or legal challenges, so long as the underlying premise is sound, but with this it is not. The “NOH8” morons—now with the McCain women on the bandwagon—are very much missing the point. All the stupid “love love” bumper stickers and “human rights” claims show that you do not grasp what you’re dealing with. Do you honestly believe the “Marriage Protection Act” is an act of hate? Are you so far gone in your perception of morality that you honestly think proponents of marriage are acting out of fear and prejudice? We have stayed out of your lives, and you in turn have continually and increasingly invaded ours. That is what this is about. I’ll try to explain.

Supporters of gay marriage are saying it is a civil right, that if you are not for gay marriage, you are hateful and bigoted and violating the basic fundamental truth of being human. If it were a “civil” issue, a “civil union”—which nearly everyone supports—would be enough. But they’re not happy with that. They want more. They want a homosexual union considered by law to be the exact same thing as a heterosexual union. The problem with that is that it isn’t. Calling it the same thing is tantamount to calling a woman a man, demanding your daughter be called a son, holding firm to the belief that there should be no distinction whatsoever between male and female—indeed, let’s erase entirely all references to gender and live as if the two sexes were not distinguishable. That is asinine, isn’t it? It’s impossible. Male and female exist, everywhere, in every species—hell, even in electrical outlets—and what you are born greatly defines who you are and how you relate to the world. Man and woman have distinct roles just as water and sunlight have distinct roles—you cannot swap out those things and hope for the same result. You can’t indiscriminately swap out ingredients in cooking and expect the same meal. You can’t get orange juice from apples, and calling orange juice apple juice will not change its taste. They are two very different things. Why do you accept the indisputable nature of elements, but refuse to apply the same discretion to sexuality. If we were forced to acknowledge no difference in gender, industries and institutions would collapse, and we would be enslaved by a falsehood, and the entirety of history would be moot and meaningless. Would there be no repercussions if a man solicited a female prostitute and instead got a man? If that solicitor was not okay with that, is that unwarranted sexism and discrimination? If a couple shows a sex preference during maternity or adoption, should that also be illegal on the grounds of discrimination? And once they do have that child, should it be illegal to raise it with typically boy or girl indicators until it decides what it would like to be? And then, shouldn’t it even be illegal to decide one way or other, because that shows a preference, which is discriminatory? No, gender exists, and sexual roles necessarily likewise exist. Not only our societies, our very humanity is predicated on these definitions. Are there deviations? Yes, and they should be taken into account. But to diminish the essence of gender distinctions by painting them as somehow bad is just stupid.

Okay, there are genders, most glib-libs will grant me that. They may even grant that there are deviations. But surely I can’t be implying that being gay is a deviation from the norm? Why not… isn’t it? “Well, I guess… technically, since it’s less common. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” Oh, so this just became a moral issue? Don’t read into acknowledgment of a deviation that there is immediately a value judgment assigned. If male and female exist, and coexist, as distinct entities with discernible unarguable features, and if the vast majority of innate conditioning for living things is for the opposite sexes to attract, is it illogical to conclude that there is a natural order to the universe and there are roles within that order, just as there is consistency in a food chain or in natural selection? Is it possible that whatever force set life in motion had a design, and that the beauty of the scope can be recognized? I lost some of you, didn’t I? It’s very simple; if you believe there is order in life, if you believe there is a creator and/or a design, if you believe there are fundamental truths from which we draw understanding and define our morality, there is a point at which things are absolute and not subjective. You cannot make a reasonable case for relativism or subjectivity by using absolutes. There is a physiology to the male and female relationship that cannot be denied; it is certain that the bodies compliment each other in perfect harmony during intercourse. (Yes, I said intercourse.) That is just biology. That is science. That is, in fact, what we inherit as humans defined by our respective genders. So it is baseless to suggest there are not distinct roles for male and female.

I did not deal with morality in that argument. All I said was, scientifically, gender distinct bodies perfectly compliment each other in sexual union. Now, people want very much to make homosexuality a distinct moral issue, and that is where a pro-gay agenda comes in, and why there is resistance to it. A thoughtless and wrong assumption tossed around is that homosexual sex—and by extension, gay marriage—is a personal matter and doesn’t effect anyone. This can only be true if there is no God, or if he is not who he says he is. If God exists, no part of life is not subject to that reality, and therefore must be taken into account in governance of societies. If God exists and is who he says he is, then he is the one who created life through science, establishes and determines continuing order, assigns roles, and solely understands the full scope and minute details of his creation. (Though God is neither male nor female, as he is complete within himself, we assign for our own comprehension a masculine identity because man was created first in his image; but as man was incomplete he then created woman from man, and so man and woman are the unique creations of God for each other.) If there is a God, there must be evidence of God, and since there is order, there is evidence of God. Our task then, is to come to an understanding of who he is. This is possible simply by observing nature, but to make it even easier for us, so there could be no justification for denying it, he came and told us who he is—in the person of Jesus and the profound and sensible revelations of his gospel and testaments. If God is who he says he is, all of creation—and therefore all societies—are subject to his truth. If he is indeed the creator, no human institution or government can restrict his truth. If God exists and is who he says he is, HE is the one to define morality, and we can only accept or reject it. Therein lies the great conflict in our cultures.

The United States of America was founded on an understanding of and relationship with God the creator. Our symbolism and history is saturated with it. It is reiterated constantly in all our founding documents. It is undeniable. It’s delusional and disingenuous to argue with that. It was the freedom in Christ that enabled freemen to come together and commit in good faith to a public written acknowledgement of liberties—a living standard that allowed man to find his own identity, pursue his own destiny, and be wholly responsible for his own success or failure in life. We have strayed so far from this understanding that we elected as President a man whose expressed intent is to change the foundation upon which his own establishment was built—from which all his power is derived. He is—and a near supermajority of congress and majority of America are also—so distant from the God of creation the founders knew and followed, that our government actively opposes the liberty for which it was intended. Washington fails when Washington blocks the influence of absolute truth in favor of subjective popular sentiment. If there is a God and he is who he says he is, he supercedes government, and unless our leaders and lawmakers understand this they are crippled. But that is where we are, and that is the chasm between the extreme left and the far right. The progressive agenda seeks to replace the God who is the rock of our foundation; the conservative, simply to defend. That is why groups like American Atheists, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Freedom From Religion Foundation and many others wrongly aggressively attack public displays of personal conviction—to the absurd extremes of protesting Christmas, or a commemorative Mother Theresa stamp, or a pro-life commercial during the Super Bowl.

Attacks on the pejorative “religion” are usually visceral assaults on Christ and his followers, and spring very simply from pride—not the good, celebration of heritage kind, but the pride that comes before a fall, the self adulation that breeds contempt and provokes hostility. If there is a God, and if he is who he says he is and therefore is uniquely suited to account for the natural order of life and prepare man through instruction how to proceed through it, any efforts outside of that framework are futile. So unless a person of free will chooses to live with a Christ-centered and Godly defined morality, their morality is baseless, and therefore useless. Even worse than useless, a baseless definition of morality can be destructive if there is a truth-based—and therefore non-subjective—morality. The one trumps the other, if in fact God exists. So, if there is a God and therefore a Godly defined morality, it supersedes societal standards and is to be followed above any human institution wherever it conflicts. The progressive attempts to abolish religion, then, are based on a jealousy, a hatred of God, propelled by pride-driven resentment of humility and unwillingness to submit to correction, and that is why “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” For if there is a God who created and rules over all, who alone understands the complexities of science and the inner workings of the spirit, anyone unwilling to follow his perfect path is subject to suffering the natural consequences he was offering to protect them from. If a legislative body presumes to make laws contrary to the natural laws of creation, the society that governance rules will fail. That is why it is impossible to define America as anything other than “One Nation Under God.” All efforts to diminish the freedom Godly wisdom provides will have the opposite result—it will enslave men to impossible, ever-altering, arbitrary standards contradictory to natural order, and lead only to overwhelming frustration.

If there is a God, there are knowable elements, and though they extend past the limit of our full comprehension, we can witness firsthand enough effect to be confident in what is behind them. That is faith—not blind acceptance, but the support of all life’s experiences pointing to the unalterable, unchanging truth. Though we may not understand the interrelations of all things, may not be privy to the inside information that draws the whole design together, we can be confident once we have seen enough evidence that we have found the path of wisdom, and need no longer live in doubt and despair, and that is the reason for the hope offered by Christ. That is what “progressives” (liberals) are actually fighting, though they are frequently so poisoned by hate that they are unwilling to concede it.

How did we get so ethereal? What does that have to do with gay marriage? I’ll tell you. God created man and woman; it’s among the first of the biblical accounts. He created Eve from Adam’s side to be his acceptable helper, and ordained the first marriage—one man, one woman—and decreed that this institution would be the foundation of each subsequent generation, that for the sanctity of this union man would forsake all others and find fulfillment only in his wife—that they would become “one flesh” and know intimacy in that framework. God created sex, and told us what it was for, and in what context and capacity it was to be used and fully appreciated. That is model by which humans experience all the untainted benefits of pure unadulterated sex. What happened since the fall of mankind is that humans thought God was holding out on them, and they started thinking things like. “Well, if sex is good in this context, then it should be good in other contexts too.” And since—in order for the universe to be governed by justice—God gave us freewill, prideful man used that will to begin to desire what is contrary to God’s natural order, and every bad choice man made drove him further and further from perfection, increasing man’s frustration and his contempt toward God. Within the first few generations, polygamy entered the world, and society quickly became so corrupt—so far from the model of perfection that existed in Eden—and God was so grieved, that he wiped out all but a single, God-fearing family. (I sometimes think the rainbow became the symbol of the gay and lesbian community as a taunt of when God offered it as a symbol of his promise to never again destroy the whole earth with a flood—but that’s a digression.) The point is homosexuality is not alone in the acts of imperfection that are contrary to the will of God; in fact, everything outside the ordained and sanctified union of one man and one woman—committed in their entirety to each other through a lifetime—falls short of the model of perfection, and is therefore subject to the natural consequences God had hoped his creation would avoid. When 1 Corinthians 6 says “’Everything is permissible for me’—but not everything is beneficial”, it reminds us, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality”, and as we’ve already discussed, morality is the creator’s to define based on the absolutes of his creation. The model of perfection is still there, still attainable after a process of cleansing, sanctification and justification, but the process is God’s. Individual societies, then—if God exists and is who he says he is—are in no position to redefine what he established with Adam and Eve as husband and wife, and any attempt by a governing body to create a standard at odds with that establishment is meaningless, and cannot be observed by those acknowledging his authority over it. Is there antagonism between homosexuality and what God created and ordained? Yes, but no more so than any other sexual deviation, the broad scope of which includes polygamy, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and sometimes even lust, if not directed at your spouse—so probably usually pornography. Is abstaining from these things a form of hatred? No, it springs from an understanding of why sex exists, and the merits of experiencing it to the fullest. Sex as designed is like health food; there are other things you can eat and enjoy, but they’re just not as good for you. The more junk food you eat, the more crave; it’s tasty, but it’s killing you. And so Christianity—being a follower of Christ—is like exercise; it’s a discipline no one is forcing on you, but you know the better you adhere to it, the healthier you are and the easier it gets, and you might soon find you can’t get through the day without it. The Holy Spirit is like a personal trainer, walking with you, giving guidance whenever there’s a question as to what leads to wellness.

When a person advocates a monogamous heterosexual lifelong marriage as the best route to a person’s wellbeing, it is because the person fully appreciates (or hopes to appreciate upon maturity, if the fruit is not yet ripe) pure, unadulterated sex. It is a celebration of perfection and beauty. When anyone touts lesser, cheaper degradations of that, we are saddened, because purists know damage is being done—sometimes physically, always emotionally and spiritually. Sex is not meant to be isolated from the spirit. It is meant to be the most deeply personal complimentary resource to communicate the depth of communion with God’s natural order. It must be accompanied by total intimacy at every level of existence to be at its best, and those levels cannot be met outside the framework God established when he created man and woman to be united as one flesh. He made them one entity as two distinct forms so that they could submit themselves wholly to each other of their own free will, and that continual offering is the basis for marriage. Man and woman are designed to choose intimacy with each other as a human illustration of how mankind must choose God to experience intimacy with him. God made a point of creating all the animals first (and made a point of their incompatibility as companions) so that Adam would feel longing for his missing piece and recognize and feel fulfillment when we saw her. This is also an illustration of how we long for the Holy Spirit; God likes using patterns.

Sex was created for man and wife, two people living in harmony as one. It is cheapened when a third is introduced, the focus then shifts solely to physical enjoyment instead of being an extension of intimacy. It is cheapened when the two are not married, for they are not committed to sharing the totality of life and relating on every level as a single entity. It is cheapened when the two are of substantially different maturity, for they cannot relate on the same emotional level. It is cheapened when with a stranger, for it is devoid of accompanying intimacy. It is cheapened when treated casually, for there is no commitment, no investment. It is cheapened when non-consensual, for there is no offering of the emotions or spirit, and it is an act of violence. It is cheapened when bestial, for there is no human connection. It is cheapened when hired, for it is in place of intimacy. It is cheapened when of the same gender, for it denies physiology. It is cheapened when unequally yoked (when one is a believer and one is not), for there is spiritual discord. It is cheapened when abusive, for it is manipulative and not rewarding. It is cheapened when the motivation is anything but a communication of inexpressible depth of total love. It requires, in order to fully appreciate sex, knowing what love is:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

The characteristics of love are the characteristics of God; man cannot know love without knowing God… but he can experience enough to crave it. So for perfection, love must be accompanied by wisdom, and if you accept only the love without the wisdom you are in danger of misinterpreting or misapplying it. Most of the world experiences enough of God’s love to yearn for it, but misunderstands how to perfect it and so goes about it in a counterproductive manner. God’s followers offer his wisdom in hopes that all might believe and experience God and his favor for themselves. Somehow the unwise world interprets this as hate, and this deep misunderstanding is what drives the pro-gay agenda and the anti-religion sentiment.

The very First Amendment (and it is significant that that is the first) says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Any law attempting to marginalize or regulate God or his influence is a direct violation of this. The idea of a separation between church and state was expressly intended to protect freedom of religion and expression, not to eliminate it from public life. It was an acknowledgment that man and government both are subject to the higher authority of God and the freewill he gives, which is the birthright inheritance of mankind that all civil liberties are based on. You cannot forcibly remove God the foundation and maintain civility. The anti-religion movement is in essence saying you must renounce and deny your belief system and its foundation if rooted in a belief in absolute truth. But think about that. If there is a God and he is who he says he is, and if I accept that absolute truth and live by the wisdom of its unalterable principles, no human effort can make it untrue, nor can any mandate coerce me to live as if it were not true. The founding fathers understood the futility of making laws attempting to subjugate man or hinder his expressions of freedom, and that is what the anti-religion advocates are trying to do. If, having fallen so far from the perfection of creation in the garden of Eden, we as a civilization are forced to condone acts contrary to the natural order or the model of creation as established, ordained and sanctified, we condemn ourselves to the consequences that result in destruction, frustration, desperation and despair—and ultimately death and eternal separation from God. That is everyone’s prerogative. What the founders attempted to set up, however, was a society where missteps from the freewill of some would not impose destruction on the liberties of others, and that is why everyone was to be free to pursue their own course, and men were willing to die for the responsibility and reward of that freedom.

What the liberal, progressive, anti-religion, pro-choice, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay, pro-government, anti-liberty, pro-humanism, pro-communism, anti-Christ, anti-freedom, anti-liability or personal responsibility activists want is the abolition of God—or at least the pussification of him—because they don’t want to feel convicted when the broken parts of their souls urge further bad decisions; they’d like to remove that unattainable model of perfection dangling before them so they aren’t taunted and afflicted each time they fall short of the ideal. The push to legalize gay marriage is not a civil issue—civil unions already exist and are widely supported, and give couples of freewill equal protection under the law. And it is certainly not equal to the civil rights movement, when basic liberties and equality were denied—homosexuals can get and keep jobs, have families, adopt children, attend church, even get married (just not to each other, because marriage is marriage and a civil union is a civil union—apples and oranges). What the pro-gay agenda is actually demanding is that the stigma be removed. That is where it becomes a moral issue, thereby bringing God into the discussion, since it is then necessary to determine what defines a society’s moral compass. And since morality and God are now in the discussion, it is a religious matter, and the First Amendment—and indeed the implicit nature of our Constitution—forbids government from making any law that infringes on the freedom to believe or to express such beliefs. If a state law legally changes the definition and nature of marriage, it challenges the authority of religion to define morality, attempting to subvert absolute truth to favor subjective, alterable perceptions. To decree that marriage must be inclusive of homosexuality is to directly oppose the most fundamental institution essential to life and our understanding of it. Not only is it contrary to the natural order, it is expressly forbidden within the context of perfection and the inheritance of the kingdom of God. Are you free not to seek the kingdom of God, and therefore free to express ungodly sexuality? Yes. We do not begrudge you that. But we will not necessarily withhold from pointing out that you’re killing yourself with junk food when there is health food available, because we’re acting out of an understanding of love and perfection, and sad that you’ve chosen something less. In America, you’re just as free to ignore my advice as I am to give it. The real violation of liberties is to forbid me to express it. But what liberals want is to remove the freedom of expression that allows me to disagree with bad life choices. “Are you saying gay is a choice?!” Why not? You libs love choice… why not be free to choose your sexuality? But I need to be free to teach that abuse or misuse of sex, though temporarily enjoyable, will not allow you to experience the fullness of the sexual experience as intended, ordained and sanctified by God. There is no hate there, only compassion and the responsible exercise of tough love. If there is a God and he is who he says he is, and if he created sex for a distinct purpose and told us how it should be properly used in order to reap all the benefits, unwillingness to follow that instruction will not remove the consequences of such ignorance—stubborn refusal to acknowledge parameters within nature has no effect on their existence. When you buy a complicated appliance or device, the manufacturer includes an instruction manual; if you do not use it correctly, it won’t function properly no matter how cool it is or how badly you want it to. You will probably only break it or hurt yourself; they include those “Improper Use/Installation Could Result In Serious Injury Or Death” warnings because people are stupid and stubborn and think they can figure things out on their own.

So we have conflicting viewpoints; pro-gay agendists think homosexuality is not harmful, the majority of others think it is. Now it’s true that some opposition to gay marriage is simply residual and innate, carrying over from generations of conditioning and familiarity, and those people may not be able to eloquently account for their stance, but that doesn’t change the natural order or the sanctification of the institution of marriage. Not knowing why one might hold a belief does not invalidate the belief itself or render it untrue. So in a free society where there are conflicting viewpoints, individuals must be free to act on and express their belief in either. Mandating a redefinition of marriage mandates a redefinition of sexuality, and attempting to mandatorily suppress expressions of differing viewpoints is the true violation of liberty—what the founders of our country expressly and uniformly rejected. Requiring a legal acknowledgement of moral equivalency is in fact legislating religion—it is saying “Your system of beliefs must accept mine as equally valid”, but that is not possible if one system of beliefs is rooted in an absolute truth that overrules the other. Having homosexual feelings is not a sin, but according to God’s guidelines for sexuality, acting on it would be—just as looking lustfully at someone other than one’s spouse is a sin. By sin I’m referring to anything falling short of the ideal model for perfection, which by ignoring leads to consequences. Sin does not bring punishment, but penalty—which is just consequence. (I did not look that up to confirm Biblical accuracy; I’m arguing philosophically right now.) Now, I’m not demanding you believe or live by God’s standard as described in the Bible. I’m not saying anyone should be denied any legal or civil rights, not saying anyone should be attacked or persecuted or discriminated against for choosing a different path. I am saying that demanding there be no stigma attached to what is spelled out as harmful in the instruction manual for sex would be infringement on the liberties of freemen, and such a law cannot be upheld or justified if God exists and is who he says he is. Since there are differing views of sexuality, the only just course in a free society is to allow them to coexist. Since we who are for the sanctity of marriage respect that not everyone accepts guidance, and some want to figure out the appliance without reading the instructions, we agree that the gift of freedom should be protected, so where government is concerned a civil union should be sufficient to not infringe on anyone’s liberties. In order to remove the stigma of homosexuality—which has nothing to do with legality, but instead deals with morality—one would have to prove once and for all that there is no God, or that he is not who he says he is. If there is even a possibility that God exists and is who he claims, mankind must be free to follow him, because if that is the case, that is an absolute truth that all perceptions of reality are subject to. Believing something is untrue does not make it untrue, and acting as if it is not true does not make it not true. Willfully denying something that is true and relevant makes one an idiot. If God is God, it is futile to deny him. You are only harming yourself.

Our example here has been sexuality, but the principal holds true for all life. If God exists, there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, we can either accept or reject it, but it does not change. If absolute truth does not change, everything is subject to it. If everything is subject to it, we must accept it in order to understand it and function properly. Without accepting or understanding absolute truth, we cannot be confident in our actions. If there is even a remote possibility that God exists and is who he says he is—and all evidence seems to point in that direction, since there is order instead of chaos—mankind is subject to that possibility and should take every action to determine whether it is true, since such truth would necessarily be the foundation for all life. Unless you prove there is no God, you do a grave and dangerous disservice acting on that belief. If there is a God, his truth must permeate your being and inform your choices, or you will be dysfunctional, an impediment to others. The United States of America was founded on the freedom to pursue God. We who have found him and know him, who hear his voice and are guided by his wise council, can do nothing but continue in that knowledge which frees us, and no attempt to subvert that will be accepted. That is the idea behind The Manhattan Declaration, which I encourage you all to read and support, and I commend and thank those who put it together.

Government is simply a quick-fix human solution to how a collective of disagreeing individuals can coexist. Government’s only tool is establishing rules and encouraging each other to agree to them—it is essentially a treaty or a pact among people who have to share the same resources. We set up arbitrary standards based on compromise, rooted in shared senses of morality, as a sort of Quick Setup Guide to get started. We inherited this practice from the laws God used to hand down; he established bullet-point guidelines from his infinite knowledge, that if followed would give a basic understanding of how life works, but he did not elaborate or explain fully what was behind the laws. It’s like computer programming; we don’t all know what makes a computer work, but we know how to check our email and look at websites. The more in depth we go into understanding the system, the more sense it makes and the more trouble-shooting we can do. Rules are like the FAQs or step-by-step instructions when we want just enough to do the job. To fully appreciate the system, we would need to know its full programming, but even without knowing the intricacies, we can be proficient—but may need help from time to time. Governments establish rules that are hopefully rooted in a greater truth to maintain order, but the framers of the American Constitution were wary of man misinterpreting God’s truth, so their answer was to make as few restrictions as possible—limiting government to merely protecting life and liberty. “Lawmaker” has no place even being a job in the true America. Every bill passed enslaves freemen that much more, and every law now seems to require a dozen more to enforce it, and even so society picks and chooses which ones it cares to follow or enforce—they are more like New Years resolutions now, well intentioned but impossible to keep or to keep track of. The law has become slavery—it is powerless, meaningless and ineffectual, and has proven detrimental to understanding the freedom Godly wisdom provides. We need to stop allowing people without intimate knowledge of things to write the step-by-step guides, because each reissue and revision or piece of misinformation muddles understanding, and if they get just one thing wrong enough the whole system could crash because somebody didn’t defer to the manufacturer or programmer.

The government has no place making laws to challenge the authority of God, or by extension his followers. Redefining life or marriage legislates issues of morality to be inconsistent with God's word, and therefore prohibits God's word or expressions of it, which violates our founding documents and principles. If homosexual marriage is required to be recognized and treated universally as the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage, it will then be considered discriminatory and illegal for a church to impart the Bible's teachings on it. Pastors will then be required to perform religious ceremonies contrary to its beliefs, and parents will be required to teach their children that homosexuality should be affirmed and encouraged, even if they believe it to fall short of God's ideal. It will be illegal in a work place to voice one's belief even when asked. Reverse discrimination will be rampant, and non-conformist, non-subjective religion will essentially be outlawed—and that is what many on the progressive left are after. They would like mankind to replace God, the government to replace the church. But no government, no law, can alter truth. You are free to accept it or not. For over two centuries this freedom has allowed America to thrive, to live in God’s grace and favor and reap the rewards. The more you separate yourselves from truth, the quicker you will self-destruct. Unless you can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am wrong, you must not impose your weak, subjective system of alterable, uncertain beliefs on me. To do so is pure folly.

God bless America.

God's Role In Matters of Life And Death

2010-01-19T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Haiti earthquake brought forth a dialogue on the relationship between God and natural disasters. Pat Robertson perhaps had something to do with the publicity, but in general people do turn their thoughts to deity in times of crisis or intensity. Dennis Miller (yes, he has a radio show) had callers attempt to explain God’s role, or the Christian community’s take on it, and they for the most part seemed ill-equipped to do so. This all falls under the old “Why do bad things happen to good people?” question, and Robertson’s—and even more puzzlingly, Danny Glover’s—assertion was that they, or we, or somebody are not good people, and this was some consequence. While I agree that no human is good, I disagree that this was punishment for it.

My simple premise is this: God is not subject to the limits of our comprehension.

There are two beginnings I’d like to remind you of in the Bible. The Old Testament—and I’d like you to notice that they are called testaments, and consider why—starts us off with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That is a fairly significant thing, and there are many books that follow, guiding us through the narrative of that creation. At first, the world was perfect, and there was no sin and therefore no consequence of death. We were in fact deceived into death when the serpent suggested to the woman that we were not equal to God because he had knowledge we did not. It was the allure of acquiring what was perceived as being withheld that caused woman to take and eat the forbidden fruit—and man was complicit and therefore equally as guilty as co-conspirator. It is entirely possible that the fruit referred to was simply poisonous to the human body, and God—having created it—knew this, and that is why it was forbidden. That would be in keeping with the character of a loving and protective God; it was not necessarily that he was angry and punished mankind supernaturally, as many assume. I call your attention to why man was driven from the garden, that the godhead referred to a tree that would counter-act the impending death with life—perhaps a natural health remedy—and that Adam and Eve were displaced so they’d not have access, and thus suffer no consequence of disobeying his command. When a child first confronts an open flame and is drawn to motion and light, a loving parent responds quickly to teach them—in whatever way the child will hear, whether fully understood or not—that it is dangerous and not to be trifled with. That is in essence how God must sometimes deal with us—he with infinite understanding and intimate knowledge of the workings of his creation. And so, the consequence of not heeding God is that we gained that knowledge we lacked, promised by the serpent—the knowledge of death, and therefore of grief and suffering and fear, and every negative that is born of it. So throughout the Old Testament, mankind lives with the inevitability of death as the result of his desire to elevate himself to godhood. But God had a plan for his creation, and so provided a way for redemption.

There is a new beginning, and with it a New Testament, and “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And then, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” When in the Old Testament we were corrupted by death, our thoughts and minds and perceptions fell prey to the bleakness and despair and perversity of it’s singular mindset, and we came to know conflict as our natural inclination became to self-destruct, to try and find a means to life other than that which came freely of willfully following God’s instruction. That is the root of the war between spirit and flesh. The deteriorating flesh is trying to save itself, like a drowning person blindly thrashing about, while the spirit that is from God extends a hand from above and simply asks you to trust and grasp and be lifted to safety. Humankind must acknowledge that death is a consequence of imagining that God (who is love) ever withheld anything good and acting on that false premise, because without acknowledgement one’s mind is still subject to the unclear thinking that causes it to act in manners harmful to itself. In order to live in the creator’s wisdom, one must believe in and trust it fully, and that is what we call faith—not blind, but with the full benefit of perspective. It was necessary, therefore, that Jesus—who was in communion with God—had to die in our place to fulfill the natural consequence of not doing what is right, which is often called sin. Sin is not necessarily as black and white as willful self-seeking, and where people often get in trouble is in believing that only an overtly wicked agenda should condemn one to death. Death is not a punishment for evil, but a consequence of imperfection, and so God’s plan for mankind is to choose the path of wisdom which leads to life. Since it is now against our natural state of deterioration, it requires humility and submission to God—a pledge to willfully follow his instruction, trusting his love and accepting his guidance. Jesus died to fully illustrate the severity of rejecting God, but was brought back to life, and offers life and light to whoever will accept it. He then imparts his spirit—Christ who lives inside us—to make it possible to hear his voice and respond to his will (which is nothing more or less than perfection). Physical death, then, means nothing when our eyes are opened to the spiritual realm beyond it, and Christ’s wisdom and God’s plan transcend our limited linear perceptions of this world and our place in it. Every life is precious to God, and he is intimately involved in every detail of each, but he is not troubled as we are when a spirit leaves a body and enters into the kingdom where his perfection is fully realized, for the failing body must be cast off before the limitless spirit can appreciate everlasting life. Our time on this earth, then, simply gives us the opportunity to seek and find God, and to accept his love and surrender to his generous love and all its benefits. It leads to action, but the actions are secondary to the foundation of submission on which they are based. That is why even the religious community—which is comprised of humans born into the consequential muddle of the culture of death—frequently missteps and acts according to their old nature, but since life and wisdom are a gift of God, we who are his are free to accept his grace and correction and proceed under the promise of life—the new covenant. Jesus gave us the new beginning by which we are no longer bound by laws or subject to death, for after the body dies, the spirit is united in the new kingdom of heaven, where death and pain and suffering, and wickedness and evil have no hold, for then our thinking will not be muddled and our vision will be complete.

Back to Haiti, then, or to death in general; the God who laid the foundations of the earth, and sees it through to its very end, is not limited by death, and so may not have any reason to stop it. Indeed, even on large scales it is promised to work into his ultimate plan. And so when death comes, he will be there to comfort those left behind with glimpses of his plan, with reminders of his mercy and the perfection of his will. We will all die, and it is a testament to love and the bond of the spirit of God—the light within us as each was created in his likeness—that we still grieve over the natural consequence of having gone astray from his perfect creation. But we can take comfort in knowing that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (It naturally follows that everything works against those who oppose him; that is not a mean-spirited or vengeful thing—it is simply a natural consequence.) Loss of life is tragic in human terms, but may be softened—or at least dealt with—when processed with the added perspective of the spirit world that is not subject to it. 200,000 dead is sad because one dead is sad. The math, the concentration, the sheer magnitude are human elements that do not so much effect the scope of the universe. The human tendency is to assign value judgments on life, and someone dying in an accident or homicide, or of disease, is felt to be less acceptable than someone dying of old age, because they perhaps still had more to contribute to life. But it is for God in his wisdom to know how each life—and death—fits into his perfect plan, and it is for us to trust him and accept his comfort as each life plays itself out. It should never be seen as God turning his back, but rather as God allowing his creation to proceed toward its redemption—however hard it is to comprehend—and offering his resources to guide us through it. We tend to think anything painful or difficult is “bad”, but that may only be our perception based on the limits of our understanding. He does not always promise to give us immediate answers, because we are not always advanced enough to grasp them; but he promises a peace, which transcends understanding.

Keep this in mind later on when we discuss how liberalism is rooted in the old way that leads to death, as opposed to conservatism being steeped in the new way of grace and light and life. That's coming soon.

Moron Health Bill - Last Ditch Attempt To Stop It

2009-12-22T17:07:00.000-08:00

55% of voters oppose this healthcare bill (Rasmussen, 12/21/09). 60 Senators agreeing to it don't like it either. Were it not for concessions and backdoor deals, the American People would triumph and this horrible monstrosity would not survive. You cannot rhetoricise and hide behind state and district lines while blocking out the voices saying it's wrong.

NO ONE opposes health reform. NO ONE is saying do nothing. What we're saying is that this approach encroaches on the very freedoms and liberties that made America the single greatest source for good that humans have ever established, because people free of tyranny may freely give and wholly contribute according to their own abundance.

We have a President who has been vocal about not believing these things, and that is why his approval index is -21 in the first year (apparently a "B+" by his standards). He likes to say he inherited eight years of failure, but I'd gently remind you that he was one of the lawmakers during those eight, and all of you share responsibility for this collapse due to wild rampant fiscal and personal irresponsibility--and utter lack of accountability. During the debates last year, Obama said that America was "a source of good"—“a” with a caveat. He has consistently apologized to the world on our behalf for all the harm we've done. His equally yoked wife was speaking his mindset when she proclaimed that she had never before in her adult life been proud of her country. His longtime pastor voiced that same mindset when screaming "God damn America!" Obama has said "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He acknowledges that what you are doing is nowhere within the Constitutional framework, which he considers "fundamentally flawed". He acknowledges that our forefathers were trying to protect us from an overreaching and intrusive government, and he considers it a shortcoming. How many times have you heard him say "Only government can..."? Days before the election he proclaimed his intent to "fundamentally transform" America. On 12/21/09 he ended a speech by saying "That's the kind of government I intend to implement." Those words--the totalitarian mindset behind those words--should be startling. A President swears to uphold the United States Constitution, not implement a new one.

Where do you think you fall within that framework? Once liberals have reshaped the legislative powers, what will our country look like? Who will control who? Who will have the power? Once government has taken over all financial and health matters, established itself as the regulator of power and electricity, blocked religious influence and regulated media.... will we be a free nation then? Will Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" function the way his labor union activists do to bully and intimidate--to coerce--to advance whatever unpopular change he wishes? (55% oppose this healthcare bill, I'll remind you.) Would Rahm Emanuel or any Chicago-style politician hesitate to use this if at his disposal? What if just one wrong man finagles his way into office? Who keeps those powers in check? Who stands up for the individual against a unilaterally powerful government? This is what our forefathers understood as the greatest threat, but this is what you are allowing "progressives" to establish. This course will result in tyranny.

If any among you have a shred of decency left, an ounce of courage, a single brain-cell of intelligence or the slightest sense of the implications of what you are allowing to happen--indeed what you are complicit in if you vote yes despite overwhelming public objection--now is the time to be a hero. No one is opposing health care or health reform, no one is saying the pre-existing condition clause shouldn't be dealt with, no one is saying there should not be assistance for those who cannot afford coverage--to characterize opposition to the bill in such terms is a despicable propagandistic lie. What we are fighting is a framework that ultimately strips the nation of its sovereignty and freedom, and leaves in its wake nothing short of a dictatorship.

It's easy to dismiss this as sensationalistic and write it off as conspiracy. But ask yourself if you've felt pressure from the top down to get on board with this agenda... or else. Think if the Administration has said "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." Consider the deals and concessions made to push something everyone knows is horribly flawed and against public will. Ask yourselves why. See if there's a pattern. Consider what certain people you know intimately would do if they had all finances, healthcare, energy and media at their full disposal. Consider if you know to be true that Washington changes people--even good people--and if you have seen with your own eyes that power corrupts. While justifying the war in Afghanistan while accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama said "Make no mistake; evil does exist in the world." So who defines what that is? Does he decide? Because I remember a memo saying right-wing extremists and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers were a potential threat to government. This is in keeping with sentiment throughout "The Audacity of Hope", which is hugely biased against Evangelicals, essentially blaming them for the ills of society. Wasn't George Bush the very definition of evil to Obama? Would Rahm Emanuel, with all agencies under his control, allow me as a conservative to object to the Administration's policies? Or is it possible my bank accounts might be suspended, or my medical treatment be denied ("unnecessary", I think would be the word), or my power restricted? Would Al Franken allow me to speak, or would I have to fall in line to have my life reinstated? Obama frequently says no one will be "required" to do anything they don't want... but the system will compel you to "choose" the government's way. How many who will vote for this bill actually "want" it? Not 60. No way in hell.

Let ME be clear. The policies we're seeing are agenda-driven by the opponents of freedom, the co-conspirators against liberty. Even where they are purely motivated, they are grotesque distortions of our founding principles. It is not the job of government to regulate our lifestyle, but simply to protect our freedom to pursue it. We should be accountable to each other, but responsible for ourselves. We should be free to be innovative and charitable, free to exercise good judgment and to reap the benefits of goodwill. What we need now are heroes to stand up at this most critical moment, to uphold the integrity and remarkable heritage of the greatest government mankind ever established, to rescue it from the cancer of liberalism and those who would destroy it. It only takes one, but the more the better, the clearer the statement. Be a champion for liberty, an advocate for freedom, and the embrace of a restored America will sustain you through the retaliatory efforts of the few and powerless.

Everything you cherish is vested in freedom. Now is the time to earn it.

Open Letter to the Senate, Re: Health Reform, etc.

2009-12-15T10:00:00.000-08:00

Dear Senators,

DO NOT PASS THE IRRESPONSIBLE HEALTH REFORM BILL THE FAR-LEFT WANTS!

I don’t have time to keep vigilant watch over everything you do there in Washington. It is your responsibility to apprise us and listen to our response, then act on our behalf. We, the American people, believe we have been clear in our opposition to any Health Reform bill that leads to a public option or single payer system, anything that translates personal views toward abortion into public funding (and therefore mandates), anything that costs more than the available resources, and anything that establishes a precedent for an increased governmental role in regulating our individual liberties as a citizenry. If you have heard anything contrary, it is the contrived, manipulative propagandist effort of self-seeking unions and liberal activist groups… but it is false. Do not believe for a moment that Americans want government to increase its own role and power, and fund the effort with the guarantee of debt for our future generations, and subject personal liberties to ever-increasing regulation that can only be in the interest of powerful self-serving bureaucracies. What we want is for Washington to stop awarding itself our money as if it were an entitlement, stop redefining our collective morality through legislation, and stop acting like we are dependents incapable of making our own decisions and incapable of innovation. It is condescending, offensive and flat out wrong. We are the American people, citizens of the greatest nation to ever exist, and you have the great honor of serving us. To treat that honor with anything less than dutiful reverence is inexcusable, and will not be tolerated another term.

I’m tired of being disappointed by arrogant, self-congratulating name-droppers, escorted around on private jets to lavish publicly funded offices and secret meetings and dinners, living exempt from their own standards and justifying their irresponsible lifestyles while overlooking the spirit and merit of self-sacrifice and servanthood. The Washington elite will earn our respect with no less than moderation, thoughtful consideration and fiscal responsibility, or each individual who falls short of our expectation will be removed from office shamefully, and live out their days in disgrace and public scorn, an embarrassment to their associates and families, illustrations of the ruin of misguided choices. Whoever allows the extremist leftists to push their reckless agenda will be held accountable in public forums for their part in the deterioration of liberty, and will be left friendless and jobless when the tide has turned back to the sensible management, and the innovators and reformers who once again champion liberty and freedom restore America to the great ideal it was before all the muddle and compromise of an expanded government.

Step back and let the people rise up with solutions. Check your egos at the door and serve your country in humility and self-denial. Do not push this agenda on us after we’ve repeatedly said no. History is not made when further laws are established, but then liberty is advanced. We’re watching you—hoping you can’t be bought—waiting to see which course you choose, whether you have the courage to stand up to tyranny and coercion and the intelligence to not be manipulated by propaganda. Consider carefully the implications of your decisions this term, this season, because Obama’s symbolism and appeal has worn off, and our very freedom may hang in the balance. Recognize the lessons of history and be a hero for the republic. Stand firm with the moderates who see common ground with their more conservative colleagues, and resist the temptation to sell us out to the highest bidder. We don’t give a damn what you’re offered or what district you’re from; your legacy and your children’s heritage rests on what you commit us to as a sovereign nation under God. You’d better be damn sure you stand for the highest ideal.

These Tedious Old Fools

2009-12-08T14:35:00.000-08:00

Tsk... Tsk... Tsk. I'm so tired of liberals without common sense. They are so tedious.

The Creepo faction network of Working Asses is drawing my ire particularly at the moment. First let's uncover what they really are. It's a phone company, for those of you unaware, that provides service to liberals with the promise of supporting progressive liberal causes. A fraction of the money the mindless subservients pay them, we are told, is donated to liberal causes. I click-click-clicked through their website and affiliates, and yes, they are liberal to a fault. The "ABOUT US" page begins with, "We're the only phone company calling for a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture committed during the Bush administration." So they're still on the water-boarding thing, which is not a crime, and though unpleasant, is also not torture. Then click over to see who processes the donations and you find your contributions delegated out to another company, so your contributions are not listed in your statements, and I assume are therefore not particularly traceable, since the money goes to a "doner-advised fund" which the company who handles it has "exclusive legal control" over. Which means, you have no guarantee it's going to who you "recommend". And anyway, they take 3% of each donation. So, yes, it's capitalism at its finest. Even so, the leftist, activist hippie CEO appears a worthy figurehead, as she's obviously a loon in line with the extreme Democrats' talking points. They value all of the things that demean a nation, and deteriorate and degrade a society--all the little nonsensical actions and attributes of depraved minds. Whether or not they're sincere, I don't know and don't care--other people can take that up (like this guy: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_852.shtml, or perhaps a Watchdog will look into them and alert Beck). I'm not as concerned with whether they're preying on gullible, non-thinking drones as I am concerned with the damage the ideology will wreak. I do however find it off-putting and annoying what accolades they give themselves, crediting themselves with and congratulating their customers for things like: abandoning coal power, changing what type of plastic retailers use, raising wages, setting mandates for the auto industry, increasing solar power, decreasing hand-gun use, keeping life advocates (which they call "anti-choice activists"--but I'll do a whole piece on that later) away from death advocates, legislating insurers to mandate covering birth-control (which opposes and weakens a conscience clause and ultimately violates personal liberty), setting costly mandatory regulations on utility companies (yes, the very ones powering the computers by which they do all this), and banning a flame retardant. As of this writing, they're working on getting the H1N1 vaccine away from bankers (you know, the people who touch all the money we use), pushing for a public option (code for government-run healthcare, which leads to rationing no matter what they say), trying to strip ex-Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman of influence for being sensible, blah-blah-blah... something about pesticides (those things that protect crops), something else about regulating internet (which, by governing, has the opposite effect of what their campaign states, rendering it then subject to the Federal government, thus weakening and ultimately destroying competition and making it a potential and appealing tool of propaganda), pushing for legalizing gay marriage (which ultimately criminalizes expressions of religion and removes the liberty our country was founded under--again, something I'll devote more to later), and pushing for the globalization (under the guise of environmental responsibility) that leads to a one-world government (thereby subjecting all to a single ruling body, and, incidentally, setting the stage for the antichrist). These things are so blatant and basic I shouldn't even need to say them, but there you have it. Liberals don't even realize that by fighting for humanism, they are fighting against the only hope that brings about effective and lasting change. Which is why I have a hard time not considering them morons.

The Creepo network send out texts (for which there is a fee) whenever there is a liberal campaign wagon to jump on, urging calls and action when there's an agenda to push. I seem to recall a little something about Obama not giving up his Blackberry when he was elected, and sort of wonder if that has anything to do with it. Take note, Senators and Representatives, that liberals are far more organized and efficient in this capacity because they have nothing else to fill the void in their empty lives, and so devote far more to activism than we who actually have to step away from something meaningful to respond each time you proceed with something stupid. It's safe to assume that for every liberal you hear from, there are over a hundred equally as passionate moderates or conservatives that you'll answer to later. We know you do those rushed secret meetings under the radar because you know the backlash disclosure would have.

Anyway, this company is just one of many companies/collectives/groups/networks... whatever, blindly operating without perspective or discernment to forcibly compel the destruction of the very values they think they promote. They say "Stop killing animals!", but it's okay to kill babies. They say "Everyone's voice matters!", unless the voice disagrees. They say "Gay marriage is a civil liberty!", but worshipping God is not. They say "End Capitalism!", but redistribute the money. They say "Trust science!", but deny the God responsible for it. They say "Respect a woman's right to choose!", but don't hold anyone accountable for their choices. They say "Affordable healthcare for everyone!", but raise the cost and eliminate competition--and criminalize not purchasing from them--and do nothing to address necessary rationing and diminished quality. They say "Peace is patriotic!" and "No more war!", but call for a "civilian national security force." (WTF?) They use union ties and tactics to intimidate. These little groups get together and feed each other platitudes and make themselves feel good about fitting in, and praise each other for all the wonderful things they're accomplishing, while not realizing all of it is bosh that leads to enslavement. They are the devil's property, and don't even realize it.

Dingleberry Reid compared opponents to his insane version of healthcare reform to advocates of slavery, forgetting that it was the Republicans, guided by Christian principles, who ended slavery. We actually have considered your brand of government, you arrogant imbecile, and are attempting to keep America from slipping back into slavery of a different form. A government-run ANYTHING institutes an organization of fallible and corruptible persons with the power to act unchecked and unbalanced in their own self-interest. Just look at Congress, look at the Senate. The fact that neither party can even unify within itself shows that it is outside of the human condition to ever agree when there is opportunity not to. The fact that each of you think you are responsible for and accountable to only your district, and that you need only to elicit enough votes with bribery to overcome that massive obstacle of public will, shows that you are incapable of acting in the interest of the principles that made our country great. You are entirely out of touch, entirely hypocritical, and entirely derelict in your sworn duties to the nation. You are meant to advocate for your constituents, not be their pimps and madams. You have each become your own special interest group, ignorant of and contemptuous toward the liberties of the individuals who allowed you the post.

I say we rewrite the rules on districting so that you HAVE to hear from us outside, whose freedom you jeopardize with each posturing maneuver. I very much doubt, after all, that the pet projects you commit to are wholly funded with your own--or even your own district's--money. Last I checked, the government has no product or export of its own, has no capacity of sustaining itself without withdrawing from the bank of its working-class populace. It is not independently capable of implementing anything it pledges. Which is why I find it so stupid a premise that we need to take more money from anyone in order to thrive as a people. The more I give you, the more you squander, the more you pledge, and the more debt you rack up on my behalf. Congress, the Senate, the White House all claim they can solve our woes with just a little more money for each new proposal. They're throwing s*** at a fan to see what sticks. It's messy and smelly, and it gets everywhere, and it's all bad. And it costs much more to clean up the mess.

Thank God for Lieberman and the Blue Dogs standing with Conservatives to stave off the train-wreck clusterf*** on its way. If you extreme liberals weren't so blind, you'd recognize the unpopularity of your ill-advised campaigns and understand that the moderates among you are the only chance you have of ever coming close to an acceptable solution for anything.

It's particularly annoying when you present your s*** bills and ideas as being "on the right side of history", as if you're offering some pot of gold and can't understand why anyone wouldn't take it. No one opposes health care reform. No one opposes reform in general. No one opposes cleaner energy, or efficiency, or equal rights or civil liberties, or social or environmental responsibility. Sexism and racism never even enter our equation--we're so far past those that they're not even issues. It's not anything personal, other than being irritated when you can't hear or speak reason. Our issue with you is that every agenda you push ultimately violates individual liberties and freedom, establishing a supreme ruling class with absolute power and control. It is not conspiratorial to acknowledge that absolute power corrupts absolutely, nor to take precautions against tyranny raising its ugly head in America, or even once again in the civilized world. Your failure to recognize this is your handicap, but your reckless pursuit of a liberal agenda endangers us all. Therefore, let us no longer perpetuate the fallacy or allow the misnomer that these people are by any stretch of the imagination "progressive". Liberal, yes. And as everyone knows, moderation is the key--too much of even a good thing becomes detrimental. The liberals will end up regulating themselves into an impossible pseudo-reality, having painted themselves into a corner, and will end up with less than they ever had or could have fathomed... broken, utter failures, screaming for help from the systems and principles they decimated and defamed, and longing for the days of old when people were free.

I guess my point here is, Senators, Congresspersons, Mr. President and Cabinet Members... back off. Do what we elected you to do, and no more than that. You are not our saviors, you are not our gods, you are not our families or bosses or physicians or spiritual leaders, not our financial advisors or the heirs to our estates. It is your privilege and honor to serve us, not a level of success you've earned. You are not entitled to make our decisions for us, whether it be how our money is spent or how we elect to live and die. You are not the keepers of all wisdom, or our benefactors--you are fooling yourselves to think otherwise. You don't "earn" the money you take from us above and beyond what is necessary for defense of freedom and the promise to pursue life, liberty and happiness; and we will not forget if you give any back that it was ours to begin with, and we will not believe you to be anything but scourges and leaches until you've proven otherwise. Do not proceed with careless agendas in order to save face based on arbitrary timelines promised alongside blatant lies and willful deception. Don't think you're passing some wonderful "reform" by redefining America and revising your own roles in opposition to the desires and best interest of the people. Don't give in to the perceived pressure because you're afraid of not being part of something falsely portrayed as some breakthrough. Obama pledged to pass cap-and-trade, and a single-payer healthcare system, and was genuinely shocked to find Americans don't want either of those things, just as he was shocked to find that war is an unfortunate reality when your enemies don't value life or liberty; we gave peace a chance, and were rewarded with murder. His narcissism and etherial ideology blinded him--as happens with all extremist activist liberals--to the harsh, but redeemable, realities of life, to which he may slowly have to awaken as his approval and celebrity status disappear and he has to make real, unpopular decisions. Don't suffer that decline with him, or tumble to that same fate.

Know that any Senator or Congressperson who enables these horrible, horrible ideas and policies to take hold will be marginalized as a cartoon and unrelentingly campaigned against until removed from office. I will personally create art and merchandise that parallel the left's treatments of Bush and Palin, and I will not be silent in opposition to any effort you make to push a liberal agenda out-of-step with mainstream America. And I will do this all in my free time, with a smile on my face. It's fun for me to respond to such fodder. I am but a simple artist; ask Obama about the power of art.

Where Liberalism Comes From And Where It's Going

2009-11-17T21:32:00.000-08:00

We need to make a distinction here. We do not oppose the administration's agenda because we hate Obama, as the liberals (and the man himself) presume. Rather, we intensely dislike Obama because we oppose the administration's agenda. The agenda came first; he is just the disgusting little package it comes in. No, this is not about Barack. This is about every "progressive" ideal the far left hold up and worship in place of God.

I need you to consider the end game for a liberal. What is it they so passionately and forcibly attempt to advance? What compels their campaigns of attempted marginalization, suppression and intimidation? In fairness, I'd love a response, but understanding both human nature and the spiritual realities of the gospel--prophecy included--I know I shall not get a satisfactorily articulated case.

The liberals think they stand for goodness, that they are the "progressive" ones trying to clean up the dirty details of life, left over by us big bad, self-serving, prudish, hypocritical religious right types. Their perception is that our issues with their "ideals" are driven by greed and "misinformation" and fear and misunderstanding--that we just do what we're told and blindly accept things science disproves. How they arrived at this--how anyone with a rational thread could not simply by questioning dispel--I don't know. I suspect it is as 1 Corinthians 2 says:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"—but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

So liberals do not understand us. They are confounded, utterly flustered when confronted with anything outside their limited sphere of knowledge or human perception or argument. That is why they consider us domestic terrorists, grave threats, or simply evil, and so quickly default to simpleton charges like “racism”. That’s why Leatherface Pelosy can stand with Bitch “Call-Me-Senator” Boxer and Dysentarry Reid in condemning their more reasonable colleagues with fluffy catch-phrase-laden talking points, and never be held accountable while thumbing the eyes of the mainstream with blissful, willful ignorance.

“Aha! See that mean-spiritedness!? That’s so typical of conservatives!” No, it isn’t. That’s me answering in kind with the language those hypocritical idiots have thrown around to distract from facts and play on people’s innate desire to fit in and be liked—which is why all of Obama’s “advisors” and intimate friends so value and rely on propaganda, and admire those who have effectively utilized it. They are in fact still relying on a swell of public good will to perpetuate a groupthink mentality to encourage resistance to report things that might shine a negative (though accurate) light on who their vested interests elected. Media is still negligent in its passivity in not pursuing stories that might make reelection a challenge, because no one wants to admit they made a bad decision, and no one wants to turn on their own guy when they’ve staked their reputation on him. Until the affront is egregious and undeniable, they’ll stand by their man like a battered woman turns away cops after a domestic dispute. In the meantime, there’s a lot of potential for abuse.

How am I able to say such things? How am I not proof that conservatives are the phantom menace in sole opposition to all the good that could otherwise be done? Because I know where liberalism comes from. And I know where it’s going.

Liberalism is deceptive. It appears to have all the answers and know just how to get there, and it believes in a utopian end where there is no conflict, and everyone lives in harmony and mutual respect, and everyone defines their own happiness without ever infringing on that of another. Where they think fallibility plays into it, I’m not so sure. I have trouble believing they’ve thought it out well enough to account for instinct or natural inclination before the point when achieving “perfection” necessarily translates to denying yourself for the sake of others.

Think of it this way. In order to have perfect peace, we must all agree 100% with all others; anything less—even one differing opinion—is faulted, and leaves room for upheaval. “No, no, no!” the liberal says. “We can have our own reality as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” Wrong again. If someone’s subjective “reality” is not absolutely true, its existence and adherence harms the truth because it diminishes its power by limiting its expanse. If a thing is true, it is universally so, and must therefore apply universally. A subjective truth is not a truth, but a perception or belief, and a perception or belief that has abandoned truth is an imperfection because it is either delusional or deceptive—so utopia is broken, and we arrive back in a fallen world. There is either truth or no truth. If there is truth, then there is absolute truth; if not… I can’t even continue, because to say there is no truth would—unless it were a falsehood—be a truth, so reason does not allow otherwise, only insanity. I prefer not to base arguments on insanity, so let’s stay away from that.

Is there an absolute truth? Yes, because to even articulate a case against it requires an absolute premise. Can it be known? A good many people will say no, but that is impossible. If there is truth, there must be evidence of truth, which establishes a certain order, which can be observed. Observation is processed with analysis, so there is necessarily reason, so the truth is impacting everything it touches with its implicit nature, whether we grasp the minutest details or we don’t. For there to even be reason or analysis or systematic approach suggests that we are intrinsically inclined to search. Curiosity must have a basis and must therefore be connected to the truth, and it is therefore in a sense our conditioning to acknowledge it. This is the whole duty of both science and religion—to understand and express our connection to truth. This is the root of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives know that at the end of searching lies the truth of God, and so freely submit to his wisdom. Liberals innately sense the same (since they are in fact tied to it by their own existence), but choose to live in denial of its wisdom, and instead go to great lengths to drown out the blaring voice of God in their ears.

You’re thinking it’s a leap I’ve made bringing the discussion there, so let’s see a practical illustration. Let’s begin with the national education program CHARACTER COUNTS! According to this curriculum, there are Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. What could possibly be objectionable about that? These are all good things. Yes, they are. But let’s compare them to the Fruits of the Spirit laid out in Galatians 5: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Do you notice anything? I’ll help you out; The Pillars of Character require you to adhere to a set of values (in this case set forth by the Josephson Institute of Ethics—or more accurately by the “ethicist” who wrote and continues to sell his booklet “Making Ethical Decisions” alongside the White House and Ralph’s sponsored program) that are “not political, religious, or culturally biased.” That raises an interesting question. If not political, religious or cultural, then who is defining the ethics? In order to suggest that it is possible to be unbiased in these areas regarding ethics, you are implying that a universal ethic exists that supersedes all three factors, thereby placing a value judgment on, and assigning a governing role over, each. That can only be possible if in fact the universal ethic is completely reliant on and in complete compliance with the absolute truth we discussed earlier. So the question is who’s defining the ethic? It is based either on a perfect truth or on an imperfect untruth. “Well it seems good, it must be truth, right?” Not unless it is 100% good, and in order to be so, must be 100% corroboratory with absolute truth. Why does it need to be so extreme? Because one must always rely on the BEST option when there are more than one. Do multiple-choice tests not always instruct you to choose the “best” answer, acknowledging that there may be shades of correctness for alternates that at the end still deduct from your score? Liberalism is fraught with these “lesser” options that may still have nuances of truth, but if in the end they are not the absolute best choice, the result is still imperfection. So what is the alternate?

By contrast, notice that the Fruits of the Spirit are actual qualities, not tenets that require concerted effort, but rather byproducts resulting from understanding things as they are and framing your decisions with that wisdom. The lead-up to the passage is:

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

If the entire law is summed up in “Love your neighbor as yourself”, then why are there so many other laws? The other laws are to govern the sinful—those not led by the Spirit—for those led by the Spirit no longer gratify their sinful nature, but instead display the Fruits of the Spirit. The most glaring and significant omission then from the Six Pillars of Character is that there is no love (and by extension no joy or peace). And as we all have heard at weddings from 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The problem, then, with liberalism is that it is well-intentioned, but imperfect. It points in the direction of truth—which looks appealing, and often fools people into believing it is the absolute truth because it is so very close—but with a deficiency. Liberalism in most forms denies God as the absolute truth, while trying to maintain the order his creation set forth; it attempts to answer the question of origin by removing the data from its context and reconfiguring it elsewhere to a predetermined model. It has access to enough puzzle pieces to see the picture (to know and believe truth), but stubbornly refuses to place them where they belong, ramming them instead where they don’t and slapping away hands attempting to correct the misplacement.

This approach to governing is problematic. Good cannot be good enough unless it is perfect, so we should strive for perfection. Law never leads to perfection, but only to more criminal behaviors and more imperfection. Just consider how lawmakers continue creating punishments and incentives to push society in certain directions while at the same time offering the argument (for same-sex marriage and marijuana, for example), “They’re going to do it anyway.” It is very clear that laws cannot be kept, and are not even necessarily rooted in truth, but rather on ever-devolving popular opinion. Instead, whoever lives by the Spirit becomes the kind of person the law is attempting to create, but does it using love and free will instead of punishment and enslavement. What most conservatives understand is that you cannot create a perfect society without acknowledging the absolute truth of he who created it, and you cannot properly govern if not under the complete and absolute wisdom the author of truth in his grace provides. It is because we know this that we will not settle for less than perfect, and it is because of this we know that perfection comes only in the redemptive hands of God, who is truth and who is love. We will not avert our eyes from the truth and allow liberalism to replace absolute with subjective truth, because “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”

We know these things. We’ve taken them to heart. That is why we know that no plan claiming to be ethical, while dismissing the power and authority of the creator, can be anything but entrapment. That is why we know that an increasingly secular government will be increasingly hostile to liberty and detrimental to freedom. This is why we know that the liberal agenda’s cries of “reform” mask an insidious intent to increase power, and why any health bill to come from Washington that includes a “public” or “government” or “single-payer” is really a power (and money) grab, so that ultimately the “modern progressives” can impose their brand of imperfect untruth on the masses, led by jealousy an hatred under the guise of ethics, community involvement and the like.

The imagined end result for a liberal is a perfect world of tolerance and coexistence, but it is at odds with the absolute knowable truth of the gospel of Christ, and in the end it will be “one world under man” in a religion of globalism opposing Christ and his followers, because the gospel will never compromise truth to insanity or the consequences of imperfection. The efforts you see to globalize and become “world citizens” is designed to ultimately criminalize and wage war (with intended genocide) on the religious fanatics who will be the sole holdouts viewed as the only impediments to peace (although the global unity will be a false front and will not last). Indeed, this hatred and rhetoric has already begun. Just watch MSNBC or listen to an Obama speech.

The devil won’t look like a goth when manifest. He’ll be as he was in the garden, provocative and sensible, alluring and deceptive. He doesn’t care who you worship as long as it isn’t the God he opposes. Anything less than perfection is his, so all he needs to do is distract you from absolute truth long enough for you to implicitly deny it. You can wrap it in any logo, program, catchphrase, terminology, cause or philosophy you want, as long as it isn’t the true God of the scripture. Liberalism is the result of both deception and willful rejection of truth—for which there is sufficient evidence to believe—but it is appealing, because it has an outer shell and packaging that looks like how we’re supposed to look, and promises that mankind can get there together through our own efforts and through relying on each other. Conservatism is the result of seeing mankind for what it is, and trusting that God provided the way for redemption according to his word. Liberals add rule after rule after rule and are enslaved by their own inability to keep them; Conservatives live freely by the Spirit and grace of God. Liberalism is the attempt to usurp God’s authority, and merely establishes itself as its own religion—which is idolatry. It takes ethics and makes them its own. It takes charity and service and makes them its own. It takes character and responsibility and claims it is the source. It takes the environment and says it is the keeper. It now takes even health and says it is the sole physician. And, dear God, does it ever take resources!

I have a drinking game with myself where I take a shot every time Barack says "only government can...", which is actually the only way I can get through a full presentation of his self-adulating smirk, his arrogant spewing of metered rhetoric void of substance. I'm too responsible a drinker to have it be every time he blames America for something or misinterprets our founding documents. There's a limit to what I can take.

More Singing Praises... Religion In Schools?

2009-09-24T11:01:00.000-07:00

This morning I emailed the Principal and Vice Principal of the school said to be the source of the viral video of school children singing Obama's praises last June. Perhaps this is why so many had a hard time with him addressing school children. Perhaps this video, and the older similar ones of children singing his praise, led by... let's say... enthusiastic adults. Perhaps it's this sort of thing that caused us concern when Yosi Sergant tried to use the NEA as a political tool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

To: dking@burltwpsch.org; czulla@burltwpsch.org

I'm certain you're aware of the viral video posted on FoxNews this morning that is said to be from "B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J." While I can appreciate that there may have been a good intention of involving children, this display is in poor taste and does not sit well with some parents who might already be concerned that there may be a slight educational bias--possibly even approaching justification of claims of "indoctrination". If my children had been involved in anything like this, they would promptly have been withdrawn from the school. A case could even be made that this has religious overtones, since a line is borrowed (in a sense blasphemed) from "Jesus Loves the Little Children", as is the tune of the deeply spiritual "Battle Hymn of the Republic", and I hope all who orchestrated and allowed this--even if there is some unknown context--are scrutinized and held accountable.

--

Duckling Washer Banalogester

Joe Wilson vs. ACORN, and the 56 Refounders Who Can Stop It

2009-09-16T14:24:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how the media has favored Joe Wilson's outburst over ACORN's rampant internal corruption as a story, causing even Jon Stewart to finally crack at the absurdity. It seems people have missed the nuances of language that allowed Bill Clinton to get away with telling untruths to the nation. While it was disrespectful, Wilson's blurt was not as far as I can tell explicitly prohibited by the rules of the House. Had he simply called out "Liar!", that would have been a direct charge, and as such more likely prohibited, but in fact he called out "You lie!"--not a noun, but an action, so it is not a personal attack, but a statement of provable fact, as all fair analysis shows that in some cases Obama's words do not ring true--that they are intentionally deceptive. While the timing implies the act of lying was in correlation to the misrepresentation that illegal immigrants might benefit from the plan in question, he did not say it outright, and as such, a case could be made that "You lie!" might mean other, less obvious things. One could take it so far as noting that "lie" (just as "is" did for Hill-Billy) can have more than one meaning, and so even if one believes the president has never intentionally deceived anyone, the statement in and of itself is still true, as I'm certain the president has reclined horizontally in the past. That is ridiculous and extreme, of course, but I have a feeling if the tables were reversed and it was a democrat in the hot seat, some blogger with too much personal investment in the scenario would stretch for such a proposal, and the like-minded would latch and suckle.

No, the clowns who suggest there is more animosity toward this president than the last--particularly the imbeciles who see color in this instance--are so clearly blinded by their own biases that their selective memories are tantamount to the clouded haze of a feeble elder in decline, like that poor delusional Jimmy Carter. It was no more racist than Obama calling Kanye a jackass, no more racist than filling administrative positions with a minority of any distinction simply to appeal to a demographic (Sotomayor, for instance). It is less racist in fact, than suggesting skin tone had anything at all to do with a passionate objection to a bad idea. A racist would lack the humility to voluntarily apologize. That ridiculous charge was put forth by his opposition to try and unseat him in the next local election, then propelled by fringe leftist outlets who need to stir a manufactured scandal to deflect actual news, idiots grasping for straws amid tanking ratings.

The liberals will continue to prefer such menial, pitiful, insignificant moments get overinflated as distractions for their typical woe-is-me victimology, to appeal with baseless emotion, hoping to squelch honest intellectual debate, as they cannot compete in a world of rational design or deductive reasoning. Charlie Gibson will leave stories like ACORN to the cables, with their fancy technology and real-time coverage and analysis, and remain content with his small-minded elitists regurgitating ad nauseam the party's talking points in the hope that repetition might make it true, but knowing deep down that there is some elusive POINT they keep missing.

I hope the 233 Democrats and 7 Republicans who passed a resolution of disapproval remember this feigned outrage the next time around, when it's their guy in the crosshairs. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." We'll be there to remind you when you have to hold your tongue through another Bush.

I do find it interesting that the president is frequently undermined by just an average, literal "Joe". He is the hero and lapdog of the unions (perhaps even their bitch?), and in that role has forgotten--if he ever knew--what a free American really is. He narcissistically presents opponents of his plans as if they harbor some personal agenda against him, failing to comprehend that they can actually be adherents to principles of liberty, and his union backers brutishly advance the charge. That is where the liberals choose to dwell, overlooking all the while blatant corruption such as was evidenced in the ACORN tapes. Even Congress could not ignore such--ACORN themselves could not ignore such--but the slipstream media (I call it that, Bernie Goldberg, because they are now reactively pushed and pulled along by stronger vehicles) sticks with their blissful, arrogant ignorance.

Glenn Beck is calling for 56 "Refounders" in our government to lay politics and self-interest aside and reshape our nation, based on the 56 men who originally shaped America. The premise would never fly in Obama's world, because the left don't believe in the power of the individual, but only in the collective efforts of the brainwashed, over-regulated army of subservient drones. I'm reminded of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 where Abraham interceded for the city by asking if God would spare it for the sake of 50 righteous people, then bartered down to 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, then finally 10. For the sake of 10 righteous people, God was willing to spare Sodom, but he could not find even that many, and fire and burning sulfur rained from the sky. If Beck can't find his 56 uncorrupted Refounders, perhaps there are 45? 40? 30? 20? Are there 10? When an entire industry and over half the country diverted its eyes from the corruption of ACORN in the name of political correctness--if not driven to do so by agenda--it took two twenty-somethings with a hidden camera to bring the organization to its insincerely penitent knees. That is the power of the individual. That is the innovation of free Americans. Obama, according to his own frequently repeated mantra, trusts "only government" to fix the ills of society, as defined by... Obama, of course, and his "advisors" (of which, sadly, I don't appear to be one, and neither do you unless you are a radical, self-vowed communist or representative of a PAC). We The "Tea-Baggers" believe in something else. We still believe in the power of one.

Noah and his family were spared when God flooded the earth in punishment. Lot and his family were spared when God burned Sodom and Gomorrah. I know that I too will be spared, and perhaps you will be too, but wouldn't it be nice if we could find enough righteous to give the country itself a second chance? I think 56 is enough.

Obama's Worldview, As Spoken To School Children

2009-09-07T10:03:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Mr. President, for cheering me up. I had a few good laughs.

I was fair. I waited to read the text before weighing in, but your "inspiring" address to school children reveals more about your bleak personal views than liberals will let on. Yes, I understand that the purpose is to encourage everyone to do well, but just look at the starting point, and tell me it isn't sort of beginning with the assumption that most kids are ready to give up, that they all face seemingly insurmountable adversity, that the odds are all stacked against them and life is just so unfair! Right off the bat, in Obama's world, no one wants to be in school. Life is terrible, everything is a chore, but it's our duty to just deal with it, do what we're told--I'm sorry, asked--in order to make the world better. I love the middle section, where it all turns into I've done this, and I've done so-and-so (all talking, by the way, no actual accomplishment aside from speeches--rhetoric, some might say), but you have a responsibility to do what we say so the world can be a better place. Ooh, and I love "Maybe you could be a good writer--maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper...." Yes, those geniuses in print media are fantastic--not just anyone can get published! I love how he elevates education to godhead, guaranteeing you cannot amount to anything without it. (Apparently Michelle's hard working parents' only success was sending her to school so that she could amount to something. I wonder if Zeke and the science and health czars think they should've just aborted her and focused on bettering themselves instead, so that they too could be productive members of society!) I love how he suggests the rich and successful people on TV--the rappers, the athletes, the reality show stars--have not worked hard (or that, at least, no one perceives them as hard workers), that staying in school is harder, and that even if one of those is your calling, your dream, "chances are, you're not going to be any of those things." That's a far cry from the "you can be anything you want to" kind of speech I grew up hearing; it kind of muddles the message of writing your own destiny. But I guess it IS in line with his belief that "No one's born being good at things." There is certainly no divine hand at work with a specific plan for an individual life. It is certainly in keeping with his agenda to universalize--yes, to socialize--all aspects of life, because, after all, you can't have a few bad apples spoiling the bunch!

I do find it interesting, though, that he references a brief history of America without overlooking the revolution and subsequent history of war, since he campaigned on such an anti-war platform, and is attempting to expand government to the point that individual liberties are subject to the larger communal--even global--good. One would think if he were cognizant of the true history of the America brought about by the founding documents, he would be a little less dismissive of the masses resisting his increasingly intrusive and controlling grip on our property and persons.

Is there anything inherently wrong with a president addressing school children? No. Is there something broken and troubling behind the first family's (and their administration's) mindset that assumes they are the victims of some phantom villain, that their "community"--their bedfellows, peers and associates--are automatically entitled to be on the receiving end of the redistribution of possessions and powers of an established system in the name of "justice"? Yes. This is an extension, an elaboration of Michelle Obama's (his counterpart and compliment, to whom he was equally yoked) sentiment that she had never been proud of her country before her radical husband became the Chosen One. It's an illustration of their long-time pastor's hatred of "God damn America!" It's the lens from which the president's intent is clear to those honest enough to search for the soul of the man; IT IS YOUR DUTY TO BE WHAT WE WANT TO YOU BE! I'm actually a little surprised that the liberals who used to be for diversity and individualism latched on so forcibly to the conformity necessary for global socialism. I guess if you're too open-minded, everything falls out.

Oh, and be sure to wash your hands a lot, and cough into your sleeve. Thanks, Mr. President.

Fox News Didn't Make Me

2009-08-14T11:38:00.000-07:00

So the White House under this Orwellian Obama Administration has fallen further into demonizing anyone who questions or doesn’t agree with the Socialist Left’s ideas for Health Care and Energy Reform. The calculated effort has pushed forth with the theme that all dissent is “mis-” or “disinformation”, that it is disingenuous and led by a “certain news organization” that’s out to get him, the one responsible for all those tea parties he knew nothing about, the one making people interrupt town hall meetings with fake anger over things they just don’t know enough about, making it almost impossible to get through the talking points. Clearly the public overwhelmingly supports life’s most important decisions being made by people who vote on bills they never read, committing billions of earmarked taxpayer dollars to vague programs they know nothing about in hopes that the details will just flesh themselves out later. Why, that’s money the over 40 and growing new, unelected, unmonitored, nontransparent czars will probably end up overseeing—you know, the shadow government Obama’s creating with the unions, financial institutions and private corporations whose influence the public is largely unaware of. This concerted attack hoping to label and marginalize dissenters as crazy right-wing extremists, as a tiny radical fringe, as unintelligent racists or mobs of dangerous domestic terrorists… this entire effort is orchestrated by the Modern “Progressive” Socialists who embedded sleeper cells within American government and work with armies of union drones to unwittingly propel their plan to disarm, dismantle and remake America into something… let’s say unconstitutional, at best. The reason the top Democrats and White House spokesholes—with the help of their cronies in the piss-stream media—are able to think up this scenario, this delusional world where actual protesters do not exist, is that their campaigns have increasingly relied on such tactics to fake their way into office. The extreme Left—who are currently in power—are masters of propaganda, and will do or say anything to spin the narrative in their favor. The great failure of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party at large was that they took an honest approach and considered it a moral high road to avoid the practices of influencing public opinion. Perception is everything, and that is why the Obama package sold, because loyal legions trusted Oprah’s President-of-the-Month Club selection. It was one of those compelling ad campaigns everyone talks about but no one knows what the product is. Obama won because he had a cool logo, because the media made him a symbol to which each could assign their own meaning, because the voting public—the uninformed masses who can actually name the cast of The Hills, or can watch marathons of Parental Control—took a break from texting their American Idol choice between Perez Hilton postings and swallowed up the manipulated content they were fed, and found it unnecessary to delve any further into the details or implications of anything the man said or demonstrated a pattern of adherence to.

Let me be clear about the upswell of passionate Americans standing up for their liberties, because I’m tired of the suggestion that Fox News or the RNC—or, now, even pharmaceutical companies—give marching orders, and “uninformed” “astroturf” marionettes simply fall in line and lob personal attacks at our brilliant visionary leader and his inner echelon to mask the truth with fear mongering. Fox News DID NOT create conservatism. The RNC did not create conservatism. Nor even did the Libertarians. The “Tea-Baggers” and Town Hall “Mobs” ARE NOT the dim recruited conservative fringe equivalent of the deceived ACORN and SEIU activists, funded organized union members who regularly show up to disrupt peaceful exercises of free speech and democracy with brutish intimidation tactics borrowed from the playbooks of imperialistic dictators. We exist because our forefathers believed in freedom. We exist because we have tasted the richness of its merits, and seen the great success of its simple principles. We are spurred to action because in both word and deed this President and his intimate associates have committed to “fundamentally changing” the most perfect political framework the world has ever known. We are emboldened by the arrogant incompetence of our elected officials, and we foresee the destruction it will bring. We are offended. We are outraged. It was not Fox News or the RNC that created us—it was the blatant corruption of our most esteemed offices, the deteriorating senses of those who were once in touch with reality, but are now abject failures. We are proud of our heritage, and we will restore the Republic in the same manner and with the same spirit with which it was founded.

It is disgraceful, the manner in which this President has carried himself. He has built his empire on false pretenses and overstated manufactured crises, deflecting and misdirecting blame for false demons, creating enemies that do not exist, encouraging fear and retribution, dismissing alternate viewpoints and perspectives and refusing reasonable discourse. His legacy is built on a myth, on a conspiratorial caricature of the previous administration—extended by association to his former rivals, and by further extension to their supporters, thereby demonizing the very Americans he’s claiming to rescue. The current administration, the current leadership, has abandoned their talk of “bipartisanship” to become the most divisive, the most arrogant, the most blatantly unrepresentative and unapologetically hostile to the blue collared hard-working men and women it swore to serve, creating instead a rekindled class warfare between political interests and human interest. It is indecent the way our leaders attack anyone who approaches their haphazard plans with caution or concern, anyone who does not foolheartedly embrace their destructive patterns. They are trying to ram ideas and policies down our throats they’ve not looked into for themselves, and are indignant when we ask for the courtesy of consideration. They single out and blame individual patriots for citizen unrest. They would rather believe—and persuade you to believe—that Rush and O’Reilly and (my personal favorite) Beck are spreading untruths and being unfair and negative, and that if we would just stop listening to the evidence of their own words, we would understand and agree.

I will never agree with the Liberal mindset that a totalitarian elite can make better decisions than free individuals. I will never accept a power-hungry bureaucracy that places value judgments and restrictions on human life and assigns levels of worthiness and merit according to contribution, and bows to unions, special interests and Political Action Committees irrespective of the wellbeing of the Republic. Their way honors power over liberty, subjugation and enslavement over freedom, punishment and brute force over responsibility and good faith, humanism over holiness, and ultimately death over life. Whether many of our leaders and representatives grasp the magnitude of this will not hinder our efforts; the battle is ultimately good verses evil, and we will stand firm to the end for what is right. In the meantime, we will not be dissuaded by media wars, nor blindly accept the manipulative propaganda the Houses are hoping to deceive us with. The MSNBC ilks’ ratings will continue to drop as the fizzled sportscaster Olbermann drifts further into delusional obscurity, and what appear to be bitter she-males Maddow and Garofalo--I can only assume--continue trying to attract each other with their vain failed attempts at comedy/political discourse. (Hey Janeane, the president is half white… the Black Liberation Theology half doesn’t bother me as much as the white Socialist half…. At least Conservative women are pretty—far better to represent true “feminism”--Conservativixens, I call them.) Until a revamped “Fairness Doctrine” attempts to impose that type of buffoonish commentary on us, we will continue to watch, read and listen to whatever outlets report “fair and balanced” facts and actual news, rather than ignore or sweep embarrassing snafus or damning evidence under the rug to protect biased personal investments. The Liberal leadership would do well to understand that Fox News and conservative talk radio did not create the demand; they responded to it. They set up a platform and allowed us to engage and freely speak. They listened, bound into a scrapbook our loose notes and photos, organized and articulated our views, and presented back to us a realistic portrayal of life as we live it, and for that, we thank them, and for that they have an audience.

This president approaches our nation’s highest office like a reality TV celebutard, focusing on infomercials, talk shows and cameos, fake, orchestrated “Town Halls”, photo ops and teleprompted speeches, delegating responsibilities to a shadow government of unvetted Socialist czars who share his disdain for the foundations of this greatest nation on earth, who salivate at the impending implosion they’re setting up with campaigns of mass redistribution of health and wealth. I’m inclined to think of this President kind of like MC Hammer (minus the pastoral ministry), hiring all 300 of his ideologically challenged campaign advisors as his posse or entourage of czars—“Please Obama, Don’t Hurt ‘Em!” (I expect the same sort of tragic end; the Democrats will do well to jump ship before he goes gangsta and loses what’s left of his credibility.) Their way—the “community organizers” “modern progressives” and union activists—WILL LEAD TO rationing; whether conceivable or not, it opens up Pandora’s box, and under the guise of “the common good” the allure of supreme unchecked, unbalanced, unrestrained power will ultimately strip Americans of the fundamental rights our founding fathers established. When the White House does something stupid, unconstitutional and—if not downright illegal—at the very least unethical, like asking the public to send them email and websites that seem “fishy”, which I assume means anything that casts their plans in unfavorable light; I say we respond. I say we submit back to them every choice clip Linda Douglass considers compelling evidence that all other video, audio and public record of Obama and his pals saying something contrary are somehow “misinformation”. Look, Linda darling, saying one thing in a highlighted speech means nothing if he’s already spelled out the lie in another. I say we send them back their own words as “fishy”. I say, my fellow Conservativixens and Conservativillains, we utilize every one of their campaign tactics against them, like the ghostwriter website the big “O” had while running that submitted talking points disguised as op-ed pieces to all the major news outlets; that would’ve been an excellent tool to submit our own counterpoints, but alas, the McCain camp wasn’t savvy enough to catch on—that lukewarm moderate didn’t even have his own bogus seal or embroidered seatback cover on his jet. Lucky for Obama the Christian nation was torn between Huckabee and Romney, so the Republicans ended up with no-one’s first choice, and even still carried him pretty far.

My friends, my heroes, my fellow Americans, stand firm, stand tall, stand proud, but for the love of God and country stand. Never let them take your voice, never let them take your hope, never let them insult your intelligence, stomp on your liberties or steal your dreams. Reach out to the Moderates and Independents, reminding them it takes a left and a right wing to fly—one without the other will cause a spiraling freefall and ultimate crash. Embolden the Blue Dogs with the charge that it is up to them to stop the insanity. It is the balance of power, the freedom of speech, the checks and balances and free exchange of ideas and the mutual respect of diverse individuals that made this country what it is and what it should remain. Do not allow a regime to take hold that places value judgments on life according to an arbitrary set of predetermined criteria—a kind of world that might never have seen a Helen Keller or Stephen Hawking; a world where, perhaps, an Obama contributor might be given preferential treatment over, say, a church pastor who gave his tithes and offerings to missions, with the justification that the political activist contributes more to the government, and thus to the nation. Contact every Senator (even “Senator” Bitch; you know who I mean—she worked hard for it!), contact every Congressperson, and any organization or individual that will listen, and tell them in no uncertain terms that you stand on the side of freedom, of hard work and reward, and that you will not tolerate or support any candidate, official or plan that threatens to cripple the framework of our sovereign nation. Keep the United States of America a melting pot, not a pressure cooker. Keep government in its place. Protect what you’ve worked hard for and invested in. Keep compassion and good will alive and value the pioneering American spirit. Tell Emperor Obama it is not his place to require our children to serve his agenda under a mandatory government program, not his place to establish in a free nation his own loyal Thought Police… I mean, KGB… I mean, SS… Gestapo… I mean, “Civilian National Security Force” to serve as his army of henchmen; that there are outlets of service and mission work that do NOT have the seductive inbuilt potential for abuse. Conservativixens, Conservativillains, Blue Dogs, Moderates, Independents, Libertarians… stand together now, before it’s too late, to restore the Republic. Show this Titanic, this Hindenburg Administration its folly. If they “punch back twice as hard” as they’ve said, respectfully push back seven times harder. Respectfully make them listen. Use blogs, use art, use communications and media, use music, use comedy, use merchandise and stickers and signs and use the power of your vote! Stay informed, and inform others; engage everyone who will hear. We cannot afford rashness, but we cannot afford inactivity. Be gracious, but forceful, and you will not be alone; just do what you can, and encourage those around you to do the same. Believe in the American Dream. Believe in redemption. Show this administration where HOPE and CHANGE really begin—not in Chicago and not in Washington, but in each individual whose heart is touched by the peace, love, grace and understanding of God.

This land is yours. This land is my mine. Assert your rights and lay claim to it. God is with you, and I will be with you. Let’s support, affirm and make each other proud. May God bless you and your families, and may God bless the United States of America.

The Cap-And-Trade & Single-Payer Travesties

2009-06-27T00:18:00.000-07:00

Well now they've done it, haven't they? The misnomered House Of Representatives has passed The Socialist Messiah's cap-and-trade bill (Waxman-Markey's H.R. 2454) 219-212... EIGHT of whomwere Republican. For those of us keeping score, they were Bono Mack, Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, David Reichert, and Chris Smith; please take a moment to inform them of your displeasure at http://www.house.gov/. So now it moves on to the Senate, where Barack will personally bully the elite into a very bad course of action, that once it has reached full momentum will devastate not only our fragile economy, but the very structure that allowed him the liberty to do it. In his own prophetic words, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Hmm, so don't you think we should take a few moments--say, even the five days promised on the campaign trail--to allow people to actually read and possibly even discuss the implications of such a plan that Harry Reid says is "not perfect"? Is that not perfect as in the stimulus bill that neglected to forbid or even minimize executive bonuses, which our oh-so-competent government also passed without reading, then feigned outrage and deflected blame when it was a disaster? Because I would think that would be something we might want to be sure about, particularly as the scientific community is now trending against the "global warming" conclusions a vested Al Gore popularized (as evidenced in the shift in terminology to "global climate change"). The urgency may lead one to suspect that there is some alternate, perhaps even self-serving reason to stronghand this through before rational opposition can be explored.

God bless John Boehner and the majority of Republicans for their efforts in defending the will of the people, and a special thanks also to the 44 Democrats who stood firmly for what was right. Let's hope (beyond evidence) that the Senate has a better grasp of this weighty issue than the failing Halfway House of Congress.

Cap-and-trade--or perhaps we should call it "cap-and-enslave"--is a horrible, destructive idea that, coupled especially with The Overlord's "single-payer" health care garbage, will destroy America... which I will eventually argue is Obamoron's intent (until then, you can see what Alex Jones presents in "The Obama Deception", which I will also comment on at a later date, as it is only partially correct). Cap-and-trade begins with the premise of punishment as the driving force of incentive; it's the "do this, or be oppressed" approach that most of us identify as tyranny, the union mindset we tried to warn you of during the campaign. This is diametrically opposed to this nation's founding principals of life, liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness. The better solution--if there were in fact an environmental imperative to produce a better technology--is to arm the populace with knowledge, and incentivize with the promise of reward, as is in our nature to respond to. Our greatest advances in every field have come from enlightened individuals acting on inspiration and instinct, not by heavy handed mandate. What American institution would exist if not for freemen pushing on in the face of adversity to overcome their own tribulations and trials, the fruits of their labor then spilling into the communities they by choice served with their own good charity? What sort of tainted mindset is it that imagines individual citizens cannot manage without every detail laid out before them? Who the hell thinks that ever-encroaching legislation by flawed men can accomplish greater good than a people of faith acting on their own convictions? Who in God's name did we elect, if this is his course?

At the same time, the Obamonstrosity propaganda machine is ramming down our throats the Socialist Left's ideas of universal health care in a convenient "single-payer" package. Now what's that old saying...? "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." As with all other Liberal Democrat Socialist programs, they plan to give out fish--at my expense--to everyone, every day, without ever teaching anyone how to catch their own. Instead, they are taking ALL of my fish, pledging to feed me for life with a fraction of what they just took, and then charging me for the good deed they've done; because, after all, "fairness" dictates that if I taught myself to fish while others slept back at camp, it should be my responsibility to feed those slovenly mooches, while being forbidden to instead pass on the skill--perhaps by imposing very steep fines and labeling it "discriminatory". Furthermore, they suggest that to believe in instruction over redistribution of the product is a radical and crazy "fringe" belief that represents a security risk, and such loons are to be feared and mistrusted, for they clearly lack minds of their own... they should, in fact, not even have a voice.

Let's consider, then, the single-payer system--the model that has not worked anywhere that Robert Gibbs could think of when asked. We are being asked to believe that high costs in health care are because not everyone has access to it. No really, that's an argument... think about that. Or it might also be because there are not enough restrictions in the system, or possibly because corporate greed is encouraging unnecessary treatment. Or it might also just be veiled racism. All arguments I've heard. Really. But what if the cost has something to do with the fact that no one is denied services if they simply show up in an emergency room unable to pay, regardless of citizenship? What if the cost is somehow affected by superfluous lawsuits or disproportionate settlements? Or--God forbid--what if the cost is even somehow in part funding research that might lead to revolutionary advances? Let's just consider for a moment that practitioners may have actually--at great cost--subjected themselves to years of thorough and intense training, making enormous sacrifices to attain some level of success. Let's consider the commitment and devotion and personal investment in our well-being... but then let's turn around and second guess their discretion, then let's subjugate them through legislation and by becoming their singular source of income. It's almost as if the government wants to bring everyindustry under its total control. Which is weird, because I seem to recall The Big O saying the United States government had no intention of running GM or taking over the auto industry, but then proceeded to dismantle and--as with other industries--subject it to a "czar", a hand chosen entity loyal to him, yet operating outside the balance of power our forefathers established. And doesn't that seem oddly similar to how he "saved" the banks? Hmm... it just seems so... so familiar... like maybe we've seen such restructuring before.

Oh, and about the czars; I'm curious how anyone thinks those have a place in American government, but I digress.

Let's get back to this idea that we as a nation are obliged to distribute our resources evenly. The Liberal charge of guaranteed "equality" rings hollow; we Conservatives understand that they do not actually believe in it as an ideal. If they believed in it as an ideal, then the same principle should be applied to other areas--let's say sports, or entertainment, or even politics. If there should be salary caps on businessmen, there should be salary caps on football players or talk show hosts or news anchors, and if there should be equal pay for every office manager, there should be equal pay for every quarterback, or for every golfer or every journalist--it should not matter whether one attracts more fans or followers to the franchise than others. If "fairness" should be a standard, then there should be no awards shows for movies or music, since it unfairly validates one person's art over another's, unfairly encourages sales to companies that may have chosen differently than others what sort of entertainment to fund--and indeed, to even things up, government should probably fund that with our taxes as well. There should be no critics or reviews, since they give an unfair advantage to subjectively deemed "superior" productions, and can be tainted by influence. There should be no advertising, because it unfairly biases people toward one product over another. There should be no scores in sports, and stats should not be tracked, because the playing field can then favor one team over another--in fact, team members should all be given the same result so that there is no unfair or nonuniform judgment of merit, which could possibly be found offensive and maybe hurt some of the players' or fans' feelings. There should in fact be no individuality, and everyone should be equally as famous, and everyone should have the same job with the same guaranteed results regardless of the effort put forth, so that no one can complain. And the same should carry over into politics; if one network gets exclusive access to the president, all networks should. If one candidate gets 98% positive coverage, the opponent also should. In fact, there should probably be no elections at all, because such divisiveness as it causes is just not good for our country. There should be, in a "fair" and "equal" society, no variety or options or personal preference--and doesn't that sound lovely?

Do we really think anyone in America adheres to this? No. Not even the unions. At least not for unselfish, purely ideological reasons. So what is the other option? Why else would a group attempt to advance such absurd notions? The only thing left is power. The Socialist agenda is power-driven, as no individual can truly innately believe that individualism is inherently corrupt--otherwise they would take a less abrasive approach when met with disagreement, exemplifying surrender to opposition in the name of the common good. But that is not how resistance is met. No, Socialism is designed to rob the individual of free will, of choice, and can therefore never succeed when there is originality, when there is discernment, when there is even so much as a question, or a suggestion of doubt, and in the absence of such skepticism, one can be wholly surrendered to absolute possession by pure evil if it exists. If there were any possibility otherwise, the creator would have designed it so. But for the true supreme justice that accompanies perfect love, man must have free will and be fitted with reason and empowered with the faculties to try, to fail, to experience consequences and adapt accordingly, and thereby experience the full spectrum of humanity in order to ultimately, intimately understand life. America was founded on this understanding, and our forefathers intended the governing powers to protect without interfering, knowing the allure and dangers of unchecked power, knowing what tyranny springs from the limiting of ideas and stifling of discourse.

America has lived in freedom for so long it seems to have forgotten its benefits. Those whose ideologies stand in contrast to this cannot prevail when subjected to analysis, to mere reflection, and with this fear the Obama Administration is attempting to remove your liberties and enslave you with debt and the empty promise of easy money and evenly distributed--but unequally warranted--resources. What good are the resources if there is penalty to use them? The Administration wants to tempt the hungry with confiscated fish, and lamb, and vegetables, and shelter, and fire and water, so that no one ever learns to fish, or hunt, or garden, or build, or cook or heat or swim; because then... then there would be no use for them, and they would have to learn such things and fend for themselves.

That is the philosophical argument, but what about the practicality of these two policies in particular--cap-and-trade and single-payer health care? How did the House of Reprehensibles manage to find eight Republicans stupid enough to sign on? The Obamelitists are trying to say the energy bill is just so ground-breaking and urgent and progressive and essential that tiny concessions like a measly raise in energy costs will be so minor that we'll hardly notice. Now, you remember Candidate Obama saying costs would "necessarily skyrocket", so they're trying to soften that by saying that all the other programs and incentives and nonsense they're going to put in place will turn around and inject new money from all the new "green jobs" they're going to create and spread that around to the people to minimize the effect. Let me ask you when, ever, has a government program worked that way? No, not only will they not make enough money to approach covering the burden of the new taxes, but even if they did, when have Democrats ever given money back to people without stipulations? When has the government ever had a surplus without squandering or channeling to interest groups and unions, or when was the last time our debt was not astronomically multiplied, and the responsibility not pushed onto our children?

Or let's consider single-payer, universal health care. Your anointed cult leader Barack thinks increased government involvement and regulation will save money. But--even if that were possibly true, which it is not--what would we be trading in? Universal health care under a single-payer system, brought about by heavy taxes, means that there is necessarily absolutely no limit to what the government can require in order to implement the system. Should demand go up, taxes must go up. And if taxing can't garner enough, rationing must occur. Obama has already said that the government would need to consider how every dime is spent, and make tough decisions on what to fund and what not to fund. On what planet, then, knowing what you know of human nature, would those decisions not be impacted by political consideration? If government becomes the sole arbiter of how limited resources are distributed, how can anyone believe those decisions will benefit anyone other than government? We then get very quickly into playing God, making value judgements evaluating human life by a set of arbitrary standards under the guise of a "greater good". Let me just ask you, do you trust this government with that? Are you willing to take that chance? Because, I swear to you, once you've surrendered your liberties for that pipe-dream, it will take a revolution to get them back.

This Is Who's Protecting Us?

2009-04-15T07:26:00.000-07:00

I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Administrative Staff Server: President Obama, what should we do about these "Tea Parties"?

Barack Obama: Uh... uh... why? Uh... uh... what do you think the damage will be?

ASS: Tax protests on tax day? With how we're spending? I think you could lose points.

BO: G-d damn it, why don't they like me?!

ASS: Um, I don't think it's personal, sir. I think they like Capitalism.

BO: Why would anyone like Capitalism? It isn't fair!

ASS: I'm with you, sir, but they're a bunch of extremists.

BO: Okay.... here's what we do. Uh... uh... have DHS release a report... a "assessment" about rightwing extremists maybe becoming violent... something about how discouraging times and the economy, and about how me being the first black president... how they're using all this stuff to recruit, but that it's... uh... uh... uh... that it's coming from white supremacy groups, and... uh... like... modern-day Nazi kind of groups. You have them "leak" it like, uh... two days before the tea parties... where conservatives will pick it up first, so that when mainstream media gets it, they can say, you know, we weren't even going to cover it, but theymade such a big deal of it that we have to set the record straight.

ASS: Should we get ACORN and the unions involved?

BO: Now, you let me deal with that. For the record, ACORN is never officially involved in anything, okay? They operate completely on their own, just doing what's best for their communities, okay? I have nothing to do with them... officially. Uh... uh... you just... uh... make sure this "report" gets out... maybe write on there how it shouldn't go to media outlets, so it looks like a real threat, you know? That'll make a lot of those folks nervous enough not to go. And then, if there's a real turnout... you know... uh... uh... we might just see, you know, some examples of that rightwing extremism getting violent, you know? It'll be just like those Palin rallies, you know?

ASS: But definitely not ACORN and union infiltration... I got ya'. So conservatives work up the story, and then there's this kind of paranoia, and then media sets it straight, and then regardless of the turnout, we show how all these right-wingers are a threat to national security, and that lets us push tighter legislation and builds support for your civilian army. Yep, it's good....

BO: Get the teleprompter ready... I should give a speech so there's less coverage of the parties.

Granted, I have an imagination. But I read the DHS "report" that came out. You know, the one with all that "OFFICIAL USE ONLY", "should not be released to the media, the general public..." nonsense. Really? DHS can't keep a threat assessment from the media? Please! I'm a little dismayed some of my fellow conservatives swallowed this. Yes, they were justifiably outraged, but they should have seen the potential that this ridiculous document might be nothing more than propaganda, poised to taint the tea parties with an absurd thread that has nothing to do with the issues.

When I first heard conservative radio report that the Department of Homeland Security released to law enforcement an assessment that "Rightwing Extremism" is a palpable threat, I checked FoxNews first, then CNN, then MSNBC. The first had a knee-jerk reaction, and the latter two had a noticeable lag time while trying to be sure they could tie it to the previous administration and show a conservative bias in taking issue with the conclusion. I read the "report", and found it at least non-substantial, if not altogether speculative and unsubstantiated. An "assessment" is basically an editorial, and as such I was left with the impression that it was written in one sitting by an individual whose primary occupation is blogging. I can not bring myself to believe that my safety is in the hands of any organization that could release a document so poorly crafted and easily torn apart. Which led me to consider the timing, and the media's reaction to the release.

On election day, in the early afternoon, I got an automated call from an unknown number saying something like "Breaking News! Early reports have indicated that Barack Obama's lead in today's Presidential race is insurmountable, and by all accounts he is projected to win today's historical election." (That's a paraphrase, as best as I remember--they probably wouldn't have used such a big word as "insurmountable", since that's more syllables than his entire campaign platform.) For those of you not from a blue state, that's a union intimidation tactic, meant to discourage potential opposition from voting. That phone call reinforced my disgust with the man whose campaign website had a section devoted to mass submissions of cut-and-paste talking points to the nation's newspapers under the guise of "letters to the editor". It's manipulative and dishonest, and should be unnecessary if a campaign is based on merit.

So, let's tie these things together. Obama is manipulative. When he perceives a threat to his influence or an objection to his views, he does whatever is necessary to squelch it. (I'll make this case on a more thorough basis some other day--the material is there, waiting.) You will see an increasing effort under this administration to break any opposition--not resist, not address, but break--because a strong position will survive on its own, but a weak position must be postured. And his is the weakest position I've ever personally seen. (To his credit, he at least has a position--most of the dupes who where fooled into voting for him did not, and that is why the country made the terrible blunder of electing him. But that's beside the point.) So, does the DHS really see the rightwing as a threat? Yes, inasmuch as any extremist is a threat, and conservatives would have done well to have noted that the subject matter was "extremism", and not jump to the conclusion that it was an attack on the right wing as a whole--we should in fact universally condemn any organization or "lone wolf" that might condone violence. More likely, the administration floated this worthless piece of garbage out to set up a framework to later hang fears upon where the misinformed can be fed a new lie--with all-new evidence!--where conservatives in general are equated with extremism of any sort.

Case in point? When CNN and MSNBC did finally run the story, the photos I saw were both neo-Nazi groups proudly displaying swastikas. Your subconscious emotional response is therefore directed to associate the term "rightwing"--which has always been synonymous with "conservative"--with "Nazi"--which is synonymous with fascism--and thereby vilify this administration's opposition. What's interesting to me, is that the neo-Nazis are actually pro-socialism, just as the modern progressives are. But I guess emotional appeals don't have to make sense. Clearly sensehas not directed much of America for quite some time. That is what this is about.

I am not a fringe. I am not a threat. I am a voice of compassionate understanding, tempered with wisdom and supported by history. The real threat is surrendering freedom to fear, entrusting a human collective to determine God's will. Our founding fathers knew this. Unless we stand strong, our children will learn it the hard way.

I Just Wonder About AIG

2009-03-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

I'm watching this AIG story unfold, and I'm just sort of wondering if it isn't possible that maybe the American public is being manipulated again. Yes, I say "again", because I am utterly convinced that the Obama Machine--or Obamachine--fooled you. You had all the information at your fingertips to investigate and decipher what sort of person this is, but chose to turn a blind eye so that we could all pat ourselves on the back and say "Look what we did! Look how accepting and evolved we are!" Fantastic. Way to go.

Anyway, isn't it interesting that Barack Obama would sign off on a series of bailouts to the very businesses and institutions he thinks are the cause of society's ills, the ones he campaigned on taxing and regulating into oblivion? They are, after all, those wealthy people he was talking about. Isn't it interesting that he would authorize the money, and then turn around and criticize how it was used, even though the contracts were already in place, already reviewable by his staff? It interests me that he had no trouble suspending or reversing much of what his predecessor had done in other areas, but somehow missed this detail, when fiscal responsibility was such a concern during the campaign. How is he able to miss that, and then act outraged that this thing he inherited was so mishandled, and then direct his people to do "whatever it takes" to get the money back (even if that is a 95% tax)?

I just wonder if it isn't possible that the bailouts Mr. President authorized were quite transparent enough, quite clear about what financial obligations would be met, so that the master manipulator knew exactly how to spin it when the details got out. I, for one, first heard about the sizable AIG bonuses from the President himself, which is odd for a man who normally sidesteps and sweeps under the rug potentially embarrassing issues. I wonder, then, if the handling of this doesn't just fit with the Obama Administration's active agenda to socialize America. I know, defenses go up whenever people hear that "buzz word", but look into the man's past--he believes in collectivism and socialism, and though taboo to speak it, teeters awfully close to communist ideals. Look the words up, look at his rhetoric, think through the implications of what he suggests, and see if you don't come to the same conclusion.

I just wonder if President (God, that still hurts to say)... if President Obama's appearance of outrage isn't just a little bit for show, so that the public will be outraged (as they should be, but not at AIG executives honoring existing contracts; the outrageshould be that taxpayers were forced into debt by a belief that unsuccessful business models can be "too big to fail"). I just wonder if our government isn't sort of hoping for a public outcry to further the divide between classes, to use the anger and emotional disconnect as a tool to manipulate the public to demand more intrusive regulations on the Big Bad Wolf of Capitalism. I wonder if this government isn't attempting to use the Have-Nots' dejection and longing to stir a demand for subjugation of the Haves by promising "distributive change"--or redistribution of wealth, thus indebting the lower class to its champion hero--in effect purchasing their loyalty with stolen money.

It's kind of a shame people fail to recognize in this class warfare that business owners are actually Have-Nots who have worked hard and succeeded, and afforded others opportunities to do the same; whereas the government consists largely of the Haves, who have only because they take, mandating that we give, yet are somehow themselves exempt from the giving. It's a shame people miss that, because in the model we're headed toward, everyone is subjugated; all are equally enslaved to a very powerful--in fact, ALL-powerful--government.

I wonder if that godhood doesn't appeal to this man who romanced the media. I wonder if that isn't what the man with the seal and the logo hopes for, if that isn't the change he believes in. I just wonder.

Conservative And Liberal Really Mean...

2009-03-11T07:09:00.000-07:00

Before I begin cataloging the consequences of our nation's recent blindness, there are a few things I should make clear, since not everyone shares the fortunate upbringing of having been exposed to wisdom throughout their formative years. I am the product of a learn´d man and a gracious woman, and as such was privy to an exceptional foundation of understanding context, humanity, and indeed life itself. I know where we came from, why we're here, and where we're headed, and so have no qualms relaying these things with utmost certainty. I do, however, sometimes take for granted that not everyone shares these insights, and consequently much of what I say will sound utterly foolish to a good many people. I don't really care; I'll continue speaking truth, and if the feeble-minded choose to catch up, they are welcome. Just know that I'm right because I'm not speaking for me, but for sound reasoning and logic, regardless of who it might offend. I'll not pussyfoot around the way our current leaders do, because no matter how lofty the rhetoric, if you're not saying anything, there is no reason to speak. (You should write that down, Mr. President--save your teleprompter crew some headaches.)

So, there's been a lot of talk recently (if you're reading this in any timely manner) of what is to become of the Republican Party, who it's leaders, who it's voices will be after so devastating a defeat. And by the way, when I say "devastating defeat", I mean for this country and by extension the world, not for one small political party, because I know where this is going. Let me say to you very clearly that to try and put a face on the Republican Party is impossible, and here's why. While the Democrats need a prophet in lieu of a consistent set of defining principles, Republicans are quite self-sufficient, and that is in fact the basis of the party; the more Conservative a Republican voter is, the more likely it is they are entirely capable of thinking, acting and speaking for themselves, because Conservatism is based in ethics and morality, which is handed down as a gift from a gracious and loving God, and no human can encapsulate that, though there are certainly voices who may at times articulate it. No person will be the face of the Republican Party, because you don't need a prophet when you have direct access to God. Who we tout, who we follow, who defines us and establishes our standard is the very God who created us as unique individuals capable of understanding and doing good, and knowing what is right and why. To fight Conservatism is to fight God, and it is very important to understand that; it is the glossing over this truth that has put us in this rapidly deteriorating situation--this current "crisis".

No one is in denial that America is in crisis, though most are faulting the symptoms rather than the disease. We are witnessing the collapse of the free country our forefathers loved and died for, what they did everything in their power to frame in a manner that would preserve the liberties they held most dear, the country that provided us the freedom to either thrive or self destruct. At long last, we've chosen to self-destruct, and it is clear to the trueprogressive thinkers why. The truth that many will not understand or accept is that real liberation, real progress, real healing and real freedom is only possible when sinful man submits to the correction--and therefore redemption--of the creator. The real conflict we have is not Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative, or any human collective vs. any other human collective; the real conflict is man vs. God. It is nothing new, it is as it always has been, but it seems that for the first time the balance is off, and scale is tipping alarmingly to one side, and we all run the risk of crashing down on each other.

In even suggesting such a thing, I just enraged even moderate liberals, because they can't stand for God to even be brought up; they think religion is the ultimate evil, because they believe it to be tyranny, oppression--ask them, I'm sure they'll say that's right. They are not capable of understanding, while under that shadow of misconception, that God is not some rigid old, stern disciplinarian binding people to impossible rules and commanding intolerance and hatred toward all who oppose, and that his followers are not timid, unenlightened zombies afraid of questions or challenging tradition.

We are, in fact, quite the opposite. We have been where liberals have been. We have questioned what liberals question, challenged what liberals challenge, and considered every possible implication of every core belief under utmost scrutiny. Why we then cling to these ideals is that we've moved on, progressed to the other side, come out of the tunnel with certainty and resolve, because there is bound to come a point when you find your answers in life and can therefore begin living. We are free--even when oppressed--because the spirit within us is whole and at peace, with itself and with its creator, and therefore with this temporal world. This is not a threat, but it is perceived as a threat to those who are in, or have not yet entered the tunnel, and that is unfortunately where most people live these days, where most of their decisions are made. There are a few of us with outstretched arms, ready to welcome whoever successfully navigates through the jumble of uncertainties that is immaturity, eager to embrace the enlightened, and screaming advice and direction into the tunnel, but it may just be too dark in there, and the honking and echoes too loud for many to ever find their way out.

This is the conflict we have in modern America. This is what people are resistant to. What I need you to understand is that when a progressive or liberal says "freedom", they mean "freedom from God", whereas when a conservative says it, we mean "freedom" with the understanding that it comes from God. You could easily replace "progressive" or "liberal" with "secularist", and "conservative" with "pious", and you would get a better picture of what is happening under this administration. Freedom to worship is under attack by people who misunderstand God, misunderstand his gospel, and misunderstand its effect. What is most unsettling to those of us who currently worship freely is that the one solution to all of these problems is the one thing this administration (and its subservient whore, the media) is demonizing and increasingly acting to diminish and restrict. Secularists are more evangelical in this regard than Christians, and that is why we are witnessing the failure and resulting collapse of democracy, because mankind will always fail when it attempts to elevate itself above its creator. Love it or hate it, this is just true.

Why Does Our President Like Death So Much?

2009-03-09T07:02:00.000-07:00

One of the first things President Obama--and I say that with the deepest sense of shame and remorse--one of the first things President Obama did in office was to make sure we the people of the United States were funding overseas abortions. Kudos, Leader, now we can spread our disregard for human life abroad! Strike one.

Shortly after that liberating decision, our beacon of hope and change saw to it that we also, as a nation, pour our money into embryonic stem cell research--even though there are equally, if not more effective alternatives that are not controversial, and do not involve destroying embryos. (I'm wondering if there isn't a bit of double standard for those within the "scientific" community who think humans came from animals, if it isn't slightly hypocritical to be against animal testing but totally okay messing with human embryos--I'll get more into that some other time.) In less than two months, this Administration has me wondering just how many underdeveloped lives my tax dollars will be responsible for ending. But that's not the point of this; there's kind of a deeper issue. Strike two.

One of the recent "stimulus" packages (and probably many other forms of many other bills) included a stipulation that a hospital or caregiver's treatments must be evaluated and approved by the federal government, which makes sense if you're the government looking to influence and/or manipulate life with the promise of--or threat of withholding--funds. But let's imagine the government run Health Care System has only budgeted treatment for one individual where there are two patients; the government then gets to make the determination of which patient is more likely to contribute positively to society, and which one should therefore live. If in that scenario one patient is a school teacher teaching evolution--but definitely not intelligent design--in a government funded school, and the other is a pastor of a church not eligible for government funding because it is a religious organization, I'm pretty sure the one deemed most useful to society will be the non-religious one--since religion is so divisive. Thus, we've given government the power to evaluate human worth, allowed people free of religion to set the standard based on... well, God only knows! Strike three--the third indication that our current President values something over life.

Generally, three strikes and you're out, but let's look back a bit, since hindsight is 20/20. Barack Obama, the man--the human--gained national attention, and indeed, ascended to the Presidency, on a platform of being, not anti-war but anti-Iraq war (although, we were never at war with Iraq, but rather with those for whom genocide and terror is encouraged or acceptable). He's proven that he's not anti-war by pledging an increased military presence in Afghanistan--likely to the dismay of the "peace" hippies who used to think he was a sort of god. (I will of course at another time deal also with the necessity of war, but not here now.) Though lost lives were cited, it was never pointed out that in the same period more Americans died in Obama's own Chicago as victims of homicide. Instead, his chief criticism continued to be the "high cost" of the war--and he was talking money. This picked up for him a lot of votes, a lot of people who thought government spending was out of control under the evil Republicans, and that the Bush Administration only cared about money (which is not the case; Bush actually cared about life.)

Why then did President Obama just jam the spending of trillions more down our throats? (I would like to say how many trillions, but by the time I post and you read this, I can assure you it will have risen astronomically.) It seemed like a lot when Obama kept harping on Bush's "three trillion dollar war". It seemed like a lot when Bush pushed for $700 billion to bail the country out of a self-inflicted financial crisis (something else I'll comment on later). Yet somehow that only scratched the surface, and Obama, with this new precedent, is ready to drill... mostly metaphorically. I think it's safe to assume, then, that "high cost" is not a real concern of his. Over time I'll explain his true intention, but for now, let's stick with this point that loss of life was irrelevant to the man who would become king. In pointing to cost (and by today's standard a considerably low cost) as a main reason to "end the war"--although that's impossible once you understand what the war is really about and who it is really with--our current President has made the judgment that there is a price tag to a life, and that there is therefore a magic number that defending it must not exceed, which is interesting since there seems to be no number that social programs and government spending can not exceed--just not the programs that defend the sanctity of life.

This is the core of our President, and this is why many of us are deeply troubled, and this is why anyone who's paying attention and thinks these things through should share our concern. There is something deep within Barack Obama that believes something supersedes human life. You as a citizen of this "nation under God" must determine, then, what his actions are saying he values most, because as it is said, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Our leader's decisions are based in a deeply rooted perspective, and unless we discover what that is, it will be difficult to keep it in check, which was a preoccupation of the Founding Fathers, understanding the negatives of totalitarianism on a subjugated people.

Closing Argument (Reposted Archive)

2008-11-03T00:23:00.000-08:00

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” -Charles Baudelaire

The euphoria will all be over soon. It’s amazing how few have caught on, or how many forget that every election is its own. Each has its historic elements, each its own promises, and each will ultimately play itself out until it’s no more than a historic side note to future generations. Yes, 2008 is an amazing year, one in which we will elect either our first black president or our first female vice president. To me, neither of those should even play a role in the decision, but that’s clearly not where the country is, so it’s appropriate that the camps have been so energized--though unfortunate they’ve been so hostile.

I’ve spent months now enmeshed in literature and blogs and articles and media coverage—I’ve gone so far as creating my own propagandist merchandise—and it’s taken its toll on my psyche. I’ve been at times excitable, irate, jubilant, inspired, cautious, scared and depressed. I’ve had nightmares that my guy wouldn’t win, and kept certain friends at a distance so I wouldn’t take up smoking again due to nerves. I’ve overworked my imagination to think I could have had more of an impact than I did. And I’ve agonized over not having done more, not having gotten involved sooner, or not having been somehow more visible and effective.

Barack Obama has run one of the strongest campaigns I’ve ever seen for anything. He became a brand name to rival any, beginning with having an instantly recognizable symbol—his logo, his seal. He’s made full use of the web and social networking, where his Republican rivals were not so savvy. He should be admired for just how far he was able to go. I will not—nor should anyone—diminish the inspiration he was to millions of people across the world. He clearly captured the hearts and imaginations of multitudes—particularly of youth. I hope his supporters walk away from this experience with a deeply personal application that will better their lives.

More importantly, though, I hope all are able to separate the man from the myth. It’s a beautiful story on the surface, but as with all stories there is another side, and there is a very real possibility that discovering it too late could cause irreparable harm. I hope all voters approached both sides with the same measure of skepticism and responsibility, but I fear the heavier stack of evidence supports the contrary. I’m afraid many may have been deceived. I have come to see most media as GHB for an unseemly element rising to power, beginning with the introduction by the queen of talk shows herself. The seduction of a nation began with her endorsement, and the flirting with the media has eased an enchanted people to bring home a guest they know nothing about.

I’ve spent months trying to figure out the appeal of Barack. I watched the Saddleback Forum, both Conventions, all the debates, hours and hours of coverage across the networks, and checked both parties’ websites almost daily to try and discern a message powerful enough to merit the free pass he’s gotten from most everyone but the Clintons and FoxNews, and I found no such message. My conclusion, then, is that people have fallen in love with the unrealistic idea that they are about to be saved from their own unhappy lives. People who are personally unfulfilled are swept into the emotion that redemption is at hand as long as they “believe”. But believe in what? Change? From what to what? And how? I need specifics, or else he’s no better than Santa Claus. So I listened, and here’s what I heard.

Barack Obama is against the war in Iraq. Yeah, we got it… you opposed the war when it was unpopular to do so, and therefore think you have good enough judgment to compensate for a complete lack of experience. I disagree. The war was not a mistake, and to publicly undermine it so immediately shows a naivety one should not tout as strength. It gave the enemy encouragement and ammunition that endangered the lives of our soldiers, and quite possibly led the sway from popular support to dissent which fractured our country and spilled over into hateful rhetoric and protests that emboldened the world—and yes, the terrorists—to more effectively oppose us. If a house divided cannot stand, it was the complaining from within that did the most damage to our military, when—with operations underway—Barack gave himself the authority to deem it “immoral”. Not questionable, not mismanaged, but “immoral”—to remove a dictator who was slaughtering his own people. That is staggeringly poor judgment that even Barack does not always adhere to; sometimes he downgrades it to just costly. So I would like to know, what is his monetary limit for a human life? George Bush—whom Obama seems to think he’s running against—said the war would be unlike any other, said it would extend to wherever terror and its supporters were found, said it wouldn’t end until the threat was eliminated; and he predicted people would lose patience—and he was right on every count. Yes, it was mismanaged, and John McCain was the loudest voice in opposition to the handling, but the war itself—the war on terror we are in, which has extended into Iraq—was the courageous and necessary response to the lesson learned on 9/11. On 9/10 no one thought there was an imminent threat they’d have their throats slit with box cutters the next day so that airplanes could be crashed into the heart of America. But it happened, and on 9/12 George Bush understood that we could no longer turn a blind eye to evil in the world, regardless of where it existed. The premise of the war was to preserve our nation and protect our citizens by promoting the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That Barack still doesn’t get that demonstrates the exact opposite of the good judgment he claims.

Furthermore, Barack chose gaffe-master Joe Biden—who may as well be campaigning for McCain—as his running mate over Hillary Clinton, who would almost certainly have ensured a landslide victory for Democrats. Obama sat through 500 sermons of a radical pastor with a hateful, anti-American rhetoric, only abandoning him when his political career was threatened. He sought out college professors who were admittedly Marxist to help shape his worldview, and did not break from their influence in his prime. He aligned himself with corrupt Chicago politicians, radically anti-establishment activists, PLO advocates, and when pressed for details simply answered—they are not part of the campaign. His own wife said during the campaign, when things were looking up, “For the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country.” These are not isolated coincidences; this is a pattern. These are his closest associates. Fantastic judgment, isn’t it?

Barack Obama is for universal health care. That sounds nice, but guess what? No one ever defines the extent of that care. Does it include full dental? What about teeth whitening? Plastic surgery? He wants to make it every employer’s responsibility to every employee. So does the employer then offset by lowering the wage? Offering fewer jobs? Hiring only temps or day-laborers? Is abortion covered? Would an employer then incentivize abortion so as not to lose an essential (and expensive) part of the work force to maternity leave and the associated costs of a baby?

Along those lines, Barack Obama is pro choice, to the extent that he voted against legislation to require treatment for survivors of botched abortions—like my old café customer, Gianna Jessen—because he was afraid it would undermine Roe V. Wade—again, placing higher value on a court decision than on human life. He once said, “Look, I got two daughters—9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” He sees a baby as a punishment, the equivalent of an STD, and values responsibility-free choices above human life. This echoes his sentiment that the war in Iraq is too monetarily costly, that there is some number which should be a cutoff (although he will not apply such restrictions to domesticgovernment spending). He is fond of quoting the death toll in Iraq, but never mentions that the homicide rate in Chicago alone is higher than that. Again, he is trivializing human life for political gain. He claims the treatment for abortion survivors legislation was unnecessary because the Hippocratic Oath would have required a medical professional to give the newborn care; but by that standard universal health care is already in place—at least in the case of life-threatening medical emergencies—so his push for a government mandate is bogus.

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses to help fund a proposed $800 billion in new spending, while insisting 95% of working Americans will get a tax decrease, even though 40% don’t pay taxes. I can’t even fathom where the ceiling is, to which businesses will simply find loopholes or shut down, kicking the burden back to… guess who?! By now we all know that he famously told a plumber he thought it was good when you “spread the wealth around”. It’s funny, he’s criticized George Bush for encouraging the same thing, only under Bush’s version of it, you at least ended up owning something. No, this goes to the very core of who Obama is and what he’s about. He considers it a failure of the Civil Rights Movement that the courts never ventured into “redistribution of wealth”. He considers it a tragedy that it lost track of “the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” That is his goal. He considers it “fair” and “patriotic”, and has gone so far as to say that disagreeing with that philosophy makes you “selfish”, while never suggesting the same of those wanting a hand-out. He fails to comprehend the effect of raising taxes even higher on employers. If he thinks trickle-down economics is bad, wait until he invokes crashing-down economics. He’s already said his plan would bankrupt certain industries—coal, for instance.

I don’t even think he really believes in fairness, though his Democratic majority may press him to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine, which is anything but. If he believed in fairness, he would have honored his public funding pledge. He would have pressed ACORN to register new voters in predominantly Republican areas as well. He would have accepted McCain’s Town Hall invitations or done right-leaning interviews. He would not have outspent McCain in advertising, but would have matched it dollar for dollar. He would not have bought up network time his rival couldn’t afford. He would not have guided supporters click-by-click through his website to cut-and-paste his talking points and submit them to local papers as their own op-ed pieces. He would have asked his supporters not to infiltrate McCain/Palin rallies with anti-Republican propaganda. He would have encouraged both sides to be heard. He would have elaborated about his relationships to known radicals and unrepentant terrorists. No, he seems to only favor the “fairness” that suppresses opposition and manipulates polls.

Trying to find more than that about Barack’s policies and positions is pretty boring—the download was 64 pages. I spent hours trying to whittle it—and the debates—down to some palatable form, but it was an exercise in futility. There was just a clutter of paltry details like forming databases and forming committees—stuff he could have done as a Senator without bogging down the highest office in the world. He goes on and on—eloquently, yes—but says and does very little. His repetitive history of voting “present” is a good indicator of his unwillingness to commit or jeopardize his political posturing. But through the ducks and dodges and sleight of hand to distract and get you off topic, it basically comes down to an essential unavoidable mindset, and it is this: Barack Obama thinks government can, and should, solve all of your problems. And we should all accordingly submit in the name of patriotism.

How did this philosophy propel him so far? How was a professed Christian able to avoid the usual scrutiny and stigma of religion and gain so much secular support? It has to be the message, because the messenger doesn’t seem to fit the bill. The message is hope, but the messenger is cynical. The message is change, but the messenger is familiar. He promises hope, but begins every speech from a glass-half-empty premise, unable to acknowledge (unless for expediency) when good is done that might contradict his positions. He cites thatJohn McCain voted with Bush 95% percent of the time, implying that our acting President is wrong 100% of the time, misleading when many of the votes where on things Democrats agree with. Barack promises change, but has never challenged the leaders of his party, whose approval ratings are lower than President Bush’s. He says he’ll bring the country together, but places blame squarely on the Republicans even though Democrats have been the majority for years now. He says he’ll reach across the isle, but has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and has suggested his Supreme Court nominees would need to have a more progressive agenda—it is apparently not enough to strictly interpret theConstitution, which he views as having “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers” and believes is interpreted as “a charter of negative liberties”, but he’d like the Court to go further into broader proactive government activism. He says he’ll be bipartisan, but begins every stump speech with “eight years of failed policies from George Bush” before launching into “my opponents” mockery and tirades. He says he’ll change the tone of Washington, but produces misleading ads and will not denounce personal attacks from his base; when asked to do so in the third debate, McCain called attention to the many documented times he’s stood up and defended Barack from personal attacks, Barack replied that polls indicated only one third believed he was running a negative campaign. (I wonder if that 30% corresponds to the 70% negative media coverage of John McCain?)

Why, then, with the choice so clear, has support for Obama/Biden seemed to outweigh support for McCain/Palin? I guess because our side doesn’t put faith in man, or in government, or even in the masses. We actually put our faith in God, who was and is and ever will be. We may not have been so vocal. We may not have been forceful. But we have been every bit as adamant. We have remained steadfast, hopeful and true. We have kept our integrity and stood firm against seemingly insurmountable odds. We have gone on with our lives. We’ve continued investing in our families, friendships and futures. I never got a call from a pollster. I never wrote to an editor. I never called in to a radio station. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a voice. That doesn’t mean we won’t be heard. Regardless of what happens, we’ll continue being a light in this dark world. Nothing changes who we are or what we do with the opportunities God gives us.

I don’t believe America is as bleak as Obama portrays it. I don’t see government needing to be some great equalizer because I believe everyone in this country gets a shot. I didn’t need a handout to make the most of myself, only the opportunity that freedom affords. We rely on charity and decency and goodness in this country to look after our brothers and sisters, not on mandates and over-regulation. For me, the clearest distinction in the campaign was in the Belmont debate: John McCain said, “America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world.” Barack Obama replied, “We are a force of good in the world. But…..” There is a huge, huge difference in those two statements. I want the guy who would die for this country to be Commander In Chief. America deserves nothing less.

McCain/Palin 2008 (Reposted Archive)

2008-10-06T01:58:00.000-07:00

So we drove an hour to Carson to attend a Palin rally on Saturday, but were turned away because it was full, so we stood for about half an hour outside the gate and watched Obamaphiles get kicked out. So yes, if you go to a rally, there will be a crowd of morons lined up out front, chanting, yelling and trying to argue--hoping desperately you'll acknowledge their presence--and there will be several sneaking in to take seats away from supporters; they wear an extra layer walking in, then strip down to thier anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin t-shirts and pins and try to be disruptive and just maybe get themselves on the news. It's the most pathetic thing I've seen in some time, I guess because I mostly hang out with responsible adults.

Why such hostility, why so condescending? Well, um, I'm pretty sure that's all liberals know how to respond to. They don't want to debate, they want to fight. They want to hurl insults like children and huddle into corners with the like-minded sheep who make them feel validated. The problem is that they're all the same--with one mind between them, there's no challenge to find any deeper truth.

I laid out an articulate case during the primaries on why I supported Huckabee. He didn't win, so the right choice for the General Election is now McCain, because he embraces a worldview that leads to redemption--drastically different than the worldview Obama embraces, which leads to enslavement (I'll show you how in just a bit). That's actually how Governor Palin entered so powerfully to secure the Conservative vote; she has the right mindset--it's as simple as that. Liberals attack her on the areas that don't matter because they have no perspective of what does matter.

I can hear some people yelling at their screens, so let's take a moment right there. "She's so dumb... she said she had foreign policy experience because she could see Russia from her house!" Uh-huh... um.... in even asking the question, Katie Couric clearly missed the joke. I got it on the first go around, and laughed because it was funny, but Katie Couric actually asked the governor to explain what was clearly a joke (which is why she stumbled--the sheer ineptitude caught her off guard), so who's the dumb one? It was the EXACT same scenario when Gwen Ifill "pointed out" that she asked what a Vice President does. Again, I got the humor when she said it--that it was a fucking joke--but apparently Barack biographers aren't intelligent enough to discern jokes (way to go, PBS). "Well, what about how she couldn't name a Supreme Court decision, or what newspaper she read?" Do you honestly believe a governor wouldn't be able to think of either of those? She was taken aback by what a profoundly patronizing question it was, and decided to answer philosophically instead. And again, liberals were quick to latch onto Charles Gibson's incorrect belief that there was a single, defined, universally accepted "Bush Doctrine", and assume that since she didn't seem to know what he was talking about, she must be an idiot. Turns out it was quite the opposite, as Charles Krauthammer--who coined the phrase--pointed out; the fact is there were at least four "Bush Doctrines". So why are liberals so desperate to believe Sarah Palin is stupid? Because even without the eloquence or grooming they so admire in Barack, she has a charisma that outshines his, that connects to far greater numbers (though perhaps less influential, since it's just middle-class America), and we know and trust that she understands how life works, which the well-oiled marketing machine behind Barack can never quite convey in him, just like the Democrats couldn't with Gore or Kerry--even less so now with all his questionable associations coming into sharper focus.

The visceral hatred I'll get for having written this, even though I'm just presenting my own beliefs on my own website, is another indicator that liberals are hypocrites and do not truly want what they claim to stand for. They're supposed to be the party of equal opportunity and tolerance, but God help you if your views do not align with theirs! Their "equal opportunity" really means "opportunity for me to take what's yours", and their "tolerance" really means "You must tolerate me--in fact you must agree!" This is the hatred we were greeted with by simply showing up to hear Sarah Palin talk. One would think that if Democrats truly believed in Democracy, they would want all sides to be presented equally, fairly, respectfully, and have faith (or whatever the agnostic/atheist/non-religious equivalent is) that truth (or whatever the agnostic/atheist/scientific equivalent is) would be on their side and they would win simply by the merit of the platform. Since that is not the case, since militant action groups like ACORN routinely participate in--if not encourage--fraud, since protesters resort to violence and vandalism--and other CRIMINAL activities--when they don't get their way, I have to conclude Democracy is not their cause, but the advancement of liberalism. This is why I'm increasingly annoyed with "Democrats".

John McCain and Sarah Palin understand life. They get the implications of things. They know that personal liberties must be protected so that people are free to seek the God of Redemption, who sets forth the example of how change for the better comes about. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the opposite. They think it's possible to mandate and regulate "fairness", that if they redistribute resources somehow everyone will instinctively know what to do with their allotment--or worse, that if people are not naturally inclined to meet the standard, they can be forced into it. A dangerously overarching and intrusive, failed Socialism is the only possible outcome of Obama/Biden's model, because once you begin mandating and regulating individual success and remove the incentive for ingenuity or drive, you will be left with a society with no action or re-action, without cause and effect, without consequence; and therefore no longer free. Our broken economy is a spectacular, specific example of this, as it is a direct utlimate result of ACORN's pressure--with the aid of Barack Obama--to distribute resources to those who we knew could not manage them. The Republicans fought this, John McCain among the sternest, because Republicans certainly understand money, but most Democrats refused to listen or take responsibility, so here we are today. It became necessary in this case for the government to step in (far overstepping what should have been some very clear lines) because there would have been a point where the money would have had to come in from other countries, and China would most likely have ended up with the largest share of what was once America. China is, in fact, doing to us now with wares what we once did to them with opium, and is quietly reasserting itself as the top superpower, hoping to soon overtake the US by way of commerce.

Individual issues should be given nowhere near the gravity of the total mindset and worldview of our nominees. John McCain understands that America is a shining beacon on this earth, that there is good and evil, and evil needs to be taken on and defeated; Barack Obama has only ever articulated disdain for our nation (not in word, but in action--though certainly liberals won't see it that way), while actually admiring nations and individuals who have wished us harm. To all who understand freedom, and understand God, to all concerned with the economy and our national security, to all who treasure America's sovereignty and acknowledge our role in the world, the choice should be clear: McCain/Palin, 2008.

Voting Utopian (Reposted Archive)

2008-10-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

Let’s say I wanted to create a utopia. Who wouldn’t? I’d have to think long and hard about that, predicting every problem that could arise, and implementing some way of avoiding it. Here’s what I would come up with:

In order for a utopian society to exist, everyone to ever be a part of it must agree on absolutely every aspect of how it runs, and act accordingly. Otherwise, one act of dissension crumbles the entire thing. For example, we all agree that we shouldn’t need to lock our doors at night in order to avoid someone entering our house to help themselves to the contents of our refrigerators. Wonderful—we’ve all agreed! But let’s say one person takes advantage of that consent and enters my house, and eats at night the lunch my wife lovingly prepared for me for the next day. The utopia is instantly broken. Suddenly my home has been defiled and the rules we all agreed upon are null and void. Well, you say, it’s simple… you just punish that person. Punishment? In utopia? Not possible--once negativity is introduced, it ceases to be the ideal we’d created.

That’s the problem with man. God created a utopia, the perfect world around the garden of Eden, and explained to the two people he created it for how it had to work. But in order for it to be truly a utopia, those two people had to have the free will to follow the rules or not follow them, lest God be accused of being a heavy-handed dictator creating mindless servants for his own purpose. They knew the rules the creator had laid out, but decided to try it another way. This failed miserably, and suddenly the utopian nature was broken—the weight and responsibility of that failure being on the shoulders of they who broke they rules.

Now then, breaking a rule is like breaking a soup dish in a restaurant. It’s no longer useful for what it was intended, so you may as well throw it out. But let’s say God still loved his two people, and wanted to think of a way to reclaim the utopia for them. He couldn’t just dismiss their offense, because without consequence, free will would be pointless. For there to be existence there must be order, for there to be order there must be rules, and if there are rules they must be abided by, and if they are not, then there must be consequence; this is the only possible basis for a utopia.

So how is God to redeem his pet project once it has been tainted? Justice demands a penalty be paid to restore the perfection that existed before the rule was broken. Mere punishment is not enough, because the dish is already broken and utopia destroyed, so the options are either to wipe out the rule breakers or to provide a way for them to be reconciled—but the punishment must still be served, lest the created world be called unjust.

That is where a sacrifice enters the picture. It makes sense that if God was willing to take the punishment upon himself, the sentence could be served and justice could prevail, while still giving his created rule breakers a second chance—a rebirth, if you will. The necessary stipulation, though, is that the created rule breakers would have to accept the sacrifice, and with their second chance agree to live in total submission to the one who took away their offense—the one who is in fact God, who in fact created them in the first place. It is upon this second birth that utopia again becomes possible, because the free will has not been compromised, and even though imperfection was introduced, the consequence has been seen and the penalty has been paid. God accomplished this miraculous provision in the person of Jesus.

That is how this world began. That is where religion comes from, whether it correctly interprets this origin or not. There has been since the very first broken law (what is called sin) the coexistence of mankind’s imperfection and God’s provision for it, with the ultimate end always in sight of reestablishing utopia once all have been given the opportunity to understand the conflict and choose for themselves to accept the sacrifice by surrendering their will to the creator. That is the government of God—wholly benevolent and wholly just.

Human government has been somewhat less perfect. Conflicted, as we are, with our vain attempts to by our own efforts re-link with perfection, and with the innate knowledge of the creator in our very breath, we have had a tendency to deny the simple truths of God’s love and mercy, which require only acceptance, and instead focus our energies on trying to ourselves become gods—quite impossible and quite absurd.

Consider that initially God gave the Israelites a mere ten commandments, which they’d broken before Moses even descended the mountain with them. These were apparently too vague for the nation, so they demanded (whether by word or action) something more specific. Fast forward to Leviticus, where the law was so burdensome that it is barely tolerable to read. Now, these rules were not necessary because there was any ambiguity in the purpose, but mankind's stubbornness is such that we look to stretch out regulations in hopes that what is not implicitly stated must be acceptable. I fear we are terrible offenders in this regard still today.

The law of utopia is simple: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and will all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” By fully understanding this it becomes possible to “Love your neighbor as yourself”, and this is sufficient for utopia. But we on earth will not achieve that; we can only accept God’s loving sacrifice and be reborn by our free submission to his will, and extend the invitation to others so that all who choose may be brought into perfection in the next life. They who do not choose to be reborn by the free submission of will, sadly, do not accept the terms of God’s sacrifice, and have thus rejected his payment for their sins. They must then pay their own penalty, which will be most harsh and unpleasant.

I bring all of this up because we, the people of the United States of America, “one nation under God,” are again mindful of determining what direction our human government will take. We generally want the same things: “…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”—in short, we’d like a utopia. The conflict is always in how to achieve that, which is why I’ve laid out this history. The question, then, is: In whom do you put your hopes for utopia—man or God? If it’s man, I challenge you to make the case, because you’ll have to show that he is capable of taking into account all things known or undiscovered, how he came to be elevated above his creator, and by what means he is able to achieve his own salvation. Or you might reject the premise, and I welcome a defensible explanation of that too. It will not be enough to say, “Well, I believe this…” without exposition, because only circular logic avoids absolute truth; if there is truth, it must be at least partly knowable and able to be communicated.

“You can’t vote based on religion!” you say. “What about ‘Separation of Church and State’?” “Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution; it’s in a letter of Thomas Jefferson’s responding to the Danbury Baptist Association asking for religious privileges to be considered “inalienable rights”, and his response was basically that the first Amendment was sufficient to protect them: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” He tried to make clear that the founders understood that political power had the potential to corrupt religious institutions, since that is what they had left behind, and that they meant to protect all religions and sects with equal tolerance by therefore not making laws that could be construed as favoring any. This was not meant to keep religion out of politics, but to keep politics from corrupting religion (which could then, admittedly, further corrode government), and guarantee the freedom to worship as each personally saw fit. Even as one (unofficially) of only a handful of Deists within the 204 (mostly Protestant) founding fathers, he was quite vocal on religious matters and expressed great admiration for Jesus’ morality. If his point had been that religion should never surface within government, he would not have ended the letter with “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man…”. Indeed, of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention (39 of whom actually signed the Constitution), ALL were of a religious affiliation, many devout Christians, with Ben Franklin the only Deist.

My personal conclusion, then, is that the ONLY way to vote is to consider who best understands and exemplifies the path God the creator has provided toward a utopian society—one that cannot be reached in this lifetime, but we can obtain glimpses of when living according to his plan. Look at each of the candidates’ websites with this in mind. Look behind words. Look through biography. Really look for content and a life that illustrates God’s design being cherished—a heart conformed to his higher purposes, free from the mire of excessive, unnecessary legislation that only bogs humankind down. Faith is not a buzzword; it’s a foundation. It is not in place of substance; it is because of the overwhelming evidence of it. Be wary of any candidate who cannot convey the certainty and strength of God or communicate their devotion to him. Mankind alone can do nothing, but with God all things are possible. That is what informs my vote.

The Constitution of the United States:

Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Religious Affiliations of the Founding Fathers:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html