Conflicting news reporters castigate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on his stance regarding the United States Senate’s recent passage of a loaded immigration bill instead of casting a proper light on his views. The legislation provides a convoluted path to citizenship, rewards lawbreakers with immediate provisional (yet ultimately) permanent citizenship, triggered by border control half-measures which will likely not materialize.
Like many free market economists and classical liberal pundits, Walker clearly and candidly declared that he wants immigrants from every part of the world to come to the United States. Walker offered that immigration should not be a complex process which discourages the best and the brightest from settling within our nation’s borders:
“Because if [immigration] wasn’t so cumbersome, if there wasn’t such a long wait, if it wasn’t so difficult to get in, we wouldn’t have the other problems that we have.”
His reference to the Senate Bill as a “band-aid” does not imply that the legislation is acceptable, but rather that its reforms are not comprehensive, that they do not “heal” the “deeper wounds” which are “bleeding” our immigration policy. The Washington Times incorrectly submitted that Walker endorsed the US Senate’s immigration proposal, which has no chance of passage in the House. House Speaker John Boehner will not recognize legislation which the majority of House majority has rightly rejected.
Governor Walker should not endorse any federal reforms which reward lawbreakers, which do not pare back the massive welfare state, and which do not recognize the efforts of legal immigrants.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Job Wanted to be the Blessor -- Only God in Christ Can Bless -- Job 1: 11; 2: 5
"But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse [lit. Bless] thee to thy face." (Job 1: 11; 2: 5)
As established in Hebrews 7: 7, the lesser is always blessed by the greator.
To the degree that anyone thinks that he or she can, or that they have to, bless God, to that extent, therefore, do they attempt to magnify themselves at the expense of God, who alone is Creator, Source, and Spirit of all Blessings in our lives.
The battle that Satan sought to create between God and Job was not about getting Job to renounce his faith in God, but rather to see if indeed mankind would ever stop depending on his own mortal, flawed efforts to secure righteousness and blessings, and let God provide all things.
Satan was banking on the same nature which had developed in fallen Adam, that Job would hold onto his integrity, his own righteousness, yet still believing that God is a good God, but somehow, someway Job's efforts were needed and noteworthy, on an even parity with God.
For a long time, it seemed as if Satan would be proven victorious:
"Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity; yea, return again, my righteousness is in it." (Job 6: 29)
and then
"God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me." (Job 27: 5)
and also
"Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity." (Job 31: 6)
One of the biggest problems which I have noticed in the Body of Christ, which I have seen dominate and decimate families, is the compulsive notion among parents and members of the Body which assume that we must run in and rescue other believers, that God cannot be trusted to move in the lives of our loved ones, and that when the situation is dire and damaging, we must "do something", and we "do something" out of fear ( in fact, a damnable sense of arrogance) that God is "sleeping on the job [not "Job"] and cannot be trusted.
This idea of human effort completing, or initiating, or enabling, or assisting God is contrary to scripture. In the Beginning, God (not man!) created the Heaven and the Earth. He created man on the six day, that man could enjoy all the things which God freely provided. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Tree, as if God was not generous enough! How outrageous and wicked is that!?
God did not wait for the Israelites to call on Him when they were oppressed by their Egyptian taskmasters. They groaned, and God on His throne remembered His Covenant and prepared the way for Moses their deliverer to come (Exodus 2: 23-25)
Yet this limitation of self-starting and self-blessing is endemic to humanity (it's called "sin"), and from the moment we are born, and before we are born again, this chronic confusion and neediness dominates us, yet at the same this in-bred ignorant arrogances prods us to look to something in ourselves, our senses, or our world to find fulfillment.
In effect, we want to be the source of blessings in our own lives, and by extension the source of blessings for our children, instead of teaching them that God Himself through His Son provides all things (Romans 8: 31-32).
As established in Hebrews 7: 7, the lesser is always blessed by the greator.
To the degree that anyone thinks that he or she can, or that they have to, bless God, to that extent, therefore, do they attempt to magnify themselves at the expense of God, who alone is Creator, Source, and Spirit of all Blessings in our lives.
The battle that Satan sought to create between God and Job was not about getting Job to renounce his faith in God, but rather to see if indeed mankind would ever stop depending on his own mortal, flawed efforts to secure righteousness and blessings, and let God provide all things.
Satan was banking on the same nature which had developed in fallen Adam, that Job would hold onto his integrity, his own righteousness, yet still believing that God is a good God, but somehow, someway Job's efforts were needed and noteworthy, on an even parity with God.
For a long time, it seemed as if Satan would be proven victorious:
"Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity; yea, return again, my righteousness is in it." (Job 6: 29)
and then
"God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me." (Job 27: 5)
and also
"Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity." (Job 31: 6)
One of the biggest problems which I have noticed in the Body of Christ, which I have seen dominate and decimate families, is the compulsive notion among parents and members of the Body which assume that we must run in and rescue other believers, that God cannot be trusted to move in the lives of our loved ones, and that when the situation is dire and damaging, we must "do something", and we "do something" out of fear ( in fact, a damnable sense of arrogance) that God is "sleeping on the job [not "Job"] and cannot be trusted.
This idea of human effort completing, or initiating, or enabling, or assisting God is contrary to scripture. In the Beginning, God (not man!) created the Heaven and the Earth. He created man on the six day, that man could enjoy all the things which God freely provided. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Tree, as if God was not generous enough! How outrageous and wicked is that!?
God did not wait for the Israelites to call on Him when they were oppressed by their Egyptian taskmasters. They groaned, and God on His throne remembered His Covenant and prepared the way for Moses their deliverer to come (Exodus 2: 23-25)
Yet this limitation of self-starting and self-blessing is endemic to humanity (it's called "sin"), and from the moment we are born, and before we are born again, this chronic confusion and neediness dominates us, yet at the same this in-bred ignorant arrogances prods us to look to something in ourselves, our senses, or our world to find fulfillment.
In effect, we want to be the source of blessings in our own lives, and by extension the source of blessings for our children, instead of teaching them that God Himself through His Son provides all things (Romans 8: 31-32).
Job Wanted to Be the Blessor -- Only God in Christ Can Bless Us -- Job 1: 5
Pastor Perry Stone of MannaFest first directed me to this intriguing revelation, one which current as well as traditional translations traduce.
In the book of Job, four mentions of the word "curse" appear, and just in the first two chapters:
"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." (Job 1: 5)
Satan tempts God to question Job's integrity:
"But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." (Job 1: 11)
After God permits Satan to attack Job's substance, Satan attempts to tempt God once again:
"But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." (Job 2: 5)
Then Job's wife suggests that Job end it all, after suffering so much:
"9Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die." (Job 2: 9)
The interesting element in each of these verses, however, rests on that word "curse", which in the Hebrew word is actually "barak", or "bless".
A proper translation, then would read:
"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed [lit. blessed] God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." (Job 1: 5)
Why was Job afriad that one ofhis sons may have sinned and blessed God in their hearts? The issue in this pasasge does not reveal the issue of sin, but rather the status of the son, that his blessings of God would be corrupted in some manner. I also submitted that this compulsiveness to preempt and sacrifice for his sons shows a spiritual gluttony of sorts, as if Job wanted to be the source of blessings in his children's lives, or that his sacrificial efforts made all the difference in their lives as well as his, that his sacrifices were the source of all good things in his life, as opposed to God's Blessed Nature.
Furthermore, Job was keenly, compulsively aware of his sons' sinning, but not his own? Job had a high opinion of himself, to say the least.
This opinion runs contrary to the revelation of man's depraved nature:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17: 9)
Who can know the human heart, indeed? Job thought that he knew his sons's heart, yet he never could, and he never once considered that as a man, a son of Adam, his heart was dead, in need of new life.
For this reason, God promised a new covenant (Jeremiah 31: 33-34), which was cut by His Son, our perfect High Priest and new, eternal mediator. Jesus establishes fully the truth which Job did not understand;' God alone is our Blessing and Blessor, and no one can take His place.
In the book of Job, four mentions of the word "curse" appear, and just in the first two chapters:
"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." (Job 1: 5)
Satan tempts God to question Job's integrity:
"But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." (Job 1: 11)
After God permits Satan to attack Job's substance, Satan attempts to tempt God once again:
"But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." (Job 2: 5)
Then Job's wife suggests that Job end it all, after suffering so much:
"9Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die." (Job 2: 9)
The interesting element in each of these verses, however, rests on that word "curse", which in the Hebrew word is actually "barak", or "bless".
A proper translation, then would read:
"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed [lit. blessed] God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." (Job 1: 5)
Why was Job afriad that one ofhis sons may have sinned and blessed God in their hearts? The issue in this pasasge does not reveal the issue of sin, but rather the status of the son, that his blessings of God would be corrupted in some manner. I also submitted that this compulsiveness to preempt and sacrifice for his sons shows a spiritual gluttony of sorts, as if Job wanted to be the source of blessings in his children's lives, or that his sacrificial efforts made all the difference in their lives as well as his, that his sacrifices were the source of all good things in his life, as opposed to God's Blessed Nature.
Furthermore, Job was keenly, compulsively aware of his sons' sinning, but not his own? Job had a high opinion of himself, to say the least.
This opinion runs contrary to the revelation of man's depraved nature:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17: 9)
Who can know the human heart, indeed? Job thought that he knew his sons's heart, yet he never could, and he never once considered that as a man, a son of Adam, his heart was dead, in need of new life.
For this reason, God promised a new covenant (Jeremiah 31: 33-34), which was cut by His Son, our perfect High Priest and new, eternal mediator. Jesus establishes fully the truth which Job did not understand;' God alone is our Blessing and Blessor, and no one can take His place.
Job Wanted to be the Blessor -- God in Christ Alone Can Bless Us
"And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." (Hebrews 7: 7)
God is the source of all blessings in our lives, no matter what wicked turns we may face, what hardships come our way.
God is all about creating, all about giving, for He alone possesses this infinite power:
"1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1: 1)
It's all about Himself. In the original Hebrew, "created" renders the word "bara", which means also "creating" and also "Creator" as well as "choose". God cannot be separated from life itself. "Bara" is also the root word for "Barack", which means "to bless".
This assertion is not pantheistic, though. God is not creation, but God moves about and holds this creation together in Himself.
We see this in His Son Jesus:
"15[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1: 15-18)
John also explains fully that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1: 1)
So, without a doubt, all blessings, all creation, all things come from the Creator God!
This same Loving, infinite Creator created all things "good", but when he made man, He said:
"
To the man, God have the following command:
"15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: " (Genesis 2: 15-16)
How good can it get? God is all about blessing and prospering in us all things.
In fact, one of the last prayers in the Bible could not make it clearer:
"Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (3 John 2)
This prayer is preeminent, and this prayer is direct and intimate, as John, the "disciple whom Jesus loved", writes this wonderful exhortation to his "wellbeloved Gaius".
In Christ, we are all accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1: 6), which is Christ.
So, blessings is God's"business", and so He revealed himself to Abram:
"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:
"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
"And 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)
Abram is called the father of faith, and the friend of God, not because of what he did for God, but rather because he believed that God would be, have, and do all that He said He would (Genesis 15: 6)
God is the Blessor. God made man last so that man would enjoy all things that He had created, and also so that man would not presume in any way that he did anything on his own to provide for himself.
Now let us turn to Job. . .
God is the source of all blessings in our lives, no matter what wicked turns we may face, what hardships come our way.
God is all about creating, all about giving, for He alone possesses this infinite power:
"1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1: 1)
It's all about Himself. In the original Hebrew, "created" renders the word "bara", which means also "creating" and also "Creator" as well as "choose". God cannot be separated from life itself. "Bara" is also the root word for "Barack", which means "to bless".
This assertion is not pantheistic, though. God is not creation, but God moves about and holds this creation together in Himself.
We see this in His Son Jesus:
"15[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1: 15-18)
John also explains fully that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1: 1)
So, without a doubt, all blessings, all creation, all things come from the Creator God!
This same Loving, infinite Creator created all things "good", but when he made man, He said:
"
To the man, God have the following command:
"15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: " (Genesis 2: 15-16)
How good can it get? God is all about blessing and prospering in us all things.
In fact, one of the last prayers in the Bible could not make it clearer:
"Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (3 John 2)
This prayer is preeminent, and this prayer is direct and intimate, as John, the "disciple whom Jesus loved", writes this wonderful exhortation to his "wellbeloved Gaius".
In Christ, we are all accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1: 6), which is Christ.
So, blessings is God's"business", and so He revealed himself to Abram:
"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:
"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
"And 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)
Abram is called the father of faith, and the friend of God, not because of what he did for God, but rather because he believed that God would be, have, and do all that He said He would (Genesis 15: 6)
God is the Blessor. God made man last so that man would enjoy all things that He had created, and also so that man would not presume in any way that he did anything on his own to provide for himself.
Now let us turn to Job. . .
About "Christie for President in 2016": "Fuggehdaboutit!"
Canada Free Press has posted advertisements soliciting opinions about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s run for President in 2016. This early straw-polling deserves serious consideration.
A Bush-appointed US Attorney, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie took on the "Rock Star Conservative" mantle the moment he took office in Trenton following the 2009 upset against embattled (now embittered) incumbent Jon Corzine (displaced by Goldman Sachs, now disgraced by MF Global).
Facing massive pension obligations, Christie enacted reforms, taking down teachers in town hall meetings, who complained about their pay and no say in contractual negotiations
"You know what, then you don't have to do it." Christie rebutted one teacher, followed by grateful applause.
Another city library closures, Christie rebuffed:
"Unlike the federal government, we cannot print money."
Christie told it like it is, whether people liked it or not.
As a Republican Presidential candidate, he has merits. He's pro-life. For a “New England” moderate, that scores points with conservatives. He wants less government, lower taxes, and local control, which he announced in his first major press conference after his election. He forgot about cutting spending, but at least New Jersey now has the highest rating for corruption-busting. Christie has also stepped away from climate change as serious policy. A good sign, but then again, he refused to sign off on a gay marriage bill, allowing New Jersey voters to settle the issue by ballot. His populist moves popularized him, yet he candidly repeated "I am in lock-step with President Obama on this issue". Imagine a primary opponent repeating this disconcerting by-line.
In 2012, Christie called out California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown for raising taxes: “That guy's an old retread." Upstaging Romney, Christie delivered the Keynote speech at the Republican National Convention. To the convention he esteemed current entitlement recipients: "Our seniors will not bankrupt this nation for the future generation." He stood up to President Obama, saying: "Real Leaders change polls, not follow them."
Then Superstorm Sandy thrashed the Northeast (Hurricane Irene had already battered the New Jersey Coastline last year. President Barack Obama shouldered some leadership, and Christie praised him. NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch warned the governor to reaffirm his support for Romney. After the election, Christie exploded at the Republican House majority in Congress, in part because the North East waited interminably for assistance. In contrast to the natural disasters, Christie’s rhetorical thundering at the Republicans in Washington, specifically the House Majority, worried Republicans. The pork-laded bill would have granted millions to unaffected constituencies, in addition to Sandy-stricken states. Conservatives in the House did the right thing and rejected the bill.
Was Christie's bravado a brave attempt to shore up his party’s disparate caucus following their unexpected loss, as any leader would? In light of his other policy stances, Christie is working further his own, moderate ambitions. CPAC 2013 said "No thanks" to a Christie guest speech. This outcome handed Christie a win, since his reelection in two-to-one Democratic New Jersey can easily slip.
The non-invite also tossed “President Christie” a loss. The New Jersey governor is liberal on gun control, supports tighter restrictions, a moral non-starter. Crime rates are overwhelmingly high Newark and Trenton, where residents have even pleaded for the National Guard to reinstate law and order. Christie opposes gay aversion therapy. He has admitted to agreeing with liberal Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo "98%" of the time. Lately, Christie defended himself on Twitter, trying to back-pedal from his censorious comments against the House GOP for not passing the pork-laden Sandy-aid bill. Despite his attempt to explain away from this tweets, his double-dealing was unmistakable, and certainly not leadership.
Instead of changing the polls, Christie is following them, easing into a centrist position to maintain his reelection chances.
Conservatives touted Governor Christie's tough talk on cutting taxes and pork projects, including the billion dollar federal boondoggle transportation expansion between New Jersey and New York. He stood up to the public sector unions, whose meager contributions would would force the poorest as well as the business interests to pay more. He wants to pass a school voucher program, yet his tenure reforms were weak tea. He lowers taxes, but the spending spree remains unseemly, as he has elected to hold special elections in October to replace recently deceased Frank Lautenberg, one month before his own reelection. Wasted money and a wasted opportunity stand out, since Christie has appointed a three-month Republican place holder for the Senate seat, which will likely go to Democrat Cory Booker, instead of a cost-cutting conservative to maintain the seat for a year and a half, a move which might hurt his approval ratings.
Currently, Governor Christie looks like the moderate which the New Jersey Star-Ledger called him out to be. There's nothing wrong with being moderate based on principle, but Christie’s stance on certain issues, plus his rapport with Democrats, have diminished his conservative credibility considerably. Real leaders change polls, but now they have changed Christie. Conservatives had so much respect for the man. Now, not so much.
About a “Christie 2016” Presidential run, conservatives may have no choice but to say:
"Fuggehdaboutit!"
A Bush-appointed US Attorney, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie took on the "Rock Star Conservative" mantle the moment he took office in Trenton following the 2009 upset against embattled (now embittered) incumbent Jon Corzine (displaced by Goldman Sachs, now disgraced by MF Global).
Facing massive pension obligations, Christie enacted reforms, taking down teachers in town hall meetings, who complained about their pay and no say in contractual negotiations
"You know what, then you don't have to do it." Christie rebutted one teacher, followed by grateful applause.
Another city library closures, Christie rebuffed:
"Unlike the federal government, we cannot print money."
Christie told it like it is, whether people liked it or not.
As a Republican Presidential candidate, he has merits. He's pro-life. For a “New England” moderate, that scores points with conservatives. He wants less government, lower taxes, and local control, which he announced in his first major press conference after his election. He forgot about cutting spending, but at least New Jersey now has the highest rating for corruption-busting. Christie has also stepped away from climate change as serious policy. A good sign, but then again, he refused to sign off on a gay marriage bill, allowing New Jersey voters to settle the issue by ballot. His populist moves popularized him, yet he candidly repeated "I am in lock-step with President Obama on this issue". Imagine a primary opponent repeating this disconcerting by-line.
In 2012, Christie called out California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown for raising taxes: “That guy's an old retread." Upstaging Romney, Christie delivered the Keynote speech at the Republican National Convention. To the convention he esteemed current entitlement recipients: "Our seniors will not bankrupt this nation for the future generation." He stood up to President Obama, saying: "Real Leaders change polls, not follow them."
Then Superstorm Sandy thrashed the Northeast (Hurricane Irene had already battered the New Jersey Coastline last year. President Barack Obama shouldered some leadership, and Christie praised him. NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch warned the governor to reaffirm his support for Romney. After the election, Christie exploded at the Republican House majority in Congress, in part because the North East waited interminably for assistance. In contrast to the natural disasters, Christie’s rhetorical thundering at the Republicans in Washington, specifically the House Majority, worried Republicans. The pork-laded bill would have granted millions to unaffected constituencies, in addition to Sandy-stricken states. Conservatives in the House did the right thing and rejected the bill.
Was Christie's bravado a brave attempt to shore up his party’s disparate caucus following their unexpected loss, as any leader would? In light of his other policy stances, Christie is working further his own, moderate ambitions. CPAC 2013 said "No thanks" to a Christie guest speech. This outcome handed Christie a win, since his reelection in two-to-one Democratic New Jersey can easily slip.
The non-invite also tossed “President Christie” a loss. The New Jersey governor is liberal on gun control, supports tighter restrictions, a moral non-starter. Crime rates are overwhelmingly high Newark and Trenton, where residents have even pleaded for the National Guard to reinstate law and order. Christie opposes gay aversion therapy. He has admitted to agreeing with liberal Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo "98%" of the time. Lately, Christie defended himself on Twitter, trying to back-pedal from his censorious comments against the House GOP for not passing the pork-laden Sandy-aid bill. Despite his attempt to explain away from this tweets, his double-dealing was unmistakable, and certainly not leadership.
Instead of changing the polls, Christie is following them, easing into a centrist position to maintain his reelection chances.
Conservatives touted Governor Christie's tough talk on cutting taxes and pork projects, including the billion dollar federal boondoggle transportation expansion between New Jersey and New York. He stood up to the public sector unions, whose meager contributions would would force the poorest as well as the business interests to pay more. He wants to pass a school voucher program, yet his tenure reforms were weak tea. He lowers taxes, but the spending spree remains unseemly, as he has elected to hold special elections in October to replace recently deceased Frank Lautenberg, one month before his own reelection. Wasted money and a wasted opportunity stand out, since Christie has appointed a three-month Republican place holder for the Senate seat, which will likely go to Democrat Cory Booker, instead of a cost-cutting conservative to maintain the seat for a year and a half, a move which might hurt his approval ratings.
Currently, Governor Christie looks like the moderate which the New Jersey Star-Ledger called him out to be. There's nothing wrong with being moderate based on principle, but Christie’s stance on certain issues, plus his rapport with Democrats, have diminished his conservative credibility considerably. Real leaders change polls, but now they have changed Christie. Conservatives had so much respect for the man. Now, not so much.
About a “Christie 2016” Presidential run, conservatives may have no choice but to say:
"Fuggehdaboutit!"
Bully Rahm Emmanuel gets Bullied
Rahm Emmanuel (D-Illinois, and sadly Chicago) has a lot of issues. As a kid, he was a real bully. An associate of his shared that in yesteryears, he loved to beat up kids and take their money. His desire to take people's money has not gone away with time. As a state legislator then a Congressman, Rahm loved to go "Bam Bam!" among his colleagues. A tax and spend liberal-progressive, he became chief of staff for President Barack "The One, The Change We've Been Waiting for" Obama in 2008.
Quite a hot-head to begin with, Rahm got really heated up in the White House. Still very much a bully, “Bully Rahm Emmanuel” (who acts as if he's God, not just as if God is with him) started the bully ball rolling with "Never let a good crisis go to waste." From the 2009 stimulus which did not stimulate, to costly health care now more costly because of (Un)Affordable Care Act (or Obama-WaxmanCare to South Bay conservatives such as myself), Rahm has become anything but a savior for the United States. He once confronted a disgraced Democratic Congressman (Ed Massa of New York, the one with whom Glenn Beck wasted a lot of time post-resignation) in the men's showers in the capitol building to force a vote on a key issue (nothing more, hopefully). The Congressman resigned in disgrace (because he harassed male staffers, not because of Rah, of course). As for Rahm -- well, he remains a disgrace. He does not do "people" too well, not just according to Congressional reports, but according to any sense or sensibility of human dignity. When he's in charge, people don't do to well, either. Ironically, the boy-man bully from Chicago created more chaos and crises as chief of staff under President Obama.
Thankfully for the country, although perhaps not for the Windy City, the Daley cult of Chicago signaled its desire to diminish, and Rahm rammed his name to the front for consideration for the office. He won, and Chicago lost. Now a heated executive, a Type-A type who can't take "No" for an answer, he’s gotten to know the word “No” a lot more. For a city with a “tough” reputation (Al Capone, organized crime, and Roxy Hart), Chicago gave "Bully Mayor" Rahm very little time to settle into his new role in his old stomping ground.
Instead, the bully got bullied big time.
When Rahm stood up to the teachers unions, they proved to be bigger bullies then he ever was. Still, Rahm had to be the adult in the room, so he started closing down schools with declining enrollment (declining because of boredom or death, since pupils tend to draw blood more than pictures or conclusions from what they “read” in school). Then the Newtown, Connecticut massacre shot gun control back into the national consciousness, yet with no consensus from state or federal leaders. “Liberal bully” (a telling tautology!) Rahm is as much a gun-control advocate as a control freak, and so bullied Chicago-based Bank of America to give up investments in gun companies. Chicago has been headquarters for B of A for years, so it seemed that the bank was backed up against the wall. Then stepped in US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) with a warm letter of welcome: “We have a modest view of Government” down in Texas, Cruz assured the CEO of B of A. “Come down and bank here in the Lone Star State”, he invited. “Contact me if you have any questions”, he assured them warmly. Rahm got beat that time.
Then came the end of Year 2012 (four more years of Obama, ugh!), and “gun-control capital of the United States” Chicago witnessed five hundred murders (plus a few more), the highest number of homicides in a major city. Los Angeles crime rates are going down, and New York is looking good, too. Chicago: not so good.
Taking advice from NRA President Wayne LaPierre, (a good guy with a gun beats bad bully with gun every time), the Illinois state legislature, in conservative Springfield (don’tcha know!), passed a conceal-carry gun law. Residents are breathing a sigh of relief because they can pack some heat instead of waiting for “The Heat” to temper down heated crime rate of the Windy City.
A Moment of optimism, perhaps? Big Government Rahm must let the individual protect himself, like letting the picked-on kids now fight back (Ha! Ha!) This anti-bully libertarian beat taking its time, breaking forth throughout the land. Not just in Washington State, with its mean, green, libertarian streak with marijuana legalization, but also the advancement of concerned-carry laws throughout the country. The former liberal governor of Michigan refused to repeal the Wolverine State’s concealed-carry laws. Now Illinois, with “losing bully” Rahm will have to allow the citizens in his “unfair” city to protect themselves, too. To his credit, “Bully Rahm” evinced a willingness to curb Chicago’s marijuana laws. He might want take a toke or two and mellow, leave his bullying ways, and his fellow let Chicagoans live and let live.
Quite a hot-head to begin with, Rahm got really heated up in the White House. Still very much a bully, “Bully Rahm Emmanuel” (who acts as if he's God, not just as if God is with him) started the bully ball rolling with "Never let a good crisis go to waste." From the 2009 stimulus which did not stimulate, to costly health care now more costly because of (Un)Affordable Care Act (or Obama-WaxmanCare to South Bay conservatives such as myself), Rahm has become anything but a savior for the United States. He once confronted a disgraced Democratic Congressman (Ed Massa of New York, the one with whom Glenn Beck wasted a lot of time post-resignation) in the men's showers in the capitol building to force a vote on a key issue (nothing more, hopefully). The Congressman resigned in disgrace (because he harassed male staffers, not because of Rah, of course). As for Rahm -- well, he remains a disgrace. He does not do "people" too well, not just according to Congressional reports, but according to any sense or sensibility of human dignity. When he's in charge, people don't do to well, either. Ironically, the boy-man bully from Chicago created more chaos and crises as chief of staff under President Obama.
Thankfully for the country, although perhaps not for the Windy City, the Daley cult of Chicago signaled its desire to diminish, and Rahm rammed his name to the front for consideration for the office. He won, and Chicago lost. Now a heated executive, a Type-A type who can't take "No" for an answer, he’s gotten to know the word “No” a lot more. For a city with a “tough” reputation (Al Capone, organized crime, and Roxy Hart), Chicago gave "Bully Mayor" Rahm very little time to settle into his new role in his old stomping ground.
Instead, the bully got bullied big time.
When Rahm stood up to the teachers unions, they proved to be bigger bullies then he ever was. Still, Rahm had to be the adult in the room, so he started closing down schools with declining enrollment (declining because of boredom or death, since pupils tend to draw blood more than pictures or conclusions from what they “read” in school). Then the Newtown, Connecticut massacre shot gun control back into the national consciousness, yet with no consensus from state or federal leaders. “Liberal bully” (a telling tautology!) Rahm is as much a gun-control advocate as a control freak, and so bullied Chicago-based Bank of America to give up investments in gun companies. Chicago has been headquarters for B of A for years, so it seemed that the bank was backed up against the wall. Then stepped in US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) with a warm letter of welcome: “We have a modest view of Government” down in Texas, Cruz assured the CEO of B of A. “Come down and bank here in the Lone Star State”, he invited. “Contact me if you have any questions”, he assured them warmly. Rahm got beat that time.
Then came the end of Year 2012 (four more years of Obama, ugh!), and “gun-control capital of the United States” Chicago witnessed five hundred murders (plus a few more), the highest number of homicides in a major city. Los Angeles crime rates are going down, and New York is looking good, too. Chicago: not so good.
Taking advice from NRA President Wayne LaPierre, (a good guy with a gun beats bad bully with gun every time), the Illinois state legislature, in conservative Springfield (don’tcha know!), passed a conceal-carry gun law. Residents are breathing a sigh of relief because they can pack some heat instead of waiting for “The Heat” to temper down heated crime rate of the Windy City.
A Moment of optimism, perhaps? Big Government Rahm must let the individual protect himself, like letting the picked-on kids now fight back (Ha! Ha!) This anti-bully libertarian beat taking its time, breaking forth throughout the land. Not just in Washington State, with its mean, green, libertarian streak with marijuana legalization, but also the advancement of concerned-carry laws throughout the country. The former liberal governor of Michigan refused to repeal the Wolverine State’s concealed-carry laws. Now Illinois, with “losing bully” Rahm will have to allow the citizens in his “unfair” city to protect themselves, too. To his credit, “Bully Rahm” evinced a willingness to curb Chicago’s marijuana laws. He might want take a toke or two and mellow, leave his bullying ways, and his fellow let Chicagoans live and let live.
A California Conservative in Rhode Island
 |
| (Source: YouTube) |
Seriously, who is this guy and why is goLOCALprov letting him write his drivel here? Maybe there aren't enough republicans in Rhode Island to write anti-democratic articles so golocal has to import one from 3000 miles away? – Portsmouth Citizen, GoLocalProv.com
So, who is this guy from California, who loves to write about the “right” in Rhode Island and the Northeast GOP? Who seems to have a heart for “losers” and “states in fiscal emergencies”, who believes that the Republican Party is the "New Superman", who thinks that US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse belongs in the “Outhouse”?
This man is a crazy evangelical from CA. Does this site have an editorial board or can any wing nut become a Mindsetter TM? This is a joke. He is the person in a cult.-- Jonathan Flynn
My name is Arthur Christopher Schaper, a life-long Southern California resident. Yes I know, strange indeed. Mark Twain could not invent this stuff, and that’s why he wrote about Connecticut Yankees in King Arthur’s Court. Well, I am no king, but I hate tyranny, especially the tyranny of the left, and any system of government which says “No!” to God and “Yes!” to the state, which impoverishes people in the name of “helping” them, and lets a dedicated cult of special interests rob everyone else in the name of the “public interest.”
A few points for GoLOCAL readers:
1. There is nothing LOCAL about the author. He apparently thinks he knows all he needs to know about RI without ever having set foot anywhere near the Ocean State.
. . .
5. We here in Rhode Island love Roger Williams just as much as anyone, probably more. But, just for the record, the figure most often identified as "the first true freedom fighter" is not Roger Williams, but Judah the Maccabee.—Portsmouth Citizen
Really, it starts with Roger Williams, and so much more.
I have long admired the minister who stood up to the Puritanical-Pharisaical religious hypermajority in colonial Massachusetts Bay, who then founded Rhode Island. I wanted to learn more. He preached the grace and truth of the Gospel, telling people the faith of his fathers, but never ramming it down people’s throats. He supported religious liberty, even while England was burning and churning with Roundheads, Levelers, Monarchists and anarchists killing each other for religious supremacy.
Hey, Arthur. We have open primaries. Worry about your local matters 3,000 miles away before squawking in on our business with your lack of knowledge.—Michael Roles
As for the political interest in writing, it started with the dismay following the 2012 election, in which the GOP failed to take back the US Senate and the White House. Like many conservatives, I wrestled with “Why?” After some (not much) soul-searching, I realized: Romney sucked, sucking any chance for conservative elements to put the country on a “right” course. The Rhode Island Republican Assembly endorsed Santorum rather than Romney (can you blame them?) Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan acknowledged the inadequacy of the Romney campaign, pointing out that the 2012 election was eliciting a “yawn, shrug, meh” from the electorate because neither candidate had the capital to control the problems cratering this country.
In an optimistic post-election (or post-mortem) piece, Boston Globe contributor Jeff Jacoby reminded conservatives to get back to basics, give people a good reason to vote for them instead of bad reasons not to vote for someone else. Ryan Fattman of Sutton, MA delivered in the deep blue Bay State. Why can’t others?
Then I recalled the Democratic losses in 2004 (Good times! Good times!), when Bush won reelection, when the Republicans gained four Senate seats, and liberal crock-umentarian Michael Moore skulked away to sulk in the woods (along with bears, who also do “you know what” when they get there). DNC Chairman Howard (Yeaargh!) Dean enacted a fifty-state strategy for future Democratic wins in swing-states.
With a similar setback for the GOP eight years later, it’s time for conservatives to do what Dean did (without screaming). Noonan exhorted fellow conservatives: “It’s Pirate Time!” Be brash, be bold, a little anarchy is a good thing. National Review contributor Michael Barone wrote about Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo’s efforts to curb the pension crises sinking the Ocean State. I began following Mr. Travis Rowley’s pieces in GoLocalProv, who recently shared the all too telling connection between California and Rhode Island:
Democratically-run California (one big Rhode Island) recently sent their leaders to Texas for “tips on how to better their economy.”
Aside from extreme geographical differences, Little Rhody and Big Cali have too much in common: union hall-statehouse collusion-corruption; a liberal elite corrupting public education, a lot of unhappy teachers quitting (Stephen Round aired his resignation on YouTube; I wrote to my local paper).
 |
| (Source: DbbyFluck, Flickr) |
Now, this California Conservative is writing to Rhode Island (and the Northeast) to start a fifty-state for the GOP and spread the Good News.
I enjoyed your column and think that you are doing an excellent job in your internship. You will make an excellent columnist/blogger and I wish you all the best. -- Petr Petrovich
What can I say: I love to write! Thanks again, Go Local readers.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Supreme Court Rules Right on Voting Rights Act: "It's About Time!"
Along with the
unprecedented ruling on gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act, the
United States Supreme Court has upended the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Striking
down Article Four of the law, the Supreme Court ruled that nine states,
including the libertarian paradise and native home of failed Presidential candidate
Goldwater’s Arizona, would no longer need to seek federal approval before enacting
major or minor changes to their election laws.
The now-viewed as
micromanaging of the Voting Rights Act was conceived with the best of
intentions, during the time when "affirmative action" promised
affirmative actions on behalf of all Americans rather than special favors for
minorities. Following the end of the Civil War and the “peculiar institution”
slavery, white supremacists enacted Jim Crow laws, which flocked together in
the South, and segregation, overt or covert, intimidated minorities from
voting. The Civil War had ended, but "The Long Night" of civil
repression resulted from the 1877 Great Compromise (in reality, Grand Sellout),
and thus federal officers were forced to leave the former Confederacy, followed
by the return of the Democratic "Solid South". WHhite-hooded
Klansmen, voter intimidation, and suffering for black voters instead of
expanded suffrage for blacks endured for a century, followed by interspersed bus
boycotts and fractious yet feckless legal appeals.
The Civil Rights
Movement of the 1950s reinstated a candor for liberty for all people, and an
ardor on behalf of legislators in Washington to end the poll tax, the age tax,
or any other hindrance to a person voting anywhere. To ensure equitable suffrage,
and to ensure that minorities’ influence would not be diminished, the Voting
Rights Acts mandated federal approval for subsequent decisions affecting voters
and elections in respective districts. The Civil Rights movement achieved this
victory, and thus restored respect for the rights and dignity of all Americans
by bringing an end to de jure Jim
Crow in the South, even if segregationists and white supremacists maintained a de facto prejudice in their hearts.
Sadly, the Civil Rights Movement divided into two factions, with younger
militants growling like “panthers” and the older, wiser generation still
staking their grace on the “easier, softer way” of peaceful protest. Of course,
the liberal venality of Democratic machine politicians like President Lyndon
Baines Johnson (who invidiously remarked: "We'll have those n-ggers voting
for us for the next two hundred years!") would corrupt the black vote for
decades to come.
The same impatience
which divided the Civil Rights Movement, the same impertinence which expanded
state power, never in the better interests of the voter, ended up marring the
good intentions of the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights agenda which
permitted blacks to step up instead of step back, which opened the full meaning
of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", ran its course for
four decades. Subsequent Congresses reaffirmed the Civil Rights Act, yet took
no notice that things were getting better down South (as well as in Arizona).
Sadly, the law continued to follow a formula
from its first decade, as the legislation required that states would not redraw
districts which shut out the import or the representation of minorities in
respective state and federal districts based on old information. After forty
years, “We the People” have changed for the better. A black man not only can
vote, but now he can be President of the United States. Whether liberal
statists wish to admit it or not, the culture in the South has also changed, with
demographics that reflect a broader diversity, as well as maintaining a vision
of limited government and stronger local control. The Voting Rights Act had not
only outlived its usefulness, its continued use had become an abusive use of
the past to rectify a present which had already become a better future.
President Ronald Reagan mentioned that the
closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a government program. Such an
appraisal would have described the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, had the
Supreme Court not struck down the old formulas.
It's about time that someone challenged the backward calculations. How
much longer was the federal government going to hold Southern States, including
southwestern Arizona, and multi-ethnic boroughs like Brooklyn hostage with the
complex and arbitrary formulas, statistics which had not changed, which field
researchers had not revisited, which no one respected any longer?
Within hours of the
Supreme Court’s ruling, Texas leaders championed their right to redraw their
Congressional Districts as seen fit by their legislature, without the federal
government looking over their shoulder. Come to think of it, the federal
government should stop snooping over anyone’s shoulder, state or citizen, and
start learning from the Lone Star state (and other Southern governments) which
have integrated a high influx of immigrants, followed by a booming business
culture, low taxes, laid-back government, and an all around view of
"getting better". The Voting Rights Act played its part, out-lived
its usefulness, and with its rescission by the Supreme Court, now remains a
testimony to states which, when left alone, do very well for their citizens, no
matter what their color.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Gay Marriage: Not Progressive, Fair, or Accessible
With "gay wedding bells" ringing across the land about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, the battle, the digression over homosexuality, marriage, and the proper scope of the state has not changed for the better. The two rulings handed down by the Supreme Court invalidated a popular initiative to amend the California state constitution. On the other hand, the Supreme Court said nothing about other states which have barred gay marriage. Thirty-seven states still have laws on their books which recognize marriage as between one man and one woman, yet how long those laws will remain on the books remains to be seen.
For whom the bell tolls on "gay marriage", the sound echoes quite hollow, not holy, and certain not with any wholeness, over the land. The flawed argument justifying gay marriage have focused on progress, fairness, and access.
Redefining marriage is not a progressive sentiment at all. In fact, the venal conduct of "anyone sleeping with anything" draws from an ancient strain of values, in which men and women slept with whatever they wanted to. In many tribal societies, and even the "more civilized" Ancient Greeks, sexual behavior among adults and children was considered acceptable. With the rise of the Judea-Christian tradition, certainly, the beauty and wisdom of marriage between one man and one woman became normal. Yet even the pagan emperor Trajan shut down bath-houses in Rome, as the sexual promiscuity among men caused a rampant and disturbing spread of disease, dysfunction, and death. Fast forward to the 1980's AIDS epidemic, and epidemiologists wanted to call the contagion GRID: "Gay related immuno-deficiency syndrome" because of its virulent prevalence among homosexuals. Even today, the rising tide of evidence exposes the proliferation of disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexual conduct. "Gay marriage" is not progressive at all.
Marriage is not about fairness. "Marriage equality" is a nonsensical construct, like "legitimate rape" or "we must suspend the rules of the free market to save it". Yet this doctrine of fairness has invaded marriage, rending it practically meaningless. Marriage is an institution, a sacrament beyond a marriage license, the holding of hands, the saying of "I Do!", nor is it a battleground for individuals to express themselves and remake the proper order of things. Marriage creates connections which transcend (not transgress) time and eternity itself. Fairness, which speaks to a parity of two things, cannot integrate the timeless and timely. Two men cannot form such a union. Two women cannot embrace and exchange the mastery of marriage, which from the beginning was intended for one man and one woman. Nor can an adult even mimic, let alone establish, this connection with a child.
Yet pundits left and right are now "coming out" for gay marriage. Liberal-tarians (liberals who pretend to be libertarian) like Andrew Sullivan have been advocated for gay marriage for nearly two decades. Along with liberals, now Republicans US Senator Bob Portman of Ohio and conservative Michael Barone support gay marriage. Regarding "faux-conservative" Sullivan, he has acquiesced to having multiple partners. Where's the holy matrimony in that? And speaking of "holy", the term at its core means "set apart" or "different." Marriage allows two people to be set apart to each other, and each other only.
Marriage is not about access, but rather contracting unfettered desires, which left unchecked create more harm than good. Consider the consequences of welfarism in inner cities, which reward women for having children out of wedlock, and reward men for fathering children with multiple women, yet never stay around. The harms to society, to our communities, and to these "unwanted" children is incalculable. As a matter of biology and human nature, sexuality unchannelled is sexuality unhinged. Outside of the wonderful identification between man and woman, people will succumb to any combination (remember, homosexuality is not progressive at all). During oral arguments on the same-sex marriage issue, "Wise Latina" Maria Sotomayor shared grave reservations about redefining of marriage from. Where does one draw the line on polygamy, or pedophilia? Her concerns resurrect long-standing arguments about polygamy and the redefinition of marriage in the United States. In 1854, the Republican Party was founded on two platforms: the abolition of slavery, and the abolition of polygamy. Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should consider becoming a Republican following her frank admission on this issue.
Marriage is not about fairness. Gay marriage is not progressive, and only a man and a woman (not two men, not two women, animals, objects, or minors) enter that blessed union. Two people get married, they engage each other, they become one flesh: that's the only "gay marriage". The intimacy of marriage and sex cannot be redefined, like throwing away a piece of old paper, or getting a new edition of a book. Marriage is a mature transition, and so is choosing not to be married. The notion that a court of law, legal mandates, or even popular sentiment can radically redefine marriage betrays the immaturity of our modern polity, inwhich "progress", "fairness" and access have become the all-hallowed buzzwords to justify or condemn government actions.
Tony Vidak for State Senate
Following state senator Michael Rubio’s (D-Bakersfield)
sudden decision to resign from the California state legislature and serve the
Chevron corporation, a special election in the Central Valley has opened up,
one which can help decide the balance of power not just in the state capitol,
but capitalize on the need for compromise and bipartisanship which honors the
needs of all Californians, not just special interests, lobbyists, and
well-funded public sector unions.
The voters in the Kern-Kings County region have the serendipity
as well as the growing necessity of sending a clear message to Sacramento politician,
informing them that they do not have a right to impose their tax-and-spend will
by legislative fiat on every other house in the state.
By advancing Hanford farmer Tony Vidak to the state senate, a
man who knows the land and the water woes which plague that region, voters in
California’s heartland will have the heart-felt opportunity to restore the
heart of the political process away from a Democratic supermajority hankering
for more taxes, spending, and regulations.
The heart of any state belongs to the people, not the
politicians, and an independent coalition of realtors have already manifested
their vocal opposition to Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez’ candidacy for
the seat to replace Rubio.
A Democratic supermajority has already killed school choice
for all California student s, with a desire to raise taxes and exempt unions
from key pension reforms.
It’s to send accountable representatives to Sacramento. Vote
for Tony Vidak for Senate District 16.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)