We're not just Right, We're Really Right
Religion, Politics, & Culture: Defined and Explained
§ Website Viewing
Places to visit.
Monday, January 28, 2013
David Chilton on Our Political Failure
I have been reading through David Chilton’s commentary on the book of Revelations, Days of Vengeance. (It is available for download at this address http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm ) This book was written during Reagan’s second term after the collapse of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and the backtracking of C. Everet Koop.
In light of the current state of the Republican Party and continuing decay of social issues in our country, the following really caught my eye. It is from pages 511-512.
It must be stressed, however, that the road to Christian dominion does not lie primarily through political action. While the political sphere, like every other aspect of life, is a valid and necessary area for Christian activity and eventual dominance, we must shun the perennial temptation to grasp for political power. Dominion in civil government cannot be obtained before we have attained maturity in wisdom-the result of generations of Christian self-government. As we learn to apply God’s Word to practical situations in our personal lives, our homes, our schools, and our businesses; as Christian churches exercise Biblical judgment over their own officers and members, respecting and enforcing the discipline of other churches; then Christians will be able to be trusted with greater responsibilities. Those who are faithful in a few things will be put in charge of many things (Matt. 25:21, 23), but “from everyone who has been given much shall much be required” (Luke 12:48; cf. Luke 16:10-12; 19:17). One of the distinguishing marks of heretical movements throughout Church history has been the attempt to grab the robe of political power before it has been bestowed.
This whole issue has been thoughtfully explored in an excellent essay by James Jordan, and the best service I can provide the interested reader at this point is simply to refer him to it. 25 Jordan concludes his study with these words: “When we are ready, God will give the robe to us. That He has not done so proves that we are not ready. Asserting our readiness will not fool Him. Let us pray that He does not crush us by giving us such authority before we are ready for it. Let us plan for our great-grandchildren to be ready for it. Let us go about our business, acquiring wisdom in family, church, state, and business, and avoiding confrontations with the powers that be…. For as sure as Christ is risen from the grave and is ascended to regal glory on high, so sure it is that His saints will inherit the kingdom and rule in His name, when the time is right.”26
25. James B. Jordan, “Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis,” in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian Resistance, Christianity and Civilization No.3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983), pp. 38-80.
26. Ibid., p. 74. In this connection, Jordan’s remarks on the so-called “patriotic” tax-resistance movement are also worth repeating: “We must keep in mind that the pagan is primarily interested in power. This means that the maintenance of force (the draft) and the seizure of money (excessive taxation) are of absolute primary interest to him. If we think these are the most important things, then we will make them the point of resistance (becoming ‘tax patriots’ or some such thing). To think this way is to think like pagans. For the Christian, the primary things are righteousness (priestly guarding) and diligent work (kingly dominion). Generally speaking, the pagans don’t care how righteous we are, or how hard we work, so long as they get their tax money. This is why the Bible everywhere teaches to go along with oppressive taxation, and nowhere hints at the propriety of tax resistance” (p. 79).
Jordan’s essay is also available at the URL above. Look for Tactics of Christian Resistance by Gary North.
Off the Rails at the CRA Board Meeting
Yesterday I attended a Board meeting of the California Republican Assembly. I’ve attended a lot of meeting for various organizations and this one was noteworthy for what was done incorrectly.
The highlights or takeaways or whatever metaphor fits the best were related to endorsements for candidates running for positions on the Board of the California Republican Party—the election for these positions will be during their spring convention.
I walked in the door just as Jim Brulte was being introduced. Brulte is the only announced candidate that has stepped forward to run for chairman of the California GOP. Brulte spoke for about five minutes and then fielded a few questions. Brulte did take two questions from me.
My first question was an attempt to get Brulte to promise that in the future, the CRP should not expend their limited funds in general election races where both candidates were Republicans. Please spend money fighting against Democrats. He did seems to agree that would be a better use of our resources.
My second question was concerning CRP candidate endorsements. I was trying to get Brulte to have the CRP adopt a primary system that did not vest all power in Central Committees and the State Board but allowed input from rank and file Republicans. Brulte had no interest in dealing with this issue. The current system was supposed to be only for the 2012 election cycle but no permanent solution has been proposed yet. I think it likely that the current system is here to stay. It is a top down model and works well in an authoritarian/elitist system. As long as this system is in place then the Republicans have no claim to being a “grassroots” Party.
Immediately following his remarks, the chair entertained a motion to endorse Brulte. She called for yea votes, then said “all opposed step outside” and the asked for any abstentions. I wanted to vote “no” based on the brush-off to my second question but I was not allowed to do so. Shortly after this vote, the Secretary called the role for purposes or establishing a quorum.
When a Chairman cannot follow Robert’s Rules of Order I loose respect for them. The rest of the body didn’t want the Chair to look dumber by pointing out that their endorsement vote was illegal and therefore void under both CRA’s Bylaws and Robert’s Rules.
• Quorum was not established prior to conducting business
• No one was allowed to speak in opposition to the nomination which was the case in all other endorsement votes held yesterday
As is often the practice of the Parliamentarian, he was silent on this snafu.
The Agenda for the meeting was poorly done. The main purpose of the Board Meeting was supposed to be to discuss endorsing candidates for the CRP Board and this was not even on the Agenda! The layout was not done as multi-level outline but resembled a grocery list.
My other gripe is much more delicate to discuss. A candidate for another office appeared at the Board Meeting seeking endorsement for his run for a CRP office. Except for Brulte, all other candidates were asked to leave the room. Once this other candidate left the room, the meeting took a trip into the Twilight Zone or some other infrequently charted waters.
An individual got up in front of the group and then stated that he had been sober for ten years and had not been arrested in 17 years but he said that the candidate that we had just heard could make no such claim. Wow!
Then a second person got up and began to talk about the candidate. His attempt to speak was curtailed by the chair. He was frustrated that he was unable to unload on the character of this individual and his conduct during the most recent election cycle. The person complaining was promised that he would be able to bring this up under new business. When he again tried under new business he was shut down by the chair. Clearly this candidate has hit a raw nerve in the minds of several that claimed to know him.
The endorsement was tabled in the remote hope that someone more palatable would be found at a future date.
This incident was one of those where the political response diverged from the biblical one.
The character assassination card was played against this person. He had no opportunity to respond to the accusations since he was not allowed in the room. No evidence was presented that the accusations were true and his reputation was hurt. Lastly the person could have been blocked from getting the endorsement without the tactics that were utilized.
I sensed that there was likely a basis in fact for the accusations but it was equally clear that the endorsement could be blocked without resorting to their use. Disclosure in this way was a punitive act.
The Christian response would be to pray for the person and if he claimed to be a believer then go to him in order that he might repent. Putting someone out of the church is a different issue from blocking a political endorsement. I think some well-meaning folks went too far.
I think my conclusion that we are not yet ready to lead is still true. We need a new paradigm before those in the church are ready to lead in the political world. We need to have a political worldview that is an extension of our faith not a contradiction of it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
40 Years of Roe
When I was younger, I used to stand in front of an area abortion clinic with a homemade sign that read, “Abortion: One dead, One Wounded.” Some Roman Catholic folks that were with me made a suggestion for my sign; this resulted in some additional words being added. My sign then read, “Abortion: One dead, One Wounded and One Rich.”
I was involved with the pro-life movement for many years. During that period in my life I learned much about myself, my faith and the wickedness the men justify in their own hearts.
I had learned the issue as one where our argument was something like this: if we could just convince folks that abortion took a life then they would stop because we all agree that taking a life; especially an innocent one, was wrong. What I found was that the “other guys” never agreed with this premise. For them, the arguments that once started with babies in the womb being parasites and unviable tissue masses were replaced with more selfish ones about “choice.” Their definition of choice was like the proverbial “Russian Election.” Only one candidate was on the ballot and we all were expected to freely cast a vote for that person. The only choice on the ballot was death. In their world, the unborn child never had hope that life might occasionally win.
The result has been that since the passage of Roe v Wade in 1973, one in three pregnancies in the United States has ended in abortion. Legalized abortion in other countries has killed even more children. Europe is collapsing demographically and nothing can stop it. Mohammed is the top baby name in England. France is over 25 percent Muslim and growing rapidly. Ideas have consequences. Abortion is literally remaking the racial and ethnic character of the world. China has millions of men that will never marry because there are too few women in their country due to the one child per family law and a cultural preference for boys. The failed experiments in Social Darwinism continue in those countries that elevated man as the measure of all things.
The world stands at the brink of destruction on a scale never before seen in human history. Last century we endured two world wars and many decades of a “cold war”. Worse events could be in our future. The belief that some men are superior to others has caused the death of millions. Abortion, genocide, euthanasia and other forms of murder seem to be part of this fallen culture of men.
Today, as we reflect on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, our country is marching headlong into forced euthanasia for elderly. It is clear from the paradigm that Obama has instituted in his healthcare reform that his friends will experience a different outcome than those that disagree with him. I thought we just finished a protracted battle with the Soviets where the Party faithful got the goodies and the rest were enslaved and now we are voluntarily adopting much of the same system once dubbed “the Evil Empire”?
In the words of the Litany, “Good Lord, deliver us.”
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Disarming Citizens is Tyranny
This month’s lesson in government intrusion seems to be aimed at infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
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.
As you can see, the Second Amendment never mentions hunting or sport shooting. The right to bear arms is clearly for military purposes. It is to protect our State and nation from threats. This was a purposeful Amendment to prevent a specific violation of rights that the British had committed upon the Colonies prior to the Revolution.
Furthermore, the Army of the United States was envisioned by the Founders as a defensive force. The Founders wanted to avoid the political entrapments and intrigue so common in the European States of the period. The modern American Military with an offensive force and the capability to “project power anywhere in the world” is the opposite of what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
The history of the Amendment was to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against tyranny and foreign aggressors. Or as the standard oath of office phrases it’ “I , _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …”
• Protection from Foreign enemies is a pledge to protect our territory from attack.
• Protection from Domestic enemies is a pledge to defend citizens from the tyranny of the government; State or Federal.
Our dilemma is what to do when office holders have broken their oath and become the tyrants? This scenario was not envisioned by the Framers—at least not as part of their draft of the Constitution.
This leaves us with the right of civil disobedience and the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. These are helpful but the question remains; at what point do we stop submitting to the authority of our government? When does our road to serfdom necessitate a “line in the sand” that requires a response?
The question is further complicated by the fact that the politicians are no more corrupt that our fellow citizens. Do you actually believe that if someone “did a Tom Clancy” that the new leaders would be better than our current crop? I think it might actually result in a worse government and less freedom.
The Second Amendment is the only tool we have to insure that the rights that we have from God are not denied by the State. As long as politicians can’t disarm the population then we have hope that they will acknowledge limits to their power.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Christmas Returns at Best Buy and Kohl’s
Other than the return line at Fry’s Electronics, I don’t have too many times that I have to return items to retail stores. In the wake of Christmas this year I did have to exchange two items; one at Best Buy and the other from Kohl’s.
In an irrational fit of nostalgia, I purchased a copy of Doom 3. I really wanted it to get the bonus copy of Doom 2 that was included. I have the original CD of Doom 2 from about 1995 but it will not run on my 64 bit copy of Windows 8. The code on this new CD was modified to run on a 64 bit OS. The down side was I finally had to get a Steam account. I have been trying to avoid Steam for many years but they finally got me on this purchase.
I took the game out of my stocking on Christmas day and after the children had divided their loot and the turkey was carved, I sat down to install the game. I created my Steam account and then was prompted for the product key for the game. Much to my dismay, there was no product key in the box. The box was tampered with just enough that some enterprising kid had pried the paper with the key out of the box. (In case you are not familiar with Steam, you don’t need physical media to own the game, only a product key. Once you enter the key, Steam will let you download the game on your PC. )
The next day after work, I attempted to exchange the game for a new one. I expected Best Buy to give me the third degree about the license missing. Whether it was my age or just company policy, they let me swap it for a new one. They even verified that there was in fact a license in the new box. I left a happy customer.
In Kohl’s I never saw an employee except at a cash register. I was left on my own to see if I could locate an appropriate item to exchange. In my case a pair of slippers that I was given were one size too small. I made two passes thru the shoe area to find any slippers. As it turned out, there was no area for slippers. It appears to be a holiday only item. On my second pass I found two opened boxes with slippers in them sitting on a display island in the store. The one that was the style that I prefer and the correct size still had fragments of wrapping paper on the box as a result of someone else returning them.
I went to my car to retrieve the small slippers which were purchased at a different Kohl’s store and the receipt. I then took both the item I was returning and the replacement box to the counter. They scanned both and stapled a receipt to my sales slip and I was free to go. No ID check or signature needed; even when item was purchased at a different store!
The exchange process in both stores was quick and the lines were short. Thanks for the good customer service.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Comments on the Connecticut School Shooting
I am amazed but not surprised at the outcry over the school shooting at Newtown Connecticut. While the attack was terrible, the political posturing and exploitation of this tragedy by liberals in our country is breathtaking. The shooter leaves his rifle in the car, using two pistols to kill his victims and all the media and politicians can do is try to convince us that the gun that was not used to commit the crime should be outlawed.
I wish people would spend their efforts comforting the families that lost loved ones instead of exploiting this shooting to empower themselves politically. I think if you look at it closer you will find that the ones offering comfort and those exploiting these deaths are actually different groups. Those offering comfort do so in private while those exploiting it do so as they pander to the cameras.
A constant in the liberal playbook is that no criminal is responsible for his deeds; it is society’s fault because we did not prevent the circumstances that lead to the crime. Why so many gullible people think this belief is reasonable is yet another indictment of government schools in this country.
The NRA had it right when they stated that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is when a good guy has a gun. The whole line of discussion about banning firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it is allowing citizens to be armed to protect themselves; first from the tyranny of government and secondly from threats to persons and property.
The hypocrisy of many exploiting this event for political purposes is shameful. Have none of the folks in our country ever heard of the Beslan school siege? Terrorists took almost 1,200 people hostage in a small village school on the first day of classes. During the three day hostage stand-off 380 people died. If you don’t want to dig too deep on Google to read about it then watch the documentary Beslan: Three Days in September narrated by actress Julia Roberts (yeah Pretty Woman herself).
In a few days many Christian Churches will honor the Feast of Holy Innocents. This is a day when we remember Herod the Great’s failed attempt on the life of Jesus when he executed all male children under two years of age that lived in the vicinity of Bethlehem.
Mass murder and evil deeds are nothing new. However, what is new is our knee-jerk reaction to punish the law-abiding and criminalize their lawful behavior because bad guys are bad. Liberty is a dual-edged sword; it can lead to greater good or greater evil. The alternative to liberty is slavery not security. The shooting in Connecticut should not be an excuse to limit the liberty of law abiding folks.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Merry Christmas 2012
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1: 10 -14
Friday, December 21, 2012
Since today is the end of the world, here are some movies titles to consider watching as we enjoy our last few hours on the planet.
Armageddon – Bruce Willis
Out of Time – Denzel Washington
Resident Evil – Apocalypse – Milla Jovovich
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Martin Freeman
In the Blink of an Eye – Eric Roberts
The Mark – Eric Roberts
Deep Impact – Robert Duvall
Night of the Comet – Catherine Mary Stewart
Knowing – Mel Gibson
Spaced Invaders – Douglas Barr
End of Days – Arnold Schwarzenegger
(Please note: had the Mayans used legal sized clay tablets for calendars instead of the cheaper and more plentiful letter sized ones then we could have enjoyed a few hundred more years before our apparent extinction because there will be no tomorrow.)
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thoughts on Barbara Alby’s Legacy
Barbara Alby died earlier this month. Most people do not know who she was but her imprint was large upon California politics. She was an activist for pro-life and family values, a radio talk show host before Rush Limbaugh was a household name, and a member of the California Assembly. Her biggest claim to fame was authoring legislation known as “Megan’s Law”.
However, it can be argued that she and her cohorts that took over the California Republican Assembly and later the California Republican Party in the early 1990s are largely responsible for the demise of the State Republican Party and the fact that Democrats won a 2/3 majority in the last election before her death.
I was with her in those early days of the 1990s and was an eye witness to much that in retrospect I think was done improperly. Before offering my analysis I wish to say that I have been involved to varying degrees in “grassroots politics” for several decades. I have a degree in Government from California State University in Sacramento. I worked in and around the Capitol during my college years. Willie Brown was speaker when I had my first experience under “The Dome” working for then Senator John Doolittle. I also worked for the Sacramento Union when Joseph Farah was trying to make it into a conservative alternative to the Sacramento Bee. In short, I was at ground zero when Barbara and her army of evangelical Christians were taking over. I was one of them and viewed myself as a loyal soldier to the cause.
Barbara—like most Christians—viewed the world in very black and white terms. Much of Christianity views the world in such categories and usually rightly so. We are saved, those outside the church are “the Lost”. We believe in Heaven and Hell; Good and Evil; right and wrong. However, when you bring such a view into the political arena this worldview can become a pretext for “scorched earth tactics”. Unlike the Christian belief of loving the Hell out of someone, in the political world vilification is easier than persuasion and gets faster results.
I think this is what happened with Barbara and her followers. In CRA and later in the CRP, we found it easier the run people out than we did to persuade them that our views and values were better because they rested on the Truth of Christianity and better reflected Western values. It was easier to play Power politics in the same way we perceived that our opponents did.
The results over time were catastrophic. The California Republican Assembly went from a statewide membership of tens of thousands to less than 2,400 today. The CRA lost most of its membership; many soured on politics and went home. Some fought the Conservative/Christian CRA and lost; some that remained active in the political world formed the California Congress of Republicans in the 1990s while in a more recent battle, Karen England and her gang tried to form the Conservative Republicans of California. Both have smaller memberships than CRA and all are struggling to maintain their existence.
Most people that Barbara brought into the political world behaved in similar fashion to her example and experienced similar results. Besides vanquishing her enemies, she also vanquished the “farm team”. Democrats groom their underlings for succession while Republicans engage them in mortal combat. As a result, when Barbara and her team jumped to the California Republican Party, no one left in CRA was able to maintain the momentum and energy Barbara brought to the organization.
CRA has been hemorrhaging members and influence ever since. Her once formidable Sacramento-Sierra Republican Assembly chapter went from a peak of 700 members under her leadership to less than 20 in ten years. Currently they are doing well if they maintain 25 members. Alby quit the CRA many years ago but many assumed she was with still part of the organization.
In like manner, the California Republican Party was captured by Barbara Alby and company. Alby controlled not only the CRA but many county central committees and then took control of the CRP. They owned the California GOP for a number of years.
The CRA’s chief Republican opponent during this period was liberal Republican Pete Wilson. Much of the disagreement with Wilson was on social policy. Wilson was not only pro-abortion but was an advocate for more government funding and constitutional protections for abortion rights. Wilson also would appoint Democrats over equally qualified Republicans to posts in State government. All of this just riled-up Conservatives in the Party. While all this was happening, Wilson very publicly called the conservatives in his party “Fucking Irrelevant.” Conservatives called Wilson, “Diane Feinstein in drag.”
A few years after capturing the California GOP, Alby began running for State Assembly. Once she was elected, her grip on the CRP was released as she went on to other things. A succession of chairmen took the reins of the GOP that pretended to be card carrying CRA members until they were elected and then they took off the sheep’s clothing and ran things as the RINOs that they were. In later years, Alby ran unsuccessfully for both Congress and the Board of Equalization.
The differences between the CRP factions still remain to this day; although the CRA has in fact become irrelevant as Wilson looked-for the irony is that Wilson is equally irrelevant. Wilson’s camp was making a good living off of the political process before Alby and company came along and upset the proverbial applecart. After a while, most evangelical conservatives left and the liberal Republicans re-took their place as GOP leaders.
My complaint with this whole process is not just with the tone and tactics employed by Evangelicals (including myself) but something harder to quantify. Namely, how does the fact that I am a Christian affect how I should treat others in politics or other “secular” areas?
What I am advocating is that we as Christians need a different paradigm to bring to the public square. When we copy what others are doing then we have ceded the moral high ground and lowered ourselves to engaging in the same political games everyone else utilizes. When Christians embrace the power religion of the State then they have compromised their biblical values and the authority of Scripture.
I will offer one recent example to illustrate my point, numerous similar ones would not be hard to find.
A few years ago, a group of conservatives in Sacramento County that were part of Barbara’s old CRA chapter, got together and decided to take over the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee (again). They even created a political action committee for the purpose called “Support the Platform” (STP). STP solicited CRA members for contributions. A friend and I gave generously to the cause. That year, many of the slate were elected; enough that the coalition that we made was able to take control of the Central Committee. Once in office, the woman that we elected as chair started going her own way. She refused any suggestions to offer one or two board positions to folks from “the other side”. Only her most trusted friends or folks that would do her bidding were given any responsibility. Before long she was tripling the SCRP dues—she had refused to pay any amount of dues when she was in the minority on the committee since she argued that forcing elected officials to pay dues was illegal—and after a time she decreed that only dues paying members would be allowed to vote. She and her faction adopted San Diego style bylaws which removed all power from the membership and vested it in the governing board and did a bunch of other things to enhance her power.
In just over two years, she turned an elected body into a member’s only club that did things her way or else. The Republicans of Sacramento County that actually voted for these folks were never notified or invited to any meetings. They were purposely not given any opportunity to interact with the representatives that they had elected. All actions of this body are conducted in secret. In fact new faces were not welcomed except by invitation and they were not allowed to be part of the group unless they were willing to pay $100 in annual dues. While this farce was happening, the STP PAC ran candidates against my friend and I even thought we had contributed a substantial amount of money for the PAC in previous cycle—about ¼ of their total expenditures. That was our reward for challenging this march to tyranny.
I could go on but I have chronicled their exploits in other parts of my blog. The point is that once elected, the chair not only ran things in an even more authoritarian way than any previous leader in living memory but she took more power than her predecessors with barely a murmur of dissent. Those in her camp that were willing to call her out were steamrolled, pushed aside and ignored. (If this reminds you of President Obama’s attitude toward the constraints of the Constitution then you are starting to see my point.)
Clearly Christians in the public square have yet to figure-out that their faith should cause them to act differently. It is too easy for them to adopt the tactics of “the world” and follow the example of pagans and humanists. R.J. Rushdoony was a frequent teacher at the Central Committee chair’s old church and would roll over in his grave if he knew about such behavior. She was taught better than that; however, maybe that is why she now attends a different church.
Sadly, I doubt anyone will learn from examining Barbara’s record. I think the short comings of her generation of evangelical Christians set the stage for situation in which we find ourselves now. It appears that the Tea Party movement is following the same failed trajectory that Barbara and other evangelicals have blazed in the past. Truly “there is nothing new under the sun”. Where Barbara walked was much fire and heat but Light was a much rarer commodity.
I had hoped to have lunch with Barbara one day and talk with her about my feelings; but that will never happen now and in the life to come it won’t matter. Someday I will see her again and by then both of us will know exactly what parts we were given during our time on earth.
One final note, I am still waiting for apologies from Barbara’s lieutenants Johnson, Stoos and especially Hardcastle but it’s been over twenty years since I have seen or spoken to any of them. I’m sure they just scraped me off the bottom of their shoes and went on to their next political objective. Gentlemen I proudly bear the scares you left but I have not forgotten the tactics deployed against me. I vowed not to be silent when I see them deployed against others.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Choose Life Plates Illegal in N.C.
Federal Judge rules North Carolina cannot issue car license plates that say, “Choose Life.”
His reason is that the other side is not represented.
My solution, offer plates that say “Choose Death” then the other side will be accurately represented.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Mark Steyn Summarizes 2012 Election
Reality doesn’t need to get a majority. Reality can get 2% of the vote, and it will still trump everything else. And America’s rendezvous with reality is coming, and that doesn’t matter how many attack ads you make about Big Bird or binders or anything else.—Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt radio program 11/08/2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Wild Election Prediction: Romney by 5:30 Pacific
Ok, I have been feeling this way for about three weeks but since nobody has put this in print—at least that I have seen—I want to be the first to blog that it will be clear that Romney has won before the polls close in California. I expect that the main stream media will be throwing in the towel by 5:30 pm on Election Day. This will be the earliest call since Jimmy Carter was spanked by Ronald Reagan. This will result in a few close races in California going our way. At stake may be the 2/3 majority being denied to California Democrats and the fate of Prop 30 & 32.
Billy Graham, Mormonism not a cult?
Rev. Billy Graham has reportedly agreed to stop calling Mormonism a cult following a recent meeting with Mitt Romney. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219364/Evangelistic-Association-Reverend-Billy-Graham-stops-calling-Mormonism-cult-meeting-Romney.html According to the report, Graham’s website has issued a statement that reads in part.
‘We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.’
I am disappointed that Rev Graham is willing to subjugate his theology to avoid appearing political. Since the beginning, Christianity has been viewed as political. Christians were persecuted in Roman because they believed Jesus was Lord and rejected the claim that Caesar was lord. Rome viewed the Christian doctrine as treason. Instead of standing for the Truth of the claims of Christianity, Graham has slipped another plank of the faith under the proverbial bushel basket.
This is not the first time Graham has been weak-kneed about the claims of Christianity. When backed into a corner on Jesus’ claim that, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14: 6) Graham allowed that perhaps followers of Islam and others might be able to avoid Jesus and get to heaven anyway. Graham has stated this rejection of Jesus as “the way” on several occasions. Such a denial of Jesus by Graham is heresy.
Standing for the truth of Christianity does not mean that we as believers cannot support Mitt Romney. Romney wants to be President not pastor or pope. The upcoming election is a choice between two men. One of these two will be President for the next four years. We have been given the opportunity to pick between a man that wholly rejects any biblical ethics and is openly hostile to God and a man that—while unregenerate—can acknowledge the value of many beliefs that we derive from the Bible. Stated another way, Obama repudiates western civilization and Romney embraces it.
We should use the candidacy of Romney to lift high the cross and call all men from error to the true gospel. We are defending the faith that Joseph Smith repudiated and attacked as “corrupt” and “an abomination” when he started the LDS church. Graham’s actions in scrubbing his website are wrong. His actions seem to imply that we need Romney to make a profession of faith or walk an aisle before he should get the evangelical vote. This is silliness. To the degree that Romney supports our values we should support him. Clearly he is at least willing to listen to us while Obama thinks of us as “bitter clingers.”
Monday, October 15, 2012
Aaron Park’s Opposition to Prop 32 and Charles Munger
“Money is the root of all evil” goes the old saying. When it comes to politics in California, the biggest player and advocate of evil on the Republican side of the aisle is Charles Munger. Munger has decided to spend much of his vast fortune in an attempt to remake the California Republican Party as the Democrat Light Party. Munger clearly hates Conservatives—especially social ones—and wants the state GOP to be a secular group that embraces the power of government. He is for California what George Soros has been for Democrats on the national stage. If you look at Munger’s spending, it is clear that his main enemy is Conservative Republicans. Given the choice of defeating Democrats or Conservatives in his own party, he will fund the moderate Republican over the Conservative every time. He frequently avoids opportunities to defeat Democrats in seats that could be won by Republicans.
Munger’s win/loss record has not been that great in Assembly and Senate races but he has done better at the ballot initiatives. He is largely responsible for the top two primary in California. He is also one of the backers behind Prop 32. Given the mischief that can be traced to Munger, Aaron Park is rightly suspicious of Prop 32. Park wrote recently on his blog, “Passing Prop 32 would effectively eliminate the free speech of labor unions and corporations – thereby enabling powerful individuals with deep pockets to buy elections with no counterweight.” http://www.rightondaily.com/tag/no-on-prop-32/
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Park. While I am no fan of Munger, I must say that the public employee unions in California are a greater threat to liberty than Munger. I will attempt to explain some of my reasons for holding this position.
In the book of Samuel, after David killed Goliath the people shouted “Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands”. As I see it, Munger has spent his millions and the public employee unions their hundreds of millions. Recently the Sacramento Bee ran an article that unions representing state employees collects 10.5 million dollars a month in dues. The largest public employee union is the California Teachers Association and they collect more. It is likely that public employee unions in California are collecting over $25 million per month in taxpayer funds. Supposedly only a fraction of this amount is spent on political activity. Advocacy to members and lobbying in Sacramento do not count as political activity in the union world. Much of this political advocacy is instead called member communications. When they tell members or legislators how to vote, in my world that is political activity.
Doing the math for union influence in California goes like this. Public employee unions in our state are collecting more than $25 million dollars a month in dues. Elections are on a two year cycle; so 24 months times $25 million per month is $600 million per election cycle. Is it any wonder that these unions own everything in the state?
If Prop 32 passes, Unions would be crippled but not shutdown. Unions claim that only one to two percent of the dues collected go to political purposes. We all know this is a lie. By parsing the words, unions do not count most of their political activity as political activity. Instead they call it member communications. Lobbying legislation is also not counted as political activity. If this initiative passes unions would be forced to open their books to show members and taxpayers where all the public money goes that they have collected. This transparency is the last thing that they want but it will be the logical result of passage. Also folks like me that have money forcibly take out of our checks even though we don’t belong to the union will finally have the choice not to fund people and causes that they find morally objectionable.
California’s Prop 32 is Wisconsin light. While 85 percent of Wisconsin folks opted out of compulsory union dues for political purposes, I think the number in California that choose to remain in the system will be much higher. The funding of PACs and 527s will not be affected by this initiative.
A second line of argument against Park’s claim and in favor of 32 is that in the wake of the top two primary, party identification of candidates is not as important. This is especially true with the Republicans. The state party is broke and has been for many years. Their endorsement is almost meaningless. They have no money to help candidates or spend on their behalf. They are just a pass thru organization to funnel money to candidates by exploiting loopholes in existing campaign contribution laws. Nothing on our side of the aisle will change much.
If Munger wants to be king of the hill in our party so what? I can’t imagine a more inefficient use of money in California politics. Republicans are on the verge of going below the status of even being called the loyal opposition. We are functionally irrelevant to the political process. Elected officials in the party will only help Munger as long as the money flows. We have a name for folks like that … and you thought that was only legal in Nevada? At this stage in the decline of the Republican Party, donors will get more bang for their buck in supporting ballot measures than candidates. In the initiative arena, Munger has lots of company; he is not a lone actor as Park makes it sound.
Proverbs 13:22 promises that “the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous”. How this works is a mystery but I know that God is in charge of this world and is bringing his will to pass. He is using folks like Soros and Munger for his purposes. Mostly this purpose appears to be judgment for not obeying Him. If you look at Munger’s spending it is clear to me that his problem is not with Conservatives it is ultimately with God. I have comfort in the fact that he will fail at anything he does that is not for the glory of God.
Being a Conservative Republican in California is much like wandering in the wilderness for forty years without Moses to guide us. All we are left with is griping, complaining and fighting amongst ourselves. I don’t think much will change for the better until the current generation (i.e. baby-boomers) have gone to their eternal reward. As long as a majority of people look to government to provide their needs, our future will be filled with more tyranny and less liberty. If passage of Prop 32 can slow the trip down the road to serfdom then I count that a small victory and worth my vote.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Chick-fil-A Caves to Gays
Chick-fil-A has let it be known that they will no long fund groups that support traditional marriage. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/19/chick-fil-a-no-longer-will-fund-traditional-marria/?page=1
OK, so why did all of us wait in line for hours just to find out they were out of food just to show our support. I thought the Cathy family had some backbone. I am profoundly disappointed in this caving to immorality. I suppose they will soon be open on Sundays now if Liberals criticize them for that too.
Chick-fil-A has responded to published reports such as the one cited above. The release reads in part:
For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized. And while our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate, events from Chicago this week have once again resulted in questions around our giving. For that reason, we want to provide some context and clarity around who we are, what we believe and our priorities in relation to corporate giving.
A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A’s giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.