More on the Candidates

April 18th, 2015

So, the media as always sees an opening, a gotcha moment and immediately aim for the jugular. They are now doing this with the question of “would you attend a gay marriage if the person was someone close to you, someone in your family.”

Rubio answered this way, “If there’s somebody I love that’s in my life, I don’t necessarily have to agree with their decisions or the decisions they’ve made to continue to love them and participate in important events,” he told the interviewer. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them.”

Rubio compared this to attending a “second marriage,” after divorce.  Having been divorced I’d disagree with that. Christians are going to be increasingly asked to explain what sounds inexplicable, irrational, bigoted, and hateful to the secular community that surrounds us. We will be punished for what they call “wrong thinking.” We need to be prepared to answer that question, unapologetically  and with conviction.

Cruz and Santorum where also asked about this. Here’s how they answered.

Note that Cruz didn’t really answer the question. He danced around it. A disappointment.

Santorum answered the question. But here is a compare and contrast between the two candidates on the issue of enforcement of the federal drug laws.

So we see clear differences here. You might want to add this to your Presidential Candidate file for future reference. No one can remember everything.

ISIS Only Eight Miles Away From Our Southern Border

April 17th, 2015

Funny how for a few days the news is rather mundane than suddenly it’s Annie Get Your Gun!

So, you might think about going somewhere other than Mexico for your next vacation; though why you’d give them your money there when you can give it to them here, I have no idea. Anyway, I’m saying this because who knows, you might wind up laying on a beach blanket next to an ISIS member on his prayer blanket. I mean after all, they’re use to getting sand on their blankets.

According to Bare Naked Islam (awful thought) and Judicial Watch, it now seems we learn that just eight miles across the Texas border into Mexico, lies an ISIS camp. Just a stones throw from El Paso. A second one is on the Mexican side of the border from New Mexico. If those are confirmed, how many aren’t. Like say the ones in here in upstate New York?

Judicial Watch’s sources say that “coyotes,” who are into human smuggling/white slavery and are working for Juarez Cartel, are in league with ISIS. They transport them through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. they’re also smuggling these slime balls through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas.

It’s now known that ISIS intends to target railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM, a US port-of-entry and largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management. There conducting reconnaissance of universities, White Sands Missile Range, government facilities in Alamogordo NM and Ft. Bliss, as well as the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral NM.

This should have every American screaming, but no one seems to be taking notice. ISIS doesn’t tend to bluff and they have already told us their coming. Ft. Bliss is aware of the ISIS threat and has them in their sights. The police and Feds also know, but none of them have the green light or wherewithal to do anything about it. In fact the feds deny the whole thing.

It would appear we have no protection from our enemies whatsoever and sooner than later, they will attack and we’ll be able to thank Obama and his administration for the carnage. Of course it won’t be their family members lying dead in the streets and inside the malls.


Just last week ISIS released a video promising to Burn Down America. Yet Homeland Security and now the FBI are all denying there’s a problem on our southern border. There are only three ways ISIS can do this. First, as FBI Director James Comey said “Those people exist in every state. I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state.”

Then there are the returnees. Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson recently admitted that at least 40 of the estimated 180 US citizens who traveled overseas to fight alongside ISIS have already returned home. He told 60 minutes “we kept close tabs on those who we believe have left and those who’ve come back, but you can’t know everything.”

Really? Aren’t we paying you to do just that? And then there’s the border which we’ve already discussed. So now you know just how unsafe we are. And they wonder why we are clinging to our guns? Are they joking? Sadly no, they aren’t.

Rubio and Immigration

April 17th, 2015

As promised I’ll be giving you updates on what the candidates are doing and what’s being written about them. If I were you and wanted to stay abreast, I’d make a file. I don’t know, title it Candidates File, then move this information into the file. Come election time you have all this information to read over, compare and decide upon.

Today we’ll talk about Marco Rubio since he’s hot off the press at the moment. In 2013 editor-in-chief interviewed Florida politicians about Rubio’s views on amnesty. Most of this I’ve confirmed with other sources so here goes.

Rubio blocked numerious immigration-enforcement bills when he served as speaker in the Florida House of Representatives in 2007-09.

“Rubio blocked any efforts to deal with the problems of illegal immigration on the local or state level,” one former politician commented who has know Rubio since his city councilman days in West Miami.

“He said it was because we had bigger things to deal with on the state level. Maybe that’s true, but he didn’t even let bills to the floor when they sailed through committees.”

Rubio’s record is relevant now because he’s presented himself as a moderate backer for the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. Pronounce of the bill argue that its extensive loosening of immigration laws (including a pathway to citizenship that Robio in 2010 described as “basically code for amnesty” will be balanced by tougher enforcement.

The record shows something different. Rubio used his power in Florida to block popular immigration-enforcement bills prior to his election-trail conversion into an immigration-hawk.

In the 2010 race, he criticized one of his opponents, Gov. Crist, for backing the amnesty proposal developed by John McCain and Ted Kennedy in 06-07.

“He wouldn’t have voted for the McCain plan,” Rubio said. “I think that plan is wrong, and the reason I think it’s wrong is that if you grant amnesty…you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”

In 2007-08 he repeatedly kept tough reform bills from getting passed, despite a wave of public support for reforms. Numerous enforcement proposals–ranging from bills requiring employers to check the status of workers to others mandating increased cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies – were blocked by  Rubio even though they cleared bipartisan committees.

The bills in Florida’s Legislature would have penalized farmers and Government contractors caught hiring undocumented workers; placed stricter regulations on public benefits; and required local police to notify federal authorities after arresting illegal immigrants.

He also stopped bills from coming to the floor that would have deported illegal immigrants in state prisons and would have denied food stamps to illegals. He even stopped a bipartisan proposal that would’ve allowed deportation of 5,000 illegal immigrants in Florida prisons, provided they had served half their sentence and agreed to deportation. Similar legislation saved $141 million and $13 million in prison cost in New York and Arizona.

To stop the bill Rubio scheduled a “workshop” on immigration policy, even though the bill was supported by House Majority Leader Adam Hasner, R-Boca Raton.

The most comprehensive bill proposed in Florida was modeled after a package adopted in Oklahoma in 07. The bill, filed by R. State Rep. Don Brown of DeFuniak Springs, would’ve stopped businesses from hiring illegal immigrants an required law enforcement to determine legal status of those arrested for drunk driving or boating. Brown also wanted to pass a law banning so-called sanctuary cities in Florida.

One cause for Rubio’s opposition was his alliance with the state’s just-departed Gov. Jeb Bush, who left office in 07. Bush didn’t want the issue talked about again after a “politically disastrous” decision in 04 to try to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants,” Brown told reporters in 2013.

Even Democrats noted how reluctant Rubio was to take up the popular reform bills. “For some people this is a real winner, but for a lot of Republicans in this state, immigration is not a real winner,” said Rep Keith Fitzgerald, D-Sarasota.

The issue got heated in Tallahassee. Rob criticized Brown for sending an “offensive” and “bad taste” cartoon to fellow state legislators with the tag line, “Don’t forget to pay your taxes on April 15. 12 million illegal aliens are counting on you.”

But Rubio had allies who helped block the reform bills. State Rep. David Rivera criticized reformers, and said the illegal immigrants”doing the jobs that not many other people are willing to do. They are being nannies, they are picking vegetables, the one’s cleaning toilets and bedrooms in hotels.”

Rivera went on to tell Florida’s Ledger newspaper, “the agriculture and construction and hospitality industries in Florida would collapse without undocumented immigrants.” Rivera is often described as Rubio’s mentor and the two Cuban-American pols owned a foreclosed home together in North Florida. Rivera was defeated in 2012 for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives and according to Miami Herald, is currently under investigation by the FBI.


Two Important Information Items

April 16th, 2015


So, you think Sen. Bob Corker showed the President a thing or two about making deals with Iran without the Senate’s authority? Well if you think that, I hate to be the one to break it to you but you’re wrong. In fact you might wind up dead wrong. What Corker did was as near treasonous as you can get without even trying.

The bill requires the president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The bill does maintain the prohibition on the president waiving congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.

However, the review period has been shortened from 60 days to an initial 30 days. If at the end of that time Congress were to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period. This could be another 10 days of review if the Pres. vetoed the resulting sanctions bill.

What Corker did in effect lowers the threshold for approving the deal from 67 votes to 41 — a craven betrayal of the Senate’s constitutional role as the final word on whether we agree to the treaty.

As written in The Wall Street Journal, “The majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibuster by Democrats and vetoed by the Pres. As few as 41 Senate Dems., could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to Obama’s desk–and 34 could sustain a veto. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and then approve the deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) showed his disappointment with this party’s concessions like this. “it’s a very limited role, it’s a role with very little teeth. It’s a far cry from advise and consent.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) at the request of Corker, agreed to withdraw an amendment to provide compensation for American victims of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from fees collected for violations of Iran sanctions.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Presidential candidate) planned to introduce an amendment to require the president to certify that Iran recognizes the state of Israel, but wilted and settled for language asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support for Israel’s right to exist. That right to exist is of course a foundational principle of American foreign policy that was never questioned till Obama came along.

More importantly, Corker betrayed American interests of our allies in the greater Middle East; from Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to India. Now no nation within the range of Iran’s missile technology is secure from the threat they’ll use them.

We don’t fear a nuclear armed United Kingdom or France, because they share our values, but we should fear and do everything we can to prevent a nuclear armed Iran.

With Obama evidently withdrawing his opposition, Corker’s bill is certain to become law. In the delusional state in which he apparently lives, Corker took this as a sign of Obama’s weakness; “The White House came to the deal when they saw the numbers of people, the growing support that was here,” he crowed.

The “growing support” for Senator Corker’s information was not for him to cave-in to Obama, but for him to exercise real constitutional power to approve or disapprove of Obama’s treaty to legitimize Iran’s nuclear program. That means “advice” while the treaties being negotiated and “consent ” after the Pres. concludes the agreement.

Corker betrayed that constitutional principle and the world will be a much more dangerous place because he failed to grasp the existential threat a nuclear armed Islamic Republic poses.

I urge you to call your Senators TODAY (the Capital Switchboard is 1-866-220–0044) and demand they appose Corkers bill. That it’s worse than no bill at all and is a bald faced betrayal of the Senate’s constitutional role in approving treaties, a betrayal of American’s interests in the face of the existential threat of Iran, and a betrayal of all people across the globe who share the values of freedom of conscience, religion and speech.

If Iran does use these weapons upon his enemies, the blood of those slain will be on Corkers head.


The Supreme Court is about to take up the issue of legalizing gay marriage across the land. I don’t need to tell you that the press, hollywood, dems, and all the “It’s only fair” crowd will be standing firmly on the side of the homosexual lobby. And did you know that finding a lawyer to fight for our side has yielded up only second string lawyers unattached to high profile firms. I don’t need to tell you why but I will. It’s because it’s considered a betrayal of the liberal agenda.

The biggest money group behind this is big business. They’re using money we spend in their stores to pay for something that goes firmly against Christian and pro-family interest. So how do we fight this onslaught?  First of all we must understand that there are millions more of us then them. Homosexuals number around 4% of the population regardless the fact that they seem to be everywhere and on everything. You can hardly go outside without hearing about homosexuals.

So, now it’s time to fight back. And there’s an app for it. Yes, an app. Ever wonder who J.C. Penny supports, or Macy’s or the Olive Garden, or . . . you name it. Well now you can. It’s called 2nd Vote. They have an app that  tells you who the business you’re dealing with supports. It’s all there on their web site. Once you know about these big companies you can contact them to tell them you’ll not be shopping at their store anymore. If enough people do that, well, like I said, there’s more of us then them. Here’s the web address. Check it out, there’s lots there to help us.


The Constitution We Don’t Understand–Sen. Mike Lee

April 15th, 2015

This is an article written By Senator Mike Lee. It’s very enlightening and so, I thought I’d share it with those of you who hadn’t already seen it. The title is “The Constitution we Don’t Understand.” Why a fundamental misunderstanding of our founding document is at the heart of Washington’s dysfunction.

He writes, In my Senate office stand two towers of documents. the first only a few inches tall. A collection of all the legislation Congress passed in 2013, it contains about 800 pages. The second tower, which is 11 feet tall, is a collection of regulations federal agencies proposed and adopted in 2013. It contains about 80,000 pages.

I keep these extraordinarily unequal towers to illustrate a startling reality: The U.S. Congress no longer passes most federal laws, rules, and regulations. Instead, about 99 percent of the rules we must live by issue from an army of unelected federal bureaucrats.

Using a classic duck-and-doge strategy, Congress routinely enacts legislation that purports to solve a genuine problem, but then delegates to these executive-branch bureaucrats the power to make the legally binding rules that determine the law’s real-world impact. It’s a brilliant plan; Congress gets all the credit for the popular goal and none of the blame for a regulation’s controversial–and expensive–particulars.

One example of this is found in the Clean Air Act. It essentially declares that “we shall have clean air,” then outlines a broad vision for limiting air pollution. The act contains relatively few details as to how its laudable objectives will be achieved.

Instead, it authorizes the EPA to make and enforce legally binding regulations that, far more than the act itself, restrict air pollution. Thus, when the EPA adopts a new regulation, those who find the law unreasonable have little recourse, because their representatives in Congress can shrug and say, “Well, the EPA put that regulation in place.”

For Americans who don’t work in Congress or monitor its operations on a full-time basis, it can be hard to understand how far our government has drifted from the Constitution’s vision and in many cases its actual stated provisions.

Many Americans probably assume that our lawmakers understand our founding document and are devoted to defending it. That assumption more often than not is incorrect.

Far too many members of Congress don’t understand the Constitution they’ve sworn to defend–not because they can’t understand it, but because they make little or no effort to do so.

Some Supreme Court justices aren’t much better; too many of them understand our founding document but refuse to acknowledge that its most important function is to limit and check power.

Presidents are often even worse; they pay lip service to our nation’s governing document, but their actions frequently betray a lack of real commitment to its restrictions.

People serving in each of these positions have raised their right hands and sworn some variation of an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Most, if not all, of the people who made such a vow intended at the outset to keep it. Maybe they believe they are keeping it. Far too often they’re not. The truth is, many of the very people who have solemnly promised to protect our Constitution are subverting it.

Since I arrived in Washington, I’ve found it awash with people who viewed the Constitution as a nuisance.  There was an attorney general who vouched for a legislative proposal that would give the District of Columbia representation in Congress, even though experts within his own Dept. explained the Constitution only allows states such representation. And there was an outgoing Speaker of the House who, when asked about the constitutional authority for Obamacare, answered with scorn and incredulity by simply replying, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Even in our party, far too many elected officials have been reluctant to engage the public in a meaningful constitutional discourse. President G.W. Bush, for example, signed the McCain-Feingold Act even though he knew major parts of it violated American’s right to free speech. He explained that “certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns,” but in a shocking abrogation of his duty to defend the Constitution, washed his hands of responsibility by saying, “I expect that the court will resolve these legitimate legal question.” When the court did exactly that in Citizens United, liberal went wild, heaping on the Court the Criticism Bush had deflected and that continues to this day.

The Constitution must be defended not only by the courts, but by the other two branches as well as — and especially by, the citizens who elect them. Only the voters can force our government officials to obey their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

We can do this first by influencing the attitudes of those around us, making every effort to persuade friends and neighbors that constitutionally limited government not only matters but is essential to our prosperity as a notion. Second, we have to remind elected representatives in Washington that the power to make laws belongs to Congress, not unaccountable bureaucrats, and encourage them to enact regulatory reform measures like the REINS Act, which would help put Congress in charge of lawmaking.

Finally, we have to bring our knowledge of the Constitution back to the ballot box and vote differently–especially when it comes to federal offices.

What George Washington wrote in 1787 remains true today:
The power under the Constitution will always be with the people.” Whenever we, as a people, decide the Constitution is being “executed contrary to our interest” and in a manner “Not agreeable to our wishes,” we will start to care differently, act differently, and vote differently as we seek for the limitations on power that have been promised and yet are lost.”

This year’s tower of regulations is growing at this moment, there’s no time to waste in promoting a real national discussion about the meaning of our Constitution and demanding that our elected officials respect it.


How Low Can They Go!

April 12th, 2015

You know, I keep telling myself that this President  can’t sink any lower, but I’m always wrong. And no Im not talking about Cuba. But you know what they say, “If Satan had a son he’d look like. . .”

As you know the state department closed the Embassy in Yemen and evacuated our military and diplomatic personnel. However, they didn’t evacuate the American citizens working in Yemen. Those people were left behind and now we are helping Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen while our people are still there.

Here is the story from NPR. It’s about one American citizen who was able to get out but was abandoned by the Obama administration: Here’s the story.

Alkhanshali realized immediately that he needed to get out of the country. But actually doing so would prove complicated. The civilian airport had been bombed that night; there was a no-fly zone, and all naval activity was stopped. He was effectively trapped in Yemen. 

When he tried calling the American Embassy in the countries around Yemen, the response he got back was always some variation on the same statement: “We are not evacuating any U.S. citizens at the moment. What we can do, though , is relay your messages to your loved ones.”

Alkhanshali didn’t exactly find this comforting. 

“I for one didn’t want to tell my mother and father that I’m terrified that I might die tonight,” he says. “When I realized that there was no help coming, I had decided to take matters into my own hands, even though that meant putting myself at extreme risks.”

And since we’re against the Iran-backed rebel Houthis, we’re actually helping the Saudi’s to bomb in Yemen, where our citizens are stranded. But you know who IS evacuating their citizens? Russia, our number one geo-political foe: If this doesn’t infuriate you nothing will. Being a citizen in trouble oversea’s use to mean American had your back. Now they could care less if you get shot in the back. I have to ask the eternal question at this point–“Don’t American lives matter?” I do have to say here that there are reports that Russia has gotten some of our people out, so what does that tell you?

Maybe if these folks told the state dept. they were deserters we’d do something. Doesn’t hurt to try. I’m all for a Rose Garden ceremony. And of course if this was a Republican administration we’d be hounded out of office.

Some weeks ago I wrote about the EPA going after the amount of water you use in your showers. Today the OD had a whole page and a little more story on that very issue. You heard it here first folks. That’s called bragging. Anyway remember this. It’s not about saving water. It’s about training the citizenry to blindly follow government orders. To bend to their well. Getting right down to it, the amount of water we use means nothing to them, but they want us to know that they can control it and then us.


Is It Me, Or Is the Untied States Going Mad?

April 11th, 2015

You know, it’s getting to the point where I dread reading the news. If it weren’t for those of you out there who read what I write, (you do read it don’t you?) I’d throw in the towel and end it all. Of course being a Christian that wouldn’t work so I guess I’ll just throw the towel instead, but I do it with gusto.

So lets see, Obama shakes hands with little brother Castro and just like that, presto change-o the Munroe Doctrine lies dead on the floor. What a leader. According to Keith Coffer, writing at White House Dossier, this is the damage this self centered, American hating, Muslim loving, piss-ant did.

“President Obama officially closed a chapter in U.S. history that has guided presidents since nearly its beginning, indicating the United States will no longer act to resist overseas influence in the Hemisphere.

Obama, who spoke Friday during a “civil society” forum in Panama City Panama, disparaged past efforts by the U.S. to forestall the spread of Communism in Latin America and suggested similar missions would no longer be undertaken.

The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the Untied States could meddle with impunity, those days are past,” Obama said.

Yep, you don’t need glasses. Obama just apologized for nearly two centuries of U.S. “meddling.” Not only that, but he threw all the people of Latin America under the bus. Just think, now the Communist can invade those countries, kill their people, destroy their industries, take away their rights, and their property and we’ll just sit back, fold our hands behind our heads, and watch the blood bath. Great.

That  U.S. he’s talking about is supposedly the one he’s suppose to be “leading.”

Also noteworthy: Mr Obama announced that he is giving Cuba a free pass on its support for terrorism and Communist insurgencies around the world.

Oh how I long for an American President. I’m still waiting for indications that he has decided not to give up the office. After all being a dictator is sort of fun.

Now on to more depressing news.

Remember that old song, “Today I face, the barren waste without a taste of water….Cool water. Old Dan and I with throat burned dry and souls that cried for water…..Cool, clear, water.”

If you don’t it just means I’m older than you. Anyway, that’s what’s happening in Calif. In the heart of California’s drought-parched Central Valley, fruit and vegetable supplier to the nation, a water district is defying a federal order to give some endangered trout a 3.9 billion gallon water ride out to sea. And it could be the first skirmish in a much wider conflict.

The Endangered Species Act protects steelhead trout, a small population of which are attempting a recovery in the Stanislaus River which flows out of the Sierra Nevada Mt.s, into Modesto, in the the San Joaquin Valley. So earlier this week a federal fisheries agency–it’s unclear which one, as there are several—told the Calif. branch of theBureau of Reclamation (another water agency) that the fish needed more water to get out to the Pacific. The bureau in turn passed the order to the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, telling them to let a pulse of water through the dam on the Stanislaus. 

It’s unclear which federal fishery agency sent the letter” What…?  How many “federal fisheries agencies” do we need? Oh, but that’s right, Democrats: there’s nothing to cut in the vast federal bureaucracy. My bad.

But upon receipt, Jeff Shields, the manager of SSJID went rogue: “Whose water will be released down the Stanislaus River to satisfy the second pulse flow?” Not his, in other words.

It was the second such order in the past three weeks. The SSJID complied with the first. According to The Manteca Bulletin, a local paper that has been covering the standoff, this flushed 15,000 acre feet of water and 23 steelhead trout. But this latest order, which would reportedly use another 12,000 acre feet to save only six fish, was too much for Shields. (Fisheries agencies haven’t yet confirmed that count.)

The two water “pulses” represent nearly 10 billion gallons of water that the feds want to use to save a grand total of less than 30 fish, when instead it could be used to irrigate farmland, feed and water animals, as well as meet residential water needs.

So Lewis said no to the Bureau, and then secured legal counsel. “We tried to work with the Bureau for the last several years. We’ve sent dozens of letters and ideas about how to manage the river more prudently and other issues that we felt needed to be addressed because they were affecting our water,” Shields told The Manteca Bulletin. “I understand that they’re busy and they have a river that they have to manage and water that they have to take care of, but we’re busy as well–we have water that we have to manage and people that we have to look out for as well.” According to shields, this water is better used on human interests, like agriculture and homes.

These eco-Marxists are completely insane. Off their rockers. The entire federal bureaucracy ( I’m not including our defines and intel budgets) needs to be slashed by 75 percent. For starters.


A Few Important Words from Patrick Henry

April 10th, 2015

Patrick Henry


by Patrick Henry

Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate theorist of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and sir; would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad?

Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?

I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king,  we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.

I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry everything before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.

If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American Throne?

Will not the immense difference between being master of everything, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?

But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! We shall have a king; the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you; and what have you to oppose this force? What will then  become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

Patrick Henry, Virgina Ratifying convention: June 5, 1788

Part 4 — Conclusion–The Post Indiana Future for Christians

April 9th, 2015

Part 4–Indiana

The emerging climate on campus of micro aggressions, trigger warnings, and the construal of discourse as a form of violence is driving Christian professors further into the closet, the professor said.  “If I said something that was construed as attacking a gay student, I could have my life made miserable with a year or two of litigation — and if I didn’t have tenure, there could be a chance my career would be ruined.” he said. “Even if you have tenure, a few people making allegations about someone being hateful can make a tenured professor’s life miserable.”

What is the line between prudently closing our mouths and closeting ourselves, and compromising our faith? Christians have to start thinking about this seriously. “We have to fall back to defensive lines and figure out where those lines are. It’s not going to be persecution like the older Romans, or even communist Russia, but what’s coming is going to cause a lot of people to fall away from the faith, and we are going to have to be careful about how we define and clarify what Christianity is.”

“If I were a priest or pastor, I don’t know what I’d advise people about what to say and what not to say in public about their faith.” There is a bitter irony in the fact that gays coming out of the closet coincides with traditional religious people gong back in.

On the political side, Kingsfield said it’s important to “surrender political hope” –that is, that things can be solved through political power. Republicans can be counted on to block the worst of what the Democrats attempt –which is a pretty weak thing to rely on, but it’s not nothing. “But a lot of things can be done by administrative order,” he said. “I’m really worried about that.”

And on the cultural front? Cultural pressure is going to radically reduce orthodox Christian numbers in the years to come. The meaning of what it means to be a faithful Christian is going to come under intense fire, Kingsfield said, not only from outside the churches, but from within. There will be serious stigma attached to standing up for orthodox teaching on homosexuality.

“And if bishops are like those Indiana bishops, where does that leave us?” he pointed out. “We have a problem in the current generation, but what I worry about is what it means to transmit the faith to the next generation.”

“A lot of us will be able to pass’ if we keep our mouths shut, but it’s going to be hard to tell who believes what.” said Kingsfield.  “In my area, there’s a kind of secret handshake that traditional Christians use to identify ourselves to each other when we meet. Forming those subterranean, catacomb church networks is not easy , but it’s terribly vital right now.”

Kingsfield said he and his wife sent their children to a classical Christian school in their area. “I can’t tell you how happy that makes me,” he said. “Studying the past is so important. If you have an understanding of where we came from [as a culture], you can really see how insane we have gone.”

This is a time, for Christians to read about church history, including the lives of saints, and to acquaint themselves with the fact that the Christian church has actual roots, and teaching. It’s not about what you “feel” is Christian. Thats the way of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, which is the death of Christianity.

The most important question for Christian parents to ask themselves is do we have a vibrant church. Sadly, only a small number of places have them. “Our family is one,” said the Prof. “Our kids are growing up with good examples that they can look up to, and good older kids who hang on because they can stand together.”

It could come down to Endogamy. Endogamy means marriage only within a certain clan or in-group. “intermarriage is death,” Kingsfield said. “Not something like Catholic-Orthodox, but Christian-Jew, or high church-low church. I just don’t think Christians are focused on that but the Orthodox Jews get it. They know how much this matters in creating a culture in which transmitting the faith happens. For us Christians, this is going to mean matchmaking and youth camps and other things like that. It probably means embracing a higher fertility rate, and celebrating bigger families.”

The professor said we also have to band together behind religious liberty legal organizations like The Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom to name a few. We can’t assume others will support them. At the moment they are the ones out front fighting the good fight.  And we have to make connections not only across denominational lines, but religious one too. That is, with Jews, Muslims, and Mormons.

It can’t be said loudly enough that yes, we have big theological disagreements, but the more we can stand together, the more likely we are to succeed, he said. “The more our struggle is framed as a specifically Christian thing, the more likely we are to lose in the courts.”

Why? Because of liberal culture, and its demonization of Christians as the “Other”. Pres. Obama will speak out for the Yazidis, but not for the Iraqi Christians. When he talks about the martyred Egyptians in Libya, he doesn’t acknowledge that they were killed for being Christians. It’s simply a fact that there is tremendous animus against Christians within the liberal culture, and that liberal elites will tolerate things from Orthodox Jews and Muslims that they’ll not tolerate from Christians. Small-o orthodox Christians had better grasp that the religious liberties of Jews and Muslims are our own religious liberties, and make friendships and tactical alliances across these boundaries.

More broadly, he believes all Christians must take a lesson from many Evangelicals and raise their children to know from the beginning that we are different from everybody else in this culture. We now live in a clearly post-Christian society, and Christian conservatives had better get that straight.

Right now the “live and let live” homosexual group is aging, but a new generation of Social Justice Warriors in their twenties and thirties are coming along. They don’t believe that they should respect anyone who doesn’t respect them. “Those people are going to be in power before long and we may not be as protected as we once where. I’m not saying that all is lost. Only that a wise man doesn’t wait for the flood to make sure his home is waterproof. We can’t possible tell what God has in mind for the Christians of America. Perhaps this is part of his plan for the end days that there will be a great falling away.

All I can say is that this article, though long,  was very thought provoking. Seeing the position he holds, and the fact that he’s a practicing Christian makes me believe that what he’s saying has a large grain of truth in it.  So, what do you think? Was getting this all down on paper a waste of my time? I know we have a lot of Christians out there. Please let me know what you think. This is the perfect chance to voice your feelings about what is coming for those of us who hold Christ as our Savior.  You can’t win the battle without a well thought out plan. And lets admit it, we’re at war.

Part 3–The Post Indiana Future for Christians–Higher education

April 8th, 2015

Part 3 — Indiana

Kingsfield said home schooling and home schooling-isms (e.g., co-ops), are going to become increasingly important to orthodox Christians, especially as they see established religious schools folding on this issue. Then of course there’s alway the possibility that the states will intervene and deny parents the right to homeschool.

Businesses, however are going to have a very hard time resisting what’s coming. Not that they would try. The big companies have already gone over to the dark side.

“Most anti-discrimination laws have a certain cut off — they don’t apply if you have 15 employees or less,” he said. “You could have an independent, loosely affiliated network of artisans, working together. If you can refer people to others within the network, that could work. You won’t be able to scale up, but that’s not such a bad thing.”

Kingsfield said religious colleges and universities are going to have to think are about their identities. “Colleges that don’t receive federal funding –Hillsdale and Grove City are two I can think of, are going to be in better position, because federal regulations force a lot of crazy stuff on you,” he said. “I think it would be really wise for small religious institutions to think hard if they can cut the cord of federal funding and can find wealthy donors to step in.”

We are going to have to watch closely the way the law breaks regarding gender identity and transgenderism. If the courts accept the theory that gender is a social construct–and there is a long line of legal theory and jurisprudence that says that it is — then the field of anti discrimination law is bound to be expanded to cover, for example, people with penises who consider themselves women. The law, in other words,w ill compel citizens to live as if this were true–and religious liberty will, in general be no fallback.This may well happen.

What about the big issue that is on the minds of many Christians who pay attention to this fight: the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations? Will they be Bob Jones’d over gay rights? (Actually I think churches should give up their tax exempt status, thereby being less beholding to government.)

This is, at the moment, too deeply embedded in American thought and law to be at serious risk right now, but gay rights proponents will probably push to tie the tax exemption on charities with how closely integrated they are within churches. The closer schools and charities are tied to churches, especially in their hiring, the greater the protection they will enjoy.

The accreditation issue is going to be a much stickier wicket. Accreditation is tied to things like the acceptance of financial aid, and the ability to get into graduate schools. “There was a professor at Penn last year who wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education calling for the end of accrediting religious colleges and universities. It was a Richard Dawkins kind of thing, just crazy. The fact that someone taking a position this hostile felt very comfortable putting this in such a prestigious magazine as the Chronicle tells me that there’s a non-trivial number of professors willing to believe this.

Gordon College has faced pressure from a regional accrediting authority over its adherence to traditional Christian sexual morals re: gay rights. “Accreditation is critical to being admitted to law schools and medical schools,” Kingsfield said. “College accreditation will matter for some purposes of sports, federal aid, and for the ability to be admitted by top graduate schools. Ghettoization for Christians could be the result.”

“In Calif. right now judges can’t belong to the Boy Scouts. Who knows if in the future, lawyers won’t be able to belong to churches that are considered hate groups?” he said. “It’s certainly true that a lot of law firms will not now hire people who worked on cases defending those on the traditional marriage side. It’s going to close some professional doors.

I certainly wouldn’t write about this stuff in my work, not if I wanted to have a chance at tenure. There’s a question among Christian law professors right now: do you write about these issues and risk tenure? This really does distort your scholarship. Christianity could make a distinct contribution to legal discussions, but it’s simply too risky to say what you really think.”