Baldwin, to my delight, is joining the chorus begun by Congressman Ron Paul denouncing the immoral U.S. wars in the Middle East while declaring war on the "New World Order." If this equates to awakening more conservative Christians to the error of supporting the present American system, then I'm glad to see it.
As I've stated repeatedly concerning the Ron Paul campaign, the real value in this election is education. There is no more important objective than to unplug conservative Christians from the Matrix of Republican statism; and without the Religious Right, the GOP is hopeless--with the exception of conservative Christians rallying behind Dr. Paul. To that end, I do hope the Constitution Party understands the priority of this educational mission and will use Baldwin's nomination to gain ground in that area. Chuck has dedicated himself to alerting Christians to the present threats to our national sovereignty, so I'm hopeful he'll continue with that thesis in this election.
My point is that we should be concerned as much for future elections as we are the 2008 presidential race. Therefore, the future belongs to those that can build a sizable constituency, not those that can produce a candidate. As Ron Paul's campaign has demonstrated: what's the true value in a great candidate, if he has no widespread support? In the case of Ron Paul, the value lies in his ability to create the grassroots of a future mass constituency of freedom-loving conservatives determined to reverse the course of imperialism. That's why the Ron Paul campaign already represents the single greatest political victory in the last 100 years. Not because he won a nomination, because he hasn't. What Dr. Paul has achieved is the creation of a new (or old) type of American citizen. He's launched a new political constituency that is radically motivated, and therefore, will only grow as the U.S. crises deepen. In short, if you thought 2008 was a ride, wait until you see 2012 when the new constitutional conservatives number in the millions.
Lastly, as Doug Phillips recently noted: "The nomination of Chuck Baldwin means that Christians have the option of voting for a biblically qualified, God-fearing, Constitutionally informed and committed candidate for President." I concur. In the likelihood that Dr. Paul is unable to secure the GOP nomination, Christians will still have an opportunity to vote their conscience, and rest in the fact that they used their vote to support the Scriptural definition of a godly leader:
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:3
In Huxley's Brave New World, a future society is controlled by means of hedonism and the use of psychotropic drugs. The drug "SOMA" is utilized in the story to help citizens escape emotional pain by taking them on a "Holiday." It seems America is quickly mirroring such a society as the scientific planners within our system are experimenting with the guinea pig children in foster care by placing them on a myriad of psychotropic drugs:
At first hearing, my question appears oxymoronic. Didn't Rushdoony draft the modern blueprint for "dominionism?" Isn't his name synonymous with the idea of a Christian "take over?"
That Rushdoony espoused Christian domination is a common mistake made by those unfamiliar with his concept of Christian Reconstruction--a mistake made especially by his critics. In particular, the denunciation by secular activists watchdogs has consistently misrepresented Rushdoony's dominionism as a religious mirror of their own statist drives. In other words, they fully intend to utilize the present federal bureaucracy--and even expand it more--in order to realize their own ideal society. The mistake they make is in assuming Rushdoony's dominionism is simply a religious take over of that very same bureaucracy. In modern parlance, dominionism is domination, and that is the weapon of fallen man.
The secularist seeks to dominate other men, although they would never admit to such. Their espousal of "freedom" is not a freedom for all, but rather a freedom for all from the tyranny of religious conviction. The poster children for the freedom they seek is the sodomite and the aborting woman, i.e., they're seeking freedom for anal sex and the killing of an unborn child.
At present, they espouse an alleged religious freedom as well; one that protects liberal mainline denominations from the intimidation of conservative fundamentalism. However, their concern is by no means doctrinal. Rather--again--they're seeking to protect mainline denominations in their pursuit of imbibing the homosexual culture into it's worldview, clergy, and laity.
In order to protect a sodomite social order, they have to dominate the conservative Christian--the sole opponent to their utopia. This is the essence of power politics. I will grant, however, that a great deal of the Religious Right are engaging in the very same tactics. It's simply not my intent to defend that Barabbas bunch. I am only demonstrating that domination is a necessary tool for any humanistic utopia. Even if every conservative Christian never participated in politics again, these same humanists would eventually move against the fundamentalist camp--opposing ideas cannot be tolerated lest they spurn revolution. After all, since revolution is a tool of the humanist, how could a massive population of conservative Christians not also be dedicated to a radical alteration of society? It's called the doctrine of preemption, i.e., get them before they get you.
Rushdoony's dominionism does not involve domination. In fact, it's actually closer to the idea of development. It entails faithfulness with what God has freely given in order to produce God's intention. The sinner does not understand this; nor does he respect it. Such self-sacrifice for a higher purpose is foreign to one who deems man himself as divine. Therefore, to the sinner, power and domination are the tools of dominion, and for them, incarnation of the divine man is always realized in the state.
I conclude with Rushdoony's own concept of dominion:
It is significant that godly man in Genesis 1:26-28 is called to exercise dominion (not domination) over the earth, not other men, to develop all things in terms of God's law-word and to make this earth into God's realm and domain. Fallen man does not seek dominion, which begins with his salvation and his ability to rule himself, but, rather, the goal of fallen man is domination, to control other people.
In Ephesians 5:21-33, a husband's godly dominion over his wife is compared to Christ's ministry and the sacrifice of His life to redeem the Church. It is declared to be love: "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church." This is not domination, yet all too many husbands who call themselves Christian still insist on replacing dominion with domination.
It should not surprise us, therefore, that Christians cannot cope with an evil world given to terror and to domination. Neither should it surprise us that too often the most successful clergyman are those who exercise, not dominion but domination, because this is what the world respects.[1]
Evidence of the Lying and Deceit of the Southern Poverty Law Center
There is probably no more corrupt "non-profit" organization than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). There is also none more intentionally ironic. They espouse to be the watchman traversing the lonely walls of American culture scanning their compassionate eyes in search of hate regardless the form it may take. I should have made REGARDLESS all caps, because the SPLC will stop at nothing to redefine anything as a form of racism.
The SPLC is a fraudulent organization that is much closer to the Gestapo than the United Way. Working in tandem with such equally corrupt groups as the ADL, their modus operandi is to exploit the Holocaust and Southern Slavery into a billy club designed to beat an ignorant population into submission. They have successfully made "racist" the Scarlet Letter of the modern West.
The SPLC lies. That's why I often refer to them as the Southern Poverty LIE Center. They have repeatedly dispensed misinformation on Chalcedon and Rushdoony in an effort to slander us an American Taliban.
Back in 2005, David Holthouse--a journalist hack--allegedly "infiltrated" our 40th anniversary conference held at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Cumming, GA. In an article entitled "Casting Stones," Holthouse halts at nothing to lie in the worst manner regarding the message delivered by our president, Mark Rushdoony. Anyone who knows Mark is well aware that he is one of the most shy, reserved, and kind men you'll ever meet. But, look at how Holthouse describes Mark's 40th anniversay message:
Draped in a stark black suit with a shiny gold cross pinned to its lapel, Mark Rushdoony peered down from the pulpit through glasses tinted the color of hellfire. "We are authorized by God to challenge all that is not godly!" Rushdoony thundered. "God is angry with the wicked every day, and the sins of the wicked deserve the infliction of God's wrath in this life as well as the life hereafter!"
Notice the descriptives of "glasses tinted with the color of hellfire," and how he "thundered." Well, I just so happen to have digitized and posted the opening of that very message. See for yourself how Holthouse is purposely lying in order to demonize a gentle Christian man celebrating the work of his father:
This is outrageous. The grotesque corruption and fraud tied to military spending deserves a unified shout of outrage by conservative Christians; but you can bet your last devalued dollar they won't make a peep. The very fact that the most noteworthy Reformed ministries have said NOTHING for the last seven years about unjust war, government lying, torture, the growing police state, and the racketeering and theft within the military-industrial complex is beyond deplorable. I better not hear a word out of them when a "Democrat" gets in office and does the very same things. They are Pavlovian-controlled by the psychological manipulation of thinking only within the categories of "Right vs. Left" and "Conservative vs. Liberal."
I'll make this easy for them: every bit of corruption by our present administration is a blatant violation of the Ten Commandments. Your job as a minister of the gospel is to speak out against it so as to awaken your constituency to the criminality.
Gen. Smedley Butler was the first military leader to go public with sheer racketeering of corporate and military control. As the following clip demonstrates, what's transpiring today is nothing new:
In his book, War is a Racket, Gen. Smedley Butler begins with this succinct statement of why we go to war:
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Try telling that to a conservative Christian. They'll denounce you outright and shove Romans 13 up your nose. How dare you say anything about our military, Republican-led administration, and righteous crusade against Islam! How dare you imply "free market" corporations are criminal! This is Pelagian to the core, i.e., everyone sins but Americans.
If you've not heard about it yet, you soon will. Ben Stein's film "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" hit theaters nationwide this past weekend, and it's receiving favorable reviews throughout Christian media outlets while spurning equal outrage from the Darwinist camp.
I saw the film over the weekend, and in all honesty, I don't want to take the time to write a lengthy review when there's millions of digits already dedicated to the movie. So, I'll make this simple.
It's good and bad. Sure, it was a delight to see the likes of Richard Dawkins squirm in his seat as he was willing to grant that a superior alien race was responsible for creating life on earth, but not that the Biblical God could have been involved. In short, as any presuppositionalist already knows, nobody denies the existence of God for any rational reason. This film makes that plain.
However, I'm not that interested in the Intelligent Design debate. Why? Because I'm not in the least bit interested in a compromise with covenant-breakers--even if they happen to control the academic establishment. For anyone to deny the existence of God in the face of the overwhelming evidence in creation deserves NONE of my respect. Biblically, they are fools and should be addressed as such. Don't grant them respectability. In addition, the last thing we need are reasons to justify keeping Christian children in public schools, i.e., holding out hope that ID will get equal time in the science class. Let the dead bury the dead. Join the ongoing revolution of Christian education!
Another problem was that Ben Stein, and his host of ID experts, were perfectly willing to endorse Darwinism but only with the qualification that SOME type of superior being began the biological process. Evolutionist critics repeatedly state that ID is simply a Trojan Horse for creationism. Trust me, it isn't. Intelligent Design is hardly creationism. If you want creationism, read the answer to Question 9 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
The work of creation is, God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.
"Yes, but Chris, no scientist takes that seriously. You couldn't even begin a debate with the orthodox view of the origin of the universe." Exactly. The closer you get to a clearly stated proposition of Biblical truth, the more the unbeliever will scoff. So, don't bother. He will not listen to reason because he's committed to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19). What he'll understand much better requires even less words: "Repent!"
So, am I recommending you to see the movie? Sure! I think everyone should see it. It will actually be a great encouragement to your own faith. It's also a great way to show your children that only presuppositionalism can be faithful in holding out the veracity of a Christian epistemology. It's a great teaching tool to show your children what NOT to do.
The film is really about academic freedom. Stein compares the present tyranny of neo-Darwinism to the wall separating East and West Berlin in that any academic that even alludes to ID is quickly banished from the ivory tower. Stein provides numerous testimonies to confirm the allegation. Although some of the institutional spokespersons deny any such tyranny exists, idiots like Dawkins admit that they are in a war against religion. So, in the end, we don't have a dog in this fight. Stein and Co. wholeheartedly reject the Biblical doctrine of creation, and for that reason, they are just as damaging to the truth.
Much is made of their sovereign wealth funds, which is their buying of massive amounts of U.S. debt and then using that rapidly devaluing currency to buy up real assets in the states--especially businesses. As the video below shows, they're also spending a great deal on a massive military establishment of great scope and discipline.
Their sense of nationalism cannot be discounted as a great root to their strength. This is different than patriotism. Certainly, patriotism is germane to the idea of nationalism, but patriotism is the solidarity of melting pot societies. Nationalism, as in China's case, is rooted in land, blood, and race. China is filled with Chinese, and this constitutes much of their strength. And the arrogance of the West only solidifies their national constitution.
America has no real solidarity. Raging patriotism was only evident after 9/11, but China doesn't appear to require such crises. Granted, a totalitarian society, and its propaganda, play a central role in galvanizing that nationalism, but in the end, China has roots we don't quite understand. And the only possible source of solidarity for America--Christianity--is so spiritually and theologically bankrupt that it cannot provide the sense of destiny and unity it once did. Pluralism of every kind has leavened its way through our national lump.
"Freedom is a myth, however, unless it begins with the self-government of the people as persons. What we have in its stead is license, the license to abort, practice euthanasia, commit sodomy, and more, manifestations not of freedom but of sin and slavery... Where government is weak or absent on the personal level, it will soon turn into tyranny. Attempts at reform are futile unless there is a religious reformation, and man in Christ becomes capable of self-government." ~ R. J. Rushdoony
History Repeats, But Americans Too Gullible To Realize It
Propaganda has a stranglehold on the American citizenry both saved and unsaved unlike. In fact, conservative Christianity retains record numbers of deluded hordes within their ranks prepared to send America's best to die for the likes of Halliburton, Wall Street, the City of London, and Israel.
Listen to Charles Lindbergh, Sr. make a case against war in a speech that could easily be given today:
Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. II Cor. 3:17
Christian Reconstruction, though often misconstrued as some form of religious tyranny by man, is in reality Christianity's strongest advocate for the total lordship of God in all things--and therefore, the strongest advocate of liberty (this is not a contradiction). Because the average man, both Christian and non-Christian, is a statist, they can only interpret the lordship of God in statist terms, i.e., theocracy = statist rule by unelected Christians. They believe a Biblical theocracy will amount to a tyranny of Christian clerics not unlike the merciless rule of the Taliban.
But there is no small difference between the respective positions of statism and Biblical theocracy, and this distinction is represented well in the concept of regulation and controls. For the statist, both regulation and controls reside with the state so that any man claiming self-government is deemed an anarchist. This is because, for the statist, there can be no regulation outside of the state. Rushdoony makes this clear:
[I]t is a myth, propagated by all statists, that apart from the state, man's life remains unregulated and hence lawless...it is held that all life outside the state and its controlling government is unregulated life. In promoting this myth, the statists also promote a "remedy" implicit in that assertion. If all life outside the state is unregulated life, the the "answer" to that unregulated life is state regulation. To be outside the state is presupposed to be in anarchy and chaos, and to be within the state is assumed to be orderly and just. This was an article of faith in ancient paganism, so that a stateless man was seen as virtually a dead man without being. [1]
Therefore, in all things, the state is the necessary ground of being. We see this demonstrated in the separation of money from the Gold Standard which left the only basis for currency in its substantiation by the state. The word of the state is now "good as gold," because behind the currency lies nothing more than that. This fiat authority by the state now transcends the monetary into being the basis for all of man's life. Therefore, a self-governed man is a lawless man, because he is seeking to live beyond the regulations and controls of the state--and outside of the state's authority, no such regulations can exist. A self-governed Christian man finds the ground of being in God and His regulations and controls, and the state must labor to sever this idea from the Christian man. The modern antinomian church is a most helpful ally in the state's mission to unseat God from the throne of the heart.
The Religious Right is remarkably ignorant of the fact that the humanistic state is inherently atheistic--you cannot reform it by filling its thousands of bureaucratic seats with graduates from Patrick Henry College. Or, as David Chilton once wrote, "We are not to help build the Tower of Babel in hopes of getting a Bible study in the basement. We must build the city of God."
The state cannot acknowledge a god other than itself. Therefore, God's name must be removed from every post and pillar. This is the identifying mark of man's utopia--his millennial reign--when the name of the Lord is no longer seen or heard. The reverse is equally true: the name of the Lord on all things is evidence of the postmillennial reign. Consider that in light of Zechariah's prophecy:
In that day "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the Lord of Hosts. Zechariah 14:20-21
When we are consumed with the exaltation, or celebration, of something, we engrave it. Whether plaque, trophy, or even lovebirds marking their initials on a tree, to engrave is to honor. It's also to create a sense of permanency to that honor, so that the honored ones live on for future generations to read their names and accomplishments.
When the greatness of God is honored in every heart, we shall see the name of Lord engraved on "horses bells" and "every pot in Jerusalem." Man will be compelled to acknowledge his love and worship of God in all he puts his hand to. This is why the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is in actuality a "postmillennial step of faith." The Divines of Westminster recognized the need to glorify God in ALL things, and they based that supposition squarely on I Corinthians 10:31, "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." In other words, don't wait for a postmillennial era to see the Lord's name engraved on all things, begin engraving it NOW in "whatever you do" by doing it all for the glory of God!
For man to live solely in terms of God's regulations by Word and Spirit is the only true freedom man can experience; and as I mentioned above, this is not a contradiction. Man cannot be a law to himself, and anarchy is in reality a threat to liberty, not its most pristine expression:
There are all kinds of legitimate and necessary restrictions on every kind of liberty man has, and these are necessary for the maintenance of liberty, because liberty cannot be equated with anarchy. [2]
When the god-hater decries the tyranny of theocracy, he's only advocating a kind of anarchy he wants protected by the state. And that means, he wants the freedom to be perverse, to steal, and to kill. He wants liberty for sodomy and pornography. He desires freedom to abort and rob his neighbor through unjust taxation. Deny him these sins in the name of God, and he will whine incessantly about your Christian fascism. Refuse him his perversion, and he will "defame you" and "revile your good conduct in Christ" (I Peter 3:16).
Self-government in terms of God is not anarchy, but rather a limiting factor on the jurisdiction of the state. For example, the state may only punish the evildoer for only those crimes allotted to its sphere of authority. The state should not, therefore, be responsible for disciplining your children. Nor should you be responsible for prosecuting your uncle for murder.
But the state regularly seeks to expand its jurisdiction. Even now, it clamors for the paternal sphere in the form of Health and Human Services by seeking to criminalize parental discipline in order to establish state authority over children. This is also why regulation for homeschooling is bound to come again. The state cannot allow "anarchy," and anarchy is defined by the state as any activity outside its jurisdiction. As Rushdoony says, freedom for man is immorality to the state:
The more we are truly governed by God's law and the Spirit of God, the less we are then governed by the state, and the greater our freedom. For the state, freedom is immoral: it means an uncontrolled life, a life outside the state and its laws. The free man becomes the immoral man, the enemy, to the statist. [3]
What shall the anti-theocrat now do? On the one hand, the remaining vestiges of the politically-driven Religious Right still represent a very real threat to a completely secular state, while on the other hand, self-governing Christian Reconstructionists are advocating a life under God's regulation, and not that of the state. The anti-theocrats have no choice: they must fight the Religious Right for each "seat" in the American bureaucracy, and then demand of that same bureaucracy to clamp down on homeschooling and the like--and all the while, they call us dominionists!
They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. Micah 3:10-11
As of late, I've not read a more fitting description of the leadership of so-called "Christian America." Micah indicted heads (judges), priests, and prophets that work for reward, for hire, and for money. All leaders, whether political, judicial, or religious, do what they do for the reward it brings, and the reward is not that which proceeds from God. It is the monetary and positional reward that only comes from a fallen people.
Far too many in this nation have cast aside all judgment and discernment. The Devil himself has robbed these people of their sense of righteous judgment by persuading them to trade it for indulgences. This was easily done because of their sheer rebellion to the law of God. The shared hatred of both Christian and non for theonomy has paved a runway for these lascivious leaders that only proclaim a message the people want to hear:
That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits. Isaiah 30:9-10
If this isn't bad enough, a leader can now commit the most heinous of sins, and the people will welcome him back into power. If he be a drunkard, adulterer, sodomite, or bear rebellious children, he or she may retain the position of power because the people are intoxicated by their fair sayings:
If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people. Micah 2:11
The reward of God is no treasure to these leaders, because the reward of God follows sacrifice, suffering, and the despising of the people. This was also the history of Israel's prophets. I cannot name a prophet in the Old Testament that was not despised by both king and people alike, or that prospered monetarily for their great honorariums. The opposite was the reality, because the people will only reward them that tickle the ear with messages of safety and prosperity. As Micah said, "yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us." In other words, they will declare themselves a country under God, a people filled with goodness and benevolence; but they do not recognize that they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:17).
I cannot imagine the heartache of watching the beating of my child on video. I also cannot imagine the type of families that have raised such satanic offspring. But, before anyone declares homeschooling to be a "utopia," bear in mind that there are also cases of severe treatment within the home as well. Sometimes, some of the greatest forms of abuse and violence are enacted within the domestic realm.
The issue is sin and man's fallen nature, and not the metaphysical setting. When righteousness dominates, the home is far greater than all other arenas for the preparation of children. But, when sin dominates, no place is a safe zone. Instances like these are incessant reminders that we live in a world rooted in sin and animated by devils. Our solution lies always in the redemptive work of Christ's sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit.
However, let us not forget the righteous judgment of God and the marvelous ways in which He makes His will known. If we continue to live contrary to His Word, both we and our children shall be subject to His righteous judgment. In this sense, we must beware that pity not get the best of us. Our humanity--which believes it loves more than God does--can never justify the pain that man causes each other. But in this distorted vision, we fail miserably, for God is always righteous in His judgment and man will always reap what he sows:
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. Gal. 6:8-9
It's delightful to see the intimidation factor at play here with former Navy SEAL and Minnesota Governer, Jesse Ventura, and Fox's Sean Hannity. Hannity, who typically berates and ridicules guests that dissent from his opinion, obviously doesn't want to get "clocked" by Ventura. In this interview, Ventura questions the official story of 9/11, and declares America a fascist state and Hannity and Colmes said little.
Most noteworthy, in my opinion, was Ventura's revised use of Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Ventura would rather take his chances with terrorists then give up his liberties. Brilliant!
The hypocrisy of the mainstream regarding race is beyond the pale when it's displayed in the Obama campaign. At Skybo Gym in Pittsburgh, Michelle Obama appeared to give a speech to the surrounding Pittsburgh university community. Here's what transpired under the headship of Obama's event coordinators:
While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”
“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”
You better believe it's being done outright! Politics is about manipulation, and it's important to the Obama campaign to show that he is a candidate for the people, i.e., he represents Whites as well as Blacks. So, apparently, race matters a great deal to those who pretend there's no such thing.
Race in America
If there's one thing this year's election has shown, it's that America is still wrestling with the concept of race. This is apparent because of the successful campaign of Senator Obama. But, what exactly is Obama? Up to now, most refer to him as "Black." Is he? His mother was White, so why not identify him with the person he's most genetically connected with? She gave birth to him. She carried him for nine months. She even raised him. Why not call him a White man? It's 50/50, correct? Or, why not be more truthful and refer to him as America's first racially mixed presidential candidate? The reason is that he "appears" Black to most people--at least the kind of Black to which America has grown accustomed in the 21st century.
This is very telling. It lets us know that the blurred line of racial demarcation is not so blurry. Obama is dark enough for nearly all Americans to consider him a Black candidate. That's fine. He's probably quite comfortable in that role. But, again, there is no real debate over the fact that he's considered a Black candidate. Therefore, the greater Black community--comprised of Blacks from Jamaica, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Haiti, or Africa--all identify with Obama simply because of his similar appearance. To say that Obama holds the majority of support from the eclectic Black community in America because of his policy positions is just sheer fallacy. The issue is race first, and policy, a close second. I say that because a stridently conservative Black candidate would likely not garner the same messiah-like worship as Obama.
The Future of Race
It is said that time heals. That given enough of it, all wounds will dissolve and never again come to mind. Such is the assumption regarding race in America. But, what the Obama campaign teaches us is that this assumption does not correspond to the truth. What's developed is only a greater sensitivity and a greater silence--and these reinforce each other. But the truth always comes out when most is at stake. In this case, the Obama campaign needs more White people, because their objective is to paint the portrait on TV screens of what they envision for America.
Therefore, never mind the fact that a White person is Italian, Irish, Swedish, German, French, or English in origin, "we just need more White people" for the cameras. And, never mind the fact that Obama is the child of a Black father and White mother. Obama is most definitely the first serious, and most viable, Black candidate. I highlight this because I've so often heard that Whites are not an ethnic group per se, because they can originate from any number of European nationalities. However, the same is true, as I've noted above, with Blacks. I know many fine Black Christian leaders in the Northeast that were born in Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, or the Bahamas. But, when the cameras are on, Black and White as categories are not considered in terms of national origins--only skin color.
This is rather simplistic, but it demonstrates, as I've stated, that America is still ignorant concerning race; and that ignorance is bound to come back and bite her. The Obama campaign has brought out this ignorance as both Black and White pundits have chimed in on the race question made so important by the Illinois Senator's campaign.
Some seem to think so. Having three or more children "opens one up to charges of elitism and status consciousness... an ostentatious display of good fortune."
"Where the law of God is set aside, man’s law, which is anti-law from before Plato’s day to ours, replaces it. The Christian is a man empowered by God’s grace and by His Spirit because he has a clean conscience before God (Heb. 10:22). Where God’s law and grace are rejected, the systems of government devised by man rest on sin, guilt, and injustice. The power of guilt to cripple and limit man is very great. We see it widely used today to make men feel guilty because they are successful, or white, or almost anything. We are held to be polluters of the air and earth and an accursed race of exploiters. The effects of this on millions is very severe. People are afraid to state obvious facts lest they be accused of racism, cultural imperialism, ideological oppression, and so on and on. Guilt is a very powerful means of controlling and castrating peoples. This guilt is created by manufacturing sins which have no place in God’s sight but are very important in man’s plans to govern over men and nations, and the earth as well. If we are held to be guilty because of our race and national past, there is no way of removing that ostensible sin and its guilt."
~ R. J. Rushdoony, taken from the soon-to-be-released commentary on Deuteronomy
Beginning late Friday evening, March 29, we have been in the midst of an end run by the Federal Reserve System around Congress. The FED is about to be given authority to regulate the nation's largest non-commercial financial institutions, including stocks and commodities.
The goal of the FED, as with all central banks, is three-fold: (1) to protect the largest commercial banks from their depositors, who occasionally exercise their contractual right to withdraw currency (the ungrateful cads); (2) to control entry of newcomers into the bankers' cartel (interlopers); (3) to keep the stock market from collapsing in a panic, thereby persuading depositors to withdraw currency.
The FED has always been the representative agency of the largest commercial banks. Ever since 1787, it has been the goal of the large banks to gain control over the entire financial sector.
After President Jackson's defeat of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, commercial bankers have sought to get a third bank. This campaign escalated in 1896, in response to the Presidential campaign of William Jennings Bryan. The decade-old movement to create a national central bank escalated even higher in 1907. The immediate setting for this was the so-called bankers' panic of 1907. It was a recession. Stock prices fell like a stone. J. P. Morgan personally and corporately intervened to prop up stock prices, but the panic was too strong. The stock market fell. The economy went into a recession.
The Morgan banking interests and the Rockefeller banking interests joined forces to persuade Americans to accept the creation of a central bank. They knew the voters were opposed to this, so they created a central bank that was disguised as a series of regional banks, which, apart from the New York Federal Reserve Bank, have had no real decision-making authority. The organizers called this central bank the Federal Reserve System. The ploy worked, although it took over six years and a new President to pull it off. It also took the recession of 1913-14.
The ploy worked so well that Bryan lobbied Congressmen to vote for it. He later said this was the greatest mistake of his political career. This was an exaggeration. His greatest mistake was giving his "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896. He personally destroyed the limited-government position of the Democratic Party, moving it sharply leftward, just as he was.
This story of the origins of the Federal Reserve System has long been available to the American public, but it has never been told by the mainstream media or the schools. A comprehensive summary, with full documentation, was written by economist-historian Murray Rothbard, and was published posthumously in 1999. You can download it here.
So, what we are being told about the absolute necessity of transferring regulatory control over the securities industry to the FED is merely an extension of a program that is well over a century old. Same tune, new lyrics.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is the front man for this centralization of regulatory power under the FED. He is the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. He saw a competitor, Bear Stearns, collapse within a one-week period, March 11 to March 17.
Investment banks do not take deposits. They do not have the degree of economic protection from bankruptcy which commercial banks possess. The trade-off to get such protection is surrender of control. In hard times, entrepreneurs who are facing bankruptcy are willing to surrender autonomy for protection.
WEAK OPPOSITION
In a story run on Bloomberg on March 31, we read of the opposition to this end run by John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. This organization was created by Congress in 1989, after the collapse of the Savings & Loan industry in the mid-1980's. It was one more example of locking the barn door after the horses had escaped. Reich is now fighting to retain independence for his bureaucracy. Reich has pointed out to reporters that this is not the first time that regulatory centralization has been attempted.
A dozen similar efforts by presidents, legislators and others over the last 60 years never "became reality," Reich wrote. His office distributed the letter to reporters on the weekend.
Despite his opposition, the proposed legislation is likely to pass this time. Congress and the voters have been told for months that the subprime mortgage crisis threatens to topple the financial structure. In other words, the horses are again out of the barn. The new regulatory system will not get them back.
The insiders have always used stock market declines to scare Congress into surrounding power to the FED. The FED is presented as a seemingly neutral third party -- beyond politics and beyond the money-grubbing ways of Wall Street. The Treasury Secretary is once again reinforcing the FED's insistence that it needs more power.
The FED created the housing bubble under Greenspan. Then Bernanke's tight-money policy popped that bubble. The FED now claims that it needs more power to oversee who does what with the fiat money it creates.
In this debate over whether to transfer regulatory power to the FED, one word will not be uttered: "cartel." The FED has always functioned as the screening agency for the bankers' cartel. Now the largest commercial banks and investment banks are clamoring for extending this control over the entire non-banking sector of the economy.
The central bank's response to the credit freeze and the near bankruptcy of Bear Stearns shows how the role of regulators is being redefined by events, regardless of Paulson's review, which began nine months ago. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox isn't protesting the proposed merger of his agency -- formed during the Great Depression -- with the CFTC, saying that regulation would be better served by fewer organizations.
"Just as systemic risk cannot be neatly parceled along outdated regulatory lines, the overarching objective of investor protection can't be fully achieved if it fails to encompass derivatives, insurance, and new instruments that straddle today's regulatory divides," Cox said in a statement on March 29.
In other words, the main bureaucracies that would normally oppose this move have fallen into line. Mr. Reich is an exception. He is a minor figure in a marginal agency.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?
There will be hearings in Congress. The media will announce bipartisan support for the restructuring. A bill will pass. It will become law. Then a massive, years-long restructuring will begin. No one will be fired from existing agencies. They will be placed under the FED's titular control. Lots of new economists and lawyers will be hired by the Board of Governors of the FED.
The politicians may think they can change things in Washington. They can, but only marginally. Bureaucracies move slowly when they move at all. They protect themselves. They use red tape to hide their activities and smother attempts by outsiders to interfere with their operations. They use delay as their main weapon of defense.
The FED has no existing structure to oversee the non-banking financial system. It will have to design it and then implement it. It will then have to integrate this with existing agencies. Lawyers inside and outside the Federal government will gum up the transfer of power.
Meanwhile, the horses are out of the barn. The spread of bad debt through the world's financial system will continue. The figure of $200 billion of bad debt has been tossed around. This is a low-ball estimate. A Reuters report (March 29) announced:
The financial market crisis could cause losses of up to $600 billion at banks and other financial institutions worldwide, a German magazine reported on Saturday, citing an internal report by German financial watchdog BaFin. . . .
"Based on current knowledge and the market situation, we believe $430 billion is more likely," the magazine quoted what it said was a 16-page report by BaFin as saying.
A report on BaFin's paper first appeared in German's Establishment magazine, "Der Spiegel." The losses may not be able to be contained inside the banking system.
However, the magazine also said BaFin cited the risk that the financial crisis could spread beyond the banking sector to affect hedge funds, insurance companies, pension funds and even some non-financial companies.
So, we are facing falling dominoes around the world. This is the result of the carry trade: borrowing short and lending long. This is what brought down the American savings & loan industry in the 1980's. Decade by decade, carry-trade investing has spread to wider areas of the economy. It has spread across borders and across industries.
The hoopla in Washington over having the FED lock the barn door is not going to get the horses back. The loans were made. They cannot be recalled. Foreclosing on two million households at tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees per home is not feasible. The loans may be able to be renegotiated in some cases, but this takes time. It takes trained personnel. Meanwhile, 244 of the companies that initially made the loans are bankrupt or have merged. Renegotiated terms of repayment at lower rates will impose capital losses. No company wants to post these losses on its balance sheet.
THE PALSIED HAND
The Federal Reserve System was always the lender of last resort for the commercial banks. It is about to become the lender of first resort for the investment banks. The 20 largest investment banks act as the agents of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in implementing the Federal Open Market Committee's instructions. These are the FED's primary dealers.
The FED must not allow a primary dealer to collapse. It owes the FED money. So, the FED will do whatever is required to keep these investment banks alone.
We are moving into a situation where the FED will become the regulator. It is already the de facto rescuer. It wants power to accompany its growing responsibility to prevent financial panic. Responsibility without power is suicidal. The FED is not deliberately suicidal.
This unelected, tenured, money-creating, privately owned cartel will create a committee to write the rules for other committees to regulate a financial structure that is so complex that no committee can possibly foresee everything that can go wrong. This will substitute the palsied hand of regulation for the invisible hand of the free market.
The financial markets will become less efficient. They will become less careful regarding risk. They will follow the FED's rules, but we can be sure entrepreneurs will find ways to beat these rules. They always do.
The horses are out of the barn. We are in the early phase of a public relations program to persuade investors to turn over more horses to the companies that the FED promises to protect.
CONCLUSION
Moral hazard -- guaranteed bailouts -- is alive and well in Washington. It is about to be expanded extensively. The presence of the FED, as the lender of first resort, will persuade entrepreneurs to take risks that they would not consider if the FED were not there as the guarantor.
Ludwig von Mises wrote decades ago that the results of government intervention into the free market will produce results opposite to those announced to justify the intervention.
The justification for this transfer of power to the Federal Reserve System is that the FED will provide greater stability for the capital markets.
Conclusion: prepare for more instability than we have seen since the Great Depression, which the FED was created to avoid.
"We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow... Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals... Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."
So says the Malthusian maniac Ted Turner when speaking of the threat of global warming. How he could possibly know these things is not said. He's simply compounding the already overdone propaganda about climate change.
Ted's Solution: Stop Having Children
"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming... Too many people are using too much stuff...on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it."
Sorry, Ted, the true Christian community is seeking to populate the earth with more of its own, and these innovative tikes will grow to solve any and all problems caused by the number of people on the planet--problems that big corporate moguls like yourself have caused. The world is in need of good people, and depopulation is no solution.
Ex-Gov. Jesse Ventura Claims WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition
He was the Governor of Minnesota. He's a former member of the Navy's elite SEAL teams. Were he pushing for War in Iraq, he'd be touted all over FOXNews for his credentials. But, what do you do when he says that the official story surrounding the events of 9/11 is false?
In case you've not seen what Ventura is referring to concerning WTC building number seven, here's a clear shot of what the official story states is a collapse resulting from fire. Ventura claims this appears exactly like a controlled demolition. You be the judge:
It seems more and more noteworthy Americans are joining the ever-growing 9/11 Truth Movement. Mainstream media outlets have come out against this movement by disparaging it in the harshest terms. Even otherwise far Left media personalities opposed to the war have little patience for anyone suggesting a conspiracy surrounding 9/11. Yet, the most downloaded film in the history of the internet (downloaded over 10 million times) is a documentary made by some college-aged filmmakers calling into question the truth about the events of 9/11. And now, celebrities, sports figures, military personnel, and politicians are coming forward questioning the official story. At some point, this will explode--or should I say "implode."
Not too long after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the conspiracy theories began. The CIA, the Mafia, the Zionists, or some other group, were offered up as potential criminals in the events at Dealey Plaza. I assume the government is well aware of this, and it would explain why shortly after 9/11, President Bush spoke before the UN and cautioned the world not to buy into any conspiracy theories concerning the attacks on NY, the Pentagon, and Flight 193:
This issue is not going away any time soon. The debate has been isolated to the internet and there appears to be no plan to re-open the investigation. The JFK assassination was re-opened in 1976 before the House Assassinations Committee (they have a committee for that?), but nothing much has developed since. If there was a conspiracy, there is little hope of any further investigation or prosecutions.
Will 9/11 be any different? I believe it will, because there is so much more attached to it, and because of the internet. This is an important issue that should not be skirted for fear of the truth or denounced without serious investigation. If there was a conspiracy, the implications are far-reaching. If there was not, then the facts will bear that out.
There is so much you can learn from this relatively brief interchange between Congressman Ron Paul and Fed Chairman Ben Bernake.
1. Notice the two individuals (Middle-aged man, young girl) directly behind Ron Paul. They accurately represent the response of the majority of Americans to Ron Paul's message and mission--they could care less!
2. Congressman Ron Paul is relentless in his staying on message EVEN when he's not campaigning. This means I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y.
3. Notice how Ron Paul ties the present economic crisis to the larger movement to fascism in America.
4. Watch and listen closely to Bernake's response. He says nothing concerning the loss of liberty or the collusion of big business and government.
5. Notice Bernake's demeanor. Does he sound like someone that's in charge? Or is he simply the one the real power brokers send out to face the fire? He appears meek and beaten down. He sounds scripted. He hardly sounds like a man with authority.
Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney saw the aftermath of the Civil War as a loss of liberty for all generations. He understood that the Old South was fighting for much more than their own Christian liberty--they were fighting for Christian liberty in its entirety. And it was a battle whose fallen shared much with the blood spilled of Christian martyrs throughout history.
This is anathema to modern man who decries an impostor of the Old South--a Frankenstein creature derived from the creative minds of the Southern Poverty Law Center--as a generation of cruelty that received its due. But ask a Confederate soldier why he fights, and 9 out of 10 will not mention slavery. They were fighting for a constitutional republic of free states. Therefore, their loss has evolved into our tyranny. As Dabney says, mankind has a tendency to destroy its benefactors:
"[I]n the endeavor to save the liberties transmitted by our fathers, we did what we could. And in proof of this justifying plea, we can point to the forms prematurely bent, and the heads whitened by fatigue and camp diseases, to the empty sleeves, and wooden legs, and to the Confederate graves so thickly strewn over the land. Our apology is, again, that while we were contending for the rights and interests of the civilized world, nearly the whole world blindly and passionately arrayed itself against us. Such was the strange permission of Providence, that we, while defending the cause of all, should be slandered and misunderstood by all. But why should I say this fearful dispensation was strange? when we see that from the days of the Christian martyrs until now, mankind have usually resisted and sought to destroy its true benefactors. So it was; we had the world against us."
Dabney saw clear to the true nature of the cause. And like the testimony of the writer of Hebrews, Dabney stood in judgment of his own generation:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them... (Heb. 8:7-8)
America, or should we say "humanity," was not capable of sustaining a free republic. Self-government would give way to a centralized authority and that by force. The fault was with man, and it remains so. Even today, only a dedicated minority are lifting up a standard against the growing despotism in these United States.
Even in 1882, Dabney's words were timeless. The following citation requires no revision in order to speak forthrightly to our generation:
"Each state must be a republic, as distinguished from a monarchy or oligarchy, but in all else it was to be mistress of its own internal forms and regulations. The functions of the general government were to be few and defined, its expenditures modest, and its burdens in time of peace light. Such was the form of government instituted for themselves by our free forefathers; and well fitted to their genius and circumstances as communities of farmers, inhabiting their own homes, approaching an equality of condition, and having upon the whole continent no one city of controlling magnitude or wealth.
"But this century has seen all this reversed; and conditions of human society have grown up, which make the system of our free forefathers obviously impracticable in the future. And this is so, not because the old forms were not good enough for this day, but because they were too good for it."
The old forms are too good for us because our hearts are hardened by the deceitfulness of sin; and the burden of self-government is more than we can bear. Until the great reconstruction begins with our hearts, minds, and personal spheres, we shall in no way transform this nation. And in light of this, I do not see how winning the debate over whether America is a Christian nation solves anything. Nor do I understand how the discussion of "church and state" addresses the true nature of our problem.
The true Christian society would see a minimal state in which the question of church and state would be nearly moot. The present debate over church and state is only such because both sides assume statism, i.e., a large centralized civil government teeming with political positions to fill. One side wants them filled with Christians while the other does not.
We have this because we are spoon-fed a detrimental diet via media and education from both Christian and non-Christian sources. And this what you receive when a people serve the god of mammon; or as Dabney says:
"Literature is a commodity, money buys and sells it. Let the genius of an Addison, a Bolingbrooke, a Junius, a Macaulay, all be combined on the one side, with all the richest resources of historical learning to publish the political truths which happen to be unpopular without a great capital; and let commercial capital give its support to the pen of the most ignorant demagogue to propagate the crudest absurdities in which capital supposes it has a selfish and corrupt interest, you shall see the wisdom of true statesmanship, embellished by all the graces of scholarship consigned to an unread obscurity in this country, while the vulgar stupidities of error shall visit every table and claim every eye. Mammon wills it so, and Mammon rules."
Didn't I tell you Dabney was far more relevant than the one-dimensional Reformed popularizer?
