As the publisher of Red Mass Group, I'm somewhat confused at your insinuating that "red mass group" said the MassGOP is dead. We are an open blog, so one of our members may have said that, it in no way reflects the editorial board or publisher's view. Much to the contrary. – Robert Eno, Publisher, Red Mass Group
Don’t be dead, dude! – Bill S. Preston, Esq. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
Conservative Boston Globe Columnist Jeff Jacoby assessed the terrible performance of the national and the Massachusetts GOP following the 2012 Election (Rhode Island GOP did not fare well, either). Jacoby quoted a post by edfactor on the blog Red Mass GOP:
“The Mass GOP is. . . dead.”
Discussion followed about “rebuilding” and “rebranding” the party, including a split away from the national GOP. The Massachusetts GOP rejected the national GOP platform on abortion, for example. Candidate Romney wanted the GOP platform to recognize exceptions in the cases of rape or incest as well as the life of the mother. Such a move is a “Live and Let Live” proposal in the “right” direction: good for everyone, including the Massachusetts GOP.
Now, I want to be on record once again: one blogger, not the Editorial Board or any of the Red Mass Group’s spokespeople, made the “Dead” assessment. However, even if such a dire assessment is so, it’s not necessarily so dire. Just as a heart patient in cardiac arrest dies briefly when the doctors apply the defibrillator, so too a shock that strikes to the core of any organization, enough to bring forth death, allows for new life to flow.
The GOP in the Northeast certainly endured another hefty shock with the defeat of Mr. Gabriel Gomez for the US Senate seat to replace John “I voted for it, then against it” Kerry. Let’s consider Gomez’ ten point loss of Mr. Gabriel Gomez to Ed “Malarkey, It’s Arithmetic, never saw a tax I didn’t like” Markey. Gomez was Democrat-lite, like a patient with consumption, who feels strong, then slumps again, Let’s admit it: Gomez was not a strong candidate to begin with: an Obama supporter with liberal views on gun control and climate change, who appealed to Democrat Governor Deval Patrick for the interim senate seat. He had too many strikes against him. As I wrote last week, “With Republicans like Gomez, who needs Democrats?” Gomez’ loss, however, can be a gain for the Mass GOP to stick with and stick up for conservative and libertarian principles.
Just as in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”, two high school kids went from nearly failing, and one of them nearly dying, to passing their class and changing the course of history, so too the Mass GOP can rise again and even change the course of history for their party and the country. Frankly, sometimes death is just a part of life, and not the end, but the commencement of something better, just as the dead of winter gives way to the warmth of spring. Even Forrest Gump’s mother said as much before she passed on, and yet circumstance and fortune combined to take a Deep South hick from rages to riches. OK, OK, these are hokey illustrations, but still, stopping, changing, and starting anew is the way to renew a dead, or dying, or broken, or “whatever you want to call it” brand.
“Live and Let Live” should be the motto for the Northeast GOP, which will also help the national conference. Some supporters touted state senator Richard Tisei as a “Live and Let Live Republican.” Yet he had no problem with voting for tax increases. Where’s the fiscal conservatism in that? About marriage, I long for the day when Republicans will say: “Let’s get the government out of marriage altogether!” Why should single tax filers be punished because they never said “I Do!” at the altar? Besides, the gay marriage debate has infiltrated churches, threatening their tax exemption status or eroding their “First Amendment” protections. This debate needs to be discussed, and a libertarian, Northeastern GOP can lead the way.
A stronger brand of libertarianism is needed in the GOP, and the Northeast can get the ball rolling. With the decriminalization of marijuana in some states, and the passage of concealed-carry laws in many others (despite the virulence of the gun control lobby); with the rise of a surveillance state within the Obama Administration – AP phone records seized, Verizon-record spying, political intimidation from the IRS and the EPA, along with Fast and Furious and Benghazi – Americans have more reason to fear their government than before, but more importantly have a better reason for making the government afraid of them.
Former Congressman Ron Paul offered something libertarian, yet his foreign policy (“Let’s be friendly and trade with Iran”), was naive, and his youth-centered cult-like following concerned many Republicans. Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has advocated for a more libertarian stream in the Republican Party, yet his advocacy is tempered with integrity, as evidenced by his eleven-hour filibuster against the Obama administration for refusing to answer a simple question: could the President used drones in domestic strikes against American citizens?
Such “live and Let Live” libertarian boldness would provide wiggle-room on the social issues and foreign policy while also sand-bagging the Democratic Party as stale and obsolete, a party which has been pushing the liberal statist status quo, which is failing everyone. The Mass GOP, going from dead to “Live and Let Live” can turn the failures of the past into an “Excellent” future, one more libertarian, inclusive without being incisive or dismissive of those with differing opinions on certain issues.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Speaker Gordon Fox: "I Want to Marry the [Fill in the Blank] that I Love!"
With the passage of gay marriage in Rhode Island (plus ten other states), and the recent ruling from the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by President Bill “I did not do that to that woman” Clinton (so much for the sanctity of marriage), gay marriage advocates are in full march once again.
Along with striking down the DOMA provision which barred benefits to same-sex couples and their beneficiaries, the Supreme Court also struck down California’s “Prop 8” voter initiative, which received 51% of voters’ support in 2008, thus amending the state constitution. Still, five Supreme Court Justices ruled that on procedural grounds the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional (so much for the rule of law, and the will of the people).
So, the gay marriage movement is on the move, with the six-colored rainbow flag rolling across the land.
Then again, the very banner bandied about by gay marriage advocates betrays the hollowness of the movement. A real rainbow has seven bands: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, as well as violet (ROY G. BIV for you grade-schoolers). As a matter of fact (as well as faith and fullness) their rainbow will never be complete; their sentiment of unaccomplishment will remain in full spread. How could it be otherwise? The notion that two people of the same sex (not gender, but individuals with the same primary and secondary sexual characteristics) can marry has no basis in biology, psychology, or even history.
Yet progressives, liberals, the Democratic hypermajority, and even some Republicans in the Rhode Island statehouse decided, out of “fairness” (or equality? Or access? Which liberal buzz-word is it?), that gay marriage should have a “gay” ol’ time in Rhode Island.
No shy advocate for gay marriage, openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox claimed that marriage is all about family, commitment, and love in recent interview with the Providence Journal.
Although he shared that the whole “gay marriage” vote was unprecedented for him, he did admit:
“My becoming speaker of the House would move this issue forward.”
And yet he was surprised at its passage?
About gaining support for gay marriage. Speaker Fox explained:
“We have to put a face on the issue.”
Speaker Fox does not face many issues. He forgot about Rhode Island’s debt, deficits, and dysfunction. Not facing facts about the state of his state, Fox focused on gay marriage, claiming that it’s all about “love, commitment, and family”.
About gay marriage and Governor Lincoln Chafee, Fox added:
“I’m not alone anymore on this issue. I’ve got a friend and a partner.”
Well, Speaker Fox, I have a proposal for you.
Why don’t you marry Governor Chafee? Granted, he won’t be a faithful spouse, since he was not faithful to his first party, or to his previously ascertained “independent” status, but you said he was a “partner” on the issue.
I also have some other proposals to make.
I want to marry the cup of cocoa that I love. There are some readers in Rhode Island who know my love for cocoa , although one reader has repeatedly assured me that she will get me to drink coffee and make a real Rhode Islander out of me. As far as I am concerned, that is just not fair – I want to marry my cup of cocoa! I love my warm chocolately goodness, and I am committed to it, and it’s like family, since I always have it with me.
Not only do I want to marry my hot chocolate, Speaker Fox, I want to marry my cat. I am trying to put a face on this issue, Speaker. Since “gay marriage” has permitted such a massive transformation of that long and sacred sacrament, why can’t I have multiple partners, too? I want to marry my cat. I have suffered such discrimination because of my inability to marry my pets. My first died, and I could not inherit his benefits, since no one recognized the union of man and feline. My second cat also died (along with his benefits). When I find another cat, Speaker Fox, I want to be able to marry him (or her, or “it” if the cat is spayed)!
Why stop there? I want to marry another man’s wife (or should I say “spouse”). Since I can marry anyone I want to, Speaker, I would love to marry my neighbor’s wife. I am committed to her (whether she loves me, I don’t know). I love her so much, she is like family. So, I guess my attraction counts as legal and moral grounds for marriage, according to your definition.
Wait! Mr. Speaker, please bear with me a little. I have to ask you . .
Speaker Gordon Fox: will you marry me? I know that you (and Rhode Island) are married to structural debt, overwhelming pension obligations, fleeing businesses, high taxes, and a general culture of welfare-malaise, but it’s all about love, commitment and family. I know you can fit one more spouse into your “gay marriage”, incomplete rainbow mission:
Speaker Fox: Will you marry me?
Along with striking down the DOMA provision which barred benefits to same-sex couples and their beneficiaries, the Supreme Court also struck down California’s “Prop 8” voter initiative, which received 51% of voters’ support in 2008, thus amending the state constitution. Still, five Supreme Court Justices ruled that on procedural grounds the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional (so much for the rule of law, and the will of the people).
So, the gay marriage movement is on the move, with the six-colored rainbow flag rolling across the land.
Then again, the very banner bandied about by gay marriage advocates betrays the hollowness of the movement. A real rainbow has seven bands: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, as well as violet (ROY G. BIV for you grade-schoolers). As a matter of fact (as well as faith and fullness) their rainbow will never be complete; their sentiment of unaccomplishment will remain in full spread. How could it be otherwise? The notion that two people of the same sex (not gender, but individuals with the same primary and secondary sexual characteristics) can marry has no basis in biology, psychology, or even history.
Yet progressives, liberals, the Democratic hypermajority, and even some Republicans in the Rhode Island statehouse decided, out of “fairness” (or equality? Or access? Which liberal buzz-word is it?), that gay marriage should have a “gay” ol’ time in Rhode Island.
No shy advocate for gay marriage, openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox claimed that marriage is all about family, commitment, and love in recent interview with the Providence Journal.
Although he shared that the whole “gay marriage” vote was unprecedented for him, he did admit:
“My becoming speaker of the House would move this issue forward.”
And yet he was surprised at its passage?
About gaining support for gay marriage. Speaker Fox explained:
“We have to put a face on the issue.”
Speaker Fox does not face many issues. He forgot about Rhode Island’s debt, deficits, and dysfunction. Not facing facts about the state of his state, Fox focused on gay marriage, claiming that it’s all about “love, commitment, and family”.
About gay marriage and Governor Lincoln Chafee, Fox added:
“I’m not alone anymore on this issue. I’ve got a friend and a partner.”
Well, Speaker Fox, I have a proposal for you.
Why don’t you marry Governor Chafee? Granted, he won’t be a faithful spouse, since he was not faithful to his first party, or to his previously ascertained “independent” status, but you said he was a “partner” on the issue.
I also have some other proposals to make.
I want to marry the cup of cocoa that I love. There are some readers in Rhode Island who know my love for cocoa , although one reader has repeatedly assured me that she will get me to drink coffee and make a real Rhode Islander out of me. As far as I am concerned, that is just not fair – I want to marry my cup of cocoa! I love my warm chocolately goodness, and I am committed to it, and it’s like family, since I always have it with me.
Not only do I want to marry my hot chocolate, Speaker Fox, I want to marry my cat. I am trying to put a face on this issue, Speaker. Since “gay marriage” has permitted such a massive transformation of that long and sacred sacrament, why can’t I have multiple partners, too? I want to marry my cat. I have suffered such discrimination because of my inability to marry my pets. My first died, and I could not inherit his benefits, since no one recognized the union of man and feline. My second cat also died (along with his benefits). When I find another cat, Speaker Fox, I want to be able to marry him (or her, or “it” if the cat is spayed)!
Why stop there? I want to marry another man’s wife (or should I say “spouse”). Since I can marry anyone I want to, Speaker, I would love to marry my neighbor’s wife. I am committed to her (whether she loves me, I don’t know). I love her so much, she is like family. So, I guess my attraction counts as legal and moral grounds for marriage, according to your definition.
Wait! Mr. Speaker, please bear with me a little. I have to ask you . .
Speaker Gordon Fox: will you marry me? I know that you (and Rhode Island) are married to structural debt, overwhelming pension obligations, fleeing businesses, high taxes, and a general culture of welfare-malaise, but it’s all about love, commitment and family. I know you can fit one more spouse into your “gay marriage”, incomplete rainbow mission:
Speaker Fox: Will you marry me?
Pro-life Remains a Core Conservative Principle
The statement “Life begins at conception” is more than a religious sentiment or a spiritual insinuation, but an accomplished, biological fact. When the ovum and the sperm join, a new life is formed, not just the potential, which will emerge in nine month’s times The fact that life begins at conception received its due respect from none other than Washington Post columnist George Will, a self-avowed agnostic. No religious sentiment informed his view on abortion and the right to life. Life is a right and value which is worth fighting for. Unfortunately, the abortion issue received undue, yet significant press during the 2012 election, following inarticulate “pro-life” statements.
While defining his views on abortion, Missouri’s Republican US Senate candidate Todd Akin mentioned “legitimate rape” in contrast to statutory rape, or the instances in which a woman will falsely claim rape. He could have simply argued: “a baby’s a baby no matter how conceived,” yet he insisted on defending his views at length. Then there was the US Senate candidate from Indiana, Richard Mourdock, who shared that a baby conceived by rape (not the rape itself) was “God’s will”. Media spin-doctors distorted these statements beyond recognition, yet the fact that the two candidate spent more time expounding their views than exposing the views of the other candidates expanded their problems.
Such inexact statements created more problems than needed. Their knee-jerk presumption of playing defense created much of their problems. Whatever one’s views on abortion, a candidate should state his stance and move on. On a more conciliatory note, Akin’s loss also stemmed from President Candidate Mitt Romney’s media induced cowardice in demanding that Akin drop out of the race. As for Mr. Mourdock, his partisan insistence on cutting spending, without branching into more positive issues, very likely turned off Hoosiers who want their representatives to govern. Moreover, Romney’s lukewarm record and rhetoric turned off millions of voters throughout the country, and thus he helped cause the loss of many winnable Senate races (North Dakota, Montana, as well as Indiana and Massachusetts)
Considering the wider effects of Romney’s rampant and public recriminations, abortion and the “pro-life” stance in and of themselves did not cost the Republican Party key wins in 2012. Instead of nursing wounds from the previous year, conservative operatives should expose the extremism of the Democratic Party on the abortion issue. In their 2012 Political convention, the Democratic Party opted to remove the language “safe, legal, and rare” from their platform on abortion. Today, one can summarize the Democratic stance on the issue as “abortion any time on the tax-payers’ dime.” Plus the party’s views on spending and tax increases, in which dime-stores small businesses are struggling under immense regulatory burdens, tax-payers may be left without any dime to their name
At any rate, abortion is a serious intersecting life and individual liberty, both of which conservatives can capitalize on. Professor Sanford Kadish, a distinguished constitutional scholar from Boalt Hall School of Law in UC Berkeley, firmly established that life is the paramount right, without which a human being cannot enjoy other rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (or the more conservative, Lockean locution “property.” Life begins at conception, and this right cannot be duly ignored, yet conservative elements in the country are having a difficult time asserting this value, or they manifest a reticence to adapt to the prevailing culture in local constituencies, as if defending the unborn, or granting human beings every opportunity to live is something shameful, something which must defended in and of itself.
Conservative candidates can learn from no better a proponent of life than Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who made the case for life on “The View”, with the very liberal co-hosts who have detracted nearly every value prized and promoted by conservative and family-oriented voters. From the threat of legal sanction which hangs over obstetricians, to the repugnance toward abortion which virally liberal Joy Behar admitted, the sanctity of life received due respect on “The View”. Former Presidential candidate Herman Cain broached the abortion of issue by asserting his resistance to exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. Strange yet encouraging, no media backlash followed against the former “Godfather’s Pizza” CEO, unlike the firestorm that drowned out Todd Akin’s campaign.
Without compromising core principles, by acknowledging the sanctity of life while also allowing exceptions in the case of life’s unconscionable tragedies, the Republican Party can expand its brand. For those candidates who still discourage abortion even in the cases of rape or incest, they can still run their respective campaigns without harming the stance or substance of other candidates or the national party. As a means of co-opting the issue out of the Democratic Party, whose extreme platform has alienated members of the same party, the Republicans can adopt former President Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” formulation, exposing the rising marginalization within the Democratic Party while brandishing the brand of “pro-life” and “pro-liberty” in the United States. Life begins at conception. When this truth is properly articulated, conservatives, Republicans, and even disaffected Democrats establish new resolve to protect life.
 |
Such inexact statements created more problems than needed. Their knee-jerk presumption of playing defense created much of their problems. Whatever one’s views on abortion, a candidate should state his stance and move on. On a more conciliatory note, Akin’s loss also stemmed from President Candidate Mitt Romney’s media induced cowardice in demanding that Akin drop out of the race. As for Mr. Mourdock, his partisan insistence on cutting spending, without branching into more positive issues, very likely turned off Hoosiers who want their representatives to govern. Moreover, Romney’s lukewarm record and rhetoric turned off millions of voters throughout the country, and thus he helped cause the loss of many winnable Senate races (North Dakota, Montana, as well as Indiana and Massachusetts)
Considering the wider effects of Romney’s rampant and public recriminations, abortion and the “pro-life” stance in and of themselves did not cost the Republican Party key wins in 2012. Instead of nursing wounds from the previous year, conservative operatives should expose the extremism of the Democratic Party on the abortion issue. In their 2012 Political convention, the Democratic Party opted to remove the language “safe, legal, and rare” from their platform on abortion. Today, one can summarize the Democratic stance on the issue as “abortion any time on the tax-payers’ dime.” Plus the party’s views on spending and tax increases, in which dime-stores small businesses are struggling under immense regulatory burdens, tax-payers may be left without any dime to their name
At any rate, abortion is a serious intersecting life and individual liberty, both of which conservatives can capitalize on. Professor Sanford Kadish, a distinguished constitutional scholar from Boalt Hall School of Law in UC Berkeley, firmly established that life is the paramount right, without which a human being cannot enjoy other rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (or the more conservative, Lockean locution “property.” Life begins at conception, and this right cannot be duly ignored, yet conservative elements in the country are having a difficult time asserting this value, or they manifest a reticence to adapt to the prevailing culture in local constituencies, as if defending the unborn, or granting human beings every opportunity to live is something shameful, something which must defended in and of itself.
Conservative candidates can learn from no better a proponent of life than Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who made the case for life on “The View”, with the very liberal co-hosts who have detracted nearly every value prized and promoted by conservative and family-oriented voters. From the threat of legal sanction which hangs over obstetricians, to the repugnance toward abortion which virally liberal Joy Behar admitted, the sanctity of life received due respect on “The View”. Former Presidential candidate Herman Cain broached the abortion of issue by asserting his resistance to exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. Strange yet encouraging, no media backlash followed against the former “Godfather’s Pizza” CEO, unlike the firestorm that drowned out Todd Akin’s campaign.
Without compromising core principles, by acknowledging the sanctity of life while also allowing exceptions in the case of life’s unconscionable tragedies, the Republican Party can expand its brand. For those candidates who still discourage abortion even in the cases of rape or incest, they can still run their respective campaigns without harming the stance or substance of other candidates or the national party. As a means of co-opting the issue out of the Democratic Party, whose extreme platform has alienated members of the same party, the Republicans can adopt former President Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” formulation, exposing the rising marginalization within the Democratic Party while brandishing the brand of “pro-life” and “pro-liberty” in the United States. Life begins at conception. When this truth is properly articulated, conservatives, Republicans, and even disaffected Democrats establish new resolve to protect life.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Jesus -- The Purpose, the Drive, and the Life
A popular teaching was released some years ago in a devotional manual entitled "The Purpose Driven Life."
The intent of the book was good, in that the author wanted to assist individual believers in the Body of Christ to grow and serve rather than remain passive and immature.
Yet like many teachings today, and like many churches right now, Jesus was not the central focus, but ourselves, our efforts, our need to improve.
The Christian Life is not some special project, not a task or a goal, but the Person of Jesus Christ Himself:
"King James VersionJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14: 6)
Jesus did not come to provide Himself as an example to follow, but Life itself, that we would receive and rejoice in Him:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
and then
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10: 10)
Jesus did come to help bad people be good, but to help dead people live, to allow man, dead in his trespasses because of Adam, to receive the Life of God within himself through Jesus' death and the release of the Holy Spirit.
The more that believers focus on fads, crowds, and fanciful ideas, to that extent they will find frustration and frenzy, instead of the rest and the peace which Jesus promises, which Jesus!
In fact, we can say that Jesus offers more than the power to live a "purpose driven life":
Jesus is the Purpose (The Truth), the Drive (The Way), and the Life!
Grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus, and let Him bless you and use in mighty ways beyond what you can ask or think (Ephesians 3: 20)
The intent of the book was good, in that the author wanted to assist individual believers in the Body of Christ to grow and serve rather than remain passive and immature.
Yet like many teachings today, and like many churches right now, Jesus was not the central focus, but ourselves, our efforts, our need to improve.
The Christian Life is not some special project, not a task or a goal, but the Person of Jesus Christ Himself:
"King James VersionJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14: 6)
Jesus did not come to provide Himself as an example to follow, but Life itself, that we would receive and rejoice in Him:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
and then
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10: 10)
Jesus did come to help bad people be good, but to help dead people live, to allow man, dead in his trespasses because of Adam, to receive the Life of God within himself through Jesus' death and the release of the Holy Spirit.
The more that believers focus on fads, crowds, and fanciful ideas, to that extent they will find frustration and frenzy, instead of the rest and the peace which Jesus promises, which Jesus!
In fact, we can say that Jesus offers more than the power to live a "purpose driven life":
Jesus is the Purpose (The Truth), the Drive (The Way), and the Life!
Grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus, and let Him bless you and use in mighty ways beyond what you can ask or think (Ephesians 3: 20)
The Law that Abraham Believed -- Let God Bless You!
"1And there was a
famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And
Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2And the LORD
appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I
shall tell thee of: 3Sojourn in this
land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy
seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware
unto Abraham thy father; 4And I will make
thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all
these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5Because that
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and
my laws." (Genesis 26: 1-5)
God blessed Isaac because his Father Abraham obeyed God in all things.
What a wonderful picture of Jesus, our high priest, who has obeyed all things for us, has fulfilled the law (Matthew 5: 17), that we may enjoy all things with Him and through Him.
In these verses, the mention that Abraham followed God's law was very intriguing.
At the time of this account, there were no Ten Commandments.
So, what law, what statutes was God talking about?
Let's see what the LORD God first said to Abram, before he was blessed with a new name:
"
God blessed Isaac because his Father Abraham obeyed God in all things.
What a wonderful picture of Jesus, our high priest, who has obeyed all things for us, has fulfilled the law (Matthew 5: 17), that we may enjoy all things with Him and through Him.
In these verses, the mention that Abraham followed God's law was very intriguing.
At the time of this account, there were no Ten Commandments.
So, what law, what statutes was God talking about?
Let's see what the LORD God first said to Abram, before he was blessed with a new name:
"
1Now the LORD had
said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make
of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou
shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless
them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12: 1-3)
In a word, God's command was "Trust me, and let me bless you, and through you let me bless the whole world!"
Then:
"14And the LORD
said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes,
and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward,
and westward: 15For all the
land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 16And I will make
thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the
earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 17Arise, walk
through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give
it unto thee. 18Then Abram
removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which
is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD." (Genesis 13: 14-18)
In a word, God said: "I will bless you so much, you will not be able to count it!"
As far as God's commands are concerned, He is all about blessing us! He wants us to consent to be blessed!
In the same manner, yet much more, let us look to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of Faith (Hebrews 12: 2) and the seed of Abraham through whom we are blessed, and let Him save us not just from death in our trespasses, but in every area of our lives!
Even Under Law, God Remembered His Covenant -- with Abraham
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound:" (Romans 5: 20)
The Ten Commandments was never God's main agenda. The blessings of God on man, the Blessing to Abraham and all his seed, with Jesus as the first-born of many brethren, was God's main agenda, a life of rest and ease in which every human being would believe on Jesus for everything, since by His death and resurrection we receive all things (Romans 8: 31-32)
"The law entered". . .A better translation would read "The law came in through the side" or "the law entered by the way. . " as a parenthetical, not the main stay.
For this reason, Paul would write to the Galatians:
"23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3: 23-25)
In the next chapter, Paul refers to the tension in Abraham's household, between his bondmaid Hagar and his lawful, gracious wife Sarah, and through this allegory he vehemently emphasizes the end of the Old Covenant of Law to be replaced by the New Covenant of Grace:
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
The Ten Commandments was never God's main agenda. The blessings of God on man, the Blessing to Abraham and all his seed, with Jesus as the first-born of many brethren, was God's main agenda, a life of rest and ease in which every human being would believe on Jesus for everything, since by His death and resurrection we receive all things (Romans 8: 31-32)
"The law entered". . .A better translation would read "The law came in through the side" or "the law entered by the way. . " as a parenthetical, not the main stay.
For this reason, Paul would write to the Galatians:
"23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3: 23-25)
In the next chapter, Paul refers to the tension in Abraham's household, between his bondmaid Hagar and his lawful, gracious wife Sarah, and through this allegory he vehemently emphasizes the end of the Old Covenant of Law to be replaced by the New Covenant of Grace:
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless
what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the
bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then,
brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (Galatians 4: 28-31)
Now, in the Old Testament, God made a Covenant with Abram (before he was blessed with a new name), a covenant in which God established that through Abram's seed, all the nations would be blessed (Genesis 15). This covenant was not annulled with the introduction of the Ten Commandments.
Even in Leviticus, where Moses writes by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that God would visit the iniquity of the Israelites onto them if they did not continue in His covenant, there is a reminder of God's grace to come:
"Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and
also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land." (Leviticus 26: 42)
God the Father does not remember the Covenant with Moses, but with Abraham!
The notion that the Covenant begins and ends with the Ten Commandments is a modern invention, and a false one.
It's all about the covenant that God cut with Abraham, in which Abram believed on the Lord, and that was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15: 6)
We have this righteousness and more because of Jesus, who fulfilled the New and Everlasting Covenant with His blood at Calvary, where today and forever more He reigns in greatest power and glory and represents you and me and all who believe on Him.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
What Tonges is For -- to Know the Love of God
The Gift of Tongues is that -- a gift.
Tongues, therefore, is not something that we do in order to get something from God.
Tongues is not a work, nor is it something that we use to provoke other people, so that they can see how spiritual we are.
Paul explained the importance of tongues:
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." (1 Corinthians 14: 4)
We edify our whole being -- body, soul, and spirit -- when we pray in the Spirit.
Yet every gift that God has given us through the Holy Spirit is not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of the entire Body of Christ.
If you are speaking in tongues, and there is no one else to interpret what you are saying in the Spirit, then you keep your prayer to yourself:
"28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." (1 Corinthians 14: 28)
Furthemore, tongues means nothing without a firm and growing knowledge of how much God loves you, which he demonstrates through His Son and His death on the Cross:
"31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.. . .
Then Paul introduces us to God's love in the next chapter:
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (1 Corinthians 13: 1)
"Charity" gives off the impression that we have to do good works, like donate food or clothes to other people, or other such hobbies. Subsequent renderings are more accurate:
"If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;"
This love is God's love for us, not our love for anyone.
Praying in the Spirit, praying in tongues, is all about growing in knowledge of God's love for us.
Jude writes:
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 20-21)
Praying in the Spirit can sound mystical and ethereal, but Paul explains in Ephesians what "walking in the Spirit" and being filled with the Spirit is all about:
"18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5: 18-21)
What are we rejoicing about?
Paul explains at the end of the previouis chapter:
"31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (Ephesians 4: 31-32)
How do we receive a revelation of this grace? Refer back to Paul's previous prayer for the Ephesians:
"14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3: 14-19)
Paul wanted the Ephesians, and by extension all of us, to have a growing revelation of how much God loves us through His Son!
And we can understand this revelation the more that we medidate on all that Christ has done for us:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" (Ephesians 2: 4-6)
And for this grand revelation, Paul had prayed the following:
"16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," (Ephesians 1: 16-19)
Tongues is all about our knowing how much God loves us, building us up to receive a greater revelation of how much He loves us, and in the power of this love, we walk in the new newness of life.
Tongues, therefore, is not something that we do in order to get something from God.
Tongues is not a work, nor is it something that we use to provoke other people, so that they can see how spiritual we are.
Paul explained the importance of tongues:
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." (1 Corinthians 14: 4)
We edify our whole being -- body, soul, and spirit -- when we pray in the Spirit.
Yet every gift that God has given us through the Holy Spirit is not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of the entire Body of Christ.
If you are speaking in tongues, and there is no one else to interpret what you are saying in the Spirit, then you keep your prayer to yourself:
"28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." (1 Corinthians 14: 28)
Furthemore, tongues means nothing without a firm and growing knowledge of how much God loves you, which he demonstrates through His Son and His death on the Cross:
"31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.. . .
Then Paul introduces us to God's love in the next chapter:
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (1 Corinthians 13: 1)
"Charity" gives off the impression that we have to do good works, like donate food or clothes to other people, or other such hobbies. Subsequent renderings are more accurate:
"If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;"
This love is God's love for us, not our love for anyone.
Praying in the Spirit, praying in tongues, is all about growing in knowledge of God's love for us.
Jude writes:
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 20-21)
Praying in the Spirit can sound mystical and ethereal, but Paul explains in Ephesians what "walking in the Spirit" and being filled with the Spirit is all about:
"18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5: 18-21)
What are we rejoicing about?
Paul explains at the end of the previouis chapter:
"31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (Ephesians 4: 31-32)
How do we receive a revelation of this grace? Refer back to Paul's previous prayer for the Ephesians:
"14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3: 14-19)
Paul wanted the Ephesians, and by extension all of us, to have a growing revelation of how much God loves us through His Son!
And we can understand this revelation the more that we medidate on all that Christ has done for us:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" (Ephesians 2: 4-6)
And for this grand revelation, Paul had prayed the following:
"16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," (Ephesians 1: 16-19)
Tongues is all about our knowing how much God loves us, building us up to receive a greater revelation of how much He loves us, and in the power of this love, we walk in the new newness of life.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
SCOTUS, Homosexuality, Gay Marriage: Bad Choices
The United States Supreme Court has waded into more muddy waters. Justice Antonin Scalia warned about the coming culture clashes which would ensue the moment that the Supreme Court strike down the anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Today, SCOTUS has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as invalidating California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, five lawyers in bad, black dresses have gotten wet with telling the voters that they have to recognize a fundamental, and flawed, transformation of the marriage sacrament. With their radical transformation of marriage, the justices inevitable invite people to view homosexuality as acceptable and inherent to man.
First of all, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, this is as much a spiritual sentiment as a mental and a physical one. A man and woman, joined in holy matrimony, share much more than their bodies. Some couples are so closely attuned, they can finish each others' sentences before the other begins speaking. This union is deeper than a piece of paper, the opinions of a nation, or the hopes and dreams of broken men and women seeking to justify a perversion which they feel compelled to identify with.
As a rebuttal to equality advocates, marriage is not about equality, either, but about the blessed submission of one man and one woman who become one flesh. The notion that two men or two women can form such a union is nonsensical. Love alone, the strong affections that two people have for each, cannot be the defining element for a marriage, either. Andrew Sullivan, the faux-conservative and gay marriage advocate, established in one article that people seek love and to be loved. How he can define his new life with a partner as love, yet at the same time claim the right to other sexual partners, has no basis in logic, love, or even lust. Besides, nothing can break the sacrament of asunder, not even the myriads of laws and regulations from the state, or protests and parades of the "Gay Lobby".
Regarding homosexuality, the conduct is a perversion, not the greatest sin in the world, no worse than stealing or murder on the basis of viewing all men as dead in their trespasses, yet certainly not a form of conduct which individuals should condone, not societies celebrate.
Homosexuality is a choice and a bad one. The notion that people are "born gay" does not withstand any serious scrutiny. The hundreds of thousands of people who have lived the "gay lifestyle" have shared that the life is not all that gay. Tammy Bruce, the openly lesbian radio host who voted for Ronald Reagan both times, has acknowledged that she chooses to be a lesbian. Time had also covered Vermont's initiative to legalize civil unions for gay couples. I had found it so fascinating that the two women featured in the article had been married before to men, but their marriages failed, and thus they were seeking relational fulfillment in another woman. I have read accounts in which people from dysfunctional families find that they struggle to find lasting relationships with the opposite sex. Thus they conclude that they should "hook" up with the same sex. Point of fact, these individuals need to look deeper, into the lies and the pain of unjust rejection which they suffered from their parents. Any sexual problems will be resolved.
I also remember reading a telling article in Time Magazine (hardly a conservative publication), which featured a woman who had been "married" to another woman and had also adopted a young girl with her. When she left the gay lifestyle and her partner, then she sued for custody of the child, and she won. Other men and women have shared that their parents treated them as children of the opposite sex (a mother who dresses up her son to be a daughter, for example, is practicing heinous abuse against the child)
Numerous health agencies have reported the high incidence of cancer among men and women who live out homosexual conduct. Gay activists in Canada even called out the Canadian Health Service for ignoring the health problems which plagued the LGBT community. The massive drug and alcohol use, the deathly dysfunction associated with the "gay scene" have also been spotlighted in LA Weekly, a very liberal, alternative publication with salacious advertisements in its back pages. Most homosexuals in West Hollywood have admitted a profound dissatisfaction with the gay scene. Others even admitted a profound and oppressive cult of conformity which rivaled the religious sentiments of their childhood.
Homosexuality is a bad choice, gay marriage is an aberration, and the Supreme Court's decision to normalize it is disappointing. Still, as more people find out that the "gay sceneis not so gay, perhaps the reduction of shame and sanction about homosexuality will allow people to acknowledge that such conduct is not conducive to life and peace. Still, the Supreme Court's ruling is misinformed, sending the wrong message about this disturbing cultural devolution.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Gomez Not "Live and Let Live" Enough
The Markey-Gomez campaign to replace John Kerry (now Secretary of State), has attracted political heat, but voters in the Bay State were cool about the whole thing.
The heads-up between the two was a luke-warm affair, to begin with. Like most Democratic legislators in Massachusetts, Markey was predictably, loosely, and embarrassingly liberal. At least Barney Frank was fragrantly offensive enough to institute massive banking rules, then once in a while cross over so that internet gambling would face no further legal sanction. Of course, a Congressman with a boyfried who runs a brothel out of the office can be pretty heated stuff, too.
Massachusetts is so blue, it’s just plain sad. In order to compete statewide, Republicans have to attract not just Republicans, not just Independents, but also Democratic votes, too.
That’s a tall order, when you are running under a label differing from the person whose vote you are soliciting (not Barney Frank style, of course).
Liberal Republicans do not have to be a walking contradiction. If they stick to their guns on fiscal issues, like keeping tax rates low and fair, getting the government out of your head, your hopes, and your home, than New England Republicans are and should be a welcome branch of the family.
You can be liberal, you can be a libertarian, if you can be consistently so. Liberal Progressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio started to shine out his libertarian streak later in his tenure, decrying “Big Brother” and “Big Government” at the heart of our nation’s troubles. He sought to sponsor articles of impeachment against President Bush for the wars in Iraq, yet he also championed bringing down the encroaching surveillance state, which has expanded its veil over three hundred million people under the Obama Administration.
Ryan Fattman, state legislator from Sutton, stresses fiscal conservatism. He won his constituency by a large margin, even though the representation on the voter rolls skews against him. If a politician is willing to knock on every door, make himself known and well-knowing, there is no reason why a candidate cannot win over voters from the other side of the aisle. Scott Brown in the pick-up truck picked up votes not just by running against Washington, not just by castigating President Obama, but reaching out to voters, rain or shine. It’s about making the home state home for everyone.
Leave me alone, live and let live, libertarian: sounds like the perfect combination for the Republican Party in the Northeast.
Then there was Richard Tisei, the openly gay real estate agent, former state senator, and lieutenant gubernatorial candidate. He had a fighting chance against John “My Wife, Not Me, is Corrupt” Tierney. Yet Tisei was not much different from the “other guy”. In addition to being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he supported tax increases. Where’s the “Live and Let Live” in that? The message was clearly unclear, if you ask me. Still, Obama supporters also wrote to the local press that they would press for Tisei in the Congressional election. Tisei lost by one percentage point. If he had been more clearly conservative on the fiscal issues, would he have gotten that extra percent to win? Perhaps. . .
So, Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset, Massachusetts won the Republican Party nomination to replace John Kerry in the United States Senate. He was clearly more liberal than his two other primary challengers.
Granted, the Massachusetts GOP rejected some aspects of the National GOP platform last year, and so should other states. Many conservatives feel that limited exceptions in abortion are not only tolerable, but necessary, such as in the cases of rape and incest, not just the life of the mother. The national GOP platform precludes those exceptions. The GOP “1%” is not listening to the grassroots, the Tea Party affiliates, nor the concerns of conservative-leaning independents and libertarians, many of whom are alarmed by the aggressive growth of government at the expense of the individual, including the assault on religious liberties and time-honored traditions.
So, what about Mr. Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset? He was not just liberal on key issues, but his liberalism muddied his conservative values, too. Gomez donated money to Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2008, and even sought the interim post for the US Senate in a letter to Democratic President Deval Patrick, citing his support for the “Hope and Change” President. Gomez supported the Keystone pipeline, yet he also believes in climate change as a serious matter which the government must do something about, or else. The facts, the research, the consortia of opinion, including disagreements among respectable scientists, should prevent any massive government overreach. He is pro-life, won’t tough Roe vs. Wade, but he openly supports gay marriage. How about getting government out of marriage altogether? He wants to maintain lower taxes, yet he supported a ten dollar minimum wage, which would all but ensure higher unemployment. Where’s the consistent fiscal conservatism? Gomez double-dealing of liberal-yet-also-trying to seem conservative is disconcerting.
Gomez was not Republican enough on the “Live and Let Live” issues, and the Northeast needs more “Live and Let Live” Republicans.
The heads-up between the two was a luke-warm affair, to begin with. Like most Democratic legislators in Massachusetts, Markey was predictably, loosely, and embarrassingly liberal. At least Barney Frank was fragrantly offensive enough to institute massive banking rules, then once in a while cross over so that internet gambling would face no further legal sanction. Of course, a Congressman with a boyfried who runs a brothel out of the office can be pretty heated stuff, too.
Massachusetts is so blue, it’s just plain sad. In order to compete statewide, Republicans have to attract not just Republicans, not just Independents, but also Democratic votes, too.
That’s a tall order, when you are running under a label differing from the person whose vote you are soliciting (not Barney Frank style, of course).
Liberal Republicans do not have to be a walking contradiction. If they stick to their guns on fiscal issues, like keeping tax rates low and fair, getting the government out of your head, your hopes, and your home, than New England Republicans are and should be a welcome branch of the family.
You can be liberal, you can be a libertarian, if you can be consistently so. Liberal Progressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio started to shine out his libertarian streak later in his tenure, decrying “Big Brother” and “Big Government” at the heart of our nation’s troubles. He sought to sponsor articles of impeachment against President Bush for the wars in Iraq, yet he also championed bringing down the encroaching surveillance state, which has expanded its veil over three hundred million people under the Obama Administration.
Ryan Fattman, state legislator from Sutton, stresses fiscal conservatism. He won his constituency by a large margin, even though the representation on the voter rolls skews against him. If a politician is willing to knock on every door, make himself known and well-knowing, there is no reason why a candidate cannot win over voters from the other side of the aisle. Scott Brown in the pick-up truck picked up votes not just by running against Washington, not just by castigating President Obama, but reaching out to voters, rain or shine. It’s about making the home state home for everyone.
Leave me alone, live and let live, libertarian: sounds like the perfect combination for the Republican Party in the Northeast.
Then there was Richard Tisei, the openly gay real estate agent, former state senator, and lieutenant gubernatorial candidate. He had a fighting chance against John “My Wife, Not Me, is Corrupt” Tierney. Yet Tisei was not much different from the “other guy”. In addition to being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he supported tax increases. Where’s the “Live and Let Live” in that? The message was clearly unclear, if you ask me. Still, Obama supporters also wrote to the local press that they would press for Tisei in the Congressional election. Tisei lost by one percentage point. If he had been more clearly conservative on the fiscal issues, would he have gotten that extra percent to win? Perhaps. . .
So, Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset, Massachusetts won the Republican Party nomination to replace John Kerry in the United States Senate. He was clearly more liberal than his two other primary challengers.
Granted, the Massachusetts GOP rejected some aspects of the National GOP platform last year, and so should other states. Many conservatives feel that limited exceptions in abortion are not only tolerable, but necessary, such as in the cases of rape and incest, not just the life of the mother. The national GOP platform precludes those exceptions. The GOP “1%” is not listening to the grassroots, the Tea Party affiliates, nor the concerns of conservative-leaning independents and libertarians, many of whom are alarmed by the aggressive growth of government at the expense of the individual, including the assault on religious liberties and time-honored traditions.
So, what about Mr. Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset? He was not just liberal on key issues, but his liberalism muddied his conservative values, too. Gomez donated money to Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2008, and even sought the interim post for the US Senate in a letter to Democratic President Deval Patrick, citing his support for the “Hope and Change” President. Gomez supported the Keystone pipeline, yet he also believes in climate change as a serious matter which the government must do something about, or else. The facts, the research, the consortia of opinion, including disagreements among respectable scientists, should prevent any massive government overreach. He is pro-life, won’t tough Roe vs. Wade, but he openly supports gay marriage. How about getting government out of marriage altogether? He wants to maintain lower taxes, yet he supported a ten dollar minimum wage, which would all but ensure higher unemployment. Where’s the consistent fiscal conservatism? Gomez double-dealing of liberal-yet-also-trying to seem conservative is disconcerting.
Gomez was not Republican enough on the “Live and Let Live” issues, and the Northeast needs more “Live and Let Live” Republicans.
He Keeps Us, Not The Other Way Around
One of the most difficult aspects of the Christian Walk is Christ living in us, not our living for Christ, our trying to live out His life through our own efforts.
What makes this so difficult?
Human beings, dead in their trespasses, are prone to taking over, taking control, trying to make do, as if they are the only ones doing and making.
The truth is, God was, is, and always will be on the move in and around us, watching over us, taking care of us, seeing us through every need.
We are not called to live up to a standard, since the Law was never given to us in order that we would have rules for living:
"20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5: 20-21)
and
"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. . .23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.(Galatians 3: 17, 23-25)
Later in Galatians, Paul is more rigid in his declartion not to live under law, but by faith:
"28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (Galatians 4: 28-31)
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" (1 Timothy 1: 7)
If you have been made the righteousness of God in Christ, then you no longer need the rules outside of you, because the Holy Spirit writes God's laws of life, love, and liberty within you (Hebrews 8: 10-12)
We no longer try to keep the law in order to be kept by God. He keeps us because of the New Covenant which His Son cut on the Cross:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26: 28)
This New Testament, or Covenant, is outlined in Hebrews 8, quoting from Jeremiah 31: 33-34:
"10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8: 10-12)
Our job is to believe on Jesus, who is our high priest at God the Father's right hand (Hebrews 4: 14; 6: 20)
He lives in us, He works on our behalf, and He cares for us as we never could.
Thus could Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, write to us:
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 24, 25)
Our wisdom is Christ, along with everything else:
"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8: 31-32)
and
"21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." (1 Corinthians 3: 21-23)
What are we called to do, then? We are called to rest in Him:
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11: 28)
and also
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Hebrews 4: 11)
We are called to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord:
"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." (2 Peter 3: 18)
We are also called to rejoice, pray without ceasing, and give thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18)
We can do all of these things, because He is living in us, He is watching out for us, and He is according all grace to us through the Spirit of God who lives in us.
As we pray, we keep ourselves, remind ourselves, of God's love for us (Jude 20-21)
Yet in effect, he keeps us, because He bought us back from death to receive His eternal life:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
and then
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." (John 10: 29)
Get to know the Person of Jesus, as the rest depends on Him, since He is keeping you, not the other way around.
What makes this so difficult?
Human beings, dead in their trespasses, are prone to taking over, taking control, trying to make do, as if they are the only ones doing and making.
The truth is, God was, is, and always will be on the move in and around us, watching over us, taking care of us, seeing us through every need.
We are not called to live up to a standard, since the Law was never given to us in order that we would have rules for living:
"20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5: 20-21)
and
"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. . .23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.(Galatians 3: 17, 23-25)
Later in Galatians, Paul is more rigid in his declartion not to live under law, but by faith:
"28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (Galatians 4: 28-31)
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" (1 Timothy 1: 7)
If you have been made the righteousness of God in Christ, then you no longer need the rules outside of you, because the Holy Spirit writes God's laws of life, love, and liberty within you (Hebrews 8: 10-12)
We no longer try to keep the law in order to be kept by God. He keeps us because of the New Covenant which His Son cut on the Cross:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26: 28)
This New Testament, or Covenant, is outlined in Hebrews 8, quoting from Jeremiah 31: 33-34:
"10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8: 10-12)
Our job is to believe on Jesus, who is our high priest at God the Father's right hand (Hebrews 4: 14; 6: 20)
He lives in us, He works on our behalf, and He cares for us as we never could.
Thus could Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, write to us:
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 24, 25)
Our wisdom is Christ, along with everything else:
"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8: 31-32)
and
"21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." (1 Corinthians 3: 21-23)
What are we called to do, then? We are called to rest in Him:
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11: 28)
and also
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Hebrews 4: 11)
We are called to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord:
"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." (2 Peter 3: 18)
We are also called to rejoice, pray without ceasing, and give thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18)
We can do all of these things, because He is living in us, He is watching out for us, and He is according all grace to us through the Spirit of God who lives in us.
As we pray, we keep ourselves, remind ourselves, of God's love for us (Jude 20-21)
Yet in effect, he keeps us, because He bought us back from death to receive His eternal life:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
and then
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." (John 10: 29)
Get to know the Person of Jesus, as the rest depends on Him, since He is keeping you, not the other way around.
Mayor-Elect Eric Garcetti: "Yawn. Shrug. Meh."
Eric Garcetti is the new mayor of Los Angeles. Haven’t you heard? Most people did not vote, and most people probably do not care.
I have three reasons why: “Yawn. Shrug. Meh.”
“Yawn”: Garcetti gave some wan responses in spite of the warm welcome he received in Mar Vista last week. He has voted against the expansion of the Los Angeles International Airport runway northward, yet his plan to extend Metro transit to the region still faces roadblocks. Former LA mayor Sam Yorty had suggested creating commuter flights and airport expansion in the Lancaster-Palmdale region. No one lives in many of the desert recesses of Northern Los Angeles County/ How then does the mayor-elect elect to expand the international traffic at the airport, if he opposes on-the-ground expansions?
“Shrug”: Mayor-elect Garcetti opposes opposition to community care facilities, including sober living homes, in low-density and residential areas. Frankly, why has he not pressed for decriminalizing drugs and ending prosecution for drug possession in the first place? This policy would galvanize conservatives and liberals while freeing up public resources and bringing down California’s excessive prison populations. As for veterans’ affairs, Garcetti should start holding Rep. Henry Waxman accountable for his lack of oversight of the Brentwood VA, which still lags behind in redevelopment and renovation.
“Meh”: For all the great ideas proffered by Westside residents, they forgot to consider one key initiative, one which we need to hear more about: allow Mar Vista, Playa Vista, and Playa del Rey residents, along with other communities on the Westside, to bid a warm and well-need farewell from Los Angeles. From plastic bag bans, to traffic congestion, to failing schools, to pension crises unchecked, to union-powered uninhibited, Los Angeles may be a city too big to fail, yet has now become too big to run.
I have three reasons why: “Yawn. Shrug. Meh.”
“Yawn”: Garcetti gave some wan responses in spite of the warm welcome he received in Mar Vista last week. He has voted against the expansion of the Los Angeles International Airport runway northward, yet his plan to extend Metro transit to the region still faces roadblocks. Former LA mayor Sam Yorty had suggested creating commuter flights and airport expansion in the Lancaster-Palmdale region. No one lives in many of the desert recesses of Northern Los Angeles County/ How then does the mayor-elect elect to expand the international traffic at the airport, if he opposes on-the-ground expansions?
“Shrug”: Mayor-elect Garcetti opposes opposition to community care facilities, including sober living homes, in low-density and residential areas. Frankly, why has he not pressed for decriminalizing drugs and ending prosecution for drug possession in the first place? This policy would galvanize conservatives and liberals while freeing up public resources and bringing down California’s excessive prison populations. As for veterans’ affairs, Garcetti should start holding Rep. Henry Waxman accountable for his lack of oversight of the Brentwood VA, which still lags behind in redevelopment and renovation.
“Meh”: For all the great ideas proffered by Westside residents, they forgot to consider one key initiative, one which we need to hear more about: allow Mar Vista, Playa Vista, and Playa del Rey residents, along with other communities on the Westside, to bid a warm and well-need farewell from Los Angeles. From plastic bag bans, to traffic congestion, to failing schools, to pension crises unchecked, to union-powered uninhibited, Los Angeles may be a city too big to fail, yet has now become too big to run.
God and Bradley in Compton Politics
“My mother was a good friend of her [Congresswoman Janice Hahn] father’s, a loyal supporter. When I say ‘loyal,’ I mean loyal. Mr. Hahn’s picture was in my mother’s kitchen, next to Jesus and Martin Luther King.” – Mayor non-elect Omar Bradley
If anything exposes the most expansive problem in politics today, especially in the black community, it would be the collusion of politics, religion, and civil rights. For decades, since the “New Deal” Democracy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a number of African-American voters have looked to the state, to civic action, to government power to wrong all the rights, to turn their captivity, of sorts, from the slavery of the past into a free future.
Such thinking is contradictory and conflicted, and such double-mindedness contributes to a great deal of discouragement and disparagement, in my opinion.
In Christian circles, at least in sermon and sentiment, Jesus is supposed to be the preeminent power. According the Gospel accounts in the Christian Bible -- whether the reader regards them as historical, hysterical, or just plain histrionic -- Jesus is granted the first, full, and final precedence. On the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9: 1-8), Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah. When the apostle Peter saw the three, he presumed to place them all on the same level: “Let’s make three tents (or tabernacles) for all of you!” Yet the account then records that God the Father boomed above Peter’s fearful, awe-inspired pretence: “This is my Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Not the Law, not the Prophets, would be the inference, but the Son (for those who believe, at any rate). Today, voters are listening to preachers and politicians, promoting them to the status of “Savior”. If they are the saviors, then there is no need for Jesus, right? To combine all of them together just makes no sense. Strange, disturbing, and dysfunctional.
For those who adopt and adapt to the Christian faith, who can they adeptly step into a stance which places Jesus on the same plane as a civil rights leader or a politician?
Not just former mayor Omar Bradley, but even Congresswoman Janice Hahn has played the “religion” card before. She was even a guest speaker at the last Billy Graham crusade, held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena in 2004. Her story was stirring, how her older relatives left Canada to settle in the United States. She even shared a harrowing account of how her grandmother was so distraught with financial difficulties, that she attempted to kill herself and her children by asphyxiation in their little apartment. They all survived, nonetheless, by the grace of God.
Janice’s brother James Hahn was a welcome mayor of Los Angeles. I remember seeing him eat dessert with his son Jackson at five-and-dime in the Harbor Gateway. Unlike his arrogant celebrity-successor, James stepped down from the spotlight frequently. Janice, not so much.
Returning to the confusing collusion religious, politics, and civil rights: the third element does have a spiritual basis. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did good as a civil rights leader. Yet the preponderance of praise which voters give to men, while claiming religious fervor in God, seems misplaced and mistaken. If God cannot help us, of course people will look to “mere mortals” for help. If God sent His Son to be Savior of the World (per Christian circles), why for flesh and blood, which are easily upset and influenced by other sets of flesh and blood?
Bradley shared his disappointment regarding Congresswoman Hahn’s endorsement of mayor-elect Aja Brown:
“So Janice Hahn called me and said, ‘Omar, we have tested it out, and your support is very strong. But,’ she said, ‘they are making me endorse Aja Brown.”
Where’s the trust? Where’s the faith? Where’s the fidelity? How could Hahn hand Bradley so back-handed a backing? For some answers, perhaps Mr. Bradley should go back to the Bible, a book which must have held some esteem in his house, since his mother had Jesus’ picture on the wall:
“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17: 5)
For special notice, the original Hebrew word “Cursed” has the deeper-rooted meaning of “embittered”, as I am certain Mr. Bradely is quite embittered that Janice Hahn, daughter of LA Supervisor (Savior?) Kenneth Hahn, revered by the Bradley clan, chose to endorse Bradley’s rival.
Mixing politics and religion and civil rights – how bitter that must make man indeed!
If anything exposes the most expansive problem in politics today, especially in the black community, it would be the collusion of politics, religion, and civil rights. For decades, since the “New Deal” Democracy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a number of African-American voters have looked to the state, to civic action, to government power to wrong all the rights, to turn their captivity, of sorts, from the slavery of the past into a free future.
Such thinking is contradictory and conflicted, and such double-mindedness contributes to a great deal of discouragement and disparagement, in my opinion.
In Christian circles, at least in sermon and sentiment, Jesus is supposed to be the preeminent power. According the Gospel accounts in the Christian Bible -- whether the reader regards them as historical, hysterical, or just plain histrionic -- Jesus is granted the first, full, and final precedence. On the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9: 1-8), Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah. When the apostle Peter saw the three, he presumed to place them all on the same level: “Let’s make three tents (or tabernacles) for all of you!” Yet the account then records that God the Father boomed above Peter’s fearful, awe-inspired pretence: “This is my Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Not the Law, not the Prophets, would be the inference, but the Son (for those who believe, at any rate). Today, voters are listening to preachers and politicians, promoting them to the status of “Savior”. If they are the saviors, then there is no need for Jesus, right? To combine all of them together just makes no sense. Strange, disturbing, and dysfunctional.
For those who adopt and adapt to the Christian faith, who can they adeptly step into a stance which places Jesus on the same plane as a civil rights leader or a politician?
Not just former mayor Omar Bradley, but even Congresswoman Janice Hahn has played the “religion” card before. She was even a guest speaker at the last Billy Graham crusade, held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena in 2004. Her story was stirring, how her older relatives left Canada to settle in the United States. She even shared a harrowing account of how her grandmother was so distraught with financial difficulties, that she attempted to kill herself and her children by asphyxiation in their little apartment. They all survived, nonetheless, by the grace of God.
Janice’s brother James Hahn was a welcome mayor of Los Angeles. I remember seeing him eat dessert with his son Jackson at five-and-dime in the Harbor Gateway. Unlike his arrogant celebrity-successor, James stepped down from the spotlight frequently. Janice, not so much.
Returning to the confusing collusion religious, politics, and civil rights: the third element does have a spiritual basis. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did good as a civil rights leader. Yet the preponderance of praise which voters give to men, while claiming religious fervor in God, seems misplaced and mistaken. If God cannot help us, of course people will look to “mere mortals” for help. If God sent His Son to be Savior of the World (per Christian circles), why for flesh and blood, which are easily upset and influenced by other sets of flesh and blood?
Bradley shared his disappointment regarding Congresswoman Hahn’s endorsement of mayor-elect Aja Brown:
“So Janice Hahn called me and said, ‘Omar, we have tested it out, and your support is very strong. But,’ she said, ‘they are making me endorse Aja Brown.”
Where’s the trust? Where’s the faith? Where’s the fidelity? How could Hahn hand Bradley so back-handed a backing? For some answers, perhaps Mr. Bradley should go back to the Bible, a book which must have held some esteem in his house, since his mother had Jesus’ picture on the wall:
“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17: 5)
For special notice, the original Hebrew word “Cursed” has the deeper-rooted meaning of “embittered”, as I am certain Mr. Bradely is quite embittered that Janice Hahn, daughter of LA Supervisor (Savior?) Kenneth Hahn, revered by the Bradley clan, chose to endorse Bradley’s rival.
Mixing politics and religion and civil rights – how bitter that must make man indeed!
Monday, June 24, 2013
Moyers Hates Walker -- Walker Should Be Proud
Bill Moyers, liberal-progressive mouthpiece for PBS, frequently attacks Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for his innovative reforms, including successful efforts to curb collective bargaining rights. In a recent rebroadcast, Moyers castigated the former County Executive and current state chief executive for positioning himself as a prop for ALEC: the American Legislative Exchange Council. This interest group has united corporate, grassroots, and state legislators to advance model legislation, both in form and following, to promote conservative causes, including limited government and local control.
Besides his critique of Walker's collective bargaining reforms, Moyers has also faulted his support for conceal-and-carry gun laws, which have significantly diminished violent crime. He also faulted Walker's drive to privatize education through virtual schools and vouchers, as if governments should have all the freedoms of choice, but not students and parents. Unlike modern liberals, who talk about freedom and equality for the middle class, Walker's policies have improved opportunities for all Wisconsin residents.
Despite the tone of menace and distrust presented by Moyers, Governor Walker should be proud of the liberal "journalist's" posturing. Like many regressive progressives, Moyers despises federalism and any move on the part of states to maintain or even expand their authority at the expense of the federal government. The United States needs more leaders like Walker, who refuse to bow the "Almighty Power" of Washington at the expense of the local autonomy of the states and the people. The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution would certainly applaud Walker and ALEC's grassroots initiative.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
What Happened to the North East GOP?
What happened to all the Republicans in the North East? Did someone shoot them all? Is there some terrible virus which has stripped away any pachyderm willing to pack it in for God and Country? Is there not enough room in the nation, including New England, for Republicans to wave their trunks and march along for free enterprise, free markets, and free people?
Well, Republicans in the North East have often been more liberal (or moderate?) than the rest of the national party. Edward Brooke, the first popularly elected African-American US Senator, conceded that he had always been a social liberal, but also a conscientious cost-cutter. Before his Senate run, he had served as Massachusetts’ Attorney General and saved the state millions. He supported the Republican Party because they had the progressive record on Civil Rights. Just to jog the readers’ memory, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who had desegregated the National Guard in Massachusetts, and the Republicans, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Richard Nixon, who advanced policies to curb segregation policies and advance the causes of colored people throughout the United States. As for the Democratic Party, no better spokesman for their motives can share it like Lyndon Baines “Great Society” Johnson, who admitted his reason for expanding welfare: “We’ll have those n_ggers voting for us for the next two hundred years”.
Nelson Rockefeller of New York, a Senator, Governor, and then Vice President (watch the middle finger!), represented the liberal faction of the Republican Party, allied himself with the moderate, Establishment Gerald Ford: tough on crime and strong on national security, yet tempered by advancement of civil rights and fiscal discipline. Yet the Republicans’ liberal streak in the Northeast was too strong for some, enough that National Review endorsed the Democrat for Governor of Connecticut because he pledged not to raise taxes. The Republican won, and raised taxes. Quite a reversal in light of today’s politics, which have polarized the two parties to such an extent, that liberal and conservative factions do not thrive or jive too well together anymore in any one party.
Republican Ronald Reagan won forty-nine states in 1984, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Jimmy Carter was as un-presidential as could be, a dark-horse who had stormed through Iowa to carry the Democratic nomination in 1976, yet faced a bitter primary fight against Massachusetts US Senator Ted Kennedy in 1980, plus a third-party challenger. Reagan did so well, preaching an inclusive message which diminished government, admonished or enemies abroad, and embellished our history and potential at home. His 1984 opponent, Walter Mondale, all youth and inexperience, boldly declared that he would raise our taxes at his own convention.
Then “New England moderate by way of Texas” George Herbert Walker Bush rode on “The Gipper’s” coattails. . and fiscal reality rejected the tax-cut-only conservatism of Ronald Reagan. “Read My Lips” turned into “Kiss My Butt”, and Bush raised new taxes, followed by a successful military venture in Iraq, then an unsuccessful recession, a third-party challenge from Texas billionaire Ross Perot, and Republicans did not win electoral votes from the Northeast (or the Presidency) for eight years.
Then more tears between the Northeast GOP and the Rest started to show. New England Republicans voted to acquit Bill Clinton in 1999. George W. Bush, another “New England moderate by way of Texas” (more tang than hoity-toity), won in 2000. Bush was the last Republican Presidential candidate to win a New England state: New Hampshire. Bush drove the wedge wider between Northeast and the Rest. The Historic US Senate of 2001 was 50-50. Then the environmentally-friendly James Jeffords of Vermont started to feel jerked around by the Bush Administration. They snubbed his conference calls, and Jeffords dismissed their moral majoritarianism. Maine’s Olympia Snowe sensed Jefford’s dissatisfaction, a liberal Republican who had opposed tax cuts and Clarence Thomas. Jeffords packed up and turned Independent, giving the Democrats a one-seat majority.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus “Compassionate Conservatism”, soured the Republican brand. Bush frayed entirely the fiscal issues which had tied the North East tenuously to the Rest. 2006, and Rhode Island’s Chafee lost to Sheldon Whitehouse; Sununu of New Hampshire lost to Jean Shaheen. The GOP’S moral sentiments were never strong in the Northeast, either. Bush’s damage decimated the GOP in the Northeast. In 2008, House Rep Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut), who had survived the 2006 shellacking, also lost his seat. In 2012, Maine’s Olympia Snowe decried the hyperpartisanship, and quit She was a liberal, but at least she voted against Obamacare.
Currently, are no Northeast Republicans in the House of Representatives. Aside from Massachusetts’ Scott Brown’s brief tenure, there are only two Republican US Senators, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine, two states where Republicans see 2014 possibilities. Besides, Maine’s current governor, Paul LePage, makes New Jersey Governor Christie look like a liberal wall-flower.
If President Obama ends up ruining the Democratic Party brand as Bush did with Republicans, then maybe a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian Republican Party can rise again in the Northeast. It’s never too late for a political revival.
RI GOP -- Forget Father and Son Chafee
For eighty years, Rhode Island has suffered suppression under the Democratic hypermajority (nothing “super” happens when Democrats are in charge), yet in the early nineteen eighties, there was a glimmer of “Hope” for the eponymously nicknamed state, the smallest in the country with the longest name. Following redistricting, “The Great Fiasco” permitted Republicans to gain twenty-three seats in the General Assembly. Those were the days for Republicans, when Ronald Reagan carried Rhode Island in 1980 and 1984 (along with forty-eight other states). 1984 was last time that Rhode Island elected a Republican to the Presidency.
In addition to the “Great Fiasco” (a “Great Awakening” now dormant), a Republican has sometimes stepped into the Governor’s Mansion to make the most out of a mostly bad situation. Or make it worse. As far as making the most of a bad situation, such could have been the case with Governor (later Senator) John Chafee. Sadly, such was the case that he made a bad situation worse, and his son Linc, the faux Republican then Independent, now a Democrat, has merely prolonged the partisan agony. Today, two problems plague Rhode Island: union hall dominance in the statehouse and tax-and-spend statism in every other house. This plague on all houses rests squarely on Democrats, but Rhode Island’s public sector employees received collective bargaining rights because of Republican Governor John Chafee. He also instituted the state income tax, thus abandoning the principles that he had campaigned on to get re-elected.
“Father John” is The Elephant in the Middle of the Room” for the Rhode Island Republican Party because he sold out his state the way a farmer fattens then slaughters a pig for sale, and thus the Elephant Party has not been in the middle of Rhode Island Politics. John’s son Linc, just like his father, has made politics more important than the people or principle, or even party loyalty. Now deceased, Governor Chafee's legacy is still chafing Rhode Island residents. While red states are getting rid of their income taxes -- and New England residents who want to live free can run to New Hampshire and avoid the sales tax, or go to Massachusetts and pay less for gas -- Rhode Island leaders want more taxes. The state’s Republican Party has to decide whether to stick with the old stock, or move on to the new. The latest Republican election, with Mark Smiley winning the state party chairmanship, is showing new signs of life, including the reintegration and repudiation of the "Old liberal wing" vs. “The New Leadership” to keep the voice, stand on the values, and get the votes for the party.
Despite his father’s failures, Governor Lincoln Chafee had the opportunity to amend the mistakes, or to upend them altogether. By doing so, he could have further established his "Independent" status, the same way that Republicans can cheer when President Obama issues waivers for the very un-conservative mandate "No Child Left Behind". Unfortunately, Lincoln Chafee the RINO (Republican in Name Only), who turned into an INNO (Independent of New and Noteworthy Opinions) has become a political DINO (Democrat In Need of Obama), trying to rescue his extinct integrity and extinguished influence.
Chafee could have modeled true Republican leaders, instead of his father. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie enacted pension reforms with private sector union party bosses in his state legislature. Garden State laborers will thank Christie years from now because his reforms saved their pensions. Christie also cut taxes three years in a row while balancing the budget. Then there’s Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, whose reforms instituted paycheck protection for public employees, while requiring them to contribute more toward their pensions. School districts and cities can renegotiate expensive labor contracts without the resistance of labor unions. Linc could have even followed Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's" Workplace Fairness and Equity" reforms, which have freed up workers in the Wolverine State. Now, they can choose whether to join a union or not, and the unions must earn their members’ dues and prove that they serve the best interests of their members. The latter two governors' proposals may shake up Chafee more than Christie's efforts, but Rhode Island has a history of upstarts and rebellion.
For the record, collective bargaining reforms do not strip workers of their right to organize, nor their dignity to be represented. Nevertheless, onerous public sector entitlement programs approved by previous administrations, without consent or consideration of future taxpayers, have created an unsustainable system of debt destroying Rhode Island’s fiscal viability. Betraying his “lunchpail” constituents, Linc jumped tables to join the union-backed Democratic machine, allying himself with the very problems which have turned Rhode Island into “the petri dish of socialism”, including higher taxes made higher, paving a perverse path on the road to insolvency. Putting away Father John and Son Linc, Rhode Island Republicans can respect the contributions of public workers, both occupational and financial, while instituting structural changes to save pensions, lower taxes, and create jobs. Instead of being like (or even liking) Father John or Son Linc, the RI GOP can forge a new identity to renew their state.
In addition to the “Great Fiasco” (a “Great Awakening” now dormant), a Republican has sometimes stepped into the Governor’s Mansion to make the most out of a mostly bad situation. Or make it worse. As far as making the most of a bad situation, such could have been the case with Governor (later Senator) John Chafee. Sadly, such was the case that he made a bad situation worse, and his son Linc, the faux Republican then Independent, now a Democrat, has merely prolonged the partisan agony. Today, two problems plague Rhode Island: union hall dominance in the statehouse and tax-and-spend statism in every other house. This plague on all houses rests squarely on Democrats, but Rhode Island’s public sector employees received collective bargaining rights because of Republican Governor John Chafee. He also instituted the state income tax, thus abandoning the principles that he had campaigned on to get re-elected.
“Father John” is The Elephant in the Middle of the Room” for the Rhode Island Republican Party because he sold out his state the way a farmer fattens then slaughters a pig for sale, and thus the Elephant Party has not been in the middle of Rhode Island Politics. John’s son Linc, just like his father, has made politics more important than the people or principle, or even party loyalty. Now deceased, Governor Chafee's legacy is still chafing Rhode Island residents. While red states are getting rid of their income taxes -- and New England residents who want to live free can run to New Hampshire and avoid the sales tax, or go to Massachusetts and pay less for gas -- Rhode Island leaders want more taxes. The state’s Republican Party has to decide whether to stick with the old stock, or move on to the new. The latest Republican election, with Mark Smiley winning the state party chairmanship, is showing new signs of life, including the reintegration and repudiation of the "Old liberal wing" vs. “The New Leadership” to keep the voice, stand on the values, and get the votes for the party.
Despite his father’s failures, Governor Lincoln Chafee had the opportunity to amend the mistakes, or to upend them altogether. By doing so, he could have further established his "Independent" status, the same way that Republicans can cheer when President Obama issues waivers for the very un-conservative mandate "No Child Left Behind". Unfortunately, Lincoln Chafee the RINO (Republican in Name Only), who turned into an INNO (Independent of New and Noteworthy Opinions) has become a political DINO (Democrat In Need of Obama), trying to rescue his extinct integrity and extinguished influence.
Chafee could have modeled true Republican leaders, instead of his father. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie enacted pension reforms with private sector union party bosses in his state legislature. Garden State laborers will thank Christie years from now because his reforms saved their pensions. Christie also cut taxes three years in a row while balancing the budget. Then there’s Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, whose reforms instituted paycheck protection for public employees, while requiring them to contribute more toward their pensions. School districts and cities can renegotiate expensive labor contracts without the resistance of labor unions. Linc could have even followed Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's" Workplace Fairness and Equity" reforms, which have freed up workers in the Wolverine State. Now, they can choose whether to join a union or not, and the unions must earn their members’ dues and prove that they serve the best interests of their members. The latter two governors' proposals may shake up Chafee more than Christie's efforts, but Rhode Island has a history of upstarts and rebellion.
For the record, collective bargaining reforms do not strip workers of their right to organize, nor their dignity to be represented. Nevertheless, onerous public sector entitlement programs approved by previous administrations, without consent or consideration of future taxpayers, have created an unsustainable system of debt destroying Rhode Island’s fiscal viability. Betraying his “lunchpail” constituents, Linc jumped tables to join the union-backed Democratic machine, allying himself with the very problems which have turned Rhode Island into “the petri dish of socialism”, including higher taxes made higher, paving a perverse path on the road to insolvency. Putting away Father John and Son Linc, Rhode Island Republicans can respect the contributions of public workers, both occupational and financial, while instituting structural changes to save pensions, lower taxes, and create jobs. Instead of being like (or even liking) Father John or Son Linc, the RI GOP can forge a new identity to renew their state.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Markey is All Miss -- Top Ten Quotes from Ed Markey
Congressman Edward Markey’s staggering lack of depth and originality is laughable and sad. From his comments on the fiscal (or climate) cliff to his frequent flubs in debates, Markey has missed the mark on every issue. Despite the cult-like hold of “The Democracy” on the Bay State, at least some “right-thinking” people should see through Markey’s “malarkey”.
On gun control, Markey is just a missive of mistakes:
1. We do not have to accept this epidemic of gun violence in our country. It is not pre-ordained. It is preventable: it is a preventable disease.
“Gun violence is a disease. . .” Forget about the breakdown of the family or the rule of law. Just control the guns. That worked in “Gun-free” Chicago. . .which had five hundred murders in 2012. Markey was shooting blanks that day.
About the “climate cliff”, Markey’s alarmism is too hard to miss:
2. Everyone in Washington recently has been talking about the fiscal cliff . . . Well, half a world away. . . the international community is trying to avert sending the globe over the climate cliff.”
So, the financial dysfunction in Washington is not our problem. Taxes on middle and working class Americans are no big deal, and taxing the “high income earners” will fix everything. But it was five degrees warmer last summer, and the globe is “going over the climate cliff.” Right . . .
On collective bargaining rights for first responders, Markey responded:
3. “By the way, my position ultimately prevailed. . . I voted no, I thought that these workers, these first responders should not be stripped of their right to negotiate, and ultimately that provision was taken out. . .and that is now the law.”
Come again? The position he voted against prevailed, and he’s happy about it? By the way, collective bargaining rights for public sector employees are bankrupting blue states like Rhode Island and California. Markey missed it again.
About Citizens United, Markey mashed up history as well as politics:
4. Under Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission, it will all be secret, it’ll be hidden, the voters will never know. That’s not right. We fought beginning at Lexington and Concord to ensure that there would be full accountability for every single public official.
The American Revolution was about private funding of political elections? “We hold these truths to be self-evident” were apparently never evident to Markey, and he was once again not telling the truth about our history or our legacy of pushing back Big Government. John and Samuel Adams must be rolling in their grave that such people live and represent their state.
Regarding the budget problems in Washington, Markey chided Gomez for pointing out the complexities:
5. "It's really not math. It's just arithmetic. It's something you learn in grammar school."
One has to wonder if Markey ever graduated from grammar school. Then again, intellectual competence has never been a barrier to a Democrat running for office in Massachusetts (Just ask Liz Warren).
Regarding Markey’s demand that Mr. Gomez pay “his fair share”, the Moderator in their last debate pressed Markey about the same. His answer:
6. "I have paid my fair share. Most of the reason why are my taxes are low -- the mortgage deduction.”
Yeah, that mortgage deduction on that mansion in Maryland. By the way, Gomez pays 21% income tax and raises four kids. Markey pays 20% (he should be paying 30%), and he raises . . . our taxes.
Here’s another quote from Markey about taxes:
7. "I opposed putting the medical device tax in the bill in the first place. I'm working to repeal it. I don't want to repeal it, because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it."
“I was for it, even though I was against it.” We’ve heard this “reasoning” before: John Kerry on Iraq: “I voted for it before I was against it”. Markey would be a perfect Kerry clone.
When Gomez asked if Markey had ever voted against taxes, Markey responded:
8. "Thank you for that question, and my answer is quite simple. I uh have voted to reduce taxes on middle class vote uh middle class residents of our state by one trillion dollars."
Uh. . .Uh . . . Uh. . .
Of course, Markey has missed it on taxes before:
9. “Well, again, the context is always important.”
The question the reporter asked him was: “Has he ever said “No!” to any tax? Maybe Markey thought she was talking about “text”, not taxes.
And finally, the Moderator in the third Markey-Gomez debate also asked if Markey was a “tired, old Democrat”:
10. "Well, the question isn't where's you coming from, but where you're going. Mr. Gomez is backing these tired, old Republican ideas.”
Markey has mealy-mouthed through Congress with “tax the rich” and “climate change”. Markey does not have “old, tired” ideas. He has no ideas at all. Frankly, after reading Markey’s Top Ten, I have no idea why anyone would elect Markey for the US Senate in the first place.
On gun control, Markey is just a missive of mistakes:
1. We do not have to accept this epidemic of gun violence in our country. It is not pre-ordained. It is preventable: it is a preventable disease.
“Gun violence is a disease. . .” Forget about the breakdown of the family or the rule of law. Just control the guns. That worked in “Gun-free” Chicago. . .which had five hundred murders in 2012. Markey was shooting blanks that day.
About the “climate cliff”, Markey’s alarmism is too hard to miss:
2. Everyone in Washington recently has been talking about the fiscal cliff . . . Well, half a world away. . . the international community is trying to avert sending the globe over the climate cliff.”
So, the financial dysfunction in Washington is not our problem. Taxes on middle and working class Americans are no big deal, and taxing the “high income earners” will fix everything. But it was five degrees warmer last summer, and the globe is “going over the climate cliff.” Right . . .
On collective bargaining rights for first responders, Markey responded:
3. “By the way, my position ultimately prevailed. . . I voted no, I thought that these workers, these first responders should not be stripped of their right to negotiate, and ultimately that provision was taken out. . .and that is now the law.”
Come again? The position he voted against prevailed, and he’s happy about it? By the way, collective bargaining rights for public sector employees are bankrupting blue states like Rhode Island and California. Markey missed it again.
About Citizens United, Markey mashed up history as well as politics:
4. Under Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission, it will all be secret, it’ll be hidden, the voters will never know. That’s not right. We fought beginning at Lexington and Concord to ensure that there would be full accountability for every single public official.
The American Revolution was about private funding of political elections? “We hold these truths to be self-evident” were apparently never evident to Markey, and he was once again not telling the truth about our history or our legacy of pushing back Big Government. John and Samuel Adams must be rolling in their grave that such people live and represent their state.
Regarding the budget problems in Washington, Markey chided Gomez for pointing out the complexities:
5. "It's really not math. It's just arithmetic. It's something you learn in grammar school."
One has to wonder if Markey ever graduated from grammar school. Then again, intellectual competence has never been a barrier to a Democrat running for office in Massachusetts (Just ask Liz Warren).
Regarding Markey’s demand that Mr. Gomez pay “his fair share”, the Moderator in their last debate pressed Markey about the same. His answer:
6. "I have paid my fair share. Most of the reason why are my taxes are low -- the mortgage deduction.”
Yeah, that mortgage deduction on that mansion in Maryland. By the way, Gomez pays 21% income tax and raises four kids. Markey pays 20% (he should be paying 30%), and he raises . . . our taxes.
Here’s another quote from Markey about taxes:
7. "I opposed putting the medical device tax in the bill in the first place. I'm working to repeal it. I don't want to repeal it, because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it."
“I was for it, even though I was against it.” We’ve heard this “reasoning” before: John Kerry on Iraq: “I voted for it before I was against it”. Markey would be a perfect Kerry clone.
When Gomez asked if Markey had ever voted against taxes, Markey responded:
8. "Thank you for that question, and my answer is quite simple. I uh have voted to reduce taxes on middle class vote uh middle class residents of our state by one trillion dollars."
Uh. . .Uh . . . Uh. . .
Of course, Markey has missed it on taxes before:
9. “Well, again, the context is always important.”
The question the reporter asked him was: “Has he ever said “No!” to any tax? Maybe Markey thought she was talking about “text”, not taxes.
And finally, the Moderator in the third Markey-Gomez debate also asked if Markey was a “tired, old Democrat”:
10. "Well, the question isn't where's you coming from, but where you're going. Mr. Gomez is backing these tired, old Republican ideas.”
Markey has mealy-mouthed through Congress with “tax the rich” and “climate change”. Markey does not have “old, tired” ideas. He has no ideas at all. Frankly, after reading Markey’s Top Ten, I have no idea why anyone would elect Markey for the US Senate in the first place.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Afghanistan, Abandoned
Afghanistan, the Grave of Empires, the Final Resting place for foreign forays and fighters, may become the tombstone of the American Empire as American Dream, as well. As American forces prepare to leave the land of opium and opprobrium, the Obama Administration has inappropriately decided to leave $7 billion worth of military equipment in the war torn, warlord wasteland because of the cost of returning equipment, either too complex or obsolete, back to the United States. In Afghanistan, “Cut and run” has turned into “drop everything and depart”. Twelve years and trillions of dollars later, what do we have, following the American military’s expensive, expansive ventures into Central Asia, and thus the rest of the Middle East, which have cost us more time, treasure, and manpower than even Vietnam? In a sense, Americans should be happy. Bin Laden is dead, and we are leaving. However, there is much to regret. We are leaving, and whatever we were looking for, we never found. What we were seeking to achieve, we never received.
Why did the Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration pursue this expensive, reckless foreign policy? They had revenge, retaliation, and reelection on their minds. When the Twin Towers fell in New York on 9-11, the American people were mad. They had every right to be, but they were also scared, jarred by the badly shaken sensibility that even a “Superpower” is not impervious to attack, but no one abandoned the outrageous expectation, either. September 11, 2001 should live in infamy, yet the commemoration of the other “Day of Infamy”, December 7, 1941, commands more attention still. As more events require commemoration, no wonder that what we had celebrated more often will still be remembered, yet the more recent, however more horrific, do not feature as prominently. Just three years ago, middle school students were claiming that millions had died at the World Trade Center. Quick to forget the wreckage of the past, the United States still suffers in the present for the responses to those failures.
The practical consequences of then set the stage for the crises of today. Pensions and benefits spiked for police and fire in statehouses throughout the country, and today governments local, state, and federal face bankruptcy. Our armed forces carried military excursions to take down the Taliban and then remove Iraqi “President” Saddam Hussein from power. Arab leaders paid attention. Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad removed his troops from Lebanon. However, the Purple fingers of voter registration in Iraq turned red once again with bloody sectarian violence. The Bush Doctrine of establishing our domestic peace on the democratic process in other countries instead instigated incendiary insurrections. American military power demonstrated that terrorists and dictators can be defeated, but the populist uprisings which followed in the Arab Spring have replaced the rule of law with the arbitration of Allah and Sharia, fatal to peace and deadly to liberty, both there and throughout the world.
The United States military is leaving Afghanistan. The massive abandon of military equipment is a telling sign of the Obama Administration’s systemic fecklessness in the face of evil, and it makes no difference that Osama bin Laden is dead. While spending trillions for domestic spending which the United States treasury does not have, including health insurance exchanges, mandates, and a public relations campaign for both, the Obama Administration has ham-strung our military throughout the world. Drones not only attack terrorists abroad, but they may also abound over American soil. It took an eleven-hour filibuster from US Senator Rand Paul to incite an eleventh-hour response from the embattled Attorney General that “No!” the President of the United States would not have unilateral authority to target American citizens on American soil. Moreover, with growing regret foreign policy experts may concede that in the long run, Osama bin Laden accomplished exactly what he wanted. Islamic terrorists had nothing to lose, since they willingly sacrifice their own lives along with taking down as many innocents in their wake. The moral equivalence of the West, plus the depleted financial streams of an entitlement culture masked with unchecked liberalism, has created weakened, depopulated states in Europe, a malaise infecting the United States. The War on Terror hastened this dysfunction.
To stretch the resources of the Policeman of the World, worked for Al-Qaeda operatives quite well. With the stirring withdrawal of troops out of Afghanistan, plus the billions of dollars left to rot or dilapidate in the Central Asian desert, the United States venture from Republic to Empire should be abandoned, the notion that a nation cannot longer endure which refuses to police its own borders, let alone serve and protect the citizens of this country, yet seeks to manage and control the rest of the world. Such is the fate of any dysfunctional state, or human being. Our leaders have refused to take care of the problems which afflict us from within, and so they went about looking for other things to fix. With the draw-down from Afghanistan, perhaps we can fix our eyes on our nation again.
Why did the Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration pursue this expensive, reckless foreign policy? They had revenge, retaliation, and reelection on their minds. When the Twin Towers fell in New York on 9-11, the American people were mad. They had every right to be, but they were also scared, jarred by the badly shaken sensibility that even a “Superpower” is not impervious to attack, but no one abandoned the outrageous expectation, either. September 11, 2001 should live in infamy, yet the commemoration of the other “Day of Infamy”, December 7, 1941, commands more attention still. As more events require commemoration, no wonder that what we had celebrated more often will still be remembered, yet the more recent, however more horrific, do not feature as prominently. Just three years ago, middle school students were claiming that millions had died at the World Trade Center. Quick to forget the wreckage of the past, the United States still suffers in the present for the responses to those failures.
The practical consequences of then set the stage for the crises of today. Pensions and benefits spiked for police and fire in statehouses throughout the country, and today governments local, state, and federal face bankruptcy. Our armed forces carried military excursions to take down the Taliban and then remove Iraqi “President” Saddam Hussein from power. Arab leaders paid attention. Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad removed his troops from Lebanon. However, the Purple fingers of voter registration in Iraq turned red once again with bloody sectarian violence. The Bush Doctrine of establishing our domestic peace on the democratic process in other countries instead instigated incendiary insurrections. American military power demonstrated that terrorists and dictators can be defeated, but the populist uprisings which followed in the Arab Spring have replaced the rule of law with the arbitration of Allah and Sharia, fatal to peace and deadly to liberty, both there and throughout the world.
The United States military is leaving Afghanistan. The massive abandon of military equipment is a telling sign of the Obama Administration’s systemic fecklessness in the face of evil, and it makes no difference that Osama bin Laden is dead. While spending trillions for domestic spending which the United States treasury does not have, including health insurance exchanges, mandates, and a public relations campaign for both, the Obama Administration has ham-strung our military throughout the world. Drones not only attack terrorists abroad, but they may also abound over American soil. It took an eleven-hour filibuster from US Senator Rand Paul to incite an eleventh-hour response from the embattled Attorney General that “No!” the President of the United States would not have unilateral authority to target American citizens on American soil. Moreover, with growing regret foreign policy experts may concede that in the long run, Osama bin Laden accomplished exactly what he wanted. Islamic terrorists had nothing to lose, since they willingly sacrifice their own lives along with taking down as many innocents in their wake. The moral equivalence of the West, plus the depleted financial streams of an entitlement culture masked with unchecked liberalism, has created weakened, depopulated states in Europe, a malaise infecting the United States. The War on Terror hastened this dysfunction.
To stretch the resources of the Policeman of the World, worked for Al-Qaeda operatives quite well. With the stirring withdrawal of troops out of Afghanistan, plus the billions of dollars left to rot or dilapidate in the Central Asian desert, the United States venture from Republic to Empire should be abandoned, the notion that a nation cannot longer endure which refuses to police its own borders, let alone serve and protect the citizens of this country, yet seeks to manage and control the rest of the world. Such is the fate of any dysfunctional state, or human being. Our leaders have refused to take care of the problems which afflict us from within, and so they went about looking for other things to fix. With the draw-down from Afghanistan, perhaps we can fix our eyes on our nation again.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
USA: Stay Away from Syria
How many foreign forays will it take before the United
States diplomatic corps starts to see the forest for the trees? We cannot
control the world, we cannot police the nations, and no nation, no matter how
armed, can put down or put an end to the political-ethnic-tribal turmoil
turning up the Middle East. Yet Republicans and Democrats in Washington today argue
that the United States has a vested interest in sending military personnel, not
just money, into Syria, where a self-inflicted quagmire of Shi’ites loyal to
blood-thirsty dictator Assad are pushing against Sunni rebels, along with
latent terrorist elements like Al-Qaeda and secular opposition fighters.
The arrogance, the flippant notion that any country, or any
community of cultures, can step into this cacophony just staggers the mind. No
collective of power or prestige can put down the massacres which rage in the name
of law, religious, cultural, and a worldview dictated by the rule of the
Almighty. The United States would do better by doing nothing, aside from “knocking
on wood” that the Syrian Civil War continues indefinitely, perhaps tiring out
the very virulent, violent elements which have been vying for power in the
region for decades.
The history behind the boundaries and broken promises in the
desert cannot be ignored. The tribes and tribulations of the Middle East all
started with World War I, where The Ottoman Empire, the “Sick Man of Europe”,
lost internal integrity as well as external legitimacy. King Mehmed VI Had joined forced with the Central
powers Germany and Austria-Hungary, and lost. Palestine and Jordan became
British mandates, while Lebanon and Syria fell under French purview. The British
had their hands full with a global empire spinning away, while the French also
witnesses their grand experiment to civilize the uncivilized fall apart.
The boundaries drawn up by the Allied Powers after Armistice
Day disregarded ethnic, religious, and ethno-religious elements. Political
identity based on the rule of law and civil conduct depends on a universal
acceptance of human rights. Differing religious factions face fundamental
divides, dramatic distinctions which can mean the difference between life and
death. A devout Muslim may well interpret his Holy Book to make Holy War on any
infidel who refuses to accept the tenets and the Teacher of his faith. Such is
the fraught basis for the fights that never end in the Arab world.
Desert Shield gave way to Desert Storm in 1991, when a communion
of communities took on the Hussein regime in Iraq, a country desperate for oil
and prestige following their disastrous turn against Iran during their
eight-year war. Oil-rich Kuwait served oil-dependent “rest of the world.”
Following the forced evacuation of Hussein’s forces, the United States restored
some of its lost military prestige from Vietnam. A 1992 recession hurt George
Herbert Walker Bush (plus a third-party run by H. Ross Perot), and his chances
at a second term.
Hussein still loomed large in the minds of the US
Government, enough that Congress passed a resolution in 1998 to remove the Baathist
dictator from power. Before that, Al-Qaeda was on the move, attacking the world
trade center in 1993, followed by attacks on US consulates in Africa and the explosion
on the USS Cole in 2000
Son George W. Bush was elected by electoral (not popular) vote in 2000, and
then came 9-11.
The conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia were no
longer knocking on our allies’ doorsteps. Suicide bombers took advantage of a
central intelligence miasma in Washington and attacked the World Trade Center,
along with the Pentagon and an attempted hijacking and crashing into the White
House. Bush’s response instigated the invasion of Afghanistan, the removal of
the Taliban, and the resumption of the search for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden.
What else to do? Resume the upsets over the Hussein regime,
over which the Clinton Administration had been dropping bombs weekly for years.
Separate intelligence reports, before and after invasion, confirmed that
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Skeptics during the Bush
Administration conceded that Hussein was such a weapon himself. Nine plus years
in Iraq, and what do we have? More trouble. While Bush had intimidate Arab
dictators to play nice, respect Israel, and diminish Al-Qaeda terrorists and
Muslim extremists, the same repressive policies, mixed with the technological
innovations, created the sub-cultures of dissent which spread from word of
mouth to biting with megabytes, as Internet, Facebook, My Space became the new
public square of dissent in the Middle East.
Tunisia toppled, followed by leaders in Egypt, Yemen, and
then Libya. Yet one set of bad guys who feared Al-Qaeda have been replaced by
the latent terrors and extremists so hunted and despised by the United States. The
Arab Spring has sprung, and governments have been falling all over the Arab
World, yet the pretended peaceful democratic transitions have erupted into
chaotic transformations of tyranny, where terrorists are taking charge while
secular, principled interests remain the endangered minority. With so many
unintended consequences to democratic intentions, the United States would do
best to stay out of Syria and the Middle East.
The Causes of Doubt -- John the Baptist and Mary
In the Bible, some individuals manifest doubt about Jesus Christ.
What causes doubt in the believer, and what causes us to doubt who Jesus is and what He can do in our lives?
First of all, doubt springs from more than "I don't know", but rather attempting to reconcile two things which are not true. Doubt, whose root word is based on the number "two", is founded on viewing two things, and not knowing which one is true and which one is false; or rather which one is current and acceptable, while the other should be rejected or discontinued.
Let us consider John the Baptist.
He was an eyewitness of the glory of God descending on Jesus when he baptized the Son of God.
He even heard God the Father say: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased."
Yet in Matthew 10, John sends his disciples to ascertain whether Jesus is the Christ, or if he should seek another.
Jesus responds with a scripture from Isaiah 35, which announces the miracles which the Messiah would accomplish.
Yet what caused John the Baptist to doubt?
He was in prison, and he was about to die. He did not see Jesus as much as those free and moving about were seeing. More importantly, I submit that he was not evaluating Jesus based on the Word, as Jesus Himself introduced and revealed Himself to his disciples following His resurrection (Luke 24).
Then there's the example of Mary, who had a legitimate reason for doubting:
"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1: 34)
How could she have a child, since she had never known a man? The issue of doubt in the face of God's promises originates with ourselves, in that we look at ourselves and see that we cannot accomplish in our strength what God wants to do in our lives.
With Jesus in us, our hope of glory (Colossians 1: 27), we no longer look at our own strength, but consider that He is working within us, both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Philippians 2: 12-13).
Doubt emerges in our lives when we see God, and we see His strength, yet we vacillate on His grace and start wondering what our part will be, what we will do, or what we will have to do, since we have not yet growing enough in our faith, in how Great God is through His Son, to prepare, to promote, or to prosper us in His ways.
What causes doubt in the believer, and what causes us to doubt who Jesus is and what He can do in our lives?
First of all, doubt springs from more than "I don't know", but rather attempting to reconcile two things which are not true. Doubt, whose root word is based on the number "two", is founded on viewing two things, and not knowing which one is true and which one is false; or rather which one is current and acceptable, while the other should be rejected or discontinued.
Let us consider John the Baptist.
He was an eyewitness of the glory of God descending on Jesus when he baptized the Son of God.
He even heard God the Father say: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased."
Yet in Matthew 10, John sends his disciples to ascertain whether Jesus is the Christ, or if he should seek another.
Jesus responds with a scripture from Isaiah 35, which announces the miracles which the Messiah would accomplish.
Yet what caused John the Baptist to doubt?
He was in prison, and he was about to die. He did not see Jesus as much as those free and moving about were seeing. More importantly, I submit that he was not evaluating Jesus based on the Word, as Jesus Himself introduced and revealed Himself to his disciples following His resurrection (Luke 24).
Then there's the example of Mary, who had a legitimate reason for doubting:
"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1: 34)
How could she have a child, since she had never known a man? The issue of doubt in the face of God's promises originates with ourselves, in that we look at ourselves and see that we cannot accomplish in our strength what God wants to do in our lives.
With Jesus in us, our hope of glory (Colossians 1: 27), we no longer look at our own strength, but consider that He is working within us, both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Philippians 2: 12-13).
Doubt emerges in our lives when we see God, and we see His strength, yet we vacillate on His grace and start wondering what our part will be, what we will do, or what we will have to do, since we have not yet growing enough in our faith, in how Great God is through His Son, to prepare, to promote, or to prosper us in His ways.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Chris Christie -- No Savior at All
US Attorney Chris Christie became the governor of New Jersey in 2009 following the failed tenure of failed plutocrat Jon Corzine, who had bought his way into the US Senate then the Governor’s mansion in Trenton. A refreshing blast, a bombastic fresh breeze compared the hot air of the Obama Administration, and every other government entity based on making Big Government Bigger, Christie stole the spotlight.
He stood up to constituents throughout the Garden State. He told off teachers who demanded more money and benefits, even though students were getting less education and the tax payers were getting less for their tax dollars. He hammered home the point that Gov. Corzine had raised taxes one hundred and ten times. Using broad “Augustan” powers granted to the New Jersey Governor (per Washington Post Columnist George Will), Christie cut taxes, spending, and upended the spending spree.
Overnight, he turned into a rock star for the Right, for the Tea Party, and for everyone who was looking for a “Republican who could talk” (per Stanford University professor and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell). He defended his tough talking stance on FOX News and MSNBC. He rejected massive government projects, including a subway tunnel which would “ease traffic”, but not ease the tax burden on New Jersey. Bus fares had already doubled just to make up for heavy state costs. Public sector employees were receiving 96% of their pensions and benefits bought and paid for out of Trenton. The “gimme money and get my vote” collusion of statehouse and union hall had come to an end with Christie, who survived death threats from union leaders, in part by working with private sector union interests who represent the Trenton statehouse.
With 2011 came the whisperings of a Christie campaign for President. Front-runner Romney was watered-down rum, and the rest were just that: “the rest”. Christie turned down the idea of a last-minute presidential run, more interested to serve as a Red State Governor in a Blue State where he could steer the government back into the black. He was real, he was big, and he posed a threat to any double-dealing Democrat who would talk up a good game that everyone can get what the government promises, yet no one would have to pay for it. “It’s not my time,” was his answer. He rebuffed once again, even though conservatives at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley asked him to reconsider his refusal to run for President in 2012. The weak Republican field of Presidential candidates remained weak, and the weak front-runner ran against himself and his conservative party members until the very end, when President Obama very weakly won reelection.
Referring back to Christie’s second rebuff, I recall one of the women in the audience pleading with Christie: “Governor, we need you.” This is the rhetoric coming from conservatives today: “We need you”? The whole concept behind conservatism is not needing government, not needing the right people in power to do the right things, but getting the government to do as little as possible, and leaving the right things to the right people: you and me.
Summer 2012, and Christie was fighting with people along the New Jersey Boardwalk. In 2011, He had shouted: “Get the hell off the beach” in the face of Hurricane Irene. 2012 and Superstorm Sandy showed up, and look who else showed up: President Obama, with a big hug and a healthy does of gratitude. At the time, I did not care. Twice, horrific storms had torn up the New Jersey coastline, and any help from the federal government was good help. Then Christie censured the Republican majority in the House of Representatives for refusing to pass the pork-laden emergency federal aid, subsidies which went far and wide to unaffected constituencies, far from the North East. I gave Christie a pass, convinced that he was shaking up the Republicans to get them to focus again.
Then came his attacks on the NRA, which had exposed the hypocrisy of President Obama’s stance on gun control. “Reprehensible” was his response, followed by his push for tougher, irresponsible gun control laws, all while Trenton and Camden are crime-wave wastelands, and “gun-free” Chicago with the highest murder rate in 2012. His take on teacher tenure was not enough. He coddles up with the Democratic hoi polloi. He threw Missouri US Senate candidate Todd Akin under the bus because of one stray remark. He agrees with Democratic Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo 98% of the time. Now he’s calling a special election to replace deceased US Senator Frank Lautenberg, a politically savvy choice which promotes his reelection chances while costing taxpayers millions and doing nothing for his party or his country.
How clear it is today, but not so sweet: Christie has read his own headlines, and they have gone to his head. No lap-band surgery can decrease the increased sense of self which has swelled within the governor. What a disappointment, but a much-needed disillusionment, a disannulling of the silly notion that one man can save a country, can have all the answers.
He stood up to constituents throughout the Garden State. He told off teachers who demanded more money and benefits, even though students were getting less education and the tax payers were getting less for their tax dollars. He hammered home the point that Gov. Corzine had raised taxes one hundred and ten times. Using broad “Augustan” powers granted to the New Jersey Governor (per Washington Post Columnist George Will), Christie cut taxes, spending, and upended the spending spree.
Overnight, he turned into a rock star for the Right, for the Tea Party, and for everyone who was looking for a “Republican who could talk” (per Stanford University professor and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell). He defended his tough talking stance on FOX News and MSNBC. He rejected massive government projects, including a subway tunnel which would “ease traffic”, but not ease the tax burden on New Jersey. Bus fares had already doubled just to make up for heavy state costs. Public sector employees were receiving 96% of their pensions and benefits bought and paid for out of Trenton. The “gimme money and get my vote” collusion of statehouse and union hall had come to an end with Christie, who survived death threats from union leaders, in part by working with private sector union interests who represent the Trenton statehouse.
With 2011 came the whisperings of a Christie campaign for President. Front-runner Romney was watered-down rum, and the rest were just that: “the rest”. Christie turned down the idea of a last-minute presidential run, more interested to serve as a Red State Governor in a Blue State where he could steer the government back into the black. He was real, he was big, and he posed a threat to any double-dealing Democrat who would talk up a good game that everyone can get what the government promises, yet no one would have to pay for it. “It’s not my time,” was his answer. He rebuffed once again, even though conservatives at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley asked him to reconsider his refusal to run for President in 2012. The weak Republican field of Presidential candidates remained weak, and the weak front-runner ran against himself and his conservative party members until the very end, when President Obama very weakly won reelection.
Referring back to Christie’s second rebuff, I recall one of the women in the audience pleading with Christie: “Governor, we need you.” This is the rhetoric coming from conservatives today: “We need you”? The whole concept behind conservatism is not needing government, not needing the right people in power to do the right things, but getting the government to do as little as possible, and leaving the right things to the right people: you and me.
Summer 2012, and Christie was fighting with people along the New Jersey Boardwalk. In 2011, He had shouted: “Get the hell off the beach” in the face of Hurricane Irene. 2012 and Superstorm Sandy showed up, and look who else showed up: President Obama, with a big hug and a healthy does of gratitude. At the time, I did not care. Twice, horrific storms had torn up the New Jersey coastline, and any help from the federal government was good help. Then Christie censured the Republican majority in the House of Representatives for refusing to pass the pork-laden emergency federal aid, subsidies which went far and wide to unaffected constituencies, far from the North East. I gave Christie a pass, convinced that he was shaking up the Republicans to get them to focus again.
Then came his attacks on the NRA, which had exposed the hypocrisy of President Obama’s stance on gun control. “Reprehensible” was his response, followed by his push for tougher, irresponsible gun control laws, all while Trenton and Camden are crime-wave wastelands, and “gun-free” Chicago with the highest murder rate in 2012. His take on teacher tenure was not enough. He coddles up with the Democratic hoi polloi. He threw Missouri US Senate candidate Todd Akin under the bus because of one stray remark. He agrees with Democratic Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo 98% of the time. Now he’s calling a special election to replace deceased US Senator Frank Lautenberg, a politically savvy choice which promotes his reelection chances while costing taxpayers millions and doing nothing for his party or his country.
How clear it is today, but not so sweet: Christie has read his own headlines, and they have gone to his head. No lap-band surgery can decrease the increased sense of self which has swelled within the governor. What a disappointment, but a much-needed disillusionment, a disannulling of the silly notion that one man can save a country, can have all the answers.
Libertarianism on the Lift in USA
In the United States, the Libertarianism impulse has beeb on the rise, in full-swing these past few months. With the rise of government power rises the persistence of government overreach. Even liberals who had cheer-leaded for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 now want him to back off. The ACLU and other left-leaning critics are crying out "George W. Obama" because of the massive surveillance programs from the NSA which are going into everyone's land and cellphone lines. Ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) can no longer defend the administration's poor nominations for executive power, so even he has demanded emails about President Obama's Labor Board nominee. South Boston Congressman John Lynch called out the administration for "scrubbed and inaccurate" talking points on Benghazi.
The Republican Party's "Tea Party" faction wants to stop the spending, stop the military sprees overseas, and stop the spiraling government surrveillance which has not tapped into the phones of millions. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), the same junior senator who has opted to leave his phone at home from now on (as should the rest of us) demanded a
“full faith and forthcoming” response from the Obama Administration regarding their power to use drones in domestic strikes against American citizens. After eleven hours of “Mr. Rand Goes to Washington”, the Attorney General ceded his answer: “No”. Still, the federal Government is doing a lot more these days, all due to an aggressively progressive President who has envisioned a massive expansion of the federal government in out our lives. The Attorney General's office seized the phone records of AP reporters for two months. The IRS was targeting conservative groups, and the EPA was frustrating their efforts to expand. From IRS-gate, to AP-gate, to Benghazi-gate, to NSA-gate, the Obama Administration has turned into a "gated community" of corruption, rivaling the sometime stupidity and obstruction of the second-term Nixon Presidency.
The following, liberating "trendy trends" in the states also suggest a growing unrest with the federal government's overreach. The President's approval ratings are tumbling, all of which merely mirrors the assault that his presidency has endured, as Obama was one of few Presidents to win reelection by a weaker mandate than his first election. States all around are resisting implementation of ObamaCare's Medicaid exchanges. Individual doctors are foregoing insurance altogether, demanding cash payments, which cost less for doctors and patients. Midwestern States like Wisconsin and Michigan have pushed back against union power, enacting collective bargaining rights reforms or pushing "right-to-work" laws. More businesses are coming in, and state coffers are getting richer, even as taxpayers keep their money and more people find work. Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, and in every other state, limited use for medicinal purposes has grown unchecked, with declining crime rates in surrounding clinical areas to boot. In the Colorful State, the initiative to legalize surpassed President Obama's reelection margin, according to National Review Columnist Michael Barone. The states are grappling with proper regulations in the face of federal backlash, since marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Even Los Angeles faces an up-hill battle to the "saving" green crosses which are springing up all over the Southland. Yet crimes are going down, and hopefully the surplus criminal population will also diminish in the wake of draconian drug laws drawing down and vanishing away.
Then there's "same-sex" marriage", as if such a truism has any sense or salience. Nevertheless, the radical redefinition of marriage has awakened a long-held respect among religious and limited-government adherents: marriage is a private matter, one in which the government should never have gotten involved. With the rising transformation of the "legal" definition of marriage, a growing consensus among conservatives, including religious leaders, has opted for getting Uncle Sam out of "I Do" entirely in order to retain its "cultural" and "eternal" status. Most gays do not marry, and when they do, they may find that whatever legitimate intimacy they were seeking, they still will not find.
Then there's the rise of "conceal and carry" gun laws, which even liberal governors from previous administrations refuse to repeal. Despite the tragedy of Aurora, CO and Newtown, Connecticut, individual citizens and legislators are unwilling to pass any reforms or background checks enhancements. The Toomey-Manchin gun control compromise earlier this year faced a massive uprising from Red States with Blue Senators, all of whom voted against the bill. Today the bill lays in a tomb of "compromise for the sake of compromise." In addition to making pot OK, Colorado voters have launched a recall effort is underway to remove the legislator and repeal the law which has enacted stricter gun provisions in their state (So much for Michael Moore's crock-umentary "Bowling for Columbine".)
With the exhaustive expansion of “Big Government”, Libertarian “Limited Government” never looked so lovely. Perhaps adherents of Austrian Economists Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek, along with Free Market economist Milton Friedman and Founding Father James Madison will owe debt of gratitude to the aggressively regressive “Progressive” President Obama for government growth so gargantuan, people long for less, little, and limited government once again.