Posts by betty boop

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/20/2014 1:32:08 PM PST · 166 of 168
    betty boop to YHAOS; xzins; Colonel_Flagg; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; marron; hosepipe; metmom; thouworm
    In the final analysis, my remarks were too brief, too cryptic (perhaps that is saying the same thing two different ways), and therefore easily misconstrued.

    Dear brother in Christ, indeed your remarks were "too brief, too cryptic." The hope motivating my reply was to draw out your thoughts; and so, I tossed you a "bouquet."

    I don't think I "misconstrued" your remarks. I had written:

    It is evident that America is now a “house divided against itself.”

    And you replied:

    As it was in Lincoln’s day, has been ever since, and always was.

    I instantly caught the (unstated) reference to the history of human chattel slavery in America. I have long thought that the "three-fifths of a person" definition pertaining to some men is the Achilles Heel of the U.S. Constitution. From the beginning, as it were.

    And you are right to say as it "always was." I daresay many, if not most, of the Founders were slaveowners. It is beyond question that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.

    Still, I find it interesting that, at the end of their lives, the two men made entirely different decisions about the future of their human captives.

    By his Last Will and Testament, Washington emancipated all his slaves.

    When Jefferson died, he left an estate $200K in the red (in then-current dollars — a "King's Ransom," an astronomical sum in today's dollars). He had over 200 slaves employed in agriculture, and also in his manufacturing activities (he was a huge nail mogul for a time), some of whom were highly skilled and ingenious individuals.

    So, what did his Last Will and Testament provide for with respect to these human captives?

    Except for five, all were sold as his chattel property at auction, to help defray claims against his (bankrupt) estate.

    The five who were emancipated are nowadays widely regarded as his own children, born of the slave Sally Hemmings (possibly the half-sister of his beloved wife, who died young). TJ did not emancipate Sally. [Possibly he had sound reasons for this.]

    Just goes to show that there is a sort of difference in character between a Washington and a Jefferson.... To me, the former is almost a saint; and the latter, the very figure of the modern, post-Enlightenment Man.

    So the background here goes deep. You pick up at the time when "Democrats were the Slavers," first made manifest in the Abolition Movement, which eventuated in the bloodiest and most costly war America has ever fought, the Civil War, made even more ugly by the fact that it was a war conducted between brothers.

    In the aftermath, after the assassination of Lincoln, Republicans in Congress proposed Amendments to the federal Constitution guaranteeing, not only the emancipation of slaves, but also their right as U.S. citizens to enjoy all the benefits as equal members of American society, under just and — above all — equal laws.

    The congressional Democrats fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments tooth and nail. But in the end, they could not stop their submission to the States for ratification. At least three-fourths of the States ratified them, as constitutionally mandated [Article V]. Voilà: new constitutional Law.

    The response of the Democrat Party? Well. certainly it was not to bow their heads to the will of the supermajority of the sovereign States. Instead, it turned out that, wherever the Democrat party was dominant, a regime of "separate but equal," of Jim Crow law, even active terrorist repression (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) became the norm for the next roughly one-hundred years.

    So, my question is: Why, oh why, do so many contemporary Americans of (remote) African heritage seem to believe the Democrat Party is in the business of defending and advancing their interests???

    A total cynic might say that "one can take the slave out of the 'plantation'; but that doesn't necessarily mean that one can ever take the 'plantation' out of the slave."

    I feel sure that such a "conclusion" would leave some of our greatest, pre-eminent American thinkers — such as the "magnificent" Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., et al. — spinning in their graves....

    I daresay this sort of thing — "underclass" social dependency — really got started with LBJ. Race relations were beginning to boil in his time. I gather he figured the best way to manage that situation — to the benefit of his Party, of course — was to recognize that Black Americans "were voters, too"; and thus "could be bought."

    So today, we are still reaping the whirlwind of that constitutional Achilles Heel.... For even though the American People, through Civil War and Article V constitutional American legal process, have sought to rectify this early profound defect in our original Law, making "reparations" for it in multi-trillion-dollar expenditures of taxpayer money over the past five decades — race relations in America seem to be going from bad to worse. And the economic status of many Black Americans has likewise gotten worse.

    I guess we can thank our ersatz-president 0bama for that. He's a "transformational president" all right. But he is not a "healer"; he is a DIVIDER.

    His main tactic is division leading to conquest. He uses the "Race Card" to move his "agenda" along.

    He could care less about the genuine welfare and prospects of Black Americans. They are just other pieces to be played, in whatever game he's playing.

    But THAT is a subject for another time!!!

    Anyhoot, just some musings, my friend. If I offended you in what I wrote, please know that was never my intention; and that I apologize to you, and hope you will forgive me.

    Thank you so very much for expounding your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!

    I hope and pray that you and all your dear ones will have a Happy, Blessed, Merry Christmas!

  • Rand Paul backs Obama on Cuba

    12/18/2014 3:20:33 PM PST · 14 of 45
    betty boop to 2ndDivisionVet
    Rand Paul backs Obama on Cuba

    Which is why I regard Rand Paul as a loose cannon, wholly unprincipled, and probably a certifiable nutcase.

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/18/2014 3:18:22 PM PST · 162 of 168
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl
    I sense the hardening of the divides you described.

    Me too, dearest sister in Christ. How this all works out, I haven't got a clue. But it can't continue much longer, without wreaking possibly irremediable damage on our nation. Something's gotta give.... And "past" is no reliable "predictor" here: the current chaos in the public sphere is unprecedented in my lifetime.

    Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister!

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/18/2014 3:12:11 PM PST · 160 of 168
    betty boop to YHAOS; xzins; Colonel_Flagg; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; marron; hosepipe; metmom; thouworm
    As it was in Lincoln’s day, has been ever since, and always was.

    So, there's nothing worth saving here?

    Nothing is perfect in this world. Certainly not social systems and politics. Mankind is utterly incapable of constructing a utopia. But it seems to me this does not absolve any man from the responsibility, even the duty, of building a better human community, of which he is ineluctably a part and participant.

    Anyone who wants to see the very obverse of what I'm suggesting here need only view the film, The Wolf of Wall Street, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, directed by Martin Scorsese. [All I can say is: Shame on them!] It is replete with banal pornography; it depicts the evolution of a self-obsessed, ego-maniacal character who is totally self-isolated, self-absorbed in his own individual personality and lusts, and thus rejects any possibility of relating to others in ways that are mutually beneficial. The movie gives us a detailed picture of what it is like to fall into the very sewer of moral anarchy.

    It kind of reminded me of the rather lurid paintings of Hieronymus Bosch....

    No, I can't agree with your rather cynical view that there is nothing worth saving in America: You seem to suggest that we ought to be condemned for our moral hypocrisy, on exhibit in our history from first to last....

    And yet it is the historical genius of America that we redress past wrongs, and work — not to make a "perfect" Union, but a "more perfect" one.

    Perfection in human affairs is an unattainable goal. But consider the old [Russian?] proverb: "If you aim for the stars, you will land on the roof. But if you aim for the roof, you will land in the mud."

    Or am I reading too much into what you wrote, dear brother in Christ?

    Whatever the case, it's always lovely to hear from you, dear YHAOS!

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/17/2014 8:29:38 PM PST · 155 of 168
    betty boop to xzins; Colonel_Flagg; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; thouworm
    What is evident is that [a successful compromise] is an agreement which satisfies both parties and after which they don't believe either of them have 'lost' ground.... [C]ertainly not anything vital....

    Words of wisdom, dear brother in Christ!

    The only fly in the ointment here is that the communication of what you find "evident" utterly depends on the receptivity of your audience to rational, logical, critical analysis.

    But I daresay many if not most people reading your words wouldn't really know what you're talking about; because they are not rational, don't know what logic is, and so could not do a "critical analysis" of anything if their life depended on it; they're just too busy with their daily lives, dontcha know....

    It is evident that America is now a "house divided against itself." And, as Lincoln well knew, a divided house cannot stand.

    The culture itself is divided between so-called "conservatives" and "progressives." The divide exists, because the fundamental question posed to Man is, as it has always been: Do you believe in God? Or do you believe in Man?

    So the culture appears to be divided at its very heart. After all, the exceptional American Experiment was/is premised on the living reality of the Creator God and His Moral Law. If this cultural understanding is to be eclipsed by the hallucinations of psychopathologically disordered souls, then what would our beloved country look like? What would we now living be leaving to the following generations of Americans — our kids and grandkids?

    Must leave that question there for now. I want to talk about other really interesting "divisions" that are occurring right now. I am speaking of the profound split that can be found in the Republican Party — between the Establishment wing of the GOP, and the Tea Party "insurrectionists."

    Funny thing is, these days the same sort of thing is playing out in the Democrat Party — that is, the evident split between the Progressives (who appear to be ascendent right now), and the "Reagan" or "Blue-Dog" Democrats.

    In the last election, the Democrat Party in the South was electorally destroyed, obliterated. Probably because "progressive ideas" do not catch on easily in the more traditionally-minded South.

    Personally, I'm all for being "traditionally-minded." That's just another way of saying "conservative"....

    You give an excellent definition of what it takes to effect a good compromise, an agreement in which neither side gets everything he wants, but is able to preserve and protect what is most valuable to him.

    Reasonable men of good will can do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, it appears that reasonable men of good will are in rather short supply these days.

    I keep waiting for "the adults" to show up. Alas, that's like Waiting for Godot....

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/16/2014 1:35:09 PM PST · 148 of 168
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; hosepipe; P-Marlowe
    I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude until the new Congress is sworn in. I would rather there had been a short term budget to kick the can down the road for the next Congress, but what's done is done.

    Indeed, I would have preferred to see a short-term continuing resolution rather than this $1.1 trillion behemoth — 1600+ pages of intransparency, loaded up like a Christmas tree.... I do not know what motivated Boehner, and by implication, Mitch McConnell, to go this route. But I doubt it has much to do with desiring to make a pact with the Devil, er, 0bama. Somebody please explain to me what would be "in it for them" and the GOP in so doing. I figure these are not stupid men — so, what are they up to?

    One thing this bill did was to dramatically increase the limit on donations to political campaigns, rising to $2 million per donor if I understand correctly. (Nancy Pelosi is having fits over this, so it can't be all bad.) While I'm all for the increase, if these prospective increased revenues turn out to be coming from rich people with K Street connections (e.g., the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, proponents/beneficiaries of the Ex-Im Bank, large-scale ranching and agricultural interests, et al.), I really don't consider this much of a blessing. Rather, increased revenues to the GOP from these sources would only reinforce "business as usual" on Capitol Hill, and further strengthen the corporatist state.

    But THAT is precisely what must END.

    There's a whole lot that I don't know. But what I do know is I'm sick and tired of these omnibus bills. I would desperately like to see the return to Regular Order in the production of the federal budget, one department at a time. I would like to see a citation of the relevant Constitutional mandate before any proposed federal legislation can be advanced. I would like to see draconian restrictions on the introduction of amendments to proposed legislation that have nothing to do with the underlying subject matter of the bill.

    Of course, insisting on such things goes against the very grain of recent procedural customs in both Houses, and would result in the diminution of privilege of Senators and Legislators. Not to mention such measures would help to put a kerbosh on vote buying by well-connected "political clients" and organizations that fund political campaigns.

    Anyhoot, dearest sister in Christ, we'll just have to wait and see what plays out.

    As for me, I continue to hope, and to pray for a national spiritual reawakening! For there's little that can be accomplished by politics if the underlying culture is rotten, corrupt. As I do believe it is.

    May God help us!

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/13/2014 5:10:17 PM PST · 116 of 168
    betty boop to xzins; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; thouworm
    They [those nasty RINOs] have taken the power of the purse out of the hand of Congress.

    Yeah. Effective til next time this comes up for public debate. In a new Congress.

    Question: Why did Michelle Bachman "retire?" Was she out of ammo, or what?

    As for that darling person Louis Gohmert: What's his excuse for acting like a total ninny? (IMHO, FWIW) for aping such absurdity?

    Do you think that Louis Gohmert has a crystal ball, whereby he can know, infallibly, in advance, that "Congress is not going to defund Homeland Security?" And he KNOWS this — HOW???

    Gohmert is a very good, basically sound man, IMHO. It seems he represents many people who have a bad case of the jitters nowadays regarding the American future. At least such people as are paying attention to recent "political" developments. I trust that Gohmert would really like to help resolve such difficulties....

    Notwithstanding, I do not find what he has done so far particularly helpful....

    And Michelle is off the stage now....

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/13/2014 4:50:08 PM PST · 115 of 168
    betty boop to P-Marlowe
    Boehner is not an astute conservative, he is a dyed in the wool establishment corporatist. He is also a treacherous liar. Don’t try to sugar coat him. He is a poison pill.

    Well I guess that tells us everything we need to know about "where you're coming from" on this long-festering problem, dear brother in Christ.

    You assume the posture of judge and jury on the Speaker of the House — the foremost spokesperson of the "People's House." I detect more animosity than evidence at this juncture.

    FWIW, I gather that you are a lawyer by profession. Lawyers must be "people of the book" in order to executive their mission.

    The problem that I see here, is that "people of the book" are people who are totally married to "doctrine," whatever the doctrine may be. It could be civil law, or even the doctrine made manifest in Holy Scripture.

    It seems to me that the Holy Scriptures were intended by God to illuminate human experience, in a specifically God-to-Man communication. That Man might know from whence he came, and where he is ultimately going.

    Rules of human positive law cannot possibly reach to such a sublime summit of divine–human understanding.

    Any "court of law" that falls short of such an understanding is ultimately false in the end; for it would be, by definition, "all too human."

    Go figure!

    Thanks so much for weighing in!!!

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/13/2014 3:25:31 PM PST · 113 of 168
    betty boop to P-Marlowe
    Boehner is not an astute conservative, he is a dyed in the wool establishment corporatist. He is also a treacherous liar. Don’t try to sugar coat him. He is a poison pill.

    Well, we definitely have your "take" on this issue, P-Marlowe!

    And you know all this — how???

    Do you want to bet the farm on it?

    Time will tell, dear brother!

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/13/2014 3:23:01 PM PST · 112 of 168
    betty boop to xzins; Lazamataz; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; MHGinTN; TXnMA; thouworm
    P.S.: to my last.

    People say that the November 4th Midterm results indicated some kind of a voter mandate going forward.

    The only "voter mandate" that I see expressed in this election was the mandate "to please stop the suffering" of the American Middle Class occasioned by the Obama Administration and its cohorts in Congress and beyond.

    That is hardly a full-blown detailed commitment of the American people to what the GOP might propose as the rectifying alternative to the chaos that has beset our country thanks to our non-president and his administration.

    The GOP was given an "edge" in the last election. What they will do with it remains to be seen. But it seems to me they have to come up with an attractive alternative to the way business is conducted in our nation's Capitol. And then they need to persuasively communicate this, particularly to the American Middle Class and their concerns, who are the main victims of Obama's "transformational presidency."

    If we can't do that, then "we" are history.

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/13/2014 2:59:28 PM PST · 110 of 168
    betty boop to xzins; Lazamataz; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; MHGinTN; TXnMA; thouworm; ...
    Did you happen to listen to Rep Bachman last night? She absolutely said that Boehner had a backroom deal with Obama to betray our side. She even gave the date when Boehner met with Obama.

    Oh, how quickly some of us FReepers are willing to reach "instant conclusions" about developing events! At this point, pretty much on the basis of "gossip."

    Consider what you have said here, dear brother xzins. You allege that Speaker Boehner willfully engaged in collusion, conspiracy with Obama in a "background deal to betray our side." That side presumably being the cause of conservatism — social, economic, and constitutional.

    If I may, I would like to volunteer for the role of devil's advocate here, "devil's advocate" defined as follows:

    In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance. The background of this word comes from an official position within the Catholic Church, in which a canon lawyer called the Devil's Advocate, also known as the Promoter of Faith, "argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization."

    As DA, some thoughts:

    (1) Your characterization of Boehner is that he is a man who is both stupid and unprincipled. Not to mention that, by seemingly working with a lawless president, is himself an avid accessory to the promulgation of Evil in American society.

    (2) The fact that he is a master of the institutional history, procedures and practice of the U.S. Congress is counted against him: the supposition being that he is manipulating the rules for his own self-aggrandisement, or the aggrandisement of "his" Party that represents nothing but advancing its own political welfare and interests (at great taxpayer expense, of course).

    Jeepers, that seems to be quite a leap — a leap encouraged by such political players as Ted Cruz, who seemingly demands "instant redress" for public wrongs — such as Obamacare and Executive Orders relating to immigration. In short, I gather Ted Cruz thinks that what could have been accomplished in less than three weeks absolutely cannot wait until the next Congress is seated — when it would have definite positive strength in terms of sheer numbers as compared with the situation right now.

    Don't get me wrong; I find Ted Cruz strongly attractive in his policy analyses and prescriptions. I just find him still "wet behind the ears." He is a political neophyte who has not yet "won his spurs," who has a whole lot left to learn. That is, he needs seasoning before I could regard him as a serious candidate for my vote in the 2016 presidential election. (I could say the same about Rand Paul.)

    (3) The thought has occurred to me that Boehner and Obama may be involved in a chess game here. Were that the case, I'd allow that Boehner may be two or three moves ahead of his opponent. Time will tell.

    In short, this Devil's Advocate is not willing to throw Boehner under the proverbial bus just yet. Moreoever, I'm glad for a three-week reprise over the Christmas season not to have to think about these things, just now.

    We'll know a whole lot more about how matters proceed, beginning with the seating of the next Congress, in January.

    One thing I do know, and know that Boehner also knows it, is that any positive law enacted by Congress absolutely trumps any previously enacted Executive Order, rendering it completely Null and Void.

    The trick will be to maneuver Obama into vetoing such positive law nullifying his excrescences and usurpations as ersatz POTUS. That would be great fun!!!

    So, stay tuned! Be patient!!! Pray often!!!

    Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!

  • What To Be Thankful For?

    12/13/2014 11:52:44 AM PST · 18 of 20
    betty boop to thouworm; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; xzins; metmom; YHAOS; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    This to me, dear thouworm, is the very touchstone of God’s Logos — His truth, His wisdom made manifest in the world of created Nature.

    Of course, not everybody would agree with me here. For not everybody would agree on what is meant by “clearly seen” in the above passage.

    The problem is exacerbated by the seeming fact that the meaning of the ideas of “sight” and “vision” — the means of “seeing” in the fullest sense — have been relentlessly reduced in the post-modern world. Today such words commonly are taken to refer to direct observation by an observer, as technologically aided, of self-selected, intended objects, processed via the optic apparatus thus to provide data for “the brain.”

    In short, people who use these words in this way are entirely captured in the world susceptible to human direct perception. Which is clearly the material world, wherein “matter” [I’m still waiting for the definition of that word] is absolutely fundamental; it “evolves” by chance, that is, randomly, over practically infinite time. It is constrained only by the very un-random physical/chemical/mechanical laws of Nature. [I’m still waiting to hear where these laws come from]. Then the great leap into total irrationality (IMHO) occurs: What is not susceptible to “direct” perception on the basis of this abstract reduction does not exist.

    And yet, what a desecration of the historical meanings of these words “sight” and “vision!” They do not omit “direct perception” within their meaning. But it is only a fairly minor part. The main thing is “sight” and “vision” historically [ever since Athens and Jerusalem] have implied the existence of another, qualitatively different — call it self-transcendent, or spiritual — extension or dimension, wherein the acts of perception and also of apperception — interior movements of the mind engaged in rational thought — can be reconciled as human reason. And can be validated as such by correspondence to Romans 1:20.

    Howver, while I find Romans 1:20 thrillingly liberating, I gather others may feel that, as a criterion of truth — which just naturally entails moral considerations — it is far too constraining on their own ambitions and purposes.

    You were so right to cite Dostoevsky on this very point: “If God does not exist, then all things are permissible.” The statement has been attributed to Ivan, in Brothers Karamazov — who is the narrator of the chapter, “The Grand Inquisitor.” His brother, Alyosha, who was in praparation to become a monk under the tutelege of Father Zossima, was stunned by Ivan’s “poem.” Indeed, it is a harrowing experience to read it even today. But Dostoevsky rebukes Ivan’s very nasty piece of business in a subsequent chapter, “The Marriage at Cana.” This chapter is replete with wondrous epiphanies…. But I digress, and must wrap up.

    In closing, it is my belief (FWIW) that persons who deny God are in a very strange existential position: In their denial of God, they do not “kill” God; they just put Him in “eclipse” WRT their observational position — i.e., into a position where they can no longer “see” him. Somehow, they find this exercise “liberating.” But what they are really doing is cutting themselves off from the ground of their own Being, Truth, and Justice.

    God does not cease to exist just because Man has lost faith in Him.

    The faithless declare themselves to Him:

    21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Thank you so much for writing, dear thouworm! It’s good to hear from you, it’s been a while.
  • What To Be Thankful For?

    11/28/2014 3:43:34 PM PST · 14 of 20
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; xzins; metmom
    ...God is my source.... Once you come to the same understanding, you start to make decisions in a different way.... So thats what we are thankful for, not what comes from government, but what matters. Family, love, the breath in our lungs, the food in our mouths, the doors that open, the doors that close, and the hand that guides our steps.

    On Judge Napolitano's presentation, it is clear that the government is making a bid to be "the hand that guides our steps" — indeed, all our "steps." Which is why it is making a ceaseless, not-so-covert war on Christianity these days: They seek to exercise what formerly were regarded as divine powers — the power of command over each and every mortal in every particular of his life. There is nothing in the "private sphere" that cannot be politicized. Indeed, the private sphere has been practically abolished — along with God and man and what Christians call sin.

    According to the Humanist religion — and have you noticed that, nowadays, a whole lot of atheists describe themselves as Humanists? — there is no such thing as "sin." There is only Crime....

    But as Robert Hugh Benson put it, "Humanity-Religion could only be true if at least half of man's nature, aspirations, and sorrows were ignored."

    Christianity expressly recognizes that man has a given nature; that he — made in the image of God — has reason and free will to shape and give scope to his personal aspirations; and that he suffers. Suffice it to say this is the human existential position. Thus, the single most important relationship that a man can have is his relationship with God — the Ground of his being as well as all of Creation; and also of logic and reason itself; the universal laws of Nature; and the very Source of the eternal, universal moral code.

    Of course, the Humanist denies all this: He is a lover of Man (in the abstract, of course), and a hater of God. But the "Man" he loves is not such as you and I are. We are just so many criminals in prospect, that have to be restrained for our own good; or told what to do because we're too stupid to take care of ourselves and our families and our communities properly.

    To me, such an understanding represents the ravings of a lunatic. Has such a person any knowledge of history???

    And so sane people who wish to preserve their sanity at a time when madmen are running the show could make no better start than to consider your suggestion, to entertain God's Truth: That He is our Source, Alpha to Omega and at every point in between.

    That Truth surely will make you free. No other "truth" can do that.

    Thank you, dear brother in Christ, for your beautiful meditation!

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/25/2014 11:39:46 AM PST · 1,802 of 1,804
    betty boop to hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; xzins; metmom
    Love the graphic! Muhudjideen puppies, with their signature face coverings on!!! Who'd have thunk it?

    The Left Progressives dangle "democracy" in front of our eyes as the raison d'etre of American political order. This is pure bushwah, and also anhistorical.

    As Plato knew, once voters realize they can vote benefits for themselves out of the Public Purse, the end of civil society is in view; sooner or later, a tyrant will step in to restore the public "order."

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/25/2014 10:25:23 AM PST · 1,800 of 1,804
    betty boop to hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; xzins; metmom
    the word democracy gives me the willys.... I know of few that know democracy is Mob Rule by mobsters.... The brain wash has been that bad.. it’s almost worshipped.... But it is the social disease that causes socialism.

    You and Plato are on the same page here, dear brother in Christ! Plato regarded "democracy" as the fast-track to tyranny, or total lawlessness. This devolution is just a matter of time.

    The Framers, however, did not create a democracy. They created a constitutional republic. Then Ben Franklin challenged the people to see whether we could "keep it."

    It doesn't look that we have been very successful along those lines.

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/22/2014 4:01:50 PM PST · 1,798 of 1,804
    betty boop to hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; marron; xzins; metmom; YHAOS; Radix
    Nice meme Betty..

    Thank you ever so much, dear hosepipe, for your kind words of encouragement! Though I should tell you, the word "meme" somehow gives me the creeps....

    It just sounds so "pseudo-scientific" to my ear.... In a way that the word "metaphor" never does.

    I must be a cultural dinosaur.....

    Go figure!!!


  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/21/2014 2:53:33 PM PST · 1,794 of 1,804
    betty boop to hosepipe
    AND there some on BOTH teams confused as to the point of the GAME... WITH some expressly ON PURPOSE exacerbating the confusion..

    Ain't that what passes for "truth" nowadays, dear 'pipe, my brother in Christ!!!

    Chaos reigns — as the deliberative effect of the (elected) powers that be.

    But the Constitution is clear on such matters: If disorder obtains with respect to the conduct of the government relative to its constitutional duties, then it is up to the people alone to restore the civil order — by whatever just means necessary.

    Probably 0bama considers such a consideration as totally laughable. If he is "emperor," then he can squish all dissent as just so many pesky bugs. And make his executive order "stick."

    Oh how we do live in such interesting times, my brother, my friend!

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/21/2014 2:24:47 PM PST · 1,793 of 1,804
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; YHAOS
    Build the culture you want to live in. Don't wait for the culture to reform itself, don't wait for the government to change directions, don't wait for anyone else to give you permission to do anything. Build the culture you want to live in and do it yourself.

    Looks like a good practical plan to me, dear marron, brother in Christ!

    But in the next stage, one must wonder "who" decides what the common culture "IS," such that it could be "reformed?" According to what standard, what model???

    We the People are in the throes of a full-on culture war. It looks chaotic, it looks all so complicated.

    But sift all this down to the ground, and you will find that this "war" is composed of two "sides" — as necessarily any war must be.

    At bottom, it seems to me that the cultural divide is established quite easily. Just ask the question: "Do you believe in God?" Answer "YES" puts you in one camp. Answer "NO!" puts you in a different camp entirely — the opponents of traditional American history, constitutionalism, culture, aspiration....

    And thus the battle lines have been drawn. And the opposing parties must contend with each other.

    The problem is America's history and the People's traditional understanding of what the U.S.A. stands for, and of what it means to be an American citizen, is evidently up for grabs. So, bring on Chicago thugs — er, "community organizers" —to reinterpret our own actual American history and make the new model "mandatory." Using all public administrative bodies as tools empowered to ensure this result.

    Oh, but I digress. Let me close by saying I believe you are exactly right in recommending that "building the culture," effectively by personal action, is fundamental, essential to the restoration of the Public Order.

    As Plato noticed over two millennia ago, public questions finally, that is to say at bottom, always relate to the order of the individual human person. One can opine about Plato's supposedly nefarious "political theory" all day long [as Ayn Rand tirelessly and falsely does..].

    But the fact remains: one of Plato's finest legacies to us in our own age is his observation that in any political order, or "state" whatsoever, Classical Greek philosophy had anticipated the notion that, from the very root of the Cosmos, not only life and intelligence, but also the sense of a common human community (i.e., the universal human sense of moral order), prevails eternally.

    Maybe I'm getting a little off-topic here. But having recently read David Bohm's spectacular Wholeness and the Implicate Order, I would say that one cannot detach "local" experience from the wider community of which we are all parts and participants.

    Your instruction to "build the culture you want to live in and do it yourself" recognizes the very model of hoped-for [see: Benjamin Franklin on this question] citizen behavior under the aegis of the American Experiment.

    One must order himself before he can justly order his own family and, by extension from there, whether he likes it or not, his own local community and beyond.

    For Plato,, civic virtue was self-propagating by and in families, something to be transmitted to one's children. Civic vice was seen as not only self-destructive, not only something that wrought destruction to the perpetrator, sooner or later; but far worse, was a principal source of disorder in the wider public community....

    The lesson being: Moral teaching literally starts at home. The order of the person is primary; then, the order of the family. And then, the order of the public sphere — the community — of which one is necessarily part and participant.

    So, let's take your great advice, dear marron: Let's build the culture we want to live in, by our own efforts (with the help of the Holy Sprit), for the benefit of the rising generation!

    If WE now living don't do that, depend upon it: The PL will have won....

  • IRS is monitoring comment threads on conservative blogs

    11/21/2014 12:16:22 PM PST · 105 of 117
    betty boop to PROCON; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; YHAOS; xzins
    Thanks so much for posting this article, PROCON!!! I found it totally hilarious.

    And yet, I also found the irony involved positively chilling....

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/21/2014 11:36:59 AM PST · 1,791 of 1,804
    betty boop to metmom; Alamo-Girl; xzins; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS
    If it were merely poor academics, that could be countered easily enough with supplementing at home. The problem has become the indoctrination into liberal thought and Marxism and the over sexualization of the children.... The damage done in that arena cannot be overcome and will have an impact on future generations as these kids grow up to be damaged adults with no good moral foundation.

    Indeed, dear sister in Christ, that is the chilling. mind-numbing horror that such folks are systematically perpetrating on the rising generation of American children. And they call it "public education." But what are they "educating?" Future savages — or slaves maybe?

    I know you are a battle-tested warrior on such issues. I was totally delighted to hear that your (home-schooled) daughter, R, received her B.S. in Physics with honors from Stanford last Spring.

    If the public schools continue to refuse to transmit American history and culture, then alternatives must be found.

    Not everyone can home-school their children. Then the options become private school or — better — charter schools.

    Private schools are notoriously expensive in my part of the world, approaching $32,000 per year in secular institutions. They are thus not an option for most people.

    Religiously-affiliated schools might have lower tuition rates. But then, maybe not. I know of a religiously-affiliated school in New York City (which has been in the news recently, due to protests against its draconian dress-code) whose annual tuition is $32,000.

    Plus parents who pay tuition at religious schools have already paid their "pound of flesh" into the public schools, via property taxes. Looks like a sort of double taxation to me, just to educate one's own child in the manner one thinks proper and beneficial to the child. Only parents have the right to specify such things, WRT their own progeny.

    Charter schools are probably the best prospect for most people, who want to remove their children form the physical and intellectual damage they would suffer by remaining in the public school.

    Perhaps needless to say, charter schools have been the main targets of the politically, ideologically-driven Progressive Left. [It's that "teachers union thing," dontcha know? The PL not only must corrupt people into slavery, but they then must retain the slaves they recruited... I suppose this gets expensive after a while. But then, the PL is blythe to pass along such bills to the U.S. and State taxpayer....]

    We are so being "conned!!!" Wake up, people! Bestir yourself! Speak truth to power every now and then!

    At the end of the day, We Christians do have God on our side. I place all my faith and hope and love in Him. He does not forsake those who love Him.

    Thank you so very much, dear metmom, dear sister in Christ, for sharing your insights!

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/21/2014 10:23:23 AM PST · 1,790 of 1,804
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; xzins; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom
    "They detest liberty on principle."

    Having thought that statement over further, dearest sister in Christ, I find I need to qualify it.

    Progressive thinkers detest liberty on principle — as long as it's the liberty of others. In their own minds, they themselves are, of course, exempt from this rule: They want absolutely unfettered liberty of action for themselves. To gain power in the public sphere therefore entails that the liberty of others be totally suppressed. Progressives finally see every public question in terms of a zero-sum game — expressed as a matter of social and political power. E.g., if anyone benefits, it must come at the expense of another. Oh, and don't forget: God is dead. So He can't stop us.

    Or so they assume.

    What a great way to polarize and divide what formerly was a more-or-less unified, society in common dedicated to the equal dignity, inalienable rights and equal justice for every citizen. That sort of thing is NOT a zero-sum game. It is the prescription for the empowerment of the human individual.

    Which is an idea, ever since John Dewey, that the Progressive Educrats have been trying to smother in its cradle.

    But we know "which side" they play for. Suffice it to say, they are no lovers of God.

    Thank you so much for writing, dearest! and for noticing that complacency in the face of this demonic assault on Christianity and American society is not an option!

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/19/2014 11:00:25 AM PST · 1,784 of 1,804
    betty boop to xzins; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom
    Just a quick comment: “Common Core” is an initiative by the elite to consolidate their hold over the education sector.

    Yep. Another Trojan Horse. We are not to ask who gets to decide what goes into this "common core." Common core of what?

    Certainly the progressive educrats will try to swallow up internet, private, charter, and home schools. They detest liberty on principle.

    But where does it say that Christians are helpless against this onslaught on traditional character formation and the future well-being of our children? Where does it say we cannot push back whenever we can, wherever we stand? Where are the "warriors" of — and for —Christ?

    For instance, do you know what's in your child's textbooks? If you don't like what you find, don't hesitate to complain to the principal, school superintendent, and/or school board!!! In most cases, the last is composed of elected officials upon whom political pressure might successfully be applied....

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/19/2014 10:33:23 AM PST · 1,783 of 1,804
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    They teach the “classics”, true, but that isn’t the point. They provide a classical education in the sense you mean, teaching people how to think, and leading them to think about the big issues of life.

    Often, such colleges follow the "great books" model of education, wherein one reads the actual historical cultural sources, rather than textbooks that summarize such material.

    Thomas Aquinas College is a splendid example of a great books institution.

    Another splendid example is Hillsdale College. They do not take a dime of taxpayer funding. Happily, this means that federal and state educrats have little leverage to use against them if they do not comply with the educrats' prescribed orthodoxies. Which Hillsdale — a liberty-loving institution — actively opposes and resists. They actively reach out to the national community with their free on-line courses — check out the latest, "The Presidency and the Constitution." Then there is their free newsletter, Imprimis, which features wonderful writers from inside and outside academe engaging critically important topics. The November issue, now out and available on-line, is "Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Economic Productivity," by Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago.

    Then there's Hillsdale's Washington, D.C.-based Kirby Center, a sort of lobbying organization that vigorously promotes the Constitution and conservatism on Capitol Hill and beyond.

    To return to our main issue: Under the great books model, one must actively do one's own thinking and analyzing, rather than just passively receive pre-fab material composed by "experts" and "pre-digested" for us. This is the progressive approach to pedagogy. E.g., you don't actually have to read Herodotus; instead you get a description of who he was and what he said.

    Some catholic colleges and universities have become quite progressive in recent times. You can pretty much ascertain which are the progressive ones by finding out whether or not they use the great books model in their humanities departments....

    Anyhoot, just some thoughts, FWTW. Thanks so much for your keen observations, dear brother in Christ!

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/13/2014 1:40:40 PM PST · 1,778 of 1,804
    betty boop to xzins; Norm Lenhart; entropy12; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; roamer_1; caww
    ...those like Parsons — who were attempting to find principles of 'mass behavior' that would explain how humans get pinged about in this force field of society — were only barely interested in the psychology of the individual.

    You got that dead to rights, dear brother in Christ! We apparently agree on this: there are no principles of mass behavior applicable to humans conceived of as abstract "particles" getting pinged about in the force field of society. Such a concept reduces human experience and human history to near-total irrelevance.

    Or to put it another way, what is commonly understood as "science" nowadays all too often "simplifies" its increasingly daunting problems by eradicating all intractable, non-compliant evidence into irrelevancy in principle, from the get-go. Both God and man get eradicated in this process....

    I do agree with Norm Lenhart's statement [hi Norm!!!]:

    If you gut our current [educational] system and replace it with actual teachers, America would return in a generation or two. As long as the schools remain under communist control, no chance.

    Still, questions remain: (1) Can we expect the luxury of two more generations will be available to restore the American cultural order, such that it may again thrive and prosper? (2) What sort of educational theory would be required to facilitate that objective?

    As to question (1), I have no idea. As to question (2), I hope the following thoughts might prove helpful.

    The classical understanding of education of the young was that it was the prime transmission belt of the common culture, well-grounded in human experience and tradition, to the rising generation.

    In America, this understanding was best exemplified by the McGuffey's Reader series. Not only did this series teach reading, writing, and mathematics, but it often referred to sources from the classical world at the root of American culture and civilizational order; e.g., the fable of "Andronicus and the Lion."

    A fable never tells a pupil what to think. It can only show the pupil where to look. Then, it's up to the pupil to go and look or not. (And if he looks, to tell the rest of us what he's seen, if he's up to it.)

    In short, classical educational theory is premised in the Socratic Method, which was not at all about "telling," but "showing" the pupil how to find out for himself. And in classical Athens — the first experiment with republicanism — every citizen was expected to be competent as a public figure who, with his fellow citizens, would determine the future course of the State.

    The McGuffey's Reader conformed to that classical understanding: It cared about building competent citizens.

    All that started to change, in American pedagogy, roughly a hundred years ago; and the main facilitator of that change was John Dewey, esteemed educationist and political Progressive.

    Perhaps needless to say, Dewey didn't construct his innovations out of whole cloth all by himself. It turns out that he was charmed by/under the influence of the Prussian model of educationist theory, under the influence of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) .

    Humboldt was "a prominent German philologist, diplomat, and man of letters" [according to Eric Voegelin, "The German University and German Society," footnote #24; in Collected Letters of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990], "who did much to stamp the character of German nineteenth-century higher education." The footnote goes on: "[Humboldt's] educational philosophy is attacked here by Voegelin as a form of narcissistic self-absorption that seeks to turn man away from the transcendent."

    Which sounds like a mouthful, but I won't go into the gory details here. On the subject of classical vs. progressive education theory, I'll just let Humboldt speak for himself:

    The ancients concerned themselves with the strength and development of man as man; the moderns with his material well-being, his property, and his earning capacity. The ancients sought virtue, the moderns happiness.... The highest ideal of human beings living together, I believe, would be that in which each develops out of himself and for his own sake.

    Talk about a human being as if he were an atomized particle! With no connection to anything outside of himself, not to nature, not to his fellow human beings in social community.

    But what this EDUCATIONIST MODEL does achieve is the purported economic well-being and advancement of an abstracted, isolated man, who under this regime will thus be a reliable taxpayer to the State. This is a deal with the devil: The citizen is being prompted to look after his own personal development and interests, with the trade-off being that he is no longer required to contribute anything as a citizen to his political community.

    Indeed, that seems to be the entire point of Humboldt's educationist enterprise: It is the State that is sovereign, not the people who constitute the State. Basic considerations of "division of labor" urge that an expert class emerge to "govern." This saves a whole lot of time and bother on the part of "ordinary" people — who nonetheless end up paying for the entire freight of the bad, top-down policies being imposed on them by an elite which has no basic sympathy with/for them.

    Must close, but first, in short: The problem with American public education nowadays cannot be laid at the doorstep of the teachers unions and teachers colleges exclusively. They are only the late developments of "bad seed" laid down nearly a century ago. From such premises, they are merely the chickens that have come home to roost....

    Suffice it to say: I am all for charter schools, private schools (especially if they are religiously affiliated), and homeschooling.

    The public schools are utterly corrupt nowadays.

    Thank you so very much for writing, dear brother in Christ, and for your kind words.

  • Breaking Twitter - Early exit polls show GOP wins in KY, AR, CO, IA, KS, GA

    11/12/2014 3:55:11 PM PST · 1,773 of 1,804
    betty boop to xzins; Norm Lenhart; entropy12; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; roamer_1; caww
    It's long been my opinion that our American socialists were students of Talcott Parson's social structuralism, even if he was anti-communist. His system made sense.

    Jeepers, dear brother in Christ, I can't figure out how Talcott Parsons got integrated into this discussion. But I do find his "Structural–Functional Model of Society — Institutional Interaction" intriguing, and so did a little background research into Parsons.

    On this base, I am confident that Parsons himself was not a socialist. And that it is absolutely the case that he detested both communism and national socialism equally, not discerning a dime's-worth of difference between them.

    I gather he had two main mentors WRT his intellectual development and subsequent worldview: the great German idealist philosopher, Immanuel Kant; and John Calvin (who needs no introduction here). What an extraordinarily interesting "brew!"

    Anyhoot, just because Parsons was not himself a socialist does not mean that socialists would not find his work attractive and helpful for their own ends.

    What I find most remarkable about Talcott Parsons is that he really did seem to believe that the problems of the order of the human person and by extension to society at large could actually be reduced to a "scientific model." [And as we all know by now, Socialists are always fond of invoking "science!!!" to justify any lame-brained proposition they advance. In which case, people who cannot tell you the boiling point of water will nod they heads "sagely," in concurrence with "expert opinion."....

    He had total confidence in the ability and fitness of the scientific method to reveal the heretofore hidden secrets of human nature and experience. With this supposition in mind, he persuaded Harvard University — where he conducted most of his distinguished and long-lived academic career — to help Pitirim Sorokin establish an official Department of Sociology there, in 1931; and to provide indispensable stewardship of the new department in the following years.

    But to me, such a project is doomed to failure from the get-go. The scientific method, as it is currently understood and applied, deals only with a teensy little slice of the total Reality — that is to say, to that which falls under "direct observation/perception," under the further condition that the observer himself has already selected that which he will observe.

    What could go wrong there???

    Anyhoot, Parson's wonderfully vibrating "Structuralist/Functional Model" can be further translated from actual experience into such "scientific terms" as:

    The Cartesian Plane. This is a two-spatial-dimensional layout, the grid onto which "evidence" is to be transposed, analyzed, and confirmed/disconfirmed. As if there were anything in human experience or Nature at large that could conceivably be reduced to two "measurable" dimensions!!!

    The Context of Newtonian Space and Time. In this classical model, time is a linear, irreversible, sequential movement of "objects" (particles) moving from past to future state. [There is no "in-between," as Aristotle's Third Law demands. But then, Aristotle never heard of either relativity or quantum theory.]

    And the law of causation that applies in this conceptual situation requires that (1) every motion invokes an equal but opposite motion; and (2) all causation implies LOCAL causation — an assumption about the very nature of things that quantum theory absolutely denies.

    Parson's "Scientific Bent". Parsons may have been an intellectual/spiritual child of John Calvin, but he was also a child of the Enlightenment — who evidently had not digested the revolutionary implications of Relativity and Quantum Theory. I gather, being generally unaware of developments in these fields, he struggled to reconcile his Calvinist worldview with Newtonian dynamics as such.

    In this process, he conceptualized a sort of "social action principle." This is what I see in the model you posted, dear xzins. Which reminds me that in science, physics has its "least action principle" as foundational to all the various disciplines of the natural sciences. Except, as some would argue these days, the biological sciences, which entail a "greatest-action principle."

    All this is so much speculation to me. To me the interesting thing is that such a deep, capacious, enormously well-researched social thinker as Talcott Parsons would get so abstracted by the idea that the "social sciences" could possibly advance by dumping all the "non-observational" elements of human existential experience in order to make it conform to generally accepted "scientific principles and methods."

    I'd love to speak about the sectors of human Reality that have to be totally excised and obliterated from human consciousness for such a "method" to triumph. But I may not find respondents who care about such things.

    Oh, before I sign off, I alluded to some kind of new "action principle" that Parsons was evoking in his Model. It seems to me it is premised in the Newtonian idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As if "actions" were fully "quantifiable" in the first place.

    Which I daresay, they are not. At least they are not within the "measurable" reach of scientific predictive tools....

    Thanks for mentioning Talcott Parsons. He was a man of enormous intellectual reach and influence. And I can say that, even if I think and believe that he spent most of his distinguished professional career on a "wild goose chase."

    Of course, the Socialists LOVE Parsons' "science," >qua science. The Socialists — especially the Progressive wing — LOVE to invoke "science" in support of their fallacious and nefarious falsifications of reality. But as Professor Gruber says, they are so stupid they don't know how to think or make rational decisions about scientific propositions, let alone their their own personal welfare.

  • Why You Shouldn’t Vote

    11/02/2014 10:04:03 AM PST · 401 of 884
    betty boop to entropy12; Kaslin; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; hosepipe; xzins; metmom; roamer_1; caww
    When you do not vote, you help create an INCUMBENT democrat.... Incumbents win re-elections in overwhelming numbers.... It is far harder to dislodge an incumbent democrat compared to defeating a RINO in next primary.

    Thank you so very much, entropy12, for your astute observations! I totally agree. The Dems must simply be removed from office as expeditiously as possible, and sooner rather than later. The main chance for constitutional and social conservatives comes Nov. 4th. I hope they will not blow it.

    Jeepers, even some Democrats want to stop the Democrats!

    Here's Michael Goodwin on this subject, excerpted from his editorial in today's New York Post:

    With painfully few exceptions, Democrats put their loyalty to [Obama] above their duty to America.

    And now they must be punished. All of them.

    Normally, I am not a partisan advocate. I am a registered Democrat, though I vote as an Independent.

    Not this year. This is a national emergency and the only responsible action is to vote Republican for every federal office. Not because Republicans all deserve to win, but because all Democrats deserve to lose.

    Sparing even a favorite Democrat or two could allow Obama to spin defeat as a minor loss. Most worrisome, if Dems keep the Senate, the election will further entrench a corrupt government and further erode America's strength and influence.

    That is not a chance worth taking. Six years is enough. Collective punishment is the appropriate answer.

    If there were any doubts the Obama Democrats cannot be trusted, look at their scurrilous campaigns. From coast to coast, their message is uniformly odious: Republicans are waging a "war on women" and they are racists.

    That's it. They can't defend the legislation they passed, the economy they produced or the foreign policy they supported....

    Scraping the bottom of the rancid barrel, they prove they will do anything to hold on to power. They cannot be allowed to succeed.

    It is time for them to go.

  • Why You Shouldn’t Vote

    11/02/2014 8:38:46 AM PST · 273 of 884
    betty boop to Kaslin; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; hosepipe; xzins; metmom; entropy12; roamer_1; caww
    You want to purge the party? Do it from a position of strength. I’m all for a battle royale for the soul of the Republican Party, but not until AFTER the Democrats are vanquished.... But for the good of the country, you’ll live in “now” and work for the future.

    Derek Hunter nails it, and offers the best, soundest, most prudential advice: Go VOTE; vote GOP so to vanquish the Democrats. We have to staunch the bleeding before the "patient" — our American civil order — can be restored to health again. Otherwise, the patient will just bleed out and die. What would that mean for our kids and grandkids?

    Thanks for the post Kaslin.

  • The sad, twisted truth about conservative Christianity’s effect on the mind (Salon)

    11/01/2014 9:21:12 PM PDT · 71 of 79
    betty boop to YHAOS
    Research reveals religious beliefs can alter brain function, making us more prone to anxiety and depression.

    One wonders about the state of mind of the nutcase who would use "science" to justify such an absurd statement.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    11/01/2014 12:09:03 PM PDT · 106 of 127
    betty boop to marron; entropy12; roamer_1; xzins; Alamo-Girl; caww; YHAOS; hosepipe
    If the GOP runs a guy who isn’t strong on those issues when those issues are so obviously self-evident then we’ve already lost.

    But it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. I'm not sure she's even warming up yet.

    FWIW, the first thing that needs doing is the retirement of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. He is 0Bama's chief enabler and codependent. That will mean electing a Senate majority this coming Tuesday. Enuf said.

    That could buy conservatives some time — to get the GOP Party Establishment back in ORDER.

    The Party is suicidal to think it can prosper by spitting on its natural (and historical) base. The "official" Party needs to divest itself of all relations with special-interest groups, no matter how deep their pockets. It needs to start listening to the People again and can begin doing that by simply listening to what the Tea Party is saying (they've already done the "homework"). It can articulate an inspiring message to the American Middle Class that it will defend their interests. And that's just for starters.

    In short, I have not lost HOPE.

    Methinks neither should you, dear brother in Christ.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    11/01/2014 11:51:01 AM PDT · 105 of 127
    betty boop to entropy12; roamer_1; Alamo-Girl; xzins; caww; marron; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom
    It is like pissing in the wind. But sometimes it does feel better to piss in the wind on a cold day. It does make you feel warm for a few minutes.

    Hello!!! With a big shout-out to a fellow Christian Realist!!!

    Being female, I can't directly relate to this experience.

    However, I can well imagine it. :^)

    Thank you for making me laugh (and cry)!

  • An Appeal to Christians Who Plan to Sit Out This Election

    11/01/2014 10:22:51 AM PDT · 163 of 176
    betty boop to Kaslin
    My long-time pastor, the late D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. said this about Christians and politics in general: “I remember 20 years ago, a Christian said to me, ‘You don’t really believe that Christians should get active in politics do you?’ And I said, with tongue in cheek, ‘Why, of course not, we ought to leave it to the atheists, otherwise, we wouldn’t have anything to complain about. And we’d really rather complain than do something, wouldn’t we?’”


  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    11/01/2014 10:19:17 AM PDT · 104 of 127
    betty boop to xzins; Alamo-Girl; marron; caww; entropy12; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    A legislative half-victory can block a bad executive from doing a lot of damage.

    We definitely agree on that point, dear brother in Christ!

    On the other hand, your basic presupposition seems to be that Romney would have been a "bad executive" — which is something his professional biography would tend to refute. Plus no POTUS can "rule alone"; e.g., by executive orders. A power-hungry narcissist like Obama might not agree with that statement; but Romney is neither power hungry nor narcissist. Plus I strongly doubt he would have taken a wrecking ball to the Constitution....

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/30/2014 11:55:26 AM PDT · 80 of 127
    betty boop to marron; caww; Alamo-Girl; entropy12; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    My whole life I have seen the GOP as a worthy extension of my Christian and constitutionalist views.... I no longer see them in that light. They are just one more problem to be surmounted and overcome.

    Yep. I guess the lesson is: You gotta play the hand you're dealt. But you get up and walk away when you don't trust the dealer; or suspect widespread, systematic cheating around the table....

    THEN you get to sue the dealer and the establishment that sponsors him.... That's what federal elections are all about.

    Anyhoot, once again you disappoint me by announcing that you are not running as candidate for POTUS!!! In my personal acquaintance, there are few people I would trust with that job. But you would be one of them, dear brother in Christ! [I did catch the irony in your statement....]

    On my view, Benjamin Carson is an authentic, down-to-the ground Conservative. But he is not "doctrinaire" in any respect. He works in a highly collaborative field, where one is best served by listening to others with direct knowledge of facts on the ground. Interestingly, he asks for Mozart to be played in his neurosurgical operating theater. He sets great store by logic and evidence. It seems clear to me that the greatest influence in his life is his (sainted!) mother — and the Book of Proverbs.

    But my suspicion is, Carson has no burning need to run for president. I doubt he aspires to the job. Indeed, why should he? He is a prolific, best-selling author; he has his charitable foundations to attend to; he is in demand as a public speaker; and he is a man of independent means, who has already established a brilliant career. Plus he knows how hard it is on families when a family member is running for president. Why put them through it?

    In short, I don't think he wants to run. Then the question becomes: Can he be drafted?

    I dunno. Am not worried about it.

    I will conclude with this: For a person who has not served one single day in governmental service in his life, Dr. Benjamin Carson is one of the most eminent, accomplished Public Men now living.

    I pray God's blessings upon him and his family — and also upon you and yours, dear brother in Christ!

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/30/2014 11:04:38 AM PDT · 76 of 127
    betty boop to caww; Alamo-Girl; marron; entropy12; YHAOS; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA; ...
    I could agree with Carson’s ideas of this great country ...but not’s become something else entirely BB...and certainly not under God or there would be a stronger push back than we’re seeing.... I’ve definitely seen a huge change in even peoples' willingness to hear the Gospel Message from how it once’s as though God is removing His Spirit slowly from this country.....and the people are willing to let it be so.

    RE: "God is removing His Spirit slowly from this country": I see the matter slightly differently, dear caww.

    In the first place, I believe God does not abandon souls who love Him. I also believe that God acts through souls who love Him, at His pleasure. At the heart of Reality, there is a divine/human community, fostered and mediated by the Holy Spirit.

    The Spirit is always immediately there to remind us of the crucial Christian virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love — so long as our souls remain open to Him. It is obvious that, in our day and age, a new type of man has emerged, whose soul is hermetically sealed against Spirit as a matter of principle; e.g., atheists, agnostics, materialists, any manner of progressive thinker....

    To me, such a person denies the foundation of his own humanity. But that may be subject matter for another day.

    Anyhoot, I think the above is a fair account of the source of the cultural split in our nation today. Ben Carson draws the distinction likewise, as "lovers of God vs. lovers of men."

    RE the upcoming election: What is a guaranteed loser position here is to lose all HOPE and think there's nothing you can do to help, so you might as well stay home.

    Looking into my crystal ball, here is the big picture I see.

    We the People have been masterly set-up by The Other Side ("TOS"), whose main spear-carrier nowadays appears to be the Nutcase-in-Chief who has been squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, for the past six years.

    0bama is not only on the verge of "doubling down" WRT each and every horrific policy he has championed in the upcoming Lame Duck Congress (whatever the outcome of next Tuesday is); he's going "all in," making a bid for absolute supremacy, and defying anyone to stop him.

    He'll wreak all kinds of unconstitutional havoc before the next Congress is sworn in, early January.

    At that point, the question becomes: Of what is the next Congress composed? Also, what party is in control of the respective houses — and critically, the Senate?

    If the GOP does not come way from this election in control of the Senate, that means Harry Reid can be expected to continue taking a wrecking ball to the Senate, to the Legislative Branch, to the constitutional separation and balance of powers, with total impunity.

    To the point of close collaboration with the Nutcase Usurper, thus to utterly destroy our constitutional republic, so that the Nutcase-in-Chief can assume the sort of unlimited dictatorical powers of a Castro, or a Noriega....

    Which entails that the American people are "forever" to be assigned the status of so much "cattle." (In 0bama's fevered brain.)

    If, however, the GOP does carry the Senate, it's faced with a fait accompli: The fat is already in the fire. Yet my suspicion is, 0bama's various acts of unconstitutional executive usurpation will have inspired an amazing backlash from the people. So many of whom, after all, are Christians.

    If the next Senate is GOP-controlled, there is at least a chance of holding 0bama accountable for his acts in violation of his constitutional Oath of Office.

    If it's Dem-controlled, then you get a total whitewash; and Washington business goes on "as usual."

    Which eventually entails the destruction of the American Middle Class as Job #1, and thus the implosion of American civil order.... Then we get to "reap the whirlwind."

    Dear caww, although there have been times lately when I've felt a bit despondent, discouraged myself — it is so difficult to breathe in a noxious, toxic culture of lies — still, I find renewal in the Holy Spirit, who constantly bids me to keep alive the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love, to follow Christ, to pray for help and guidance, and then to leave the rest up to God.

    May God ever bless you and all your dear ones!

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/29/2014 4:41:33 PM PDT · 68 of 127
    betty boop to xzins
    Heaven knows, dear brother in Christ, that the GOP is deserving of "scourging" by Christians. They have been faithless to the Constitution, to the founding values and principles of this nation, and regard genuine conservative thinkers more as "flies in the ointment" than as potential collaborators — people who need to be stopped, not consulted with.

    This should be obvious to anyone who is aware of how the GOP thinks of/deals with the Tea Party.

    They seem to be unaware that they are already dinosaurs.... The world has moved on.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/29/2014 4:35:25 PM PDT · 67 of 127
    betty boop to bert; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; MHGinTN; TXnMA; ronnie raygun; GraceG; entropy12; ...
    He spoke very deliberately and quietly. No oratorical crescendos, just pure reason, deliberately and strongly driving home his points. Mostly and very pointedly, no teleprompter.

    Indeed, no teleprompter — or prepared notes, I understand: He speaks entirely extemporaneously.

    You wrote, "Here on Free Republic he [Carson] has already been declared to be lacking the Christ Like conservative purity many demand. That is supreme foolishness."

    Oh, I so agree. But then there are people who frequent this site who feel that no one can possibly rise to their level of discriminating judgment when it comes to judging souls with whom they do not entirely agree on every point — which is the very thing the Lord warns us against doing: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I gather such folks are their own exacting standard or model of what is deemed "righteousness" in their own minds.

    I spent the day reading Carson's wonderfully thought-provoking book, America the Beautiful (2012). I'd like to share the culminating passages, under the concluding section head, "Building on our solid foundation":

    I feel blessed to have lived here in America for sixty years, with hopefully many more to come. In all those years, I have never met a perfect person — and since nations are simply collections of imperfect people, I have never seen a perfect nation. In looking back through the history of the world, however, I feel very comfortable in saying that there has never been another nation like the United States of America. Yes, we have made mistakes, but we continue to learn from them, and as long as we remain capable of embracing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our goal, and we are willing to guarantee those things to our citizens, I believe we will continue to grow in greatness.

    When our forefathers knelt and prayed for wisdom at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, then stood up and together assembled a seventeen-page document known as the Constitution of the United States of America, they were clearly guided by the hand of God. Today the forces of political correctness would expel God from every public sphere in American life, and the hearts and minds of every man, woman, and child in America are up for grabs in this cataclysmic battle between the lovers of men and the lovers of God. Some would rather never choose between the two, but life is full of choices, and our individual and collective choices determine the quality of our existence.

    I believe it is time for us [Christians] to stand up and be counted. We can no longer be passive because the Judeo-Christian way of life in America is at stake. We need not be ashamed of our faith, and we certainly should not allow those who believe differently to change who we are in order to be politically correct. Yes, we should accept them with brotherly love as we have been taught, but we should never compromise our belief system. We do believe in God, and we do believe in the right of everyone to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do believe in orderly government that facilitates these goals rather than impedes them. It is time to set aside political correctness and replace it with the bold values and principles that founded our nation and caused it to race to the pinnacle of the world faster than any other nation in history. It is time to stop apologizing and to start leading, because the world is desperately in need of fair and ethical leadership. If that leader is not America, then who will it be, and where will they lead?

    If we apply logic to solving our problems and add the godly principles of loving our fellow man, caring about our neighbors, and developing our God-given talents to the utmost so we become valuable to those around us — allowing these values and principles to govern our lives — then not only will we remain a pinnacle nation, we will truly be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    It is my prayer, America, that God will continue to shed his grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. I pray that with his blessings our past will be but a stepping stone to a bight future and that our best days will truly lie ahead of us — a beautiful new beginning!

    To Carson, America is beautiful — because America is godly.

    Carson is unaffiliated with any political party. Nor am I, since 2010, when I left the Republican Party in total disgust. In the course of this work, Carson points out that, all too often nowadays, our supposed "representatives" in all branches of government have become "representatives," not of their actual constituents back home, but of their party organizations. The Republican party, being no longer "conservative" in any real sense, has already destroyed itself at its very base. Outside of partisan politics, of winning elections, of gaining and consolidating power (to what purpose???), it thinks of nothing at all.

    Anyhoot, it seems we are in a state of flux. Christians need to step up their game. On this point, as on most, I totally agree with Dr. Carson.

    Thank you so very much, bert, for your excellent observations!

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/29/2014 3:28:13 PM PDT · 66 of 127
    betty boop to hosepipe
    ** did I mention there may BE no election in 2016..

    It seems that Dr. Benjamin Carson is worried about that eventuality, too. What Obama does during the lame-duck session may provide clues about how he intends to successfully bring about that eventuality into actual reality. (Carson is evidently worried about the prospects of total social anarchy by then.)

    It's hard to tell who Obama's co-cospirators were/are — other than Allah and his deranged, barbaric minions, or maybe even Satan himself (if you were to ask me).

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 2:30:39 PM PDT · 46 of 127
    betty boop to ronnie raygun; GraceG; entropy12; rfreedom4u; MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; ...
    Executive actions stop when the balless in DC get together as a force and crush him like the sh## he is. He needs to be smacked so hard his grandmother feels it

    Hear, hear!!! ronnie raygun! From your lips to God's ear.... [Sorry Grandma that you had to get dragged into this....]

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 2:26:56 PM PDT · 45 of 127
    betty boop to GraceG; entropy12; rfreedom4u; MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; ...
    A serious constitutional crisis is just around the corner. Obama is going to make his big move to assume dictator status soon after the election. This will test our Republic in ways never before seen before. It could get real ugly.

    I'm of the same mind, dear GraceG.

    So who, or what, will stop him? And at what cost?

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 2:23:57 PM PDT · 44 of 127
    betty boop to entropy12; rfreedom4u; MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; ..
    Ya mean Obummer is more radical than the Mittster would have been?

    Oh yes, I do indeed.

    For one thing, it is inconceivable that Romney thought that he, as president, could "rule alone." For another, there is nothing in his personal background to suggest that he was an implacable, full-bore enemy of the U.S. Constitution.

    To me, Romney was most definitely "the lesser of two weevils" in the last presidential go-round.

    Now, we live with the consequences of that national vote....

    Wise up, dear friend. Sometimes, "we don't always get what we want"; but we have to do the best we can with what we are given.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 2:14:28 PM PDT · 43 of 127
    betty boop to rfreedom4u; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; MikeinMotley; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    My question is who would the rioters target? Whites? Politicians? Either way, I am armed and ready.

    I hear you.

    On the other hand, Americans historically have taken pride in resolving civil disputes by peaceable means.

    Whether this is any longer possible is beyond my ken.

    Yet in the American past, where civil discord was unresolvable by peaceable (i.e., electoral) means, a quasi-suicidal civil war was necessary to fix the problem.

    Hope we don't have to revisit a history that we should have already learned from, in spades. I hope we don't have to go that route again.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 2:04:28 PM PDT · 42 of 127
    betty boop to hosepipe choose a known obvious democrat appeaser and collaborator..(Myth Romney)....BY CONSERVATIVES... did they use voting machines?..

    Whatta reach. Kiddo, methinks you are way too down deep in conspiracy theory here. FWIW.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 1:31:27 PM PDT · 41 of 127
    betty boop to xzins; MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; rfreedom4u; sanjuanbob; ilovesarah2012; ..
    It is important to peruse that list and pick out those categories that the republican establishment in lockstep with the chamber of commerce is silently supporting.

    Okay. Are you suggesting, dear brother in Christ, that the next election is all about some kind of Christian scourging of the GOP? Like the last election was all about preventing a person who held horrendous spiritual views from being elected POTUS, notwithstanding that on any objective view, he was by far "the lesser evil" in terms of the preservation of the liberty interests of the American people and the communities they form?

    I bought a book today — Benjamin Carson's America the Beautiful — which I have only read so far as the endorsements and the Table of Contents. I am avid to read further.

    One of the endorsements was from Franklin Graham, and I thought it wonderfully judicious and prudential:

    Dr. Ben Carson has turned a spotlight on an unstable society that seeks to destroy the foundation upon which America was built. He has peered into the microscope lens that reveals the deception of those trying to rewrite the history of our country. He stirs up our national pride with historical accounts that reveal why America has been blessed of God and how close we are to the brink of losing freedoms won long ago through sacrifice and bloodshed. The heart of this nation has been severed from the lifeline of God's truth.

    Which instantly led me to the question: Why did so many Christians, really, sit out the Presidential Election of 2012, or give their precious vote to a guaranteed loser?

    To my way of thinking, certainly these people did nothing to progress the well-being of a nation "blessed by God." What they inadvertently did, however, was to help return an unfit, unqualified, and ideologically deranged person to the office of POTUS.

    And now, we get to suffer under his final two years in office, and watch him manipulate a Lame-Duck Congress into hewing to his unilateral mandates.

    I hold to the view that all acts of an impeached president are, under our Constitution, null and void as to law.

    But Obama is DEFYING us to impeach him. At which point, he thinks he can open the very gates of Hell against American society.

    All this "drama" could have been obviated, two years ago....

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 12:45:32 PM PDT · 38 of 127
    betty boop to hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; marron; YHAOS; MikeinMotley; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    Not that most republican officials even care about massive voter fraud....

    They'd be NUTZ not to. It seems, from the early voting stats, that there are a whole bunch of "miscalibrated" voting machines already out there — the common "miscalibration" having to do with the problem of recording a Democrat vote when one has voted Republican. Funny how they are all "miscalibrated" in the same way....

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 12:40:51 PM PDT · 36 of 127
    betty boop to rfreedom4u; MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    Impeachment is the best option provided he is removed from office.

    The Nutcase-in-Chief assumes that he is immune from threat of Impeachment. Take that to the bank.

    I gather he believes that, should any Congress dare do such a thing, there would "likely" be — as if by spontaneous happenstance — widespread race riots, social anarchy from sea to shining sea. All this before it could ever get to the Senate for trial, verdict, and likely removal from office.

    Too few people understand how this man thinks.... It's not like the rest of us do.

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/28/2014 12:33:02 PM PDT · 35 of 127
    betty boop to MikeinMotley; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA
    no big secret ping!

    Thanks for the ping!

    Point of fact: Point-for-point this article's exposure of Obama's lame-duck Congressional plans (or the evasion of same by Executive Order) did not surprise me — e.g., Amnesty, nominations, environmental policy, foreign policy, energy policy, Omamacare.

    What chilled me to the bone, however, was Paul Sperry's surfacing of something I hadn't imaged before: That the overweening federal government intends to "nationalize" local zoning ordinances — which is to spit acid into the eye of the Tenth Amendment.

    Can/will the American people stand for this grotesque assault on American civil order???

  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/27/2014 3:52:03 PM PDT · 2 of 127
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; YHAOS; xzins; MHGinTN; TXnMA


  • Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda

    10/27/2014 3:50:55 PM PDT · 1 of 127
    betty boop
    This guy is a nutcase. And I don't mean Paul Sperry.

    The Psychopath-in-Chief has "transformed" the White House into a mad house.

    Read this article and weep.

    Or get p•ss•d. It's up to you.

  • Don't 'Vote for the Candidate'

    10/24/2014 3:04:11 PM PDT · 104 of 142
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins
    I strongly believe the liberals set out long ago to capture the publicly funded education system and patiently use it to change the culture to a liberal vision.

    And I strongly agree with your assessment, dearest sister in Christ!

    Yet your post set me off onto so many different areas of investigation, which entailed finding answers to such questions as: What is a "Liberal"?; What is a "Democrat?"; and finally, what is a "Progressive?"

    Here are the best definitions that I can come up with, respecting these three terms:

    (1) "Liberal" refers to a great political tradition spawned by the experience of British citizens asserting their "sovereign natural rights" against the powers of an unaccountable (to them) Monarchy. The great political philosopher John Locke proclaimed that State power concentrated in a single quasi-divine figure whose mandate derived from the ancient theory of the "divine right of kings" was an illegitimate power — because it did not recognize the fundamental, natural rights possessed by natural human beings — the divinely-endowed natural powers of life, liberty, and the acquisition/conservation of personal property against any encroachment/usurpation by the State. Liberalism makes the people the sovereign of the State. The main value protected under the Liberal understanding is the protection and preservation of the natural, "God-given" powers of the human person against abuses arising from the actions of an abstract State that sees itself as unaccountable to these self-same people — the We the People who chartered the entire American Experiment, as primordially expressed in the U.S. Constitution — in contrast to the usurper's better idea, which conduces to some kind of human utopia to be "certainly" instantiated at some future, yet uncertain, date.

    (2) Democracy, on the other hand, when you boil it all down, is nothing more than a system describing how the electoral franchise is to be executed. It is all about "equal voting." The Dems are really, really keen on that, nowadays.

    (3) Progressivism is a German import into American culture. It comes down to us, in contemporary times, from the German Transcendental Idealist School philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. (See his Phänomenologie des Geistes [1807] for relevant details.)

    Boiling it all down, what Hegel did was to destroy the relevance of any former idea of the "ground of being" of human existence — the key concept of both classical and Christian philosophy/theology — exterior to, but required for, intelligent human understanding and control of truthful human action.

    Of all people, Hegel was a master student of Classical and pre-Socratic philosophy, not to mention of the specifically Christian development therefrom. I gather he may have self-identified as a Lutheran at a some point in his career.

    But what he actually accomplished, by the communications of his writings, was to assert that the idea of God is not at the root of all material and immaterial things. Rather only unaided human reason and will can govern human thinking, and thus define and account for what happens NEXT in space and time — to human beings and to the natural environment of which humans are both parts and participants.

    In short, God is not only unnecessary, but is positively a stumbling block to men who want to be "as Gods" themselves. Thus, the Lord can be dispensed with, in favor of human "expertise." That was the major lesson that Hegel wanted to teach, if only because he presented himself as the New Candidate for the eternal Godhead....

    Anyhoot, the Progressives have a very ambitious schedule to implement. "Ambitious," because it flies in the face of actual, cumulative historical human experience in so very many ways.

    It should come as no surprise that the Democrat Party would be the party especially vulnerable to "progressive" ideas. What is surprising to me somehow, is that the Democrat Party is the first VICTIM of Progressive ideology. And they probably can't even figure out how that even happened in the fisrt place. So go figure.

    Just look at the history of the Democrat Party: After the Civil War, they resisted tooth and nail any constitutional amendment that would recognize the basic humanity, sovereignty, and free status of persons formerly held in a condition of slavery, of bondage. I am here speaking of the Amendments 13 through 15.

    Amendment 13 freed the slaves. Amendment 14 secured their civil rights as Americans equal under the laws of the United States of America (and penalizing, in its following Sections 2–4, any attempt by local jurisdictions to get around the full implication of Section 1). Amendment 15 guaranteed their right to vote.

    As mentioned already, the Democrat party resisted such innovations tooth-and-nail. But when they were duly ratified by the People of the Several States, thus to became constitutional law, the Democrat Party continued to resist, adopting such postures/strategies as Jim Crow, "separate but equal" jurisprudence, and even the mobilization of the Ku Klux Klan in order to try to maintain unjust domination over an already thoroughly lost cause.

    One hundred years after the ratification of these overwhelmingly Republican-championed amendments, the state of (so-called) African Americans had improved enormously. Notwithstanding the "separate but equal," Jim Crow legal ambiance that obtained during these years, the strengths of Black Americans came straight out of the achievements of the corresponding strengths of their own natural community, which placed the premium on such things as: Strong family formation; strong ties to their spiritual moorings, that is, to the Black Church (the foundation of so very much good in American society, from the basics of social order to the beauties of modern American music).

    Given such foundations — freedom and the Holy Bible (which was their main instrument of education/acculturation at a time when Blacks were forbidden all means of formal education, under criminal penalty) — they were bound to prosper, even if they were not getting any "help" from the larger secular "society."

    To wrap up this point, there is no historical evidence whatsover of sympathy for the "problems" of Black Americans emanating from the Democrat Party until LJB came along. And he was a political cynic, were you to ask me.

    LBJ evidently had no love of Blacks, and was not inclined to extend much sympathy to them in their struggle to fully assimilate into American society. It was only when he recognized that they were actually bona-fide VOTERS — meaning to a political cynic like himself that they could be "bought" — that he started paying attention to their "concerns."

    Trillions of misspent tax-payer dollars later, not much social progress has been made. Nor can progress be made, if the sitting president of the United States finds his best recourse is to be in the business of dividing the races....

    To me, we Americans are One People, irrespective of the race we were born into.

    Will leave it there for now.

    Certainly, dearest sister in Christ, "in all things may God's will be done."

    Maranatha, Jesus!!!

  • Don't 'Vote for the Candidate'

    10/20/2014 4:01:23 PM PDT · 96 of 142
    betty boop to xzins; marron; YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; Elsie
    It is a wonder that "not voting for those who violate their most deeply held beliefs" would lead to a "judgment of consequences" on this nation. It is a wonder that their numbers are great enough that they decided that election. They would consider it a wonder that they would be castigated for not voting for any candidate who violates their most deeply held religious beliefs. They would wonder how anyone could not understand why they did what they did.

    The Holy Scriptures tell us that "the salt of the earth," the "saving remnant," is very small in number. Yet the Lord desires that they shall have disproportionate influence and effect, given their number.

    At least, that is my reading on the matter at hand.

    Complicating this problem is the fact that what ails America most right now is a cultural division. I'd define this division as between those people who love God and His Word, and those who outright despise him, who erect an "alternative reality" that, from their diminished and quite possibly psychotic point of view, would constitute an "improvement" of what God wrought in the Beginning, for a purpose more congenial to their own ideological sense of "human perfection and happiness, to be achieved by human (expert!) means."

    Fundamentally, the root of the present American sociopolitical disorder is cultural. There are no political answers or "fixes" for what are inherently cultural problems. Which is probably why we have such an electoral mess on our hands.

    The culture has to be "fixed" first. And, in a Christian nation, who better to do that than Christians?

    The cultural divide can be drawn as the seemingly irreconcilable separation of faith and reason. In the current intellectual climate Faith is suspect at best, foolish, superstitious at worst. While Reason is the trusted and true, the very "scientific method."

    Which any student of history knows is total bunk from the get-go. The ageless work of Christianity has been to reconcile faith AND reason, as two needful partners for the progress of the human intellect as such — not to mention the salvation of souls.

    And I might add, all the best work ever achieved by the natural sciences has been premised on this same insight....

    The folks who stayed home on election day 2012 are not "bad" people. I recognize they were acting consistently with their own sense of deep conscience, and commitment to God their Father as they understand their relation to Him.

    However, it is still true (to my way of thinking anyway) that "Rome burns" because they refuse to engage in the ever-messy political "sausage-making."

    We do not live in a "perfect" world. It seems to me our job as God's children — ourselves imperfect — is to try to mitigate the evil we find in our daily, ordinary lives as much as we possibly can. I call this sort of thing fidelity to God our Father, and to the Logos which is the Truth of His Creation, from First to Last.

    As far as the "no place to go back to" consideration is concerned, ultimately faithful Christians always have a place "to go back to," as God may call them.

    Problem is, if God expects such Christians to take hold of responsibility for the sufferings of God-endowed constitutional America, which is under full-scale attack by (I daresay) Satan and his co-conspirators, and they do nothing to resist — then what happens to them???

    Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for entertaining such questions as this, and for what I imagine is a deeply meditated, sagacious, principled reply which I deeply welcome.

    When you boil it all down, God knows everything; and we humans, not so very much.