Thursday, April 23, 2009

A Prayer for the Faithful

Like Washington's army at Valley Forge, the political forces seeking to reestablish the constitutional republic in America today suffer greatly from the lack of material resources. This is partly the consequence of the current economic squeeze being used to pressure the nation into relinquishing its liberty. But another contributing factor touches on one of the sorest points of the current situation- the fact that many well intentioned people around the country continue to give their "widow's mite" to organizations that have routinely sacrificed the moral and political causes they profess to serve.

During the 2009 election cycle these supposed champions of moral conservatism ( i.e., pro-life and supportive of the God ordained natural family, upholding the Godly principles of the American Declaration of Independence, beginning with the respect for the existence and authority of the Creator God) and Constitutional liberty (upholding the sovereignty of the American people, border security, limited government, based on representation, federalism and the separation of powers, and the private enterprise economy) betrayed the good faith of their supporters by backing for President candidates they knew to be false to these causes. Many of them have also taken positions on key issues like the judicial promotion of homosexual marriage that abandon Constitutional liberty and allow duplicitous public officials to connive at the destruction of the marriage based family using the specious argument that their actions are constrained by the force of law. (In this fashion, for example, Mitt Romney pretended to support the God ordained family while single handedly forcing the issuance of illegal marriage licenses to homosexual couples in Massachusetts. He pretended to act under compulsion from the Massachusetts high court, even though in its opinion on the matter the Court itself acknowledged that no lawful action could be taken until and unless a new law was passed by the state legislature. Thus Romney's action struck a critically damaging blow against the institution of marriage, and openly promoted the false understanding of judicial power that effectively destroys the separation of powers. Yet organizations like the Family Research Council continue to feature him as a legitimate moral and Constitutional conservative.)

After employing underhand tactics to prevent people from hearing a consistent and comprehensive conservative message during the Republican primary season, these organizations and individuals actively promoted moral relativism during the general election, relying on a lesser of evils approach to herd well intentioned conservative voters toward a candidate (John McCain) they knew to have broken faith on all the key conservative issues. Not surprisingly, their chosen champion then backed the G. W. Bush administration's bailout proposals, known then and now to be the lead leg of the leap into socialism the Obama faction now seeks rapidly to consolidate.

From my first hand experience at Tea Party events, as well as the many reports from other events around the country, I know that many good hearted Americans feel the same deep loyalty to liberty and its moral basis that I do. They are seeking a rallying point round which to unify like-minded citizens in a consistent, effective effort to pull our nation back from the abyss of unconstrained government dictatorship. There are individuals and organizations that have not bent the knee to Baal; that never surrendered to expedient moral relativism; that never sold out, for ambition or material support, their allegiance to the cause of morally principled liberty. Yet I know from firsthand experience that many of the individuals and organizations that have steadfastly supported consistent, comprehensive conservative views are languishing now on the brink of collapse.

The forces that seek to establish socialist dictatorship are shamelessly raiding the public coffers, and through intimidating displays (like the firing of the GM CEO) they are adding corporate wealth to their political reserves. Meanwhile, the economic squeeze used as the excuse for their power grab saddles the defenders of liberty and private enterprise with a shrinking base of material support. When resources are scarce, it is all the more important that people allocate them with care. Yet all too many are still willing to give what little they have to those who have and are still betraying the causes they profess to serve. Sadly, though they give until it hurts, their sacrifice will do nothing to advance their hopes.

Every day I offer my prayers to God for the good men and women I see working without fanfare or reward in the true cause of liberty. Every now and again, when the material pressures reach the point of deep crisis, one or another of them alludes somehow to that reality, but it is rare. Like heroes silently enduring torture at the hands of their enemies, they grimly soldier on. Meanwhile there rings in their ears the taunt like that which Christ heard from His tormentors: "He trusted on the Lord that He would deliver him: Let Him deliver him, seeing he delighted in Him." (Psalm 22:8, cp Matthew 27:43) It's the fate, I guess of those who will not sell out that their roofs sometimes fall in. And so, proving their faithfulness, the trustworthy languish. Meanwhile people who sigh for standard bearers they can trust continue to devote their increasingly scarce reserves to those they should know by now that they cannot. And they shake their heads, wondering why so few stand firm. Go figure.

"Who provides for the raven his food, When his young ones cry unto God, And wander about for lack of food." (Job 38:41)

Worth considering? Then don't forget to DIGG IT!!!!

18 comments:

nail-in-the-wall said...

"I' am just a nail in the wall Loyal to Liberty"

I hang on,..

Dick said...

I have often wondered what makes us such targets as conservatives then it ocurred to me it is because we are really the only targets. It seems that every jot and title of liberal legislation is poised to disrupt or change good conservative law. Liberals never really create anything useful in terms of policies and practices instead they use their time and effort trying to dismantle those things consevatives historically put into place to build America. Liberals are simply social termites. Case in point; has anyone ever had the dubious priviledge of arguing religion with a liberal atheist? I recall a few months ago discussing God with a confirmed Barachopod and he kept refering to the Bible to present his flimsy arguement. Finally I said look lets approach this a little differently. As a Christian scripture is not your weapon its mine now give me your best compelling arguement for why you feel that God does not exist. Please do this without mentioning religion or the Bible. This should be easy enough for an enlightened atheist, right? After intellectually flopping around like a gaffed tuna he finally admitted that he needed a scriptural point counter-point. I then said so we both admit that we need God's word to state our case? It does not take a political science major to see that the attempted destruction of America is perpetuated by liberals who see our Constitution and Bill of Rights as a target rich environment. They are not creators of anything they are destroyers of everything. It is just their nature. It seems that there are no moral imperatives with most liberals there is only selfish perogatives. When Conservatives talk about Pro life, Liberals say Pro choice. If the English language for Conservatives warrants the term pro life why isn't the antonym for liberals pro death? Is it because Liberals invented the bogus term political correctness? It is my opinion that most liberals are political terrorist who strap word bombs to their body and destroy everything decent and honorable that this country stands for. Its no wonder water boarding has become such a big issue for them. They fear that secretly they deserve the same treatment. As far as the tea parties are concerned, I am reminded that someone once said that the wisdom of the crowds is almost always better than the wisdom of the experts. I consider my self a patriot and I would hope that most on this forum do as well. I refuse to allow Liberals in this usurper in charge administration to paint us as "the fringe". Our progenitors began this great nation the way we believe and with God's Grace it will finish that way.

Edwin Olivera said...

Our Lord Jesus Christ gave His disciples some advice and it MUST be adhered to by US if we are to have victory in this life...

"You MUST be as CUNNING, WISE, and STRATEGICALLY SLICK as the SERPENTS, while being INNOCENT and SINCERE as DOVES..."

Do we not understand what the Lord said there? Who are the SERPENTS? They are the EVIL, the HEATHEN, and the LIBERALS! "WE", the Conservatives, MUST be as CUNNING as the Liberals are...while actually being SINCERE and INNOCENT as doves!

In order to win back this country, we must follow that STRATEGY just as JOSEPH, ESTHER, and DANIEL followed it to win their people's FREEDOM!

They worked with HEATHENS who had SINCERE and OPEN-MINDS. "WE" must do the same.

I believe that we have an ally that can help us win the Presidency and our country's FREEDOMS back. Dr Keyes, I present you Ron Paul. Why, you ask? Because many Liberals are turning away from the Liberal Democrat Party and jumping on his bandwagon and are doing so because of their SIMILIAR desire for FREEDOM and winning our country back!

With an ALAN KEYES/RON PAUL Presidential ticket, and the backing of Sarah Palin (once the Republican Party turns on her during the campaign season, "though they have already begun to do so, now")...we will pose a SERIOUS threat to Barak Obama in 2012.

I also believe that with ALAN KEYES/RON PAUL running with Sarah Palin's endorsement...that Gov. Mike Huckabee (who supports the FAIR TAX) would be a potential ENDORSER to jump over to support the ticket as well. Yes, even many Libertarians would join us because of the Ron Paul VP nomination.

We need to be like Joseph, Esther, and Daniel...who used the help of an open-minded HEATHEN man of power to help seat them in a high position of authority in society which enabled them to SWAY attempts at GENOCIDE of God's People.

The same is being attempted today by the Obama Administration with the new DHS Criminal Code 18. It is an attempt to do what Hitler did when he stategized to persecute and then genocide Jews and Conservatives that were against his agenda. They have language that has been sent to ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in all 50 states to harrass, discriminate against, persecute, and even CRIMINALIZE Conservative Christians and those Americans, yes, like Ron Paul supporters that want to retain their FREEDOMS.

We have an opportunity right now, with the rising Tea Party/Tax Protest Movements throughout America where Conservative Independents, Conservative Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and even some Liberal Democrats who are joining our cause for FREEDOM and MORAL RESTORATION in America.

WE MUST CAPITALIZE!!! We must champion the call for moral restitution to American Politics, while using the help from OPEN-MINDED Libertarians, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats to push the movement into the campaign with a stategy to seriously win back the White House "and" the Congress with SANITY again!

This is a call to Dr Alan Keyes (who I am endorsing and campaigning for President) to reach out to Ron Paul ans his supporters and other party supporters and campaigners to join US in the fight for FREEDOM.

ALAN KEYES/RON PAUL would accomplish what McCain "arrogantly" and "dishonestly" attempted to accomplish by picking a FEMALE and CONSERVATIVE Vice-President in order to win over the conservative Christian votes. It back fired on him because people saw right through him and knew that McCain did not really like or support Palin at all. He was just USING HER DISHONESTLY.

But with an HONEST, SINCERE, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE DR ALAN KEYES as President selecting a Ron Paul as his VP is an HONEST CONSERVATIVE choosing a Republican phenomenon who is for the FREEDOMS we are for. We "would" sincerely support and like Ron Paul honestly because we are true Christians and believe in the Constitutional FREEDOMS that Ron Paul supports.

And finally because NOBODY is going to agree on EVERYTHING. Not even a husband and wife agree on EVERYTHING. But as long as the main principles are agreed upon and the respect for the same principles are there...we must USE CUNNING and WISDOM in order to win this fight FOR AMERICA. What say you?

Regards,

Edwin

Jared said...

Edwin, I'm with you. I've been an Alan Keyes supporter since 2000, and combining his message with the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Mark Sanford, Jonathan Krohn, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Huckabee would bring a grassroots campaign to the forefront that the GOP and the nation could no longer ignore.
Alan Keyes or someone like him (backed by those mentioned above) could win the Libertarian, Constitution, and American Independent Party nominations. If we could win the GOP nomination, Barack Obama just might be sent home to Kenya or wherever else he calls home.
Do it, Dr. Keyes - America needs you to do it.

joyindestructible said...

I believe that the Republican party wants to be rid of conservative social issues and wants to define itself by tax cuts as opposed to tax increases. They are moving to the left to become liberals while the left is now filled with neo-progressives who are a much more dangerous breed. Many old fashioned liberals don't like them because they verge on being fascists. If anyone reads this and would like to understand Obama and Hillary and what they are doing to our country read about Progressives and Neo-Progressives in America. Interestingly enough, it is a philosophy that found its way to America through pre-natzi Germany.

Obama has the census in his own control and he's calling for amnesty for Mexican Illegals. If we don't get Conservatives into Congress and every other office possible, I'm not sure we'll have a shot at all in 2012. My problem is that I always get stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils and I think others do the same. The problem with that is that we still end up with evil and that has never been more evident.

There is another subject that never seems to be discussed but the common ground between Neo-conservatives and Neo-progressives is globalism. Neo-con globalism puts America at the top while neo-progressives put Europe in that place. I am not against world trade but I think the global economy has done a great deal to damage America and rob us of our self-sufficiency. I would like to elect men and women who are not globalists and will not sell out our soveriegnty by making us subject to a 'shadow government' that makes vital decisions for us outside of our control. This should be a very important issue for true Conservatives because just as surely as they have moved us from State's rights to the control of a huge central government, they are now moving us toward and international government. I'm tired of these power hungry dreamers and manipulators. I want my country back!

Mau said...

Just a couple of points:

A few years back, the California Supreme ruled that Catholic Charities of Sacramento must adhere to a law that clearly and blatantly violates Catholic teaching and the 1st Amendment under the guise that Catholic Charities was not Catholic. Their opinion was that because Catholic Charities offers charitable services to non-Catholics, they are not religiously affiliated. In effect removing two planks of Christianity: charity and evangelization -- so much for progressives believing in the separation of Church and State. Church is now a de facto subsidiary of the State.

Unfortunately, most pastors will not explicitly speak out against evil under penalty of law. The IRS threatens to take away tax exempt status from churches that endorse candidates. This rule is never used against people like Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson but is used to cow pro-life anti-socialists. Unfortunately, few pastors will risk running afoul the IRS to point out that most of the politicians we have today are complicit in true evil. As Dr. Keyes pointed out in the last webinar, this is a perversion of their commission to perform charity. Pastors will genuflect to the State rather than follow God's mandates. This is a failure on our part.

As for Dr. Ron Paul, I am sorry to say that although he claims to be pro-life, he believes that abortion law be restricted to individual states or local governments (check his website) because it is not a specific Constitutional amendment. This is intellectually vacuous at best because it would run counter to (at least) the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the 8th and 14th Amendments. What is more ridiculous in Paul's position is he explicitly recognizes life as beginning at conception but doesn't recognize the willful termination of that life as criminal.

Mau said...

joyindestructible,

I'm against globalism for an entirely different reason than the ones you mentioned and I've not seen it written anywhere. By surrendering our sovereignty to unfettered global trade, we take away a tool that would allow us to pressure other countries without having to resort to war. Historically speaking, most people look at the three tools countries have to affect change in other nations: diplomacy, economics and war. These can be used in conjunction with one another and to varying degrees to cause dramatic changes in distant nations. South Africa is the classic example of how, through diplomacy and economic sanctions, the US and Europe ended apartheid. Besides pressuring South Africa directly, we also pressured our trading partners to isolate their government until they relented.

How do we do that now with Mexico? NAFTA prevents us from imposing economic sanctions on them until they get their drug trade, human trafficking, and illegal immigration under control. The UN effectively robs us of our diplomatic efforts. We're only left with war as a means of policy change.

If you think that last statement is over-the-top, let's take Saddam Hussein as an example. The UN and EU effectively undercut any real diplomatic or economic sanctions. Many Asian and European countries cheated on the resolutions that were passed and we couldn't do anything about it. Globalism led us directly to war. Iran and North Korea are the same way. We are thwarted by China and Russia who view the UN as an anti-US tool and are aided by much of Europe for no other reason than they hate us. We have no economic recourse against any of these countries thanks to the G8 and G20 groups. The only alternatives we have are to sit back and take it or to get so ticked off that we go to war.

Personally, I believe that the current state of the US wouldn't care about losing sovereignty so long as they are comfortable. Unfortunately, the burden of defending the country is on such a few people that going to war wouldn't be that hard for them to stomach either.

joyindestructible said...

Mau,

I agree with everything you've said and it proves that healthy trade can only take place between healthy, self-sufficient countries and not between countries completely dependent upon one another.

The dirty little secret about Mexico is that it is fully a product of Nafta. George Bush Sr. made a lot of promises to Mexico including jobs if their agricultural economy failed. That is why they had laws such as duel citizenship in place when their people began to migrate here. George W. flooded Mexico with our cheap corn and it made a lot of money for some farmers here but it did destroy the Mexican economy. The people first fled to Mexico City and then when they could find no jobs, they fled north or joined drug cartels, or both. Nafta is the reason they won't close the border and that is a prime example of international law trumping our Constitution and the safety of the American people.

We're not in such great shape in America either. Our economy has been a consumer economy for years now. We produce next to nothing here anymore. I think that is why Mr. O is working on the credit cards so that he can make it easier for Americans to spend again and reinflate the bubble needed to support China and India. I really feel strongly that Americans have to act in oposition to spending and reinflating the bubble. I know it won't be without pain but if we live the way the Bible teaches us and tighten our belts, we can starve a lot of this big government to death. My husband and I are blessed with some land and this year, we are planting a big garden, buying some chickens, and getting ourselves off the grid. We already barter some goods and services and we plan to barter even more. I know this may sound extreme but my government has given me that name anyway so, I'm going to play the game. I'm going to do all that I can to avoid paying them for the air I breath, or allowing them to know what my heat is set at or when to turn off my light switch.

Mau, I'm sure you can be creative in fighting this too and don't despair. Those 'comfortable' ones are soft and won't last when things get tough and with the inflation that is coming, things are going to get tough! We'll depend on God and sacrifice our comfort to do what is right and live with less without them because our hearts cry out from freedom and not comfort. This thing,this global beast, that has come upon our country is like a great black storm passing overhead. By God's grace, we will endure.

Terry Morris said...

Thank you Dr. Keyes. Your commentary here is very much needed.

You said in your keynote address to the TEA protesters in Pittsburg that you would advise some of them to go home and look in the mirror. That piece of advice very much resonates with me since I'm apt to offer the very same advice now and again in the following form among others: "Look in the mirror tonight and repeat these words: "I am Barack Hussein Obama," "I am Nancy Pelosi," "I am Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and the United States Congress.""

If the shoe fits, wear it!

And on that note, at our local Tax Day TEA gathering a fellow protester approached a friend whom I was attending with and began a conversation with him. On the subject of federal taxation, which the other fellow brought up, my friend offered the opinion that we should abolish the IRS and move to a "Fair Tax." The other party said that he could never support the fair tax because he no longer pays federal income taxes and the fair tax would impose them (or a form of them) on him once more. So, in essence, this person wants to complain about the state of things in the United States while at the same time he won't even hear of any alternative that would remotely involve any personal sacrifice on his part for the good of the whole. He wants his cake and to eat it too, in other words. It's an attitude that seems to run pervasively throughout our society.

Regarding Governor Romney, I was finished with him when he gave his so-called "faith speech." Prior to that, though, I had big questions about him based on the fact that he'd been governor of Massachusetts. While executive experience is to me an almost essential, non-negotiable (I do admit of the exception, but exceptions are just that - exceptions) qualification for serving as the chief executive officer of the U.S. (and by the way, did anyone other than myself ever stop to think that of the illustrious presidential candidates we ended up with in '08, Sarah Palin had more executive experience than all of the others combined?), among other things, I personally just couldn't get past the fact that his governorship was over the most liberal state in this fracturing union of ours. It simply defied logic to me that a genuine conservative could ever be elected to the governorship of Massachusetts.

So he calls himself a Republican. Whoopti-do!, so do a lot of other RINOs. Indeed, there are enough of them in the U.S. Senate to pass virtually anything dear leader sends down the pike, with several to spare for another issue so that the same two or three don't have to "cross party lines" every time a destructive piece of legislation is introduced in that body. Obama knows this all too well. And that is one reason he didn't bother to lobby for the democrat when the Georgia Senate seat was in question. What would have been the point to have expended political capitol on something as meaningless as that when he already knew there were plenty of RINOs in the Senate anyway? The only Republicans of national prominence (Sean Hannity and the like) who put any energy into that particular debate were those who somehow thought/think that the current makeup of the U.S. Senate is as the numbers indicate it is. Which is a complete and utter falsehood, and which continues to raise false hopes among conservatives. But they'll eventually figure it out.

chiu_chunling said...

I have to admit, I have never really been able to make any claim to being either wise or harmless. Though it has long seemed evident to me that the Republican party was not to be trusted, I empathize with those who see no practical alternative--at least in terms of political affiliation.

Do independent Americans need a political affiliation?

I never voted for Romney, nor for McCain, but I feel no impulse to denigrate those who did so. I retain a firm belief that Obama's policies represent only a difference in pace, not fundamental direction, from what was offered by the Republicans. But I remember a time or two when I also acted to slow what I could not realistically hope to reverse. That I do not believe a gentle slide into serfdom any better than a sudden drive is not the issue.

I didn't vote for Ron Paul either, but I find his plans for decentralization of government authority pleasing. Some might wish to see a national prohibition of abortion. It will come to that, one way or another. But shouldn't the student of American ideas at least try the virtue of the individual states first? I may disagree with enough of Ron Paul's ideas to prevent supporting his candidacy, but, for virtually every question of government, "that's a matter for the states to decide" is the American answer.

Taxes, criminal penalties, marriage benefits, education standards, even the degree to which the free market is to be used...all of these decisions should be made by the states individually. I will be so bold as to say that, to the degree practical, these decisions should even be made differently by different states. The grand experiment of liberty was not to vest all protection of rights in a single entity, but to ensure that the people could choose the form of government best suited to each individual, not only at the polling place but subsequently by voting with their feet (while I disapprove of slavery, the Civil War would not have been justified if the Southern states had not been so unwilling to let their slaves to move to free states--whether 'slavery' would still be onerous if thus rendered voluntary is another question). I must say that I think less of Romney for his having lived in Massachusetts than for having governed it according to the desires of its people.

Can the states take back that power? I do not foresee it happening without bloodshed, but it is not possible that the national government will retain it much longer, no matter what happens. If there is to be a peaceful resumption of liberty--it feels odd to even express the idea--if such a path is to be found, those who still have the heart to desire it must search for it. I cannot say such a thing will be found in a return to the several states...only that I personally guarantee it will not be found in the Federal government, no matter who you elect.

If only more Presidents could choose Washington as their model...and work to shrink the power and privilege of the national government. Are such men really so rare, or are we too willing to oppose them because they would dismantle the power that we covet for ourselves?

I, too, covet power. To put an end to strife and sorrows...or so I say (certainly in disdaining power I must embrace human suffering). But I have not been granted such discretion. I cannot cause the peaceful transfer or distribution of power, nor can I use it myself. In my hands it could only work destruction. Of itself not least.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu,

Your last post was refreshing to read. I find myself almost in complete agreement with you.

It is true that above all we need a return to Balanced Constitutional Government in my humble opinion, which is to say that the state and local authorities should reclaim (with our blessings) many of their original powers while leaving to the central government only the residual of those powers which the states and local governments are not, by nature, equipped to exercise.

In other words, we need to get much of government closer to the people where they will invariably suffer the consequences of electing bad leaders and vying for bad laws, and vice versa. A friend and fellow blogger of mine argues the same on the basis that such would create a scenario in which the states and local communities would compete with one another for "human capitol." Among similar arguments of his.

Take the FMA, for example. Since day one I have opposed the "Federal" Marriage Amendment on the basis that it would involve handing over to the central government a new power. That is the last thing we should be doing. What we ought to be doing is supporting states which have enacted their own marriage amendments and encouraging others to do the same by our firm and successful examples. If and when the central authority attempts to encroach on states' rights to enact their own marriage amendments, then we ought to resist it with everything we have. The same applies to other issues such as immigration policy, and so on and so forth...

chiu_chunling said...

I have to admit that I supported the Federal Marriage Amendment despite thinking it silly, but my reasoning was that it would represent a challenge to the judicial fiat driving much of the expansion of the national government. Unprincipled I know, but at least openly so. That was back when I still hoped that the elected representatives of the people could be induced to shrink the central authority.

I still believe that the lawyers' monopoly on judicial authority is a singular danger to the representative character of government, but no longer believe in the representatives. Even so, I don't wish to discourage efforts to address the moral decline of the nation at the national level. I myself simply see no point in trying to work through a level of government that is on the brink of total collapse. But if that collapse is to be averted it will have to be due to actions I cannot foresee. And a national reformist period may be the answer. I don't see it as possible, but in theory it could work. Reformist governments, particularly of a Christian character, have a tendency to result in decentralization of powers. This is in contrast to both revolutionary and progressive movements, which trend almost exclusively towards consolidation of authority.

The immigration question is tricky. Certainly, it seems that this is a power that is not currently possible for the states to exercise individually. The most a given state has authority to do is refuse to grant the privileges of citizenship to non-citizens, control over granting or denying citizenship remains the province of the Federal government. And, were that power to be granted to the states, the Full Faith and Credit clause would only weaken the control any individual state could exercise over immigration policy. Federal law currently prohibits to the states any power to refuse entry to citizens of the United States as a whole. While there is no explicit Constitutional bar to states exercising that power, the Federal law can be strongly defended on strictly Constitutional grounds. Any legal challenge would have to be cleverly designed and implemented.

Certainly it will be one of the powers returned to the states in the near future, and I see it as advantageous for the Federal law to permit states to exercise individual discretion over the entry of persons who have been granted legal standing before the Federal government. Any future natural government ought to consider it seriously. But as long as the current national government retains any legitimacy, it retains the Constitutional authority to restrict states from controlling entry by anyone with legal standing before the Federal government.

Of course, I do not regard the national government as retaining any legitimacy, but for a state to argue against an exercise of the powers granted to the Federal government on the basis that the current government is illegitimate basically implies a call for the violent overthrow of that government. If the nation is to survive intact, the legitimacy of particular actions and officer-holders must be revoked without challenging the authority of the entire government.

You can see why I have so little hope for such a thing.

Tor Hershman said...

I have proven beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt that a worthwhile God does not exist and here’s my proof at YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0

Do you fear the TRUTH, Mr. Keyes?
Of course you DO.

chiu_chunling said...

All you need say is that you do not value the God who does exist. Because judgments of value are subjective, your statement as to your judgment of God's value represents irrefutable proof that God is of no worth to you.

Sadly, I have no reason to even consider that you could be lying. Because that means you are of merely incidental value to God. What might have been a child turns out to be good for nothing but rude cobbling-stone.

God is of worth to me, and to many other persons. Because without Him I cannot bear to trod the grim path so paved.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

"Even so, I don't wish to discourage efforts to address the moral decline of the nation at the national level."

Neither do I. And I hope it isn't the impression left in my comments above that I do.
Here is a collection of posts I've written on the subject of the FMA at my blog which should serve to provide some context to my statements above. But to boil it all down, I supported President Bush's raising the issue of the FMA nationally, or, using the "bully pulpit" to help strike up the debate on the subject at the national level. I never supported the FMA, however. Not because I necessarily thought it silly, but because my ultimate hope is that the states and the people thereof will rediscover the fundamental meaning of the term "self-government," and begin to exercise it again.

It may seem like a contradiction to some on a cursory examination of my position (support of the raising of the issue from the bully pulpit, non-support of the actual federal amendment Bush was proposing), but I've managed to convince myself, at least, that it is not a contradiction. My reasoning can be boiled down this way:

The debate on the subject of protecting traditional marriage in this nation needed to be initiated, and it needed some strong impetus, hence my support of President Bush's raising the issue of a Federal Marriage Amendment. But ultimately the majority of states should erect their own barriers to encroachments on traditional marriage from the homosexual lobby and the "progressives" which are the real driving force behind this assault on the marriage institution (yes, my position involves the states fighting their own battles on the subject within the confines of their own borders and their individual governing constitutions BECAUSE it is vital to the preservation of self-government itself that the good people of the several states correct the deficiencies of their own governing institutions internally as an exercise in self-government). And accordingly, IF we MUST have a federal marriage amendment at some point to rectify this situation, then let it come through an Article V convention for proposing amendments. After all, our founders inserted the provision into the constitution for a reason. And what better way to effect that method than for the states to individually and internally engage their own debates on the subject.

As Washington said: "... But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all." (emphasis added)

With you I have lost all confidence in the ability of Congress to effect appropriate amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I therefore place the bulk of my trust in the state initiated method of amending the Constitution ... if it is eventually determined that we must amend the constitution to protect marriage, or whatever.

On the question of immigration:

You're certainly right to say it is a tricky issue. I was mainly referring to illegal immigration in my statements above as that is, at this very moment, one of the most pressing issues that individual states are having to deal with internally. The mindless invocation that we hear so often today which states that "immigration is a federal issue" is a question that needs to be dealt with, but for our purposes here I'll keep to the issue of illegal immigration, and how that assertion affects the issue of illegal immigration.

My contention has always been (in accordance with the federal principle which is in need of a revival in this country) that the best, most effective and long-term solution for the problem of illegal immigration is for the states to, again, erect barriers internally against mass invasion of their territories from largely incompatible foreigners not accustomed to self-government, and not well acquainted with the principles of self-government. Once more, the element of societal cohesion comes into play here. We can deny it all we want, but it doesn't change anything to do so.

Now, I don't say my preferred method is the fastest way to solve the issue, I am saying that it is the most efficient, long-lasting way of doing so over the long haul. Ultimately the idea is to force attrition on these incompatibles ... state by blessed state. In other words, drive them out, one state at a time, until they finally see the handwriting on the wall and enter upon a mass exodus from the country, back to their native land. It works because when individual states erect laws prohibiting their employment, their receiving social benefits, and their transportation within the state in question, these illegals are presented with a choice -- either they return to their native country, or they move to a state which is still welcoming of them. Once they congregate in another state, raping and pillaging of that state's institutions as they're apt to do, then the state in question will begin to take actions necessary to its own security -- creating its own immigration laws -- and so on.

There's no real need anymore for speculation on the question, the facts speak for themselves. Several states which border Oklahoma (in fact ALL states which border Oklahoma) have either introduced their own protective measures, or passed their own laws on the heels of H.B. 1804 taking effect in Oklahoma. Why? Ask Missouri.

Notwithstanding all of that, I think that what we need to do is to get back to some common sense and establish some fundamentals in this country. Relying on the federal government to institute a proper immigration policy that affects every state in this union in the exact same way is one of the most ridiculous ideas anyone ever conceived of. It is on the same level as saying that since we have local police forces commissioned to prevent crime, then I have no individual right to protect my own interests and the interests of my family and local community when it becomes necessary for me to exercise this right or otherwise submit to criminal behaviors when there is no time or opportunity to contact law enforcement, or whenever law enforcement itself has more or less abrogated its authority. That opinion might be popular with some, it may even be predominate in our growingly submissive culture, but it doesn't change the fact that if some jackass invades my home, he will be dealt with immediately and with extreme prejudice. Period.

chiu_chunling said...

Yes, I think that states, simply by refusing to cater to those with no legal claim on the privileges of citizenship, can make a significant difference. And certainly they have the Constitutional authority to detain and charge persons evidently guilty of a crime, even if the crime itself is a Federal rather than state offense. I would recommend harsher penalties for false documentation as a solid (and necessary) first step in that direction.

I didn't mean to say that making protection of marriage a national or even Constitutional issue was silly, only that turning the Constitution into a dictionary of common words would be silly. But then, it wouldn't be as silly as letting the courts alter the basic definition of fundamental social institutions. Sometimes, in war as in love, silliness is the only resort.

Jackie Smith said...

I would be for an Alan Keyes/Sarah Palin ticket....I think it would have to be GOP though because unless we unite under one party we will not defeat the serpents known as Liberal Democrats!!! We are doomed to lose if we don't unite under one party to take on these THUGS!!!

chiu_chunling said...

I don't really care which party funds a candidate's campaign. That sort of thinking is how Democrats keep getting elected by the very people they hurt most.

If the Republican party wants to become the choice of patriotic Americans, then that's okay. But supporting candidates that represent American values is up to them. If you have an inside track to getting the party leadership to take committed American voters seriously, I suppose it's up to you. Everybody else has to settle for making sure they don't vote for a liberal candidate just because that person happens to belong to the Republican party.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.