The Fiscal Cliff

December 29th, 2012

As we all wait to either go over the fiscal cliff or get some last minute deal to half way avert it, I would like to go back to my posting on 40 years of Roe v. Wade and impending judgment.  My own view is that this game of chicken over the fiscal cliff is far more dangerous than most people imagine owing to the underlying weakness of the national and world economy.  Here is how I think things will play out.

First, it is obvious to me that President Obama is focused on the political aspect of the cliff, i.e., how he can use it to destroy Republican power so he will have a freer hand to enact his desired radical change for this country.  I don’t think he is particularly concerned about the economic consequences since he believes he can successfully blame those consequences on the Republicans.  He will only sign off on a deal if he gets tax increases on “the rich” with no increases on the middle class, and if the spending reductions are mostly phony or mostly on the military.

Since he is focused on the political, and the political winds favor him today, he will likely succeed.  But that doesn’t mean the economic consequences are not real.  If he wins politically and brags about his win, and then the economy really tanks, this may come back to bite him big time.  Here is an article suggesting the world financial system is on far shakier grounds than we think, and that Obama’s failure to deal with it could damage the Democratic Party brand for a generation.

Second, I look at the complete disarray and dispiritedness of the Republican Party and conservatives in general.  It has revealed a deep split between the establishment people and the movement people.  We all saw this with Boehner’s failed attempt to pass a tax increase on those with incomes above a million dollars a year and his removal of some movement conservatives from key committees.  We heard Newt Gingrich, someone we would have expected to stand strong, throw in the towel on gay marriage.  (It made me think of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, “This very night you will all fall away.”)

Putting these two thought together, I expect Obama to have a time of political victories and economic disasters while his opposition is divided and in disarray.  To us, this will seem like the worst of times, but it may in fact be the preparing the round for future victory for the following reasons:

  1. The policies of the Democrats will eventually be revealed as disastrous to even the most ill-informed voter.
  2. Leadership of the Republican Party and conservatism in general may shift from the failed compromising establishment to more principled movement conservatives.

This second item of leadership change must also occur in the Church.  The Church has had a parallel problem to that of the Republican Party in having leadership that more interested in public relations than fidelity to Christ.  You should really think about what pastor you are supporting and where you are giving God’s money.

So in the immortal words of Jeremiah Wright, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”  The economic consequences of our profligate ways are about to hit hard.  This will discredit the whole ruling establishment and prepare people for truly radical change, either for good or for bad.  What is needed is leadership for the good to be ready.

What does being ready mean?  Here are some specifics.

  1. Above all else, guard your hearts.  Don’t look at what man is doing; look at what God is doing.  Look for where God is moving and raising up men to lead in these times.  Identify them and support them.  I recommend CBR and FRC.
  2. Get your own act together, financially and in terms of relationships.  We will need each other.
  3. Be prepared to sacrifice and help each other in the hard times.
  4. Save money and store food.


     

My Election Post-Mortem

November 12th, 2012

Many of us were shocked by Obama’s easy victory over Romney after being misled by our right wing pollsters.  The natural reaction has been to sink into a deep funk and declare the nation finished, given over to welfare state decline and depravity.  Christians in particular are dismayed at the electorate’s apparent approval of Obama’s extreme embrace of abortion and the homosexual political agenda, and are sinking into an even deeper funk, expecting an age of persecution.

During the primaries I did not support Romney.  Santorum was my guy.  This was not about his Mormonism; my problem with Romney was twofold: 1) his weak commitment on the social issues, and 2) his image as a corporate suit.

Let’s start with the second issue.  During the 2007 primaries Governor Huckabee ran against Romney and pointed out that he, Huckabee, “looked like the guy you’d have a beer with” while Romney “looked like the guy who laid you off.”  The Obama campaign understood that people vote their emotions and not their thoughts, and early on worked to define Romney as an out of touch plutocrat who only cared about rich people.  While this charge is false, he does look the part.  This neutralized voters who are unemployed due to Obama’s policies, or even swung them to vote for more of Obama.  The big story in this election is not about all of the Latinos, blacks single women and young people who voted for Obama, but all of the people in general and white working class in particular who sat it out.

As to the first issue, Romney once again took the default position of the Republican establishment which is to run away from their social conservative base in the hopes of wooing swing voters from Democrats.  Obama and the Democrats in contrast, doubled down on their base of abortion and same sex marriage advocates.  It has been my observation that there is no percentage in disrespecting your true believers in order to win over some of the wishy-washy.  The wishy-washy are that way precisely because they are conflicted about these issues, and are more likely to vote for leaders who look like they know their own minds whichever side they are on.  The winning formula seems to be to nail down your base on the social issues with absolute positions and then fight for the middle on economic issues.

When, for example, you say you are for (or against) abortion in all cases, you take the issue off the table and can move on to the economy.  When you take a “moderate” position with exceptions and qualifications, you keep the issue on the table for endless debates about “legitimate rape” or “partial birth abortion.”  You do not nail down your base and can never get around to making your economic argument to the middle.

When Todd Akin made his poorly worded argument against killing children conceived in rape Romney threw him under the bus.  When Richard Mourdock made a similar clumsy statement in his Indiana race, a female Romney surrogate who was coming out to campaign for him instead publically denounced him.  Can anyone imagine a Democrat similarly disavowing a fellow Democrat in the midst of an election over an embarrassing choice of words?  This is because, while Democrats don’t know how to run an economy or anything else, they do know how to win elections.

In conclusion, the country is far gone but not as far gone as the election results would have you think.  Our problem is that the Republican Party leadership does not know what it is doing.  And that is a big enough problem for now.

The Destructiveness of the Liberal Mind

October 21st, 2012

A video was circulating on the web this weekend concerning the Fort Hood Shooting by Army Major and Muslim fanatic Hassan. It contains passionate accounts from soldiers wounded in the attack. They are pretty upset at the government’s declaration of the atrocity as a case of “workplace violence” rather than as an act of war by an enemy combatant. This prevents the dead and wounded from getting Purple Hearts and their survivors from getting certain benefits. But what really seems to gall them is the refusal of the government to recognize a terrorist attack when they are being sent around the world to fight the “War on Terror.”

This got me thinking. The way in which our government is dealing with Hassan is a textbook case of the liberal mind in action. The liberal mind in action always results in a moral inversion, making right wrong and wrong right, showing endless compassion for the wrong-doer and complete disregard for their victims. The Army’s top General Casey showed some of this thinking when he expressed his big concern as being not the people killed and wounded but the chance that it might cause the Army to back off on diversity and ultra-political correctness.  Now the big issue in Hassan’s trial, three years after his murders, is whether he has to shave or can keep his beard. This should be about his head, not his beard.

It is easy to cite examples of this strange moral inversion that characterizes the liberal mind:
1. Where convicted murderers are concerned, they will spend years, decades really, worrying about every procedural detail, and the possibility that execution might be uncomfortable for the murderer, while having the most callous disregard for the suffering of victim’s families who are dragged through endless court proceedings seeking justice.
2. Gangs can terrorize neighborhoods forever without one tear shed by any liberal anywhere. But let a policeman stop a gang member for questioning and legions of liberal lawyers descend to protect him from having his feelings hurt.
3. Heaven help the American soldier who, after three days of house to house fighting, protecting our rights, shoots an enemy combatant under circumstances at all questionable. The liberals will have him prosecuted for murder.
4. One man works sixty hours a week and earns a decent living. Another sits on the couch and ends up poor. The liberal heart bleeds for the deadbeat and demands the working man share his “excess” earnings with the slacker.
5. and here is another case of liberal mental illness

Where does this strange way of thinking come from? The liberal mind is not motivated by actual sympathy for criminals, communists, or jihadists. That would be an improvement. At least he would believe in something. The liberal mind is motivated by guilt over sin. The liberal seeks to prove to himself his own moral superiority by showing that he, unlike his moral inferiors, can not only have compassion for good people, everyone can do that, but also for the bad people that no one else cares about. After all, isn’t that what Jesus taught when he said to love your enemies? The liberal, rejecting the salvation that lies in confession, repentance, and faith in Christ, seeks to be justified by works with these preening displays of uber-compassion.

His self-justification exercise requires him to denigrate the motives of conservatives to support his sense of moral superiority. Conservatives, you see, don’t just think welfare does more harm than good.  They hate the poor, they are racists, homophobes, misogynists, people who want our children to drink dirty water and breath dirty air just so they can make more profits, etc., etc. ad nauseum. It cannot be a case of people of good will who simply disagree. Oh no, no! Conservatives must be really evil to emphasize how good I am! After all, this is not a problem solving session. This is a guilt expiation exercise.

Liberalism is thus an irrational state of mind entered into by the unregenerate seeking to get rid of their guilt over sin (while continuing in sin) in order to prove their righteousness to themselves. At a societal level, it disarms civilization against its enemies and is suicidal.

The whole sorry situation around the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi shows how dangerous the liberal mind is to the overall society. First we learn that requests from the Ambassador for more security were turned down by a faceless State Department liberal because she thought it would not look peaceful to the Lybians. Now we hear that our military was watching the whole thing with a drone, and that military support was available  but not used. Nearby airbases had jet fighters and even Specter gunships that could have been there in an hour and cleaned the streets of terrorists for a mile around the embassy, but again the liberal mind, which as we have seen has infected our military’s top brass, said no. It wouldn’t look right for big bad old America to come in with guns blazing to save our people. Better to ask the dysfunctional Lybian government to send a policeman with an apology or something.

In the battle we are facing to save our country we must understand the danger posed by the liberal mind and what lies behind it. Attempts to reason liberals out of their positions will not work as long as those positions are based on spiritual and psychological personal issues. The spiritual truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be separated from what we think are just political issues.

Election Actions

For my election picks and other election information click here.

For general election contributions click here.

To contribute to CBR’s Key States Initiative click here.  Contributions before Oct 31 will be matched if you mark them “KSI.”

Forty Years

September 15th, 2012

I am finding myself having some difficulty getting into this election.  I do think electing Romney and defeating Obama and the Democrats is important, and I am putting my money where my mouth is.  You can do the same.  But the fact that at nearly 50% of my fellow citizens are sold on the Democrat’s national suicide agenda is pretty depressing. Even if we eke out a 51% win, will it be enough to change our trajectory?  Add to that the contrast between the Democrats’ full throated screaming support for industrial scale child killing and the destruction of the institution of marriage, and the Republicans’ tepid “let’s talk about the economy instead” defense of life and marriage, and I’m left feeling a little like Jeremiah.

And speaking of the economy, I also can’t help thinking we are headed for an economic catastrophe beyond our imagining.  Putting the two together makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that we are already consigned to judgment.

First, the looming economic disaster:  Last Friday rating agency Eagan-Jones downgraded US Treasury bonds from AA to AA-, two notches down from our historic AAA.  Moody’s and S&P put Treasuries on credit watch.  Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said he would print money until the cows come home.  The European Central Bank said it would start Euro printing to cover government debt too.  Family income and the percentage of men in the workforce are dropping more during our so-called recovery than they did during the recession.  So the world and national economies are, let us say, weak.

Now consider the “fiscal cliff.”  Unable to reach a deal last year for raising the debt ceiling, Congress passed a law creating large automatic cuts in both military and social spending to take effect in January 2013.  Congress and the administration are also unable to reach an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts, so they will expire in January.  That this simultaneous tax increase and spending cut in January will plunge the economy into deep recession is widely agreed.  No one seems likely to blink, and the election in November will not change this.  Question:  What will Bernanke do in response to a sharp recession?  Answer:  It’s not like he has two tricks.  He will print even more money.

Now consider this hammer blow, this economic shock hitting the fragile world economy I have described.  What could possibly go wrong?  The thing I worry about is the world “going off the dollar” as the basis of international trade because of fears that it will be inflated away.  What will that do?  Two things:  First, our price for all imports (think oil) will go up since we have to convert our Bernie Bucks to something else first.  Second, everyone else will have to decide what to use instead of dollars.  Euros aren’t much better, so I see all international transactions being slowed as traders try to figure out what to use for money.  The volume of international trade would fall sharply, impacting all of the already hurting domestic economies.  A world-wide depression of 1930s magnitude seems entirely plausible.

Such large depressions are the breeding ground for political upheaval and war.  The point is this could happen suddenly and it could start in January no matter who wins in November.

That gets me to the subject of “forty years.”  The number forty is associated with testing or judgment, most notably the forty years of Israel wandering in the wilderness and Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness fasting and being tempted.  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD.  Jesus predicted judgment on Jerusalem for “not knowing the day of their visitation.”  He said no stone of the Temple would be left on another, and that all of these things would come on this generation.  A biblical generation is usually taken to be forty years.  Forty years following the crucifixion, in 70 AD, Jerusalem fell to Titus of Rome in a terrible siege.  The Temple was burned, and Roman soldiers pried all the stones apart to get at the melted gold. 

On January 22, 2013 it will be forty years since the U.S. Supreme Court “legalized” abortion in its infamous Roe vs. Wade decision.  While there have been praiseworthy attempts to reverse this atrocity by a small number of people, most Americans of all ranks have accepted it and ignored the warnings of our own Jeremiahs.  We will not be able to ignore our own equivalent of Titus and the Roman army.

What is to be done?

I am just sharing my thoughts here, and not claiming it as a prophecy.  But it has struck me as a burden to share this with you.  I would also like to share my thoughts on what the God-fearing can do:

  1. Pray.  Pray on your own, with your family, and with your Church.  Cry out to God for His hand of mercy.
  2. Vote and give money to support righteousness in this election.
  3. There is a special opportunity to support what I consider to be the most effective pro-life organization and have your contribution matched.  I am on their board and can vouch for both their integrity and effectiveness.
  4. Prepare.  Pay down debt, save money, secure your job by being the best employee you can be.  Repair and maintain relationships in your life because we will need each other.  Beyond that, personally, I’m looking at food storage options.

Three Months to Go

July 28th, 2012

We now have about three months before the November 6th elections.  These will obviously be highly consequential elections for the future of our country.  On November 7th you and I will not be able to go back and “do more” to affect the outcome.  That means we all have to put our money where our mouths are right now and as often as we can between now and late October.  I have created a page on the ActRight website that will allow you to make credit card contributions to a number of candidates and ballot issues while only having to enter your information one time.  You can pick and choose who to give to and how much.  Please take advantage of this and pass the link on to your friends.

I have put the four Protection of Marriage initiatives on top for a reason.  Same Sex Marriage cases are headed to the Supreme Court right now.  Big wins for these popular initiatives this November will make the Court think twice about “discovering” a right to same sex marriage in the Constitution.  Ambiguous results will encourage them to do what I think they are inclined to do, which is impose same sex marriage on the whole country by fiat.

A Republican victory in the Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races is critical to halting and possibly reversing the downward spiral of our nation.  We are rapidly approaching moral and economic collapse, dramatic military decline, and the creation of a much more dangerous world.  Even if you are lukewarm about Romney and other Republicans they are infinitely better than the alternative.  As former Secretary of defense Rumsfeld might say, you go to war with the Republican Party you have, not the Republican Party you would like to have.

The root cause of our decline is not the weakness of the Republican Party.  It is the weakness of the Church and her teaching.  The Church and her pastors must rediscover the full gospel of the comprehensive Lordship of Jesus, laying aside compromise and the fear of man.  Only then will we see a reversal of this baneful decline.


 

The Aurora Shootings and the 2nd Amendment

July 20th, 2012

Bodies were still warm following the horrific mass killings in an Aurora Colorado theatre on July 20th when pundits right and left started opining on the Second Amendment and gun control.  It has become a predictable event for the same opinions and arguments to be put forth almost instantly whenever one of these spectacular criminal acts occurs.  The left begins calling for more gun control while the right points out the need for citizens to be armed to protect themselves from such criminals.  The political forces more or less balance and nothing much comes of it.

This might be an occasion to review the words of the Second Amendment and think about them a little deeper than we usually do.  The Second Amendment says,

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right wing tends to focus on the second phrase about the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed.  The left wing counters by noting that the first phrase puts this right in the context of a “well regulated militia,” which they equate with the National Guard.  The right wing comes back by pointing out that the law establishing the National Guard specifically says it is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

The left’s reading in effect changes the amendment to say that “the right of the government to be armed shall not be infringed by the government.”  The right’s reading practically says “the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall be unregulated.” 

Now I am a Millennial Life Member of the NRA and generally define the right end of any political spectrum, but I must say that neither of these readings seems satisfactory and neither rings completely true to the text.  The left’s view tends toward tyranny while the right’s view tends toward anarchy.

Let’s focus on the idea behind the first phrase, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  The idea seems to be that a state needs an ultimate armed power to secure itself against internal and external threats, and that a free state must rely on a citizen militia rather than a standing army or large militarized police force for this power.  If the state must rely on its citizens for the power it can hardly use the power to oppress the citizens.

None of our fifty states has a “well regulated militia” in this sense.  All rely on large militarized police forces and semi-professional National Guard for their security.  If a well regulated militia is in fact necessary for the security of a free state, then none of our fifty states are free as the Founders understood the term.  I think this fact is a symptom of our underlying departure from the kind of “free people” the founders had in mind.

NRA types think individuals having guns is a necessary and sufficient condition for maintaining freedom.  As Christians we understand that the true necessary condition for legal, economic and political freedom is spiritual freedom in Christ.  Spiritual freedom in Christ comes from dying to our petty self-lives and living in His purpose and calling for our lives.  Today we are very much into a do-it-yourself kind of pick and choose Christianity.  We select a Church to “go to” the same way we may pick a restaurant.  This consumer style “Christianity Lite” becomes an aspect of our self-lives like our house or our car.  It is culturally weak as evidenced by our nation’s drift away from Christian norms.  It produces a spiritual atmosphere in our communities where crazy things like today’s shooting happen with greater frequency.

As a result we are not free on the inside, and as evidenced by the fact that the militia is now a dead idea, not what the Founders would call free on the outside either.  Before we look to gun control or packing heat as the path to peace and safety we should look to re-centering our lives on Christ.

Legal Positivism on Steroids

July 4th, 2012

Comes now a proposed law by the energizer bunny of mischief, California

Mark Leno

Mark Leno

 State Senator Mark Leno, speeding its way through the legislature; a proposal that would allow judges to assign more than two people of any gender as the legal parents of any given child.

The linked article quotes one Ellen Pontac, a Davis gay-rights activist, who said she and her wife, Shelly Bailes, each had two children when they began their relationship 38 years ago. She understands how someone can function as a child’s parent but accrue no legal rights. Government should accommodate changing times, according to her. “I just think that people should be able to create their own lives,” she said.

This desire of rebellious man to redefine God’s created order in their own terms, to act as the de-facto “god” of their own little universes is not new.  It has been going on a long time under a theory known as “Legal Positivism.”  It’s just that now the folly of legal positivism is finally taking us into Bizarro World.

Legal Positivism is the theory that there is no cosmic right and wrong, no Natural Law to be discovered, no Law of God for us to obey.  There is only whatever law man invents through his political processes.  And I do mean “whatever.”  Each of us has our own little private exceptions we want to take to God’s Law.  The problem is, so does everyone else.  This way lays anarchy and its twin sister, tyranny.  If there is no limit on what individuals can do then there is no limit on what government can do to individuals either.

The reason legal positivism has become the underlying theory of our legal system is the abandonment of God’s Law by the Church.  The liberal Church views the New Testament as having done away with the moral requirement of the Old Testament Law in favor of softer values like tolerance and equality.  The conservative Church is similarly uncomfortable with any favorable mention of God’s Moral Law because they identify it with “legalism,” the doctrine of salvation through law instead of grace.  But in fact the moral Law of God and the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ are not in conflict.  Rather they are in complete harmony if properly understood.    As Romans 8:4 puts it, “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Supremes Sign off on Obama’s “BFD”

June 28th, 2012

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) a.k.a. “ObamaCare” has elicited a variety of responses.  Rick Santorum calls it “the worst of all outcomes.”  He points out that the same self-aggrandizing principle with which President Obama ignores the Court’s Arizona ruling is one he will use to stretch the law even further by regulation and Executive Order.  The law Joe Biden famously called a “BFD” is indeed a major move of America in the socialist direction.

GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli, Dick Morris, Michael Reagan and others point out that this will energize Republicans to fight even harder for a victory in November.  We shouldn’t have to rely on the Court to save us from ourselves.  The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but neither can it save a suicidal people from themselves.

On the business front, small businesses will face additional costs and unknown impacts as regulators in HHS fill in the blanks in the law.  The economy, already struggling, should experience this as another hit and further weaken between now and November.  This of course should help Romney.

The issueof the HHS mandate that requires Church related institutions to provide abortion drugs, sterilization, and birth control benefits now remains a big campaign issue.  Had the court struck down the law it might have become moot.

Here is a commentary by Hugh Hewitt

John Eastman of Chapman University was highly critical of Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning in justifying the AHCA as a “tax.”  He wrote:

Also critical to this line of reasoning is that the tax is not a direct tax.  Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional because not apportioned according to population, as the Constitution requires for direct taxes.  Chief Justice Robert’s argument on that critical point is conclusory–only about a page or so–and confused.  If it is not a direct tax, it must be an excise or an income tax, and it quite obviously is neither.  But Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t explain what it is; he just asserts that it is not a direct tax.”

I am left with this thought, which also applies to a lot of arguments about whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be President and a host of other questions.  If the Constitution is dead in the hearts and minds of the American people then it doesn’t matter what it says.  People will just ignore its provisions whenever they have enough office holders in the right positions in government to do so.  Clearly abortion and sodomy are not rights to be found in the written document, but that did not prevent the court from willfully “finding” them hidden between the lines.  Neither same sex marriage or any marriage for that matter is mentioned in the written document.  But we all know that will have nothing to do with the Court’s ruling on that subject.

The Constitution is dead in the hearts and minds of most Americans because so few preachers understand the relationship between God and human government, and how thinking about that relationship led to the Constitution in the first place.  I cover this history and thinking in some detail in my book.  For now, the possibility of turning America around from its path of destruction and of making the first step in that direction this November is in the hands of those few Americans who know their God and their own history.

Some Remarkable Developments

May 9th, 2012

The past 24 hours have seen some remarkable developments.

First Senator Lugar, a “moderate” Republican, lost to a Tea Party hard liner by something like 20 points.

Second, North Carolina passed a state constitutional amendment outlawing both gay marriage and civil unions by 61 to 39%.

Third, the Colorado legislature adjourned without passing a civil union bill after a raucous session involving extreme filibustering by the Republicans.

Fourth, President Obama finally came out and endorsed gay marriage.

Wasn’t this election supposed to be all about the economy?  Weren’t social issues supposed to be off the table?  Has the November election been transformed into a plebiscite on gay marriage?  What’s happening?

Here are some thoughts:

Civil Unions are off the Table

The fact that both Colorado and North Carolina rejected civil unions means that civil unions as a possible compromise everyone could live with are off the table.  Now it’s gay marriage or nothing.  Civil unions were always just a stepping stone anyway.  In fact the courts which have mandated gay marriage have cited the existence of civil union laws as proof that withholding the honorable name “marriage” had no basis other than impermissible animus.  Some compromise. Additionally, the recent dust up over the HHS mandate that Church related entities would have to pay for abortion pills has made people realize that the real goal of the abortion and gay rights movements is to silence the Church and force her into the smallest space possible.  In fact he whole gay rights/gay marriage agenda can be interpreted as just a ploy to attack the Church.

The Republican Base is Energized

The results in Indiana, Colorado, and North Carolina, are all manifestations of an energized Republican base.  Meanwhile, the Democratic base is in the doldrums.  Even the President’s support of gay marriage is being criticized for coming the day after the North Carolina vote.

The Black Church is in a Tough Spot

Even with black unemployment going up much worse than for the country as a whole, support for Obama has been unwavering.  But blacks are more anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage than whites by a good measure.  They already have to deal with the tension between their Christian faith and Democratic positions on these social issues.  They usually point to Democratic social spending as Christ-like concern for the poor and oppressed as justification.  But gay marriage is different.  Signing off on gay marriage may be too much for many members of the black clergy.  They especially chafe at this being sold as “just like civil rights for blacks.”  Obama’s nominal opposition to gay marriage had given them a fig leaf, but now that’s gone.  Some may even be realizing that their loyalty has been taken for granted by the Democratic Party which is only interested in catering to rich white homosexuals. Blacks will not vote Republican, but they may just sit this one out.

Obama’s Shrinking Base

Obama apparently decided to write off the independent voters and appeal to the Democratic base a while ago with his class warfare strategy.  Now he has been forced to choose between blacks and gays.  He seems to have calculated that gay money is variable but that the black vote is solid.  Time will tell.  But it sure looks like Obama is playing harder and harder to a smaller and smaller base.  Meanwhile it does not look like the economy is going to help him at all.

Barak Obama ran as a center-left uniter but has governed as a left-left divider.  In our system that is a formula for a backlash.  It’s beginning to look like Rush Limbaugh’s prediction of a Republican landslide in November may come to pass.

Smoking, Drinking, and Epistemological Self-Consciousness

March 6th, 2012

Two articles in today’s news got my attention.  First, the Navy and Marines, fresh from celebrating the introduction of open homosexual relationships in their barracks and on their ships moves to crack down on the true moral failings of our times, namely smoking, drinking and thinking.  You will notice that these initiatives tend to go together.  Whenever a jurisdiction, whether San Francisco, Laguna Beach, or the Navy,   decides to take sexual behavior that was previously considered immoral and elevate it to the status of super-sacred right, they also suddenly become hyper puritanical about minor vices like smoking, drinking and putting salt on your food.  This goes along with the whole “diversity” push which requires diversity on the outside (race, gender) but absolute uniformity and conformity on the inside (thoughts, beliefs, expression of opinion).

At first this may seem paradoxical.  If this is all about increasing freedom for everyone, why liberalize in one area while cracking down on others?  This is the libertarian myth that increasing freedom beyond the limits of God’s Law for one group increases freedom for all.  Sort of a rising tide lifts all boats theory.  But in practice we see that the opposite is true.  Increasing freedom for the sexually libertine diminishes freedom for the well behaved who now are required by law to pretend that they also approve of the new “right.”  To keep these dissenters in line, a sort of tyrannical thought control accompanied by the speech police must be instituted.  Thus individual lawlessness (anarchy) always brings with it collective lawlessness (tyranny).  To put it another way, if you thought showing tolerance to sexual deviancy would be reciprocated by a similar tolerance of your own choices, think again.

The second was Howard Fineman’s article in the Huffington Post in which he identifies the Republican Party as the nation’s first religious party.   He notes, I think correctly, the increasing influence of Christians and other socially conservative groups in the Republican Primaries.  Of course, he completely ignores the similar dominance of the militant anti-Christian secularists in Democratic Party, whose assault on the passive, formerly apolitical pew sitters is the cause of their increased activism in the Republican Party.

Nonetheless, his observation butresses my own over the past few decades.  In the past, say pre-1960 and going back to the founding, both major parties and their members perceived themselves to be Christian, (and for that matter, mostly Protestant.)  Even while killing each other in the bloody Civil War, both sides strongly held to this.  But starting in the 60’s and up to the present time the Parties have been slowly sorting themselves into Christian and Humanist camps with increasing consistency and clarity. The idea that the two major parties would become openly Christian and anti-Christian rather than say, Christian-capitalist and Christian-socialist is pretty startling and does not bode well for a peaceful domestic future.  When the country is split 50/50 into parties that do not speak the same language, perceive the same reality, and most importantly, love the same things, then there is no longer really a “country.”

All of this calls to mind an obscure doctrine taught by a theologian named Rousas John Rushdoony.  (Rushdoony is considered a father of a school of thought called Christian Reconstruction, Theonomism, and/or Dominionism which has never claimed more than a few followers in the Church.  But maybe his time has come.)  One of his teachings was that of “epistemological self-consciousness.”  Rushdoony taught that as history moved toward its climax, the godly would become more consistently godly and the ungodly more consistently ungodly.  Sort of like the parable of the wheat and the tares.  The mixture of believers and unbelievers in visible entities like churches and parties would sort themselves out into more consistent visible entities.  So whereas in the 1930’s for example you might not be able to label either the Democratic or Republican Parties as “Christian” or “non-Christian,” in the future you would have to because it would be too glaring.  We are not there yet, but it looks like it’s heading in that direction.