Same-Sex marriage, the 14th Amendment and My Responsibility!

According to the National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-opinions-20150428) the Supreme Court is split on the same-sex marriage issue. The conclusion of the article points to the 14^th Amendment stating it will be the deciding factor.

The 14^th Amendment is one of three “reconstruction” amendments, passed after the Civil War to insure that the rights of blacks would be protected in our Constitution. There was more to them though. The three amendments had a serious impact on state rights reaching far beyond the protection of the rights of blacks now that slavery was abolished.

There are several paths that have been traveled to get us to this point in time that starts with the church’s failure to protect marriage as a “religious institution”.

For centuries church disciplines has strict codes regarding marriage. Some churches refuse to conduct marriage to individuals who are not professing Christians. Marriage was not seen as a right in the Church and the role of God in marriage, especially related to the covenant with God, required scriptural guidelines be adhered regarding this covenant. Churches exercised an authority in granting marriage. The same held true with Church Membership, Confirmation, Baptism and Communion. The Church has always had the authority to make the deciding rule regarding any of these matters and the governance on those issues is recognized in the 1^st Amendment where Congress shall make no laws 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. On these matters Congress had no authority.  The authority of the church is restricted to the Authority of God, not to the whims and will of the people at any particular moment in time. Like our Government, our church leaders may be democratically elected, but those elections do not translate into democratic application of the Rule of Law.  Both our government and the Church is accountable to a higher authority.

To our founders this was Natural Law through revealed Law which both recognized and adhered to God’s role in the creation of those Laws.  Our founders recognized the need for religion in the provision of a moral compass for the nation.  Our form of government was only possible through a moral and virtuous people.  Our founders also realized that it was not the Governments responsibility, certainly no the Federal Government, to interfere with the Church.

With marriage, all of this began to to change as the church allowed for the Institution of Marriage to become secularized, effectively removing God from the covenant relationship of marriage. If such a thing could happen to marriage than it can happen to the other doctrines in our Churches.

Our Constitution limits government to enumerated powers. Congress is supposed to only act in the areas enumerated to them and in those areas, as Madison explained in Federalist 39, we had a National Government. In all other areas the Government was to be Federal with the remaining powers (10^th Amendment) reserved to the States.

The passage of the 14^th Amendment changed that. It granted authority to the Federal Government to override state laws if those laws, in their minds, violated principles in the Bill of Rights. The 14^th Amendment contains an enforcement clause which states (Section 5): The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This has been interpreted to grant the Federal Government an authority to override State Laws if they believed those state laws violated civil rights.  That means before the Federal Government can intervene there must be a State Law that identifies that violation. It shifted from Congress having the power to the Courts, something not provided for in section 5 of the 14th Amendment. For activists promoting same-sex marriages, State laws regarding marriage provided them with exactly what they needed; it provided them with the tools necessary to challenge the states authority to define marriage.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, state laws concerning religious expression were immune from intervention by the Federal Courts but following the 14th Amendment and the more recent free interpretation of that amendment by the courts, once a State goes into that realm, the courts are then used to by-pass the limitations of the Constitutions and with respecting the 10th Amendment.  As soon as a state passes laws, those who wish to destroy original intent turn to the 14th Amendment to destroy the protections previously afforded to the state.  Since Roe V. Wade and Engel v. Vitale anti-church elements have turned their focus on undermining the independence of the Church and placing the Church under the control of the Federal Government.

The problem here is that if the courts determine that same-sex marriage is legal, does that translate into a Church’s civil responsibility to abide by that law. It is further aggravated because if it establishes that this is the case, then the government has established a National Doctrine related to Church Marriages and is therefore establishing a National Religious institution regarding marriage in absolute violation of the 1^st Amendment. That was the actual intention of the 14^th Amendment;, it was designed to do exactly that. While it was promoted to protect the rights of blacks after slavery was repealed; it was the Progressive tool necessary to begin to interfere in State Laws outside the enumerated powers and in violation of the 9^th and 10^th amendments.   There was still another stumbling block.

Senators were elected by State legislative bodies which made our Senators accountable in preserving State Rights. That had to be undone. The 17^th Amendment provided them with that means in turning our Senate elections into direct elections and effectively removing one of the checks and balances established in the formation of our government in the protection of the rights of the States.

The notion that marriage is an inherent right is in violation of the principles of Natural Law.   Inherent rights are rights we are born with and do not require the consent of a third party. In order to be married it requires consent between two parties. From a purely religious point of view it also requires the consent of God. That consent is found in the written word of scripture and the church, in America, was given the Liberty to establish its own laws regarding its governance.

The rights of Life, Liberty and Property are not dependent rights that require the consent of anyone else. They are individual rights and they are independent. Laws are then enacted to protect those rights which prevents others from violating those independent rights. Murder is illegal because it violates my independent right to life. Theft is illegal because it violates my independent right to Property. Any law contradictory to those protections violates my independent right to Liberty. That includes limitation of my freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association.

The principle of freedom of association allows for the denominational differences within our churches. Not all churches have the same laws regarding Marriage, Baptism Communion and a variety of other doctrinal positions.   As an American I am free to decide which church aligns to my personal positions and then, only with the permission of the church, to become a member of that body. I am not to be forced by government into such an association nor is the church to be forced into that association by laws of government. Church Membership, like marriage, is not a right-it is a consensual contract between two agreeable parties that the government isn’t supposed to be involved with.

If I don’t not have the authority to force someone to marry me who will not consent to that arrangement, I do not have the authority to delegate to any member of government, Local, State or Federal, any authority which would force any institution, especially regarding the church, to conduct a service of marriage without the consent of that institution.

If a church, on the other hand, determines that it recognizes same-sex marriage, then my rights of association, based on my personal religious conviction, allows for me to make a determination if I will continue to associate with that church.

If the Supreme Court makes a ruling in favor of Same-Sex Marriage then churches who doctrinally disagree are left with no course of action except to change their doctrine or to engage in civil disobedience regarding that law.

Our Founders wanted to assure that we would never have a national religion. The recent abridgements through the 14^th Amendment that allows for mandated insurance that provides for abortion in the Affordable Healthcare Act is yet one more instance of attempts to develop National Policy regarding religious principle. It is part of a broader plan to Institution a singular religious viewpoint.

If churches can be forced, by law, to conduct same-sex marriages can churches also be forced to provide Communion to those who do not adhere to the principles of the faith in that church? Those who despise the church would be welcome to see such laws but those same principles can be translated into other institutions. Wouldn’t organizations which promote vegetarian food choices be required to accept meat-eaters into their ranks who could then rise up to subvert the principles of association in the vegan organization and then undermine what vegans embrace?

As ridiculous as that analogy may seem to you, it is foundationally based on the same principle.

I admit to being frustrated with the churches willingness to surrender to the government in their doctrinal positions or in turning to government to advocate, by law, those doctrinal positions. In my opinion, those decisions should have remained within the realm of the churches and the governing bodies of those churches.

In my opinion, when the PC(USA) (Presbyterian Church USA) made their determination on gays in the church, individual churches rose up and began to separate from the denomination. That is how this should be playing out and the only position regarding this concerning government outside the church is for them to stay out of it entirely. It then becomes a matter for individuals within the church to align themselves, through the free exercise of their association, with the religious institutions which most adhere to their convictions. Do we really want the government to step in to determine whether or not the individual churches had a right to disassociate? And yet, a federal court ruling in support of same-sex marriages carries that same implication.

My personal opinion is that same-sex marriage violates scripture. Others disagree. A church that openly embraces same-sex relationships is a church that I cannot, nor will I ever align myself with. I am, in no way, demanding that all churches or any other institution, for that matter, embrace my position. On the contrary, those advocating for this as a right are demanding that I align myself to their viewpoint. One of those views embraces tolerance and the other does not.

While I believe that the Constitution forbids a redefinition of the word Marriage if they are going to go into that realm then they must do so in a way that conforms to the origin and intent of the institution of marriage and that is within the context of the Church as revealed to us through scripture.  To me, this is not a debate for government to consider, it is only a debate from within the church and my personal conviction lies firmly in the belief that scripture is clear.  If the Supreme Court rules on this they may reject the state’s authority to make such a rule but they cannot force churches to redefine the institution marriage.  If they do, then they have institutionalized a particular religious viewpoint and in doing so have nationalized that as the Religious Doctrine of the United States.  We then become a theocracy.  The church MUST remain free to determine whether or not they will allow for same-sex unions.  As an individual, I must then determine whether or not that church is upholding the principles of scripture.

That is the way it was supposed to work.  Some churches have taken strong positions on divorce and refuse to marry previously married individuals to different partners who have undergone a divorce.  We are then required to make a decision as to whether or not we can find conformity to our own convictions and the position of the Church.  We must remain free to exercise our right of association in that determination.

Those same personal religious convictions tells me that whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and lives in none of my business. That is between them and God and, under my faith principles, I’m not the one who holds anyone else accountable to God.  I must remain free to identify same-sex relationships as sin while also accepting that God will intimately by the judge on these matters.  All of us, after all, have sinned.  Churches must also remain free to determine if that sin can be ignored in the institution of Marriage.  If so, they must make the case for that belief not forced into subjugation of government to ignore what they believe is scriptural authority regarding same-sex relationships and sin.

As to the church, my sentiment is simply this. The church has a responsibility to serve as an educational force in upholding scripture and teaching scripture to the people. There is a simple warning in scripture that I believe applies here. Luke 17 (1-3)

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

There will be those who interpret that to justify embracing same-sex marriage but in its context Jesus is addressing the obligation of training up our children in the path they should follow. The admonition is against proclaiming false doctrines which could endanger the immortal soul of the child. The offenses that will come refer to the offenses against God and Scripture, not in our being offended because God’s word doesn’t align to our particular viewpoint. When our worldview conflicts with scripture, then it is our worldview, in God’s eyes, that is wrong. If we refuse to align that view to scripture then that we become the offending party.

You can reject that viewpoint and you can embrace the notion that there is no God nor are we accountable to him outside the church.  You cannot claim there is no God or reject you accountability to Him and remain within the Church.  You become a contradiction.  You can, however, choose to reject the church. You have that freedom. Within the Church, to accept those positions is heresy and has no place in the Church. Within the Church, our responsibility is to align ourself to scripture, not to make scripture align itself to us.

My faith principles teach me that I am ultimately accountable to one authority and that authority is God. When government, whether Church Government or otherwise, violates that authority then it is my right, it is my duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for my future security. For the Church who believes as I do that scripture teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and the law requires them to betray that faith they have no course but Civil Disobedience.

The National Popular Vote: A Threat to the Constitution

Article 1; Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

During the debates on the Constitution in 1787 one of the hotly debated issues was the manner in which a President and Vice President would be elected.  The debates on this matter are easily accessible and no representative is without excuse for not knowing these debates.  The most assured point is that the election of the President was not to be a popularity contest.  Small states sought equal representation in elections so that the larger states could not unfairly use their population and size to undercut the voice of their own states.  This was to be a Republic, not a mob rule democracy.

It is sentimentally nice to think that all that should matter in a national election is the popular vote.  Whoever wins the most votes, wins the election.  This thinking has been brought on through an educational system that fails to understand the advantages of an electoral system that seeks to give fair representation to the minority voice as well.  Just as large States should not have the ability to impose their will on smaller states, as the founders said at a time when the entire population of the United States of America was less than 4 million people; today we should be looking for ways within the individual states to give fair and equal representation to the entire state.

In Pennsylvania, Presidential elections need only focus on major cities.  These major cities are also the most rampant places for voter registration fraud and as seen in the last Presidential election, literal voter intimidation.  Just glancing at a map of how the people voted we find that most areas in the state voted opposite of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh but the voice of the rest of the state is silenced through the popular vote.  The rest of the state, through the winner take all democracy stance yields ALL electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state rendering all other votes null and void.  Now we are seeking to turn that into a nationwide Democracy of mob rule rather than the Republic, for which WE STAND.

We are a Republic.  Not a Democracy.  Perhaps no principle exemplifies this more than the Electoral College and if it were implemented as intended, to give equal representation to all voices, then there would be no discussion of a national popular vote.

Benjamin Franklin was asked after the signing of the Constitution what type of government we had been given and he replied “A Republic, if you can keep it!”  The National Popular Vote will take us one giant step towards destroying what is left of the Republic.

We are a nation guided by a rule of laws firmly established in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Those laws are intended to protect the rights of all, not just the majority view of Democracy which was described by our founders as being “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner”.     Many are fighting to destroy what is left of the Republic our founder’s gave us and the National Popular vote is another attempt to move away from being a Republic towards being a pure Democracy.

Even when not abused, as it is during this administration, the office of the President of the United States of America is far too important an office to be decided solely upon a majority vote.

Franklin said that the Republic would stand until people realized they can vote themselves more money.  We are in those times.  Votes are generated through entitlement programs, not based upon what is good and right for the whole country.  Major cities voter bases are largely populated by people who are dependent upon entitlements from the Government.  Corporations establish their offices in major cities where they benefit from more of the government’s doling out of corporate welfare initiatives.   Most of the major cities are drains to the economy of the rest of the country and are in such debt that they are crippling the rest of their state.  The education in these cities is often deplorable.  Living conditions for many in these cities is often far below sub-standard.  And each of these cities in crises have demonstrated a shift from the governance of a Republic to the governance of a Democracy and we wonder why they are failing.  Now we seek to embrace that ideology for the whole country.

The National Popular Vote is an affront to all that our founders fought for.  It was a viewpoint during the Constitutional debates that held no strength and was held by only a few representatives, who conceded upon hearing the arguments against it.  The National Popular Vote is an affront to all that a Republic Stands for.  As the language of the bill states, it works towards the complete elimination of the Electoral College by rendering it pointless.  As such, it is an attempt to change the Constitution of the United States without going through the Amendment process.

By forming a collective of states under a contract, it seeks to establish a new form of governance replacing what our founder’s intended and it seeks to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

Does the Constitution frame what we, as American’s believe?  Are we a Republic or are we a Democracy?  That is the real question this bill poses cleverly disguised in a feel good winner take all popularity choice.  I for one, am passionately opposed to it because I do believe we are a Republic and I do believe the Constitution is a rule of law that should not be strategically by-passed through an attempt at manipulating its intent or rendering just one of its principles useless purely for political gain without first seeking to amend the Constitution as provided for within its own language.

The Electoral College was unique to America in its foundation of the principles of a Republic and remains unique to America in recognizing the rights of each individual state while giving strength to the weaker voice of the smaller states.  Any attempt to remove it is to topple one of the pillars of America.

Defendants of the proposal are quick to state that they are not in violation of the Constitution of the United Sates according to the 12^th Amendment of the Constitution.  That might be true but what about Article 1; Section 10 (printed here with the violating sections in boldface and underlined).

Article 1; Section 10: No State  shall  enter  into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal;  coin  money; emit  bills of credit ; make  anything but gold or silver  coin a tender  in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder,  ex post facto law, or law  impairing  the  obligation of contracts; or  grant  any title  of  nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Some of our Founders thought on Democracy vs. a Republic

• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”

• John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.'”

• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.

• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”

• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”

In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

 

Telling The Truth-A Revolutionary Act

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

Perhaps the most famous quote on truth occurs in the Bible as Pontius Pilate is looking into the face of Christ and asks the philosophical question “What is Truth?”

The thing that forms truth for each of us has a lot to do with perception.  Perception becomes truth for many people, but is truth really a relative concept?  Perceptions can be formed without all the information to make an informed decision and then opinion becomes truth regardless of the facts that might actual stand in opposition of that opinion.

For Progressives, perceptions based on emotional response is essential to maintain their “truth.”  Take, for instance, Van Jones’ recent diatribe on the Tea Party and his feel for the need to burst the Tea Party Bubble.  In his diatribe he goes off on the the Tea Party and then defines his perception.  “We are the only Government in the world that’s supposed to have a puny old government that can’t help anybody. They call it small Government…I Call it puny Government.  They want us to have a puny little government and then throw us overboard with no help from anybody and they call themselves Patriots.  They take a wrecking Ball and paint it Red, White and Blue and smash down every institution that made America great.  They smash down the Unions.  The smash down the safety net. They smash down public school, They smash down the sense that we’re all one country but they’re the Patriots and were not.  Who’s fighting for liberty and justice for all in this country….it ain’t them, it’s people like us.”

I have no doubt that Van Jones believes this rot as Truth but it is an opinion with very little basis in Truth.  It is a statement to generate an emotional response devoid of logic or evidence.  It is built around the concept that the center of America, her heart and her soul, is the Government and not the people.

If you begin with that as your truth, your are doomed to failure.  IT is the violation of every principle that this Great Nation was built upon.

Justice is not the same thing as equality.  Justice never means that every person receives the same proportion of material goods regardless of their skills, abilities and endeavors.  Justice requires that poor choices are not rewarded nor does it stand for worthy choices being punished.  Taking from the labors of one to provide for another might make everyone equal in material goods but it is not justice.  Those who have squandered their resources through poor choices and bad judgement should not be rewarded for their actions anymore than those who made wise choices and solid judgement should be punished.  That is not justice for either person.  Justice involves consequences.  A criminal should not escape punishment for his crimes because others who didn’t commit that crime aren’t punished, nor should a person who hasn’t committed the crime be expected to share in a portion of the jail time to make things more equal for everyone.  True justice also requires the right to fail.  You make bad choices, you fail.  That is justice.

The Declaration of Independence provides the framework of equality as the founders saw it.  We are all created equal.  Regardless of our skin color, race, ethnic background, each of us are created with life, liberty and instilled with the desire to pursue happiness.  Society and government places obstacles in our way in our pursuit of these.  We do not all live the same number of minutes. Life is not equal but it is a right denied by many of the same progressives who insist on abortion as a right of choice that imposes upon the right to life of the unborn.  Liberty is our right but government policy imposes on our Liberty and we are no different if we impose our right to Liberty on another without respecting their right to Liberty.  Liberty should be equal for all but it is not, that does not remove the truth that we are born with this right.

The Pursuit of happiness.  We are all born with that desire, not all of us will obtain all that we desire though.  Not obtaining it never removes the right to pursue as long as that right does not involve theft.

The safety net that Van Jones says the Tea Party wishes to smash down is governmental theft.  It is the government taking from one person to provide for another.  Everywhere, except in government, this action is illegal.  The theft is not voluntary, it is mandatory.  There is no Christian Charity in this action.  If Christian leaders went into the home of their parishioners and demanded money to provide for the poor or threatened some sort of Church Prison for evading paying those fees, the pews would soon be empty.  The overturning of the tables in the temple demonstrates that Jesus was incensed when the church extorted money from the people.  They sold sacrifices at inflated prices that were necessary for Jewish ritual.  They also manipulated currency by making you exchange your dirty secular money for temple money at an inflated price so your money had even less purchasing power.  Then they took a portion of that money and dispersed it for projects to hold the people accountable to them.  They were moneychangers and they profited by changing money of the people, devaluing it and then inflating prices all for personal gain.  Sound familiar.

Yes, we are encouraged to give.  We are encouraged to help the poor.  We are even encouraging to sacrifice in our giving.  It is still voluntary, not mandatory.

There was a time when the people needed to organize against corporate corruption.  They formed unions to get a fair wage and reasonable working hours.  That is no longer what Unions are doing.  Today Unions make more than a fair wage because they make more on the average than the same employees in the private sector.  There is also the problem with a public sector Unions funded by taxation to provide, not just a wage but vacation and benefit/pension packages that always exceed the same vacations and benefit/pensions packages they are extorting from the rest of the non-union tax paying worker.

The Tea Party is not against education.  It is opposed to constantly raising taxes to dump more money into government run educational programs that time and again have been proven not to be working.  The Tea Party says get rid of the Department of Education and let the communities decide what education is best for their children.

The Tea Party believes that we are one nation and for that reason we should speak one language.  We welcome diversity to add to the flavor of the melting pot that is America but, as has been the tradition of all immigrants to this country until recently, the cultures merged and shared.  They did not isolate themselves as an entirely different entity.  They shared their foods, their culture and their life.  They did not demand special privileges, special language exemptions that places additional burdens on our schools and government.  They came here to become an American.  Not to raise their own flags above Old Glory, not to demand entitlement, but to be free…to be American.

The Van Jones’ of this world are not fighting for Liberty and Justice.  They are claiming to fight for equality but their equality requires taking from one by force of punishment to provide for another with no requirements.  You might level the material playing field but there is nothing equal because the one has worked for their security and the other has stayed home to watch Oprah.  One has made choices on the size of family they can afford and the other has no choices to make since they are rewarded for making more babies.  You deny real equality to one group, you deny Liberty and you deny justice to provide things for another group.  That is not what made America a great Country.

The Spirit of American Exceptionalism, where people gave to charity freely, where they helped without being forced to, where philanthropists stepped in and provided needs in their communities and we all came together to build our neighborhoods together, not to get a check but to do the work.  Where the entrepreneurial spirit in America was free to soar to discover new ways of doing things, not regulated by government to hold them back.  When farmers weren’t paid not to produce crops; when business weren’t rewarded for sending jobs to oversee markets; when government didn’t prop up failed business policies with bailout money to save something was that was too big to fail.  Sorry, but if they had to be bailed out they already failed and it was government policies from the Van Jones’ type think tanks that caused them to fail.

The fact can not be debated, right to work states are more financially secure that states that shield and promote unionism.  Major cities under liberal Progressive policies have turned from once prosperous places to slums for most of the residents.

Progressives are wonderful with distorting truth with emotional responses and making it appear that no matter how bad their policies are, they will benefit the poor.  We’ve been hearing that for a very long time.  I seem to recall a biblical story of Jesus being challenged because a young woman poured an expensive perfume over his feet and the one challenging him stated that the perfume could have been sold to feed the poor.  Instead of embracing this forced socialism the challenger cried out for, Jesus rebuked his challenger.  It was the woman’s.  She had labored to purchase that perfume and was free to do with it as she chose, not as another dictated.

Perception often taints truth for us.  We must always work to dispel perception to embrace truth.  That requires that we deal in facts and realities not emotional distortions.  It doesn’t matter how we feel, what really matters is what truth is.

Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme because it is a Ponzi scheme.  Let’s not stop there.  Government Welfare, corporate or private, is theft.  War waged for personal interest or empire building is genocide.  Abortion is murder.  In each case it is denying something to one individual or group of individuals-something to belongs to them-and then providing only a portion of what was taken to another individual or group of individuals. In each case it is a government trying to play God and manipulate the outcome by changing how the rules of the games of Life is played.  Each time they change the rules our rights and liberties are sacrificed.

Van Jones has a right to his opinion.  He has a right to express that opinion and we have a right to demonstrate where he is wrong.  They have played on our emotions and many people went along because we thought we would feel better.  That is, after all, what they promised.  After a 50 year war on poverty ask the poor how the government did with that one.  Do they feel better? Do you feel better?  Is the Country healthier?  Poll after poll answers that one for us, overwhelmingly people do not feel better.  Overwhelmingly people believe we are going in the wrong direction yet they keep going in that direction in spite of all the promises and the feel good hopey changey rhetoric.  Two and half years of having that hopey changey rhetoric forced down the throats of Americans and our debt has increased by about 5 trillion dollars.  Union pensions are 2/3 unfunded.  Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is going belly-up at a faster rate than expected.  The cost for necessities goes up every day.  Food, Clothing, energy…we are paying far more than we were three years ago.

We are at war but refuse to call it war.  We are in a recession but refuse to call it a recession.  We are broke but because the Federal Reserve can just print more money regardless of the consequences, we refuse to admit we are broke.  That is the difference between perception and truth and it is time for those who represent us to start speaking the truth.  It might not make us feel good at the moment, but it is now necessary to save what is left of this country and restore her to the glory of her destiny.  You see, like us, she was born with the same unalieanble rights and her rights are being stripped away as well.

The Slippery Slope of Moral Decline!

As the debate on gay marriage continues, opponents pointed to the slippery slope asking where it will all end.  In spite of the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a gay gene that causes a person to be “born that way”, the arguments in favor always comes back to the notion of the “gay gene” in that the people can not help themselves.  Opponents asked if pedophilia would be accepted as a norm based on the premise that these individuals are born that way and “can not help themselves”.  It would appear we are getting the answer.  After the recent release of the most current version of the publication the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which holds and supports that pedophilia is a mental disorder, advocates fighting for the “rights” of pedophiles are fighting back.

This past Wednesday there as a conference in Baltimore MD hosted by a pedophile advocacy group called B4U-ACT.  Pedophiles don’t like the name,  they prefer to be called Minor-Attracted Persons which allows them to use the acronym MAP to cloak what they are really talking about.

World Renowned sexologist Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, saying: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Highlights of the conference:

• Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
• There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
• “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
• “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
• “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
• “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
• An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
• Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
• “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
• “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
• A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
• Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
• Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.”
• The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.
• “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
• The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
• Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.

The above list describing highlights of the conference originated in a report by child advocates Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law.

While all of these points in the discussion are alarming the comment that a child should not have to consent any more than we get consent from a shoe to wear it is vile.  It is evil.  The twisting of the motion of liberty in another statement also sickens me.  Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”

Yesterday Glenn Beck addressed an audience in a powerful message that called for Christians to Stand with Israel against aggression that is calling for the extinction of the Jewish people from the face of the earth.  We should and we must make such a stand but it cannot stop with our responsibility to the rights of Israel.  The progressives have assaulted our institutions of learning and have aggressively sought to remove the morality of Judeo-Christian Values from our dialogue.  They have fought long and hard to re-interpret the moral codes of scripture but scripture does give an explanation as to why this sort of depravity exists.

In Romans chapter 1 we read this:

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For 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 people are without excuse.

²¹ 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. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Progressives have fought long and hard to translate our rights in the realm of the obligation to take from one to provide for the needs of others.  This is antithetical to historical rights as based on Judeo-Christian Values.  No one has the right to take in order to give, Judeo-Christianity teaches we have a responsibility to give to meet needs of others but that should come of free-will.

In perverting moral truths based on Judeo-Christian Values, the concept of sin is eliminated.  Sin almost always requires participation from a second party.  You can not murder, commit adultery, covet, steal unless there is a second person.  In doing so you are denying the rights, the liberties of the other to provide for your own desires.  That is not liberty, that is pure selfishness.  Liberty must be for all or there is no liberty.

That is why violence can not be part of how we express ourselves in our struggle to preserve the spirit of liberty.  We can not claim to proclaim liberty by taking from another through force or intimidation.  At the same time, we must stand and declare for liberty when any people seek to remove or prey upon the rights of others.  Liberty and responsibility and essential partners.  The claim of the pedophile that they have a right to destroy the innocence of children is not simply immoral.  There is no Liberty in this because in order to fulfill this act you must prey upon the rights of others.  It is violence.  It is abuse.  It is evil.

Violence is the last recourse and only in self-preservation.  We have an obligation to defend our persons, our family and our property against the abuses of others.  True Liberty proclaims the desire for Freedom for all and it stands for Peace for all.  The rights of the individual has nothing to do with anarchy when everyone has individual rights.  True Liberty and Individual Rights are sisters. It has nothing to do with spreading the wealth around  to create a level playing field.  That denies one the right to succeed through their accomplishments as well as the other the right to fail according to their actions.

In the case of pedophilia, the rights of the child are denied and dismissed.  These advocates in favor of this abomination are the bastard children of the abortion movement who have spread their disease of destroying childhood. In the pursuit of their selfish desires they have surrendered their will to evil.  They have given victory to the enemy of the soul in that surrender.  They have exchanged God, to raise themselves up as their own gods, not only to decide what is moral for themselves but to demand others to submit and surrender to their desires as well and then to argue that this is morality that must be embraced by all to allow them to continue in this pursuit.  They are not so blind that they do not realize the error in this logic.  They can not deny, when faced with the challenge of the rights of others, that to claim this as liberty is a contradiction because it requires theft from another…in this case a most precious commodity, the theft of sexual innocence and purity.

As we face the possibilities of economic collapse we understand that it has come at the result of abuses to fiscal policy.  We use words like unsustainable and we fully understand the implications of that word.  If it can not be sustained it will collapse.  Laws, mandates, regulations have all been abused to contribute to this and these laws are not moral laws because while appealing to ethical standards for the laws, they deny Liberties guaranteed to us by our Creator.  In attempting to create social justice they have created injustice and it has bankrupted America and will yield financial ruination for all to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.

An even greater threat faces the world in this attack on moral directives of Judeo-Christian Values.  It is the logic that leads us to foolishly believe in a social gospel where it is the government responsibility to demand we provide for others rather than rely on our personal responsibility to meet those needs.  They do not appeal to the good in us, they demand it and in doing so they become theives.  The Progressives would have us become animals, not relying in intellect and reason but to  debase us to lust and instinct.  If this social morality continues it will bankrupt the all morality in society in such a way that the heart of this nation will embrace evil and surrender the will to do good to the desire to do evil.  In turning perpetrators of evil into the victims and ignoring the real victims, innocence, not only of our children, but all innocence will die.

The Fabian Society and Its War On America

The Fabian Society and its War on America.

 

Today we hear a great deal about Progressives in America but fully understanding Progressivism begins through the exploration of its roots and those roots begin in The Fabian Society.  The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a relatively small group of intellectual elitists who embraced Marxist Socialism forced upon a society through slow gradual and incremental steps.  The logo (pictured above) is a symbol of the Fabian Society. One should immediately questions why an organization would consider using a shield that pictures a wolf in sheep’s clothing as an image to promote their beliefs and the answer should be an obvious one.  It is the arrogance of the intellectual elite.  More importantly though should be the question “If they are the wolf, who are the sheep?”

The gradual transition to a Marxist Socialist regime is also represented in another image popular with Fabian Socialists.

The Fabian’s gave this gradual change a policy directive. They called it:

“The Doctrine of Inevability of Gradulaism”

This doctrine established that “without breach of continuity or abrupt change of the entire social issue,” by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties. Prominent Fabian and writer, George Bernard Shaw, revealed that their goal was to be achieved by “stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name.”

George Bernard Shaw was a beloved satirist in England who is still noted for his wit and in educational circles, some of that wit is carefully concealed although Shaw himself never concealed his intent.

“I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

-George Bernard Shaw

This is the core of Eugenics, or the philosophy of  applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually referring to human populations.

Shaw also said “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber.  A great many people would simply have to be put out of existence simply because its wastes other peoples time to look at them”

Shaw is calling for the program implemented by Germany to purge its society of those the government deemed drains upon their society.  Shaw’s principles put into action gave birth to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany.

One principle the Fabians fully grasped was that to fundamentally transform Society it would be necessary to move that Society towards a Welfare State.  In order to accomplish this they understood that they had to change the dialogue to focus on the weaknesses in human nature in order to gain sympathy and popularity for this cause.  If they could manipulate societies, preying upon poor to use them to advance their causes, while at the same time preying upon the human nature by making them feel guilty and responsible for the condition of the poor they could accomplish the second phase of their goals.

The second phase is to replace Free Market Capitalism with State Capitalism.  They believed that State should control aspects of business such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it, in their thinking, must be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

There is nothing tolerant about the Fabian Socialist, they are and were statists.  The long term goal was to delude the populace into believe that Democracy and Socialism were compatible while pushing towards a Socialistic Dictatorship through a legalistic view of morality where the individual is simply a part of a greater collective.  No individual has any worth except the worth that individual provides to the collective.  If the collective does not benefit from the individual than that individual has absolutely no worth.

It is obvious that Adolph Hitler yields what happens when this model is put in to practical purpose.  The only difference between the Fabian Society and Hitler was that they believed he moved to fast for society to accept their goals.

The philosophy was embraced by intellectual elitists in America.  Knowing that Socialist meant Communist in the average American mind and Communism was a known enemy of American Values, they could not identify themselves as being openly Socialist so they called themselves something different.  They used the word Progressive.

It was essential that, in order to establish global dominance through a world dictatorship, the principle of American Exceptionalism must fail.  In less than 100 years America had gone from being an upstart new Government to the leader of the principles of freedom and individual liberties and that this had given birth to an entrepreneurial spirit that had made the American dollar the standard of measurement for the value of world currency.

To the pure Socialist, this is unthinkable and unacceptable. This does not exemplify their collective will.  The free-market ideology must be forced to collapse.  If society was to be purged from the undesirables, a system had to come into place that would replace the free market individualism to remove competition from the largest corporation while at the same time regulating those large corporations to comply with a word governance ideology.  They could not have competition; they must regulate to create the level playing field.

In order to accomplish this the conversion of America from the viewpoint of free market Capitalism to State Capitalism, something had to be done to collapse American economy from a market that could function prosperously without Government interference into a country that would become dependent upon the government in order to maintain its power that would be equally beneficial to both the Corporate power structure and the Government.

At the same time, the Government needed to replace the spirit of entrepreneurialism of the individual with a Welfare State of dependency.  This would call for a dramatic shift of the paradigm within the realm of the intellectually elite in this country.  In the most daring strategy of the Fabian Progressive movement, the spirit of Charity through moral conviction of the individual had to be replaced with the mandated theft of monies to create a dependent society in what Hayak referred to as the Road to Serfdom.

The wolf needed to identify the flock that it was going to feed upon in order to accomplish that aim and this task fell upon Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger, the mother/founder of Planned Parenthood who has successfully deceived the masses into embracing them as holding compassion for the poor, made her intentions clear but few then and now listened to her intent.  Modern Progressives seek to hide what Sanger said in public because in this politically correct world, the real heart and spirit of her words betray the aims and goals of the image Planned Parenthood had fabricated for themselves.   Consider these three quotes from Sanger.

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems”

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

To implement this Eugenic Control of Society, the wolf recognized the sheep it needed to devour.  Again, quoting from Margaret Sanger:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger’s ideology was radical for its time and the fact that so many of her supporters choose to ignore these statements from her demonstrates that her direct attempts at the Eugenic destruction of the black race and those that were identified as the social morons and dredges of society by the intellectually elite was never realized.  That is not to say it was not tried.  Through Sanger’s progressive ideology several states adopted a forced sterilization program that resulted in in the sterilization of an estimated 60,000 Americans.

The concept of the turtle moving slowly replaced Sanger’s radical Hitleresque destruction of classes that was deemed non-productive towards meeting the Fabian ends.

In order to replace entrepreneurialism the first step had to be to find a way to remove the competition of the free market system by replacing it with a governmentally controlled economic standard.  Enter the Federal Reserve.

While the excuse of a depression was its impetus, the goal of its establishment is evidenced in its results.  The Federal Reserve could now control and regulate Wall Street through economic manipulations in implementation of interest rates, securities and bonds.   The Authority of the Federal Reserve, while supposedly separate from the powers of Congress, falls under an appointed office through the Presidency effectively now giving the President some control over market fluctuations and pricing.

A new way of manipulating the market had to be developed and this fell to a man named John Maynard Keynes

Keynes stated “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.”

This new philosophy of economics is now referred to as Keynesian and is the only method of economics that the liberal progressives embrace in spite of its continual and historic evidence of complete failures.

The economic manipulations of the Federal Reserve were not enough though.  The President’s powers had to be extended to other institutions and this was realized through FDR’s New Deal.  The New Deal was the brainchild of a man named Stuart Chase. Stuart Chase was a member of the Fabian Society at Harvard University.

He laid out the basis of the New Deal.  The New Deal would empower the President through newly created agencies run by appointed positions to manipulate the government’s regulations of the business world effectively choosing which companies would fail and which would succeed through fees, duties and regulations.

The New Deal was only Stuarts short term goals.  The long term goals were established in 1942 through a book he wrote entitled “The Road We Are Traveling”.  In it he laid out the Fabian/Progressive plan for the future of America

1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
3. The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government.
10. The control of natural resources.
11. The control of energy sources.
12. The control of transportation.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
16. Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. Control of industry without ownership.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.

Perhaps the most egregious part of this movement has been the way in which the government has become the Fabian Society in its deluding the poor into believing they are the Savior of the poor while the plan all along has been the fattening of the sheep to prepare society to accept their annihilation so openly embraced by the likes of Shaw, Sanger and others in the foundation of the Progressive movement.

We are on the precipice.  Have you ever believed that the government needs to step in and do something about the reckless morality of many in our society who bear more children than they can support?  Isn’t this exactly one of the excuses used by Progressives embracing Pro-Choice position to justify the wholesale slaughter of the most innocent among us?

As we watch the downward spiraling of our economy, would we justify purging those who contribute less or nothing by our estimation in order to preserve our own existence?

This has been the trail of the Fabian turtle in its slow path towards The Doctrine of Inevability of Gradulaism. The journey of this turtle does not end with the surrender of moral values and replacing them with Fabian intellectualism in America.  The turtles journey ends when this is the rule for the world and this can only be accomplished by the fundamental transformation of America.

The most dangerous things to human sanctity is that Progressives believe this is compassion.  Their understanding about compassion is vastly different from our own but to help us all understand how they define compassion consider this quote in 2010 for progressive author and commentator Virginia Ironside

“If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother. If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face…My feeling of horror at suffering is much greater than getting rid of a couple of cells. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

That, my friends is Progressive compassion.  “My Feeling of horror at suffering is much greater than getting rid of a couple of cells.”