"And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and
strength of salvation: the fear of the LORD is his treasure." (Isaiah 33: 6)
Wisdom is a person, Jesus Christ.
"30But of him are
ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption:" (1 Corinthians 1: 30)
God made Light, or Wisdom, before he made anything else:
"And God said, Let
there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3)
and
"The LORD possessed
me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
"I was set up from
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." (Proverbs 8: 22-23)
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13: ) is from everlasting to everlasting, and He is our wisdom.
Yet even the older academics who challenged church dogma, they recognized that an order, a structure, a certainty existed outside of our thinking and feeling.
There can be no knowledge without Light, without the true Source, the Logos (John 1: 1) which was and is and is to come.
To discredit the beginning of all things is to discredit any exploration of things that are, or of things to come.
The older academics declared: "Credo ut intelligam" -- I believe that I may understand.
Belief is not "blind faith" but accepting what already exists, because to prove something which is obvious will then render one oblivious.
The wisdom of God is greater than the knowledge of men. In fact, men can know nothing what His wisdom to begin with, which has been since the beginning.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Ph. D. -- Petty, Hopeless and Dumb (without the Truth)
"I believe that I may understand"
Belief is not a flimsy premise, but an essential foundation which resides outside of the consciousness of mankind within his limited sphere of existence.
The older academics of the Renaissance may have questioned the status quo, but they never rejected the final authority of something greater than anything they could ask, think, or be.
The world as we know it remains a world limited by "as we know it."
Our understanding is forever limited because of our senses or the forays of our knowledge based on our senses.
The mores of our behavior are not the product of our reason, so wrote Scottish Enlightenment Skeptic David Hume. His conception of truth and understanding undid the Rationalism and the Empiricism of his day.
Descartes' "cogito" falls apart not just because of an "I" connected to a word. The very language he was communicating in, the arguments he was making, and the production of the book in which the writings were recorded, all had occurred before his musings occurred.
The human mind on its own cannot establish reality.
Locke, and later Berkeley, posited reality based on our senses. If all of our knowledge is based on our impressions of reality, then does one readily assume that the world disappears as soon as we close our eyes? A close-minded argument, to say the least. Yet even assuming the premise that all our knowledge is based on our impressions and sensations, then we cannot know anything at all, since the moment that I let go of something that I can hold, or stop looking at something that I cannot see, then I no longer have "empirical" knowledge of what I had discerned before.
The primacy of the human intellect falters before these glaring conclusions.
Before man could reason, he had to have a reason to reason, yet the origins of our lives and communities cannot be empirically proven or rationally deduced. As Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek posited in The Fatal Conceit, the traditions followed from instinct and preceded before human reason. Yet rationalism puts a primacy on what man thinks, or what he can think, with disastrous moral implications.
The Ph.D. degree, or the Doctor of Philosophy credential, in too many ways is based on these faulty premises. The mind of man on its own cannot generate information. Yet from the German academics of the nineteenth century, the rejection of medieval classicism gave way to the arrogance of modern progressivism. Rather than revering the eternal verities of previous teachers, who had argued that scientific inquiry will expand, but political and human interests remain eternal, Progressives believed that our understanding of the world, current respect for previous traditions, also needed to be changed.
The dissemination of learning in universities transitioned from inculcating the values of the ancients to questioning them, to rejecting them, to dismissing the very foundation of stable realities and truth. French sociologist (or historian, or psychiatrist) Michel Foucault culminated this perverse regression with "truth is a thing".
If that is the argument, then nothing has meaning, even the learning in which one engages. The eternal search for truth and stability does not change for man, even if his reason concludes that the search is both interminable and fruitless. However, man's reason at best can receive and ponder information. Creating truth and instituting ideas remain a domain outside of man's intellect, no matter how broad or deep.
Economics, like a number of academic inquiries, is a "dismal" science because the subject reduces man's capacity to understand. He can respond to the information, yet he cannot postulate different responses or suggest different ways for the world to work. They rest at best "idle speculation" or "dangerous insurrection." Some traditions and accounts cannot be changed. The mind can question or speculate, but the truth of the matter cannot change.
The Ph.D phenomenon would incite individuals to believe that they can command a wider understanding of issues and thus dismiss the interests of those "not inclined to understand."
In truth, because the graduate academic community refutes the reality that truth, traditions, and other telling elements exist outside of the scope of one man's understanding, they have embraced the very stupidity which they claim to disclaim.
Ph.D may very well me "Petty, Hopeless and Dumb" as the investigations of most researchers furrow into petty interests, specific questions touching on the slimmest of issues with at most a slight impact on our world, all premised on ideas which have no basis in reality. A "Doctor" who wishes to impart something must accept that the traditions which he questions have enabled him to possess the faculties to question them in the first place.
Otherwise, his inquiries will become "hopeless", in that they are suffused with falsehood, based on "castles in the air" assumptions which resist the very steps that they stepped on to arrive at the conclusions which they have concluded.
The research of a Ph.D which ignores the primacy of faith, which recognizes realities which cannot correspond to limit, testable verifications, will be left "dumb", having nothing intelligent to impart, and imparting nothing intelligible, since the arguments proceeded from a false foundation.
Belief is not a flimsy premise, but an essential foundation which resides outside of the consciousness of mankind within his limited sphere of existence.
The older academics of the Renaissance may have questioned the status quo, but they never rejected the final authority of something greater than anything they could ask, think, or be.
The world as we know it remains a world limited by "as we know it."
Our understanding is forever limited because of our senses or the forays of our knowledge based on our senses.
The mores of our behavior are not the product of our reason, so wrote Scottish Enlightenment Skeptic David Hume. His conception of truth and understanding undid the Rationalism and the Empiricism of his day.
Descartes' "cogito" falls apart not just because of an "I" connected to a word. The very language he was communicating in, the arguments he was making, and the production of the book in which the writings were recorded, all had occurred before his musings occurred.
The human mind on its own cannot establish reality.
Locke, and later Berkeley, posited reality based on our senses. If all of our knowledge is based on our impressions of reality, then does one readily assume that the world disappears as soon as we close our eyes? A close-minded argument, to say the least. Yet even assuming the premise that all our knowledge is based on our impressions and sensations, then we cannot know anything at all, since the moment that I let go of something that I can hold, or stop looking at something that I cannot see, then I no longer have "empirical" knowledge of what I had discerned before.
The primacy of the human intellect falters before these glaring conclusions.
Before man could reason, he had to have a reason to reason, yet the origins of our lives and communities cannot be empirically proven or rationally deduced. As Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek posited in The Fatal Conceit, the traditions followed from instinct and preceded before human reason. Yet rationalism puts a primacy on what man thinks, or what he can think, with disastrous moral implications.
The Ph.D. degree, or the Doctor of Philosophy credential, in too many ways is based on these faulty premises. The mind of man on its own cannot generate information. Yet from the German academics of the nineteenth century, the rejection of medieval classicism gave way to the arrogance of modern progressivism. Rather than revering the eternal verities of previous teachers, who had argued that scientific inquiry will expand, but political and human interests remain eternal, Progressives believed that our understanding of the world, current respect for previous traditions, also needed to be changed.
The dissemination of learning in universities transitioned from inculcating the values of the ancients to questioning them, to rejecting them, to dismissing the very foundation of stable realities and truth. French sociologist (or historian, or psychiatrist) Michel Foucault culminated this perverse regression with "truth is a thing".
If that is the argument, then nothing has meaning, even the learning in which one engages. The eternal search for truth and stability does not change for man, even if his reason concludes that the search is both interminable and fruitless. However, man's reason at best can receive and ponder information. Creating truth and instituting ideas remain a domain outside of man's intellect, no matter how broad or deep.
Economics, like a number of academic inquiries, is a "dismal" science because the subject reduces man's capacity to understand. He can respond to the information, yet he cannot postulate different responses or suggest different ways for the world to work. They rest at best "idle speculation" or "dangerous insurrection." Some traditions and accounts cannot be changed. The mind can question or speculate, but the truth of the matter cannot change.
The Ph.D phenomenon would incite individuals to believe that they can command a wider understanding of issues and thus dismiss the interests of those "not inclined to understand."
In truth, because the graduate academic community refutes the reality that truth, traditions, and other telling elements exist outside of the scope of one man's understanding, they have embraced the very stupidity which they claim to disclaim.
Ph.D may very well me "Petty, Hopeless and Dumb" as the investigations of most researchers furrow into petty interests, specific questions touching on the slimmest of issues with at most a slight impact on our world, all premised on ideas which have no basis in reality. A "Doctor" who wishes to impart something must accept that the traditions which he questions have enabled him to possess the faculties to question them in the first place.
Otherwise, his inquiries will become "hopeless", in that they are suffused with falsehood, based on "castles in the air" assumptions which resist the very steps that they stepped on to arrive at the conclusions which they have concluded.
The research of a Ph.D which ignores the primacy of faith, which recognizes realities which cannot correspond to limit, testable verifications, will be left "dumb", having nothing intelligent to impart, and imparting nothing intelligible, since the arguments proceeded from a false foundation.
Friday, December 28, 2012
About Guns, Freedom, and "RNL's" Take on the Second Amendment
Publisher James Preston Allen comments that “the shock of
the moment seems to incapacitate our rationale and confront us with our own
national hypocrisy.” Yet he finishes his editorial with “We are all responsible
for [the Sandy Hook Elementary] tragedy.” Irrational hypocrisy, indeed. How am I
responsible for this crime, or the teachers and parents who watched little children
perish, or the police who rushed to the site? If Connecticut’s “concealed carry”
laws had not been frustrated by “gun free zone” exceptions, those children would
have survived.
“Community Voice” Ari LeVaux repeats “F--- the NRA”, then
labels it a “bullying organization”. He then argues that only one in five
hunters joins that group. The Second Amendment was never about going hunting or
shooting away criminals. The Second Amendment protects the individual citizen
from the government. The Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation in District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Verdugo-Irquidez. In “Project
Censored”, Random Lengths News
reported that “the Obama administration’s continuation of the previous
administration’s assault on civil liberties” remains in full force. So, the
Framers’ concerns about Big Government as Big Bully were not as paranoid as
today’s “anti-NRA” and “pro gun-control” advocates would claim. On another
note, as I have written before, President Obama merely seamlessly advanced President
George W. Bush policies. Obama gets praised, W. gets derided. Anyone seeing a
double-standard?
Despite the “left-wing” ideological rage which slanders the NRA
as a demented institution bent on supporting guns over people, this institution helped advance civil rights.
During Reconstruction, freed African-Americans supported the NRA in order to arm
themselves against domestic, government-sponsored terrorism: the KKK. Despite emotional
populism and cultural misinformation, Second Amendment advocates deserve recognition
for standing up for gun rights. NRA President Wayne LaPierre is right: “The
only way stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Of course, if the opinions of “right wing ideologues” or “bitter
people who clutch their guns and their Bibles” do not appeal to the media or
political elites, then the numerous studies by academics, journalists, and
think tanks from across the political spectrum may sway the undecided. From
Kleck and Gertz’ comprehensive study “Armed Resistance and Gun Control” (1995),
to the comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences, to the Cato
Institute, research suggests time and again that gun control does not control
guns, but prevents the “good guys” from stopping “the bad guys.”
For the record, I do not own a gun and I do hunt, but I do not
like a government which takes away the rights of others, nor concur with
commentators who blame “society” for the crimes of the few.
Governor Christie: Rethink Gun Control
Three police officers were just killed at a police station in Gloucester Township. Earlier, two women were shot near Essex County College. New Jersey media is stepping into the gun control debate with greater vigilance because of the recent spate of gun murders.
On ABC's "This Week" Newark Mayor Cory Booker claimed that thirty-four gun murders occur every day in the United States. Politifact.org rated the statistic as "mostly true", yet Booker neglected to distinguish between gun deaths in self-defense vs. gun-deaths perpetrated during the commission of a crime. His referenced statistic does not factor in where these gun deaths occur, whether in rural or urban areas, nor the role which the mass media has played in the spurts of mass violence in this country, or the diminished capacity of state mental institutions to house individuals with diminished capacity.
In the wake of these tragic shootings, the New Jersey state legislature pledges to enact stricter gun control laws in a state which already has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. One would expect the state legislators to exercise more restraint and discretion following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, especially since policy decisions following a traumatic event yield unintended consequences without necessarily enacting the intended reforms.
Governor Christie wants to advance gun control to stop these tragedies. He is showing his true colors, a gun-control advocate from his days as a federal prosecutor, most likely. No one should question his caring and concern for his constituents. On most issues, Christie leads from the right, and he is right. On the question of gun control, he is wrong.
This country certainly needs a serious debate about the gun violence manifesting in this country. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a gun-owner in a gun-owner's state with an "A"-rating from the NRA, has advised that every issue related to gun violence be put on the table. Every issue. The saturation of violence in our mass media, but also the whipped-up hysteria from media report and response must be included. The access to guns requires reviews and background checks as a measure of fitness. Still, the recent massacre at Aurora, Colorado had no prior record of criminality or insanity.
The forcible institutionalization for the mentally ill for those with diminished capacity has diminished in recent years. The Fort Hood military reported their growing concern about the religious fanaticism of army psychology Nidal Hassan, yet he remained in practice long enough to shoot his colleagues. Before that massacre, the college administrators of Virginia Tech had possessed limited authority to incapacitate student Seung-Hui Cho before he unleashed his private arsenal on the campus.
Washington D.C. had one of the highest crime rates in the country, and also one of the strictest gun laws. When the Supreme Court struck down the inhibiting individual handgun ban in the National Capital, the murder rate dropped considerably. Currently, Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country, and now holds the dangerous distinction of five hundred murders this year. When the US District Court struck down the city's gun ban, the crime rate began to decline. Other studies, from Kleck and Gertz of Central Florida to the National Academy of Sciences to the Cato Institute, have suggested that gun control does not diminish gun crime, while great gun access does not lead to more gun deaths. Even brandishing a weapon without firing has discouraged criminals.
Despite the negative perception of the NRA, President and CEO Wayne LaPierre's points are well taken: "The only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with gun." Not more gun control but less will protect our communities from future assailants. Removing the "gun free zone" stipulations from our schools will make them less likely targets for potential murders. Proper reforms and compromise from public sector unions would help. The crime rates in Newark have climbed past seventy homicides, in part because of massive cut backs in police. The Trentonian reported that crime rates are soaring in the wake of police cut backs, as well.
In the absence of police support, the notion that more gun control will protect New Jersey residents is just plain ludicrous. Holding back the "good guys" from possessing firearms will not prevent the "bad guys" from holding them up. Governor Christie, Mayor Cory Booker, and the New Jersey legislature must rethink their response to gun violence. Governor Christie's charge that police and fire unions refused to negotiate lower pay and pensions needs further scrutiny. Public officials need to step up and give their communities a break.
Impulsive political reforms in response to raw emotion or cultural misinformation will only exacerbate the gun violence which impacts communities without warning and without remorse. Local community leaders need to demand their right to bear arms, and demand that their local peace officers assist Trenton, Newark, and the state government with the budget demands facing everyone in New Jersey.
Response to "Sticking to their Guns"
Santa Monica Daily Press Columnist Jack Neworth indicts the “self-righteous” NRA for blaming everything
but the guns for the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. Choosing to see the gun fully-loaded against
us instead of for our protection, Neworth decries the 62 mass murders in thirty
years, but getting rid of the guns is not enough to undo the evil in the hearts
of men, or the madness of the mentally ill who perpetrate these atrocities.
Neworths’ survey ignored the results following gun bans. In
1994, the Brady Bill outlawed assault weapons. In 1995, Oklahoma City exploded.
In 1999, there was Columbine.
In 2002, the DC Sniper took down ten people in city with highly
restrictive gun bans, and one of the highest murder rates. When the Supreme
Court struck down the gun ban, the murder rate went down. This year, Chicago had
500 murders, and the strictest gun laws.
In 2007, the Virginia Tech murderer had worried university
employees, but legal constraints prevented any preventative measures. In 2009,
the same political correctness prevented military officials from committing the
disturbed psychologist Nidal Hassan.
In 2012, the Aurora assailant had no prior record of
criminality or insanity.
Connecticut’s “gun free zones” for public schools
neutralized the “concealed carry” provisions.
. Nor to undo the declining morality and stability in this
country.
“The best defense to
a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. LaPierre’s declaration was
neither pandering nor pendantic, but a
necessary recognition of the evil in a troubled world.
His survey of the gun issue ignores two fundamental
realities: this is a fallen world full of fallen people, and state power or
collective action cannot root out this evil.
Bounce Boehner (But Not Because of the Fiscal Cliff)
 |
| John Boehner (eve of Fiscal Cliff 2012) |
Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) helped lead the Republicans out of the minority back into a stunning majority rule. 2010 was the grand shellacking that rebuked President Obama's power grab. The President pushed Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, then he ignored the jobs and economic growth crises afflicting every taxpayer in this country. Boehner had a tough job ahead of him for the next two years. He had a decisive Tea Party caucus, plus a Democratic Senate to compromise with, yet for the past four years, the US Senate has done nothing but kill sensible legislation while refusing to cut spending and drastically reduce the scope of government in our lives.
The debt-ceiling debacle in 2011 helped Republicans and hurt President Obama, who has refused to lead, refused to compromise, refused every overture to get anything done in Washington. Republican Congressmen like Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina put military cuts on the table along with entitlement reform. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) voted to repeal Obamacare, along with David Matheson (D-Utah). Boehner was peeling away conservative Democrats, and he could have taken in more.
It's tough to be a House Speaker, especially when he represents a conference committed to limited government, yet there he stands at the helm and has to work with Democrats who want to expand government, no matter what the cost or the consequences. The speakership depends on leadership which can work behind the scenes as well as in front of the camera. Not just posturing, but purposeful positioning which brings both sides together while offering convincing reasons for doing so. The Tea Party caucus was willing to deal when necessary, but no one would have known, since the House Speaker rarely spent any time explain his views or his vision to the country.
The fiscal cliff dance has pushed Boehner into a near-impossible bind. The voters want to cut spending, the President wants to keep spending, and the Democratic majority in the Senate stays spending its days doing nothing. Boehner advanced a plan which would raise taxes on millionaires, the majority of whom support tax increases. Boehner demanded entitlement reform, too; the President refused to deal. Boehner should have called it quits with the President and dealt with Senate leadership or taken his frustrations to every talk show in the country.
Instead, the Speaker tried to pass "Plan B," which got an "incomplete," since he pulled the bill at the last minute. How could he not have known that more conservative GOP members would never deal on "Plan B"? Furthermore, his acquiescence to have a fiscal cliff in the first place was a bad move. Decisive responses needed to be in order from the beginning, but Boehner has been kicking the can down the road along with the rest of the Washington Establishment.
Boehner failed to meet with the diverse leadership in his conference or in the opposition. How many times could he have crossed over and worked with conservative Democrats to get a deal, one can only guess. If the Senate Majority leader Harry Reid refused to deal, then Boehner and the GOP needed to expose their recalcitrance to their districts and the national media. Following allegations of Boehner's "purge of conservatives" to his failure to meet and greet with conservative Democrats along with Tea Party Republicans, a caucus of Virginia Republicans are pressing their Congressman to vote out Boehner as House Speaker.
As the leader of the House of Representatives as well as the standard-bearer for the Republican Party in Congress, Boehner had a responsibility to strike every deal he could with his members, both Establishment and Tea Party types. He needed to bring his own members to the table to outline the proper strategy for the entire GOP caucus, minus the slim number of uncommitted marginal elements. He needed to reach out to the Dixiecrats in the South who would resist their own Democratic Party to respect the fiscal prudence of their constituents. He needed to influence the Presidential campaign more directly, as well, by pressing Romney to stick to one message without wavering to the left or the right after his first set of debates in 2011.
Because Boehner has settled for bickering with a President who refuses to deal, because he has been bent on getting by without getting ahead, because he has refused to bring in Democrats in the Senate as well as the House, the GOP conference in Washington has no choice but to bounce Boehner. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich reached out to the media and party elites outside of the Beltway. Boehner needed to do the same thing, yet he has not. Gingrich took responsibility for the GOP's poor showing in 1998 and resigned. Boehner must do the same.
Leadership depends on cautious conviction, followed by careful compromise. Boehner's convictions are caving in, and his compromise is craven. House Speaker Boehner, step down and let someone else take the lead in the House. Newt Gingrich knew when it was time for him to go. It's time for you to take the hint and butt out of House leadership.
The debt-ceiling debacle in 2011 helped Republicans and hurt President Obama, who has refused to lead, refused to compromise, refused every overture to get anything done in Washington. Republican Congressmen like Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina put military cuts on the table along with entitlement reform. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) voted to repeal Obamacare, along with David Matheson (D-Utah). Boehner was peeling away conservative Democrats, and he could have taken in more.
It's tough to be a House Speaker, especially when he represents a conference committed to limited government, yet there he stands at the helm and has to work with Democrats who want to expand government, no matter what the cost or the consequences. The speakership depends on leadership which can work behind the scenes as well as in front of the camera. Not just posturing, but purposeful positioning which brings both sides together while offering convincing reasons for doing so. The Tea Party caucus was willing to deal when necessary, but no one would have known, since the House Speaker rarely spent any time explain his views or his vision to the country.
The fiscal cliff dance has pushed Boehner into a near-impossible bind. The voters want to cut spending, the President wants to keep spending, and the Democratic majority in the Senate stays spending its days doing nothing. Boehner advanced a plan which would raise taxes on millionaires, the majority of whom support tax increases. Boehner demanded entitlement reform, too; the President refused to deal. Boehner should have called it quits with the President and dealt with Senate leadership or taken his frustrations to every talk show in the country.
Instead, the Speaker tried to pass "Plan B," which got an "incomplete," since he pulled the bill at the last minute. How could he not have known that more conservative GOP members would never deal on "Plan B"? Furthermore, his acquiescence to have a fiscal cliff in the first place was a bad move. Decisive responses needed to be in order from the beginning, but Boehner has been kicking the can down the road along with the rest of the Washington Establishment.
Boehner failed to meet with the diverse leadership in his conference or in the opposition. How many times could he have crossed over and worked with conservative Democrats to get a deal, one can only guess. If the Senate Majority leader Harry Reid refused to deal, then Boehner and the GOP needed to expose their recalcitrance to their districts and the national media. Following allegations of Boehner's "purge of conservatives" to his failure to meet and greet with conservative Democrats along with Tea Party Republicans, a caucus of Virginia Republicans are pressing their Congressman to vote out Boehner as House Speaker.
As the leader of the House of Representatives as well as the standard-bearer for the Republican Party in Congress, Boehner had a responsibility to strike every deal he could with his members, both Establishment and Tea Party types. He needed to bring his own members to the table to outline the proper strategy for the entire GOP caucus, minus the slim number of uncommitted marginal elements. He needed to reach out to the Dixiecrats in the South who would resist their own Democratic Party to respect the fiscal prudence of their constituents. He needed to influence the Presidential campaign more directly, as well, by pressing Romney to stick to one message without wavering to the left or the right after his first set of debates in 2011.
Because Boehner has settled for bickering with a President who refuses to deal, because he has been bent on getting by without getting ahead, because he has refused to bring in Democrats in the Senate as well as the House, the GOP conference in Washington has no choice but to bounce Boehner. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich reached out to the media and party elites outside of the Beltway. Boehner needed to do the same thing, yet he has not. Gingrich took responsibility for the GOP's poor showing in 1998 and resigned. Boehner must do the same.
Leadership depends on cautious conviction, followed by careful compromise. Boehner's convictions are caving in, and his compromise is craven. House Speaker Boehner, step down and let someone else take the lead in the House. Newt Gingrich knew when it was time for him to go. It's time for you to take the hint and butt out of House leadership.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Romney Lost Because of . . .Himself
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, New Jersey rolled
out a cynical, uninspiring, and ultimately inaccurate evaluation
of Romney’s defeat. Even “weeping
prophet” Jeremiah the prophet declared that the mighty wrath of YHWH would give
way from “mourning to morning”, for “his mercies are new every morning.”
Regarding bought minorities, immigrants who push their way through the line legally cannot be bought. Cuban-American US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz of Texas posed the glaring and glorious question: “Have you even seen a Hispanic panhandler?” Not George W. Bush, who won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Today,“W.” is teaching the GOP “Minority Outreach 101”. About low information voters, Linsday Lohan supported Romney (not the greatest example, but she represents the white “low information voter”). An African-American Latina who supported Romney, Hollywood actress Stacey Dash appeared on The View and got Hollywood Hell for her independence and integrity.
Then the Rabbi defended Romney by inferring that the Republicans could not have found a better candidate , that Romney ran his best campaign. Yes, they could have. No, he did not. Oy vey! These canards must be shot down, stuffed, and pilloried without avail.
Some of the Rabbi’s points are well-taken. Americans reelected”
divided government”. More than a “facile explanation, “white voters” did not
show up, a devastating statistic which Pruzanksy underestimates. Granted, Mother
Nature did not tether Obama to a sudden, windfall win, nor did Romney surrogate
“Fatman” Chris Christie sell out his nominee. No faux “improvement” in the
economy give Obama a boost. Pruzansky charges that “Obama handouts” bought the election,
that a tide of “gimme now, pay back never” has taken over America, never to be
turned back. Minorities hunkered down on the Democratic platform because the
President looks like them and paid their way.
Pruzansky is wrong all the way. Louisiana Governor Bobby
Jindal rightly went on the attack after Romney claimed that “Obama came bearing
gifts” won him the Presidency.“47%” included retirees on Social Security and
pensioned veterans (former US Senator John Sununu in Time Magazine had softened
the blow of this harsh statistic, still alarming, yet not parasitic). No one
can say with a straight face that they define the“Welfare kings and queens” who
voted for Obama in droves. Such elitist, cynical pessimism is insulting.
Regarding bought minorities, immigrants who push their way through the line legally cannot be bought. Cuban-American US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz of Texas posed the glaring and glorious question: “Have you even seen a Hispanic panhandler?” Not George W. Bush, who won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Today,“W.” is teaching the GOP “Minority Outreach 101”. About low information voters, Linsday Lohan supported Romney (not the greatest example, but she represents the white “low information voter”). An African-American Latina who supported Romney, Hollywood actress Stacey Dash appeared on The View and got Hollywood Hell for her independence and integrity.
Then the Rabbi defended Romney by inferring that the Republicans could not have found a better candidate , that Romney ran his best campaign. Yes, they could have. No, he did not. Oy vey! These canards must be shot down, stuffed, and pilloried without avail.
Despite Romney’s seven years of campaigning, 2008 GOP
candidate McCain had called Romney the “real candidate of change” for his many
flip-flops. The moderate-to-RINO New York Times columnist David Brooks chuckled
when Romney claimed the conservative helm at the 2008 Republican convention. From
July 2011 to April 2012, Romney coasted (or roasted?) along at 22%, while one
GOP contender after another hovered around rankings. The National GOP insisted
on stringing out the primary process. Establishment and grassroots dueled over “Romney
vs. Anyone But”.
Romney was “severely” unreal and out of place at the 2012
Conservatives PAC convention. Krauthammer called the 2012 candidates “a weak
field.” Townhall.com blogger Brian Hawkins set up“NoRomney.com”. Romney bet “$10,000” that he win, followed by
“self-deportation”. RomneyCare (the blueprint for Obamacare) was tied to the
former Massachusetts Governor’s neck like a dead, blue elephant. Seventh in the
ranking for months, former Senator Rick Santorum bounced ahead (barely) in Iowa.
The attorney General of Virginia switched his endorsement from Romney to
Santorum midway during the primary season. Santorum’s sweater vests and etch-a-sketching
lasted until the Great Lakes primaries. A Big Government, No Child Left Behind,
Amtrak, Medicare Part B Senator (i.e, George W. Bush sans accent), Santorum
held on for four months, but dropped out when the money ran out.
Romney sat out the summertime, while Obama burned up his
record at Bain Capital.” Romney was a no-show in Ohio. The GOP Convention faithful
got a bigger charge out of “Dirty Hairy” talking dirty to an empty chair. Obama
editorialized Romney’s editorial as “Detroit go bankrupt”. Only “Late Show”
David Letterman despised Obama’s depraved mendacity. Former New Hampshire Governor
John Sununu did all the punching on MSNBC and CNN. Romney “French-kissed” Obama
during the final debate.
After November 6th, one party spokesman admitted
to me: “Romney was not my first choice or my second choice.” I had concurred in
press and by word of mouth. Ron Paul was first, followed by “the Republican
reptile” Newt Gingrich. Another South
Bay Republican accommodated: Romney was “best
of show” out of “not so much”.
But the biggest reason why Romney lost was. . . Romney. His
own son acknowledged that “Dad” did not want to be President. He only ran again
out of obligation. Flip-flopping within before flip-flopping from Bay State governor
to Nationwide challenger: Romney was, a mixed messenger who did not believe his
message. Neither did we. From “47%” to “Binders full of women” to ducking
questions with “Ask my church” on CNN, Romney played defense in a game that he did
not want to win.
Romney’s mediocre loss is hope for the GOP. The messenger failed,
not the message. 2012 was an aberration and a course correction. GOP Captivity can
turn into restoration. “Mourning” will become “Morning” in 2014. A leader who wants
to win will win in 2016.
Scott Brown for Senate, and a Better GOP
 |
| US Senator Scott Brown |
Brown is working class, army bred. He cares about his family. He has not sold out to Wall Street, not does he juggle derivatives. He is as far removed from "financier" and "chandelier" as the next guy, nor does he do what the Party Establishment tells him to do. He's not afraid to criticize members of his own party. He told Todd Akin of Missouri to step down from his US Senate Race because of the Congressman's views on pregnancy, rape, and abortion. Brown is a pure centrist, making the most of a tough situation brought on by Washington and poor leadership from both parties. He is bipartisan. He works with both sides of the aisle. We need his balance of core principles and careful compromise. Brown represents the future of the GOP, a "Live and Let Live" Republican who knows how most of us live, yet wants to let us live our lives as we see fit.
The Republican brand took quite a beating in the Bay State. The leader of "Red Mass", "edfactor", opined on his blog "The Mass GOP is. . . dead". He also identified a series of steps that the Massachusetts and the entire New England GOP can do to bring back their numbers:
"I think we need to talk about what coalitions will get behind Republican ideas
before we talk about party registration numbers."
Absolutely. Many black Americans find that they agree with conservative principles first, then they become Republicans. The same is just as true for Hispanics and other minority groups. For good reason, the Mass GOP leader writes: "I think we need to become much more inclusive." His most salient remark, one which I believe the majority of Bay State voters would agree on, follows: "I think we need, more than anything else, to distinguish ourselves from the national GOP."
Rather than targeting the national GOP as a nebulous whole, no one can ignore that the Party's standard-bearers in 2012 were not strong: Mitt Romney and John Boehner, who either said too much or said nothing at all. Romney ran to his right, which left him out of step with centrists and independent. Recently, one of his sons admitted what most GOP operatives felt in their gut: Romney did not really want to be President. He had the head for the race, but not the heart. Beyond the transition from his previous moderate record to the more conservative policies in the 2012 election, the flip-flop of Romney's heart and soul sold him out before November 6th. As for the House Speaker, Boehner has refused to take the lead or the message to the country about a recalcitrant Democratic President or Senate which are leading this country backward into second-tier financial status. He has not brought the disparate members of his caucus together, and he looked down-right desperate after his "Plan B" got an "incomplete".
Regarding the disjunction between the Northeast with the rest of the country, the National GOP needs to extinguish its former "Southern Strategy" mentality and embrace a "Fifty-State Strategy " as former Vermont Governor Howard Dean crafted together after the Democrats' poor showing in 2004. A more inclusive, less rigid, more independent GOP must become, and Brown can bring the New England GOP brand back from the "six-feet-under-ground" foundering that the GOP suffered. He can also teach the National Party Establishment a thing or to about compromise, tolerance, and integrity. Anyone with sense or self-respect should disdain the empty rhetoric which preaches "Obama won because he gave gifts." There can be no greater gift that bringing a man out of poverty and teaching him to stand and run. The government does not have to dictate a citizen's path forward, nor can the government pay every man's way with another person's money.
Senator John Kerry's nomination for Secretary of State may remain a mystery to some pundits. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska or George Voinovich (R) of Ohio would have also qualified as centrist nominees that could break through the US Senate's partisan gridlock. However, Kerry is ready to do the job, and his advancement would make Scott Brown's reelection all the more open and welcome. Brown deserves to be reelected to the US Senate. He can bring along a political party reestablished on a positive vision of respect for the states and the individual, one which honors choice and limited government, one which will honor the diversity that makes this country great without grating on the same distinctions to the hurt of other nation-wide candidates.
TEA Party no Longer Partying
I supported the TEA Party elements of cutting spending, limiting government, and reinstating Constitutional rule.
The movement has drifted from the pragmatic to the problematic.
In the last two election cycles, TEA Party activists have killed successful primary candidates for the general election, and shoo-in Republicans have lost out.
The GOP needs to ally the Tea Party and the Establishment elements in this country.
We have seen the results of limited government libertarianism pushed to its limits: Barry Goldwater. Yet like the majority of libertarians, the argument for less government must be replaced with more of something else.
His signature quote defines where reform can turn into self-righteous indignation:
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"Extremism" is a violation of liberty. "A pursuit of justice" can never be moderate", nor should we center our lives on attaining just at all costs. The final rendering in a case or a conflict cannot be the defining future of man.
And a representative Democracy cannot be based on extreme approaches to anything, nor justice as a means or an end for everything, to begin with.
Just telling people that the government is not supposed to do anything creates more fear than regard. God has established authorities in our lives, and they carry the sword for a reason, whether they do poorly or not does not have to affect or wrongly influence us (Romans 13: 1-7)
Like Progressives, Libertarians of the Goldwater variety espouse a vision in which men and women are ruled in a more complete fashion. For Progressives, the state would adjudicate everything, a concrete version of Rousseau's "General Will". Libertarians want government removed entirely so that men and women can be led from within by their own will.
Only through the power of the Holy Spirit can such leading and prospering emerge. The Holy Spirit governs throughout the world, outside of man, nations, and time itself. The Holy Spirit prompts men and women from within, so that they do not have to depend on outside authorities to lead and prosper them.
The governance of the Holy Spirit cannot be dictated by the state or through force. The extremism of liberty and the moderation of justice will never exist in any country.
The absolutist libertarian impulse refuses to recognize anything but the most minimal authority in the lives of the private citizen. Murray Rothbard advanced a theory of complete private governance. Such a scheme runs contrary to Scripture.
Goldwater lost by the largest margin for a Republican Presidential candidate in US History. Romney's loss was not nearly as bad, but it was egged on by this notion by TEA Party elements which just want to cut, cut, cut.
There is no cutting outright unless there is something to replace it. Life is more than fighting for one's rights, and the alarmism which sponsors people to engage in vitriol to make one's point vitiates at the same time.
I attended a TEA Party rally in Torrance, CA just one week before the 2012 Presidential election. I felt threatened and out of place. I did not like the sense of vitriol which I perceived from some of the members, although I respect their respect for the Constitution and Limited Government. But just as Reagan's rhetoric about "Government is the Problem" could not excuse him from working within government, so too shouting "Taxed Enough Already" will not get the message through without accepting that even in the most secure and respected of stances on issues, compromise must play a part.
The primary challenges over the past two cycles have kicked out moderates or liberal Republicans instead who would have won the seat. Granted, Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe favored spending, though not as much as the Democrats, it was Olympia Snowe on the Senate Finance Committee who worked with two other Republicans (Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) to work with three other Democrats to come up with something. The comity on that committee is sorely needed yet sorely lacking in Washington today.
Yes, our leaders must shrink the government, but we cannot shrink the citizenry in the process. Yes, we need to respect the Constitution, but the Constitution was put in place to help form a "more perfect union", not foster private, uncaring disunity among the disparate elements and interests. Government is instituted to protect our rights. Do we know what those rights are? Have we outlined how the expansion of rights without natural law has crippled the rights accorded to us in the Amendments of the Constitution?
The proliferation of rights by judicial, administrative, or legislative fiat is wrong, but the right to organize, to practice one's faith, to express one's opinion, to pursue happiness: those rights cannot be removed, and our government needs to protect them. As for "Big Government" or "Government Helping People", let the states and the cities do that job: they do it, and they do it better. The TEA Party made their points in 2010, and now they have to allow their leaders to govern. The libertarian-progressive pursuit of the perfect or ideal candidate will never come. A tax increase with real spending cuts is the way to go.
The movement has drifted from the pragmatic to the problematic.
In the last two election cycles, TEA Party activists have killed successful primary candidates for the general election, and shoo-in Republicans have lost out.
The GOP needs to ally the Tea Party and the Establishment elements in this country.
We have seen the results of limited government libertarianism pushed to its limits: Barry Goldwater. Yet like the majority of libertarians, the argument for less government must be replaced with more of something else.
His signature quote defines where reform can turn into self-righteous indignation:
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"Extremism" is a violation of liberty. "A pursuit of justice" can never be moderate", nor should we center our lives on attaining just at all costs. The final rendering in a case or a conflict cannot be the defining future of man.
And a representative Democracy cannot be based on extreme approaches to anything, nor justice as a means or an end for everything, to begin with.
Just telling people that the government is not supposed to do anything creates more fear than regard. God has established authorities in our lives, and they carry the sword for a reason, whether they do poorly or not does not have to affect or wrongly influence us (Romans 13: 1-7)
Like Progressives, Libertarians of the Goldwater variety espouse a vision in which men and women are ruled in a more complete fashion. For Progressives, the state would adjudicate everything, a concrete version of Rousseau's "General Will". Libertarians want government removed entirely so that men and women can be led from within by their own will.
Only through the power of the Holy Spirit can such leading and prospering emerge. The Holy Spirit governs throughout the world, outside of man, nations, and time itself. The Holy Spirit prompts men and women from within, so that they do not have to depend on outside authorities to lead and prosper them.
The governance of the Holy Spirit cannot be dictated by the state or through force. The extremism of liberty and the moderation of justice will never exist in any country.
The absolutist libertarian impulse refuses to recognize anything but the most minimal authority in the lives of the private citizen. Murray Rothbard advanced a theory of complete private governance. Such a scheme runs contrary to Scripture.
Goldwater lost by the largest margin for a Republican Presidential candidate in US History. Romney's loss was not nearly as bad, but it was egged on by this notion by TEA Party elements which just want to cut, cut, cut.
There is no cutting outright unless there is something to replace it. Life is more than fighting for one's rights, and the alarmism which sponsors people to engage in vitriol to make one's point vitiates at the same time.
I attended a TEA Party rally in Torrance, CA just one week before the 2012 Presidential election. I felt threatened and out of place. I did not like the sense of vitriol which I perceived from some of the members, although I respect their respect for the Constitution and Limited Government. But just as Reagan's rhetoric about "Government is the Problem" could not excuse him from working within government, so too shouting "Taxed Enough Already" will not get the message through without accepting that even in the most secure and respected of stances on issues, compromise must play a part.
The primary challenges over the past two cycles have kicked out moderates or liberal Republicans instead who would have won the seat. Granted, Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe favored spending, though not as much as the Democrats, it was Olympia Snowe on the Senate Finance Committee who worked with two other Republicans (Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) to work with three other Democrats to come up with something. The comity on that committee is sorely needed yet sorely lacking in Washington today.
Yes, our leaders must shrink the government, but we cannot shrink the citizenry in the process. Yes, we need to respect the Constitution, but the Constitution was put in place to help form a "more perfect union", not foster private, uncaring disunity among the disparate elements and interests. Government is instituted to protect our rights. Do we know what those rights are? Have we outlined how the expansion of rights without natural law has crippled the rights accorded to us in the Amendments of the Constitution?
The proliferation of rights by judicial, administrative, or legislative fiat is wrong, but the right to organize, to practice one's faith, to express one's opinion, to pursue happiness: those rights cannot be removed, and our government needs to protect them. As for "Big Government" or "Government Helping People", let the states and the cities do that job: they do it, and they do it better. The TEA Party made their points in 2010, and now they have to allow their leaders to govern. The libertarian-progressive pursuit of the perfect or ideal candidate will never come. A tax increase with real spending cuts is the way to go.
Another Letter to Evangelical Voters
During the final two weeks of the 2012 election, I was surprised by the number of people whom I called who told me that they were praying for Craig Huey and Mitt Romney to win the election.
Do they not know and believe that they are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus? Do they not know or believe that all of our enemies are being brought under our feet?
"And [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus'] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1: 22-23)
We are seated in Christ at the right hand of the Father:
"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)
To many believers in the Body of Christ want to change our leadership. They are convinced that they must influence who sits in power in Washington, in Sacramento, or in our local communities.
Yet all authority comes from God:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13: 1)
So, what are we supposed to do, then?
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13: 5-7)
"For conscience sake" does not refer to the conscience of the believer, for our conscience has been perfected in Christ:
"1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins." (Hebrews 10: 1-2)
and then
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10: 14)
"For conscience sake" refers to other people, who may interpret our freedom in Christ as licnense to rebel against all authority, just as some Jews for conscience sake would not eat food offered to idols, since they were still tranfering from the Old Covenant to the New.
Should believers retire from the public square? Of course not! Get out there and tell people what you believe, and let people know that you support certain candidates, or none, because of the values you chose to stand by. Perhaps it would be best, though, not to endorse candidates in connection with one's religious affiliations. Like grace through faith, one's choice for who to vote for is a private matter, one which should never be conflated with one's standing in righteousness.
If Evangelical voters want to influence this world, their country, and their communities, then preach the Gospel, tell people that through Christ they can receive remission of sins and justification from all that they could not be justified through the Law of Moses. For our government will only reflect what we our country, our culture, and our citizenry reflect, nothing more, nothing less.
However, in no wise should we fear whoever is in office. Christ is our peace, not the President, not the Governor, not the Legislature. It is disconcerting to read and hear from so many believers that they connect their peace and prosperity to the person in office.
Let us all meditate on the first verses of the first Psalm:
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
"But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
"And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." (Psalm 1: 1-3)
We are blessed not as a result of not walking in ungodly counsel, or standing with sinners, or sitting with scorners, but blessed people just do not associated with such cursed people.
What does the blessed man do? He meditates on the Word. We have the Word living in us, Jesus (Colossians 1: 27), and His Spirit flows in us, leading us in righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14: 17)
For every Evangelical voter, your "job" is to believe on Him whom the Father has sent, Jesus! Do you not see Him as greater than your past, your present, your future? Do you not see Him as the Savior who saves you every day? Then there is no reason to pray to God to change the course of an election from a posture of fear, but from a stance of hope and peace, knowing that whoever wins, God's blessings will flow in your life.
Do they not know and believe that they are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus? Do they not know or believe that all of our enemies are being brought under our feet?
"And [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus'] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1: 22-23)
We are seated in Christ at the right hand of the Father:
"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)
To many believers in the Body of Christ want to change our leadership. They are convinced that they must influence who sits in power in Washington, in Sacramento, or in our local communities.
Yet all authority comes from God:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13: 1)
So, what are we supposed to do, then?
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13: 5-7)
"For conscience sake" does not refer to the conscience of the believer, for our conscience has been perfected in Christ:
"1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins." (Hebrews 10: 1-2)
and then
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10: 14)
"For conscience sake" refers to other people, who may interpret our freedom in Christ as licnense to rebel against all authority, just as some Jews for conscience sake would not eat food offered to idols, since they were still tranfering from the Old Covenant to the New.
Should believers retire from the public square? Of course not! Get out there and tell people what you believe, and let people know that you support certain candidates, or none, because of the values you chose to stand by. Perhaps it would be best, though, not to endorse candidates in connection with one's religious affiliations. Like grace through faith, one's choice for who to vote for is a private matter, one which should never be conflated with one's standing in righteousness.
If Evangelical voters want to influence this world, their country, and their communities, then preach the Gospel, tell people that through Christ they can receive remission of sins and justification from all that they could not be justified through the Law of Moses. For our government will only reflect what we our country, our culture, and our citizenry reflect, nothing more, nothing less.
However, in no wise should we fear whoever is in office. Christ is our peace, not the President, not the Governor, not the Legislature. It is disconcerting to read and hear from so many believers that they connect their peace and prosperity to the person in office.
Let us all meditate on the first verses of the first Psalm:
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
"But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
"And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." (Psalm 1: 1-3)
We are blessed not as a result of not walking in ungodly counsel, or standing with sinners, or sitting with scorners, but blessed people just do not associated with such cursed people.
What does the blessed man do? He meditates on the Word. We have the Word living in us, Jesus (Colossians 1: 27), and His Spirit flows in us, leading us in righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14: 17)
For every Evangelical voter, your "job" is to believe on Him whom the Father has sent, Jesus! Do you not see Him as greater than your past, your present, your future? Do you not see Him as the Savior who saves you every day? Then there is no reason to pray to God to change the course of an election from a posture of fear, but from a stance of hope and peace, knowing that whoever wins, God's blessings will flow in your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)