First I must apologize for the length of time between posts, but this story had to be told in its entirety for it to make sense. That story, of course, is the story of the United States Supreme Court case D.C. v Heller, and how we as Americans may have been granted a privilege were a right once stood.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution states:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Heller case is the much-publicized case that questioned the constitutionality of the comprehensive Washington D.C. handgun ban that also insisted upon any weapon in the home being unloaded and disassembled. In the 26 June 2008 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States “benevolently” found that the right outlined in the Second Amendment was indeed an individual one for the purposes of self-defense within one’s home, and that such a ban would preclude citizens from exercising said right. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his extensive and in-depth exegesis of the verbiage within the amendment, proved this rather evident assertion using the context and common intent behind the specific wording of the amendment in the colonial era in which it was written.
Scalia was so meticulous and diligent in order to prove once and for all that the amendment was not intended solely as a provision guaranteeing the rights of the people to maintain a militia, and was thus not only a community right enjoyed by such citizens who participate in militia activities. That position was espoused in the 1939 case of United States v. Miller, which, to most familiar with the normal proceedings in juris prudence, was all but orthodox in its argumentation, delibration, and finding.
The case involved the ownership and transportation of a sawed-off shotgun by two admitted criminals, Miller being one. Miller asserted a right to ownership of the shotgun under the second amendment. This claim eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. However, as the initial briefs were submitted to the courts prior to the oral arguments, Miller’s attorney informed the Court that he could no longer locate his clients and had subsequently not been supplied with sufficient funds to submit a brief. He thus waived his right to submit a brief and encouraged the Court to render their decision based entirely upon the state’s brief. This turn of events provided the rather “progressive” Court at that time a blank canvas upon which to frame their decision. Their decision itself was, for all intents and purposes, a total departure from any semblance of an originalist interpretation of Constitutional verbiage and intent. It, in effect, rendered the final clause of the Second Amendment, “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” as surplus and thus meaningless language.
The Court made their decision predicated upon the recently-enacted “National Fire-Arms Act” (1934) and the vastly-extended “Commerce Clause” of Article One of the Constitution. The Court asserted that the ownership of such a weapon was in no way germane to the presence or function of a well regulated militia, and that ownership of such a weapon could therefore be prohibited/infringed upon. Through this decision, the Court inexorably bound the clearly individual right of fire-arm ownership, and ipso facto the right to defend oneself, to the common societal right toward defense of the state, i.e. militias. Up until last month, Miller was the only case in the Court's history dealing with the Second Amendment.
Mr. Justice Reynolds wrote in the actual decision on the Miller case :
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense…The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
Scalia asserts in his 2008 decision, some seventy years later, that, contrary to the finding in Miller, the rights asserted in the Second Amendment did in fact refer to both the militia and the individual as having rights to both firearm ownership and self-defense within one’s home. To many, this was the best of all possible outcomes for Second Amendment advocates and represents the penultimate blow struck for gun owners throughout the U.S.
However, to those paying close attention, the Heller ruling represents a metamorphosis of the Second Amendment from the assertion of a right whose nature and meaning were up for further discussion, to a governmentally allowed and regulated privilege whose nature as such had now been precedentially cemented. The fact is, despite doing his due diligence as to the verbiage of most of the Amendment, Scalia seemingly avoided the meat of the Amendment for gun-owners, and what seems to be the crux of the case with reference to the ability of the state to regulate ownership of firearms. Say, like the D.C. gun ban.
Once again, I am referring to the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Amendment. Scalia instead asserts the compelling interest of the state in “reasonable” regulation of the right. So, in all likewise “reasonable” assessment of the Court’s treatment of the Second Amendment, one can only conclude that “inalienable” right of every individual to own a firearm is reduced to nothing more than a government-regulated and granted privilege. Consequently, the Heller decision represents very little change from the Miller decision, in that they both allow for restriction of the right. The substituted privilege, by even the most optimistic conceptualization, gives the state the opportunity to “regulate” and thus mold the right to bear arms into something that by no means resembles what the founders seemed to have in mind as the provocation behind the right's assertion. The reason behind the right, at its root, is to provide opportunity for the people to sluff off tyrannical government. The availability of palpable resistance to a tyrannical government was, and is, at the core of the successful continuation of a free state. At least according to the founding fathers of this nation, as this belief is echoed continually throughout their writings.
Could Scalia’s apparent apprehension to address this pivotal verbiage within the amendment be due to the Bush administration’s rather ambivalent Amicus Brief presented to the court? Said brief can only be described as less then friendly to those who believe in either true fidelity to the actual verbiage of the Constitution, or to those who hold dear their right to own firearms without governmental restriction. A right which such patriots believe is articulated quite clearly throughout the Second Amendment as a whole, and the “shall not be infringed" clause in particular.
The Court’s decision that the government can “reasonably” regulate the ownership of firearms is tantamount to a slippery slope to tyranny, in that, government's definition of "reasonable," as born out in myriad examples in the past, is one that is all but narrowly tailored. The "infringement" on the right by government is what the amendment explicitly precludes. Thus, the Heller decision is anything but a victory, and simply represents a legal precedent for the government's ability to "regulate" a right they are explicitly barred from restricting in the Constitution. Can anyone tell the difference between regulation and restriction in the governmental paradigm?
The ability to “reasonably” restrict gun ownership has already proven itself an open door to quasi-removal of the right altogether. On 16 July 2008, Washington D.C. city council and Police Department released the latest incarnation of the D.C. handgun ownership policy. They seem to have simply disregarded the Heller decision totally, as they now require that, once again, all handguns be stored disassembled and unloaded or with trigger locks. They also require the jumping through of other Orwellian hoops by citizens simply trying to exercise their right as Americans. These hoops include ballistics tests, fingerprinting, background checks, fees, waiting periods, etc. President of the Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, who has been critical of the ruling since its announcement, was all the more critical of this latest attempt to restrict the right. He stated, "It is no wonder that the District is awash with lawlessness. The contempt for the law starts in the city council chambers." The new D.C. regulations allowed for the main plaintiff in the Heller case, Dick Heller to register only a 22-caliber revolver in the district, as all semi-automatic handguns are forbidden. In all estimations, Heller's "fight for freedom," was rendered a farce.
Does this come as a surprise to any of us? I can answer for myself with an unequivocal NO. D.C. officials know that under the new regulations, those who would have standing before the court to contest the laws, would have to be convicted under them, and would thus be fighting to stay out of jail. This is tantamount to restriction from not only ownership of a weapon, but from rdress of grievances as well. Conversely, the government has unlimited resources to defend its own tyrannical policies, and will do so according to D.C.'s mayor Fenty.
“Citizens should only be allowed to own guns if they are given a government permit, and the permit should only be issued if there is a "good reason" for possession or or "genuine need." In particular, permits to own guns for self defense should not be issued unless the applicant proves that he is in immediate danger.”
Is this a quote from Scalia’s decision or from some arcane Huxley- created fictional character? Eerily it is neither. It is rather a quote from the United Nations Disarmament Programme's publication, How to Guide: Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation. The publication expresses the dire necessity of international "harmonisation" of gun laws. Could this have been the source of Scalia’s apprehension to address the pivotal clause? For all intents and purposes, the opinions of the U.N. and Scalia differ only negligibly. The U.N. simply states bluntly what Scalia allows the government to achieve, the licensing of a privilege.
The fact is the agenda has been set on a global scale, and that the incremental approach to the stripping of the last holdouts, American public, of their only avenue to resist tyranny is not a new tactic. Aside from the myriad incremental restriction in the American past, like the above-mentioned National Firearms Act etc., recently government and those who "own" (please click on that link if no other) it have ramped up their attacks on the Second Amendment right.
This point merits the discussion of some less-publicized activities toward that end.
Perhaps the most clever example of these incremental and covert tactics is the apparent purchase and subsequent stemming of production of and “outsourcing” of ammunition producers by the Carlyle group. Consequently, the price of ammunition in the U.S. has risen exponentially in the past few years. As I have articulated above, governments bent on curtailing the right of gun ownership will not stop simply at the law, and will move around it when all else fails. This ammunition coup exemplifies this contention expressly. Ironically enough, the Carlyle Group is a secretive investment group in which both the Bush and Bin Laden families are heavily involved. Once again, the "conservative" paragon proves himself less than friendly to the orthodoxy he so vehemently espouses to export to other countries.
Think about it, without ammunition what good are guns? This seems to be a pattern, however, these are by far not the first examples of Bush administration officials going after Second Amendment rights. In 2007 OSHA attempted to brand ammunition as “explosives” and severely limit the amount of ammunition that any citizen could store.
The historical record of tyrannical government proves that one of the initial steps toward enslaving a people is the removal of their ability to defend themselves. Nature rarely presents armed sheep, in fact, often being unarmed is what designates one as a sheep.
The sad truth is, that in a fallen world, the ability to defend oneself is the ability to inflict one’s will on any given situation. Thomas Hobbes put it best when he wrote, "A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force, to take away his life." If one cannot defend oneself in any meaningful way, then, by definition, one cannot prevent another from inflicting his will on whomever he chooses. Logically, those who would abuse others often choose those who can offer the least resistance, namely the unarmed. This concept is at the root of all sociological, economic, and even psychological thought, i.e those impaired in any way from repelling or atleast competing with the advances of another are rendered as less effective actors. In fact, it is the basis for having law in the first place. Hobbes continues, "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man." Self-preservation is an inherent instinct that only a government intent on abusing it station as such would seek to subdue.
Despite the above-elaborated instances of governmental infringements on our ability to defend ourselves, perhaps the most prolific example of this habituation to sheephood takes the form of psychological warfare. The use of phrases in the “lame-stream” media like “gun violence” and “gun deaths” encourage one to associate acts of violence that happen to be perpetrated with a firearm as a direct result of the presence of said firearm. This assertion totally ignores that people have been killed in heinous manners since the beginning of time. Ask Abel. The advent of firearms is simply a step in the evolution of man’s ability to better kill one another. Within the paradigm explained above, to remove an actor’s ability to defend oneself effectively, that actor’s effectiveness is inhibited. It’s like bringing a knife to gunfight, and, even then, if one were dispatched at the end of a blade, one could not blame the blade for it's deadly point. Neither can one blame a firearm for being the harbinger of death. Man is the most deadly weapon of all. All the more reason that every man should be afforded the opportunity to repel another man with nefarious intent.
Conversely and unfairly, reality shows us that in conflicts throughout the world in which governments participate, deaths caused by firearms are not called “gun violence” but rather casualties. The state does not bar itself from the use of “deadly” firearms, only its citizens. Instead, being well armed is instead often posited as the definition of a nation’s strength. Despite the fact that, when one looks at the historical record, individuals, especially free individuals, act far more rational than the state and have taken far less life. Yet we are saturated with media images demonizing the "irresponsible" civilian with a gun.
Take the story of Joe Horn for example. Mr. Horn is a law-abiding citizen of the state of Texas. Texas law allows the use of deadly force in the defense of property. Mr. Horn, against the advice of a 911 operator, shot two men in his own back yard in suburban Pasadena Texas. He was later called a “cold-blooded killer” by the widow of a man Horn shot and killed.
The man was in Horn’s yard, in the process of absconding with Horn’s neighbor’s property, and could have been armed. The man was also a felon, drug-runner, and had been deported several times back to his native Colombia. Despite these facts, Horn was vilified rabidly by those in the media for his violent behavior and his lack of compliance with local law enforcement. All the while the same media liars ignored the dead man’s same disregard for the law. In short, Horn was convicted in the "media court" of not remaining the victim he was instructed to be by agents of an edifice that has a vested interest in his remaining in such a role. Law enforcement agencies need victims, or who will they be protecting? All that would be left in the absence of victims is draconian tyranny and needles intervention in our lives. Without the illusion of safety, the interest of the state in controlling every aspect of our lives would become abundantly clear. If we were rendered bold and stripped of our fear, our minds would not be as malleable and accepting of our gradual enslavement.
In such an instance as Horn's, the media ubiquitously ignores the fact that the police are, by design, a reactionary force. They investigate committed crimes and cannot actually stop most from happening. In short, they show up to pick up the bodies or console the rape victim. Consequently, the only effective force against the actual committal of crime is the armed citizen. Not vigilantism as some would assert, but the free and autonomous individual defending his own life, family, and property. Just as the founding fathers envisioned from a “just citizenry." Just as Horn did.
Mr. Horn was brought before a Grand Jury, harassed and called a racist by activist, protested by anti-gun advocates, and made out to be a monster. Despite no charges ever having been brought against Horn, the message sent to the citizenry of the U.S. is clear. “Do not defend yourselves, depend on government for your well-being, and hope that the criminal that intends you harm observes your state’s gun laws.”
In fact, the exact opposite bears itself out to be true, as evidenced by the effectiveness of the Washington D.C.’s handgun ban to deter violent crime, or Virginia Tech’s “Zero Tolerance" zone’s effectiveness in deterring that massacre (rather large wink). Further, those states that allow their citizens to defend themselves in all instances by allowing open or concealed carry of weapons tend to have far lower instances of violent crime. So, in essence, it is not factual and analytical thought which determines societies perception of firearms and government’s regulation of them, but rather it is simply the specious psychological arguments. Once that conclusion is excepted, one may begin acepting the implications of the fact that the first step toward mind control is the separation of the victim from rational thought.
We must insist that the rights given by God and articulated in the United States Constitution are respected. Also, we must stem the incremental degradation of them. We must be vigilant, and open our eyes to these tactics. If nothing else, we must refuse to be the generation who gave away what so many died to keep, our freedom. Vote, campaign, write letters to the editor, protest, and refuse to let our God-given rights be lost in a sea of apathy.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
How Far Down Does the Rabbit-Hole Go?
I was doing my due-diligence and researching for these posts when I came across this youtube video. What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts. Just click on the link, and I will read your comments. Hopefully I will garner enough information to post an educated post soon in the future.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Oil and Government: "Big Brother" in the Black
The facts are that the United States’ interest lie submerged in a viscous black substance. Our infrastructure, our economy, and our livelihoods depend on access to it. Many of our “enemies” and “allies” also depend on access and the sale of it. It is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and has ties to most others. In short, we need oil, and we have been habituated to, and have become dependant upon, its being accessible. In reality, our lives depend on it.
Recently this issue has come to the forefront of our minds with the skyrocketing global petroleum prices. Those from the right and the left have their espoused reasons for this scourge on the U.S. economy. The right blames the environmental movement for hamstringing the oil companies and limiting their access to oil fields and refinery construction. The left blames war and profit mongering amongst the elite for driving rising prices; and asserts the use of oil should be stemmed all together.
However, “Big” oil has millions of acres of oil fields that they refuse to develop. U.S. allies in OPEC limit supply to markets despite an exponential rise of demand from the third world. Environmentalist refuse to explore plausible technology and/or attack possible replacements for oil from the same environmental stance they take with oil, i.e. ethanol uses too much land for corn or nuclear power is too ecologically risky. Thus no substantive changes or adjustments are made. A wise man noted, “[i]nsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” President Carter tried to tax windfall success and failed miserably. The environmentalists, by their own admissions, have done little to stem the impending global ecological crisis. Although, most with open minds realize there is little for humanity to do in respect to ecological phenomenon. So, are all these people insane, or is there a different agenda?
What does get done? The answer to this question is perhaps the best place to start.
Results include: (1) an increased regulation of free markets, (2) the continued assertion that oil companies are being held back from their "true potential" despite their surpassing all profit records, (3) higher taxes, (4) more governmental subsidy, (5) more failed governmental projects toward should-be private research and development for “alternatives,” and (6) a continuous relationship with those who fund and support our supposed "enemies" across the world (Saudi Arabia etc.).
What do all these things have in common? They lead one to believe that government has tried nothing substantive, and yet are all out of free market ideas. Further, they lead to crippling high oil prices, an atmosphere of fear and desperation, the continued polarization of the American public along partisan lines, and public calls for ANY solution to this problem.
I heard yesterday, in a Democratic response press conference to Bush’s proposal for more drilling, words that made the whole mess seem clear to me. The concept of governmentally controlled oil industry was posed as an option. Finally, all the contradictions, the ineffectual responses, and flippant disregard by oil companies make sense. The facts are that huge economic interests have a long precedent of "becoming" government. Look at the original board of the Federal Reserve. The only things to be lost by oilmen from this proposed transition from private to public interests are the taxes paid and the cost of R&D (which of course you and I will now pay).
The fact is that money lost its import to these elites a long time ago, and thus a loss in monetary profit is tertiary to the actual aims. They have come to realize that power is the ultimate commodity, and oil is power.
Will the same people be in charge of this staple of our infrastructure if indeed it becomes nationalized? Of course they will, who better for the job? This is simply a mechanism to relieve us of yet another aspect of our autonomy by those who care little for money an have sold their souls for power. They do know that we do care dearly for money, and will act as consumers accordingly. This causes the dreaded variable of consumer choice.
In the proposed new system, we will pay for oil whether we want to or not, through taxes. Even if one chooses to ride a bike or walk, in a socialized petroleum system, you will be an oil consumer. Makes allot of sense for “Big” oil to “throw” this game and, in its frustration and defeat, turn to government for “help.” However, an even more ingenious scheme would posit these oilmen as villains to be vanquished by the righteous government. Perhaps even an amalgamation of the two involving disingenuous pressure brought on all sides toward one seemingly unavoidable answer, nationalization of the American oil industry would be most efficient? Sound familiar Barak?
Such a scenario would make this transition "the will of the people." Ironically, with this gluttonous foe ("Big Oil") vanquished, the same will rise from the ashes to consummate the oil monopolies that their fathers and forefathers could not. Given the fact that the governmental and economic “powers that be” are noticably from “old” money made from oil, the transition will be an easy one. "Oil families" include the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Vanderbilts, the Warbergs, the Bushs, et al. The fact is that government is the biggest business in the world. If an enterprise is small enough to be quashed, that enterprise is considered competition and blocked from success. Conversely, if an enterprise is considered large enough to be useful it is consolidated into the governmental fold.
Ancillary benefits for big government include: (1) the demonization of private free markets(read competition), (2) increased popular desensitization to the presence of and beholdeness to government, (3) the ultimate opportunity to “lose” more money without question, (4) opportunity to require more in taxes, (5) increased opportunity to gobble up private property for "public purpose," and (6)a further opportunity to mingle oil interest with expressed national political interest and thus provide an auspices to continue their wars and intrigue on the global stage.
This is an incremental command economy takeover. One more giant step towards "Big Brother." Once again, the brilliance of it is, is that we, the American people, will consent; no, beg for this intrusion of government into our lives. In effect, we will sell our proverbial souls for that tempting free bowl of beans.
We at least have the chance to choose. Those under the thumb of our “enemies” in the Middle East do not. The elite in those countries are power hungry oilmen as well, and have committed this coup long ago. They control their populous in many of the same ways. Bait, switch, and posit the “other” as the source of all problems as they continue to consolidate control.
Kind of makes one wonder what the actual difference is between the ourselves and our posited "foes." Except for, of course, we choose our own enslavement, and thus cannot complain. However, we are "bringing democracy" to those "poor" souls, so they can be burdened in a more uniform and subtle manner.
It seems that government all over the world is getting bigger. Is that simply another case of insanity, given the bloody precedent that big government brings with it? Or is it another case of an agenda covered up by a false conflict and offered for consideration to the masses wrapped in a false choice? We need to wake up and see that we are being enslaved. It is not about being rich or getting more oil in the greater scheme of things. It is as it has always been, even in the days of "hydraulic empires" when water was the most desirable commodity, the ultimate goal of these ancient, large, and evil interests is to CONSOLIDATE POWER.
Quick Update (25 July 2008): With the recent governmentalization of huge financial institutions, one can look at this opinion piece in a whole new light. I wrote this months before the "bailouts" (read buyouts) of Freddie and Fannie. Just something to think about in reference to my prognostications in this piece. Not so "far-fetched" now huh?
Another Update (22 June, 2010): In the context of the recent BP "accident," it seems as if we have moved one gigantic step toward oil nationalization. But I am sure I am just a huge conspiracy "nut."
Again, given the false paradigm presented to the American people, the left wants to constrain the free market and the right is a power hungry mob, we are playing the fool. However, the same agenda is accomplished.
B.P. will get what they want, and will make billions. Government will accomplish its goal of strangling our lives with more invasive taxes and control over our lives. We will remain slaves. I hate being right!
Recently this issue has come to the forefront of our minds with the skyrocketing global petroleum prices. Those from the right and the left have their espoused reasons for this scourge on the U.S. economy. The right blames the environmental movement for hamstringing the oil companies and limiting their access to oil fields and refinery construction. The left blames war and profit mongering amongst the elite for driving rising prices; and asserts the use of oil should be stemmed all together.
However, “Big” oil has millions of acres of oil fields that they refuse to develop. U.S. allies in OPEC limit supply to markets despite an exponential rise of demand from the third world. Environmentalist refuse to explore plausible technology and/or attack possible replacements for oil from the same environmental stance they take with oil, i.e. ethanol uses too much land for corn or nuclear power is too ecologically risky. Thus no substantive changes or adjustments are made. A wise man noted, “[i]nsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” President Carter tried to tax windfall success and failed miserably. The environmentalists, by their own admissions, have done little to stem the impending global ecological crisis. Although, most with open minds realize there is little for humanity to do in respect to ecological phenomenon. So, are all these people insane, or is there a different agenda?
What does get done? The answer to this question is perhaps the best place to start.
Results include: (1) an increased regulation of free markets, (2) the continued assertion that oil companies are being held back from their "true potential" despite their surpassing all profit records, (3) higher taxes, (4) more governmental subsidy, (5) more failed governmental projects toward should-be private research and development for “alternatives,” and (6) a continuous relationship with those who fund and support our supposed "enemies" across the world (Saudi Arabia etc.).
What do all these things have in common? They lead one to believe that government has tried nothing substantive, and yet are all out of free market ideas. Further, they lead to crippling high oil prices, an atmosphere of fear and desperation, the continued polarization of the American public along partisan lines, and public calls for ANY solution to this problem.
I heard yesterday, in a Democratic response press conference to Bush’s proposal for more drilling, words that made the whole mess seem clear to me. The concept of governmentally controlled oil industry was posed as an option. Finally, all the contradictions, the ineffectual responses, and flippant disregard by oil companies make sense. The facts are that huge economic interests have a long precedent of "becoming" government. Look at the original board of the Federal Reserve. The only things to be lost by oilmen from this proposed transition from private to public interests are the taxes paid and the cost of R&D (which of course you and I will now pay).
The fact is that money lost its import to these elites a long time ago, and thus a loss in monetary profit is tertiary to the actual aims. They have come to realize that power is the ultimate commodity, and oil is power.
Will the same people be in charge of this staple of our infrastructure if indeed it becomes nationalized? Of course they will, who better for the job? This is simply a mechanism to relieve us of yet another aspect of our autonomy by those who care little for money an have sold their souls for power. They do know that we do care dearly for money, and will act as consumers accordingly. This causes the dreaded variable of consumer choice.
In the proposed new system, we will pay for oil whether we want to or not, through taxes. Even if one chooses to ride a bike or walk, in a socialized petroleum system, you will be an oil consumer. Makes allot of sense for “Big” oil to “throw” this game and, in its frustration and defeat, turn to government for “help.” However, an even more ingenious scheme would posit these oilmen as villains to be vanquished by the righteous government. Perhaps even an amalgamation of the two involving disingenuous pressure brought on all sides toward one seemingly unavoidable answer, nationalization of the American oil industry would be most efficient? Sound familiar Barak?
Such a scenario would make this transition "the will of the people." Ironically, with this gluttonous foe ("Big Oil") vanquished, the same will rise from the ashes to consummate the oil monopolies that their fathers and forefathers could not. Given the fact that the governmental and economic “powers that be” are noticably from “old” money made from oil, the transition will be an easy one. "Oil families" include the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Vanderbilts, the Warbergs, the Bushs, et al. The fact is that government is the biggest business in the world. If an enterprise is small enough to be quashed, that enterprise is considered competition and blocked from success. Conversely, if an enterprise is considered large enough to be useful it is consolidated into the governmental fold.
Ancillary benefits for big government include: (1) the demonization of private free markets(read competition), (2) increased popular desensitization to the presence of and beholdeness to government, (3) the ultimate opportunity to “lose” more money without question, (4) opportunity to require more in taxes, (5) increased opportunity to gobble up private property for "public purpose," and (6)a further opportunity to mingle oil interest with expressed national political interest and thus provide an auspices to continue their wars and intrigue on the global stage.
This is an incremental command economy takeover. One more giant step towards "Big Brother." Once again, the brilliance of it is, is that we, the American people, will consent; no, beg for this intrusion of government into our lives. In effect, we will sell our proverbial souls for that tempting free bowl of beans.
We at least have the chance to choose. Those under the thumb of our “enemies” in the Middle East do not. The elite in those countries are power hungry oilmen as well, and have committed this coup long ago. They control their populous in many of the same ways. Bait, switch, and posit the “other” as the source of all problems as they continue to consolidate control.
Kind of makes one wonder what the actual difference is between the ourselves and our posited "foes." Except for, of course, we choose our own enslavement, and thus cannot complain. However, we are "bringing democracy" to those "poor" souls, so they can be burdened in a more uniform and subtle manner.
It seems that government all over the world is getting bigger. Is that simply another case of insanity, given the bloody precedent that big government brings with it? Or is it another case of an agenda covered up by a false conflict and offered for consideration to the masses wrapped in a false choice? We need to wake up and see that we are being enslaved. It is not about being rich or getting more oil in the greater scheme of things. It is as it has always been, even in the days of "hydraulic empires" when water was the most desirable commodity, the ultimate goal of these ancient, large, and evil interests is to CONSOLIDATE POWER.
Quick Update (25 July 2008): With the recent governmentalization of huge financial institutions, one can look at this opinion piece in a whole new light. I wrote this months before the "bailouts" (read buyouts) of Freddie and Fannie. Just something to think about in reference to my prognostications in this piece. Not so "far-fetched" now huh?
Another Update (22 June, 2010): In the context of the recent BP "accident," it seems as if we have moved one gigantic step toward oil nationalization. But I am sure I am just a huge conspiracy "nut."
Again, given the false paradigm presented to the American people, the left wants to constrain the free market and the right is a power hungry mob, we are playing the fool. However, the same agenda is accomplished.
B.P. will get what they want, and will make billions. Government will accomplish its goal of strangling our lives with more invasive taxes and control over our lives. We will remain slaves. I hate being right!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Memorial Day 2008
This Memorial day holiday, I spent the entire weekend with my family in our nation's capitol. As always the experience was moving and inspiring. To be surrounded by the memories of such great men, is to be immersed in the greatness, the tenacity, the dedication to cause that has formed "the last great hope of mankind on Earth." However, this trip played a more immediate role in its form of inspiration towards my affinity for freedom. That weekend I was surrounded by the modern tyranny of statist atheistic political correctness, and was left with a bitter taste in my mouth for the current state of affairs in America .
Sunday afternoon on the mall, my family and I endeavored to visit the WWII memorial, as my parents had yet to see it. Simply being surrounded by that shining ode to "the last full measure of devotion," is a catalyst to reflective thought. I sat with probably a hundred others with my feet bathing in the refreshing fountain pool. With my family by my side, I reflected on my two great uncles who fought in the "Battle of the Bulge" and on Iwo Jima respectively, and of my recently-deceased grandfather who had been on both oceans as he served in the U.S. Navy. I thought of how many millions of people died in that valiant crusade to rid the world of totalitarian, authoritarian, and evil regimes. I thought of men younger than I storming beaches thousands of miles away from their families as I sat not feet from mine. I thought of the toll in blood that such a crusade had exacted, and the willingness, no eagerness, with which those who served rendered themselves as sacrifices on the altar of freedom. I also, surprisingly felt envious of them. I felt envy for their having a cause so altruistic and pure, an America, a freedom so easy to sacrifice for. One free of onerous government, with actual upward mobility, and one that still asked God's blessing upon it. In short, an America where truth was still sought and righteous indignation embraced.
As my eyes were about to well with earnest tears, I heard a voice state in a vacant and thoughtless tone, "Please exit the pool, the sign says no wading!" I looked around to see who was being chastised for such and infraction and realized quite abruptly that it was at me that the admonishment had been targeted. I then surveyed the dozens of others engaging in the exact same activity as I, and realized that in order to reach my family and I the police officer that had issued the admonition had to pass dozens of others. As I pulled my feet form the pool I asked the officer, "what about all the others?" That, apparently, in the "People's Republic of Columbia," is tantamount to treason.
The diatribe that followed was a monument to just the same authoritarianism that some sixty years ago the men to who's memory the monument had been erected, fought. The officer was rude, repugnant, and insulting. He questioned my patriotism, my family's integrity, and threatened to handcuff my mother if she continued to ask anymore "stupid questions" (Mind you, my mother is a frumpy forty-seven year old woman, who poses as much of threat to anyone as the average head cold.). He warned my mother that she needed to exit the pool at a more rapid pace, and was sure to remind us that he indeed was the "poe-leese," and that we were to follow his every command quickly and quietly, and to stop talking about rights. As the coup des gras, under further threat of arrest, he demanded we exit the monument that our tax dollars had contributed to (not to mention the same paid his salary).
I feel I must explain that during this whole exchange, not one voice was raised, outside of the officer's of course, and that no dispersions were cast upon him personally. However, the term "brown-boot" may have been bantered about in reference to his acumen as an officer of the law. But, he did act like a thug, and as the initial adrenaline wore off from the altercation, certain realities enraged me beyond belief.
As we walked towards the Lincoln Memorial, thoughts raced through my mind, and I would like to expound on some of them further before we move on to the next chapter of this calamitous story.
I could not help but realize the bulk of fellow "waders" were of foreign descent. In today's politically correct climate, they apparently have been rendered immune to such diatribes and abuse.
I wondered why.
Then it occurred to me. The "silent majority", as termed by R.M. Nixon, has been, over the last few decades, conditioned toward certain behavior patterns. The "worker bees" are not expected to ask questions, and so, when we did, our actions and words probably shook the statist sensibilities of the officer to their very core. We are not vehemently protected by the ACLU and its ilk. We are not a "protected class" or members of an oppressed or revered culture. We are simply expected to fund our own relegation to obscurity, bare the burden of governmental attempts at redemption from societies ills (the problems we created), and are by no means permitted to question our new roles. We have been told "our role" as the oppressors, and are now relieved of our right to dissent. Our time has come and passed. This is the root of Rush Limbaugh's "angry white men." Mind you this attribution has no racial or class identity. Simply being of some resource, of some industry, and of some pilferable means relegates you to this unenviable position in society. If you went to college it was because you were rich or white, if you have some money it is because you're a thief or opportunist, if you have self respect it is at another's expense.
In the hopes of "glass half-full," I was willing to dismiss this scene as an anomaly. Perhaps the officer was having a bad day, and I was "reading too much into" this freak occurrence.
The next day we decided to attend the national Memorial Day Parade. We were surrounded by throngs of people. Most, again, were of foreign descent, which lent itself heavily to the tourist atmosphere. As I have been a tourist in foreign atmospheres, I begrudge them no experience that America has to offer.
However, during the invocation and subsequent singing of the National Anthem, the lack of respect for my culture's mores was palpable. I endured as the Korean family talked through the entirety of the "Star Spangled Banner", and that another group refused to either stand or remove their hats during the opening prayer.
Despite my frustration with those that perhaps did not know better, my infuriation with my fellow countrymen's apparent total lack of respect was all-encompassing. This bubbling displeasure was not quelled at the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. To my amazement, they left out the "under God" part. This was followed by a couple behind me expressing their assent to this bastardization and their glee at my now-apparent disgust with my surroundings. Their exact quote: "What if you're an atheist, get over it."
Needless to say, not long after this, my family and I staggered away from this heretical display, following our overhearing an entire conversation taking place during a moment of "silence" and the playing of taps. We were thoroughly exasperated by the depths of politically correct depravity that is now embodied by our nation's capitol and the lack of both civic knowledge and national pride displayed by its inhabitants.
Our nation has sunk to new lows. Once those who critiqued our nation (some violently so) had a rational and discernible basis for their critique. Their disrespect for some aspects of America was an act of civil disobedience in hopes of her reform. In the present day, the world has devolved to what can only be described as ubiquitous ignorance. Our sins are those of omission rather than commission, and our complaints rest only in a lack of satisfaction of our latest and thus most dire desire.
These thoughts all but cemented my earlier sentiments as truth. We are being dumbed down, relegated to the role of ants in a colony who's only responsibility is to uphold the status quo, our pride in our God and our nation are being defined as "archaic" and "insensitive", and, most of all, our sovereignty as a nation is being slowly eroded in the name of increased unity.
We are the "Brave New World." We are saturated with ignorance and separated only by the status we wear on our jeans. We are the "Vanity Fair" from Pilgrim's Progress, and we are ripe for enslavement.
Sunday afternoon on the mall, my family and I endeavored to visit the WWII memorial, as my parents had yet to see it. Simply being surrounded by that shining ode to "the last full measure of devotion," is a catalyst to reflective thought. I sat with probably a hundred others with my feet bathing in the refreshing fountain pool. With my family by my side, I reflected on my two great uncles who fought in the "Battle of the Bulge" and on Iwo Jima respectively, and of my recently-deceased grandfather who had been on both oceans as he served in the U.S. Navy. I thought of how many millions of people died in that valiant crusade to rid the world of totalitarian, authoritarian, and evil regimes. I thought of men younger than I storming beaches thousands of miles away from their families as I sat not feet from mine. I thought of the toll in blood that such a crusade had exacted, and the willingness, no eagerness, with which those who served rendered themselves as sacrifices on the altar of freedom. I also, surprisingly felt envious of them. I felt envy for their having a cause so altruistic and pure, an America, a freedom so easy to sacrifice for. One free of onerous government, with actual upward mobility, and one that still asked God's blessing upon it. In short, an America where truth was still sought and righteous indignation embraced.
As my eyes were about to well with earnest tears, I heard a voice state in a vacant and thoughtless tone, "Please exit the pool, the sign says no wading!" I looked around to see who was being chastised for such and infraction and realized quite abruptly that it was at me that the admonishment had been targeted. I then surveyed the dozens of others engaging in the exact same activity as I, and realized that in order to reach my family and I the police officer that had issued the admonition had to pass dozens of others. As I pulled my feet form the pool I asked the officer, "what about all the others?" That, apparently, in the "People's Republic of Columbia," is tantamount to treason.
The diatribe that followed was a monument to just the same authoritarianism that some sixty years ago the men to who's memory the monument had been erected, fought. The officer was rude, repugnant, and insulting. He questioned my patriotism, my family's integrity, and threatened to handcuff my mother if she continued to ask anymore "stupid questions" (Mind you, my mother is a frumpy forty-seven year old woman, who poses as much of threat to anyone as the average head cold.). He warned my mother that she needed to exit the pool at a more rapid pace, and was sure to remind us that he indeed was the "poe-leese," and that we were to follow his every command quickly and quietly, and to stop talking about rights. As the coup des gras, under further threat of arrest, he demanded we exit the monument that our tax dollars had contributed to (not to mention the same paid his salary).
I feel I must explain that during this whole exchange, not one voice was raised, outside of the officer's of course, and that no dispersions were cast upon him personally. However, the term "brown-boot" may have been bantered about in reference to his acumen as an officer of the law. But, he did act like a thug, and as the initial adrenaline wore off from the altercation, certain realities enraged me beyond belief.
As we walked towards the Lincoln Memorial, thoughts raced through my mind, and I would like to expound on some of them further before we move on to the next chapter of this calamitous story.
I could not help but realize the bulk of fellow "waders" were of foreign descent. In today's politically correct climate, they apparently have been rendered immune to such diatribes and abuse.
I wondered why.
Then it occurred to me. The "silent majority", as termed by R.M. Nixon, has been, over the last few decades, conditioned toward certain behavior patterns. The "worker bees" are not expected to ask questions, and so, when we did, our actions and words probably shook the statist sensibilities of the officer to their very core. We are not vehemently protected by the ACLU and its ilk. We are not a "protected class" or members of an oppressed or revered culture. We are simply expected to fund our own relegation to obscurity, bare the burden of governmental attempts at redemption from societies ills (the problems we created), and are by no means permitted to question our new roles. We have been told "our role" as the oppressors, and are now relieved of our right to dissent. Our time has come and passed. This is the root of Rush Limbaugh's "angry white men." Mind you this attribution has no racial or class identity. Simply being of some resource, of some industry, and of some pilferable means relegates you to this unenviable position in society. If you went to college it was because you were rich or white, if you have some money it is because you're a thief or opportunist, if you have self respect it is at another's expense.
In the hopes of "glass half-full," I was willing to dismiss this scene as an anomaly. Perhaps the officer was having a bad day, and I was "reading too much into" this freak occurrence.
The next day we decided to attend the national Memorial Day Parade. We were surrounded by throngs of people. Most, again, were of foreign descent, which lent itself heavily to the tourist atmosphere. As I have been a tourist in foreign atmospheres, I begrudge them no experience that America has to offer.
However, during the invocation and subsequent singing of the National Anthem, the lack of respect for my culture's mores was palpable. I endured as the Korean family talked through the entirety of the "Star Spangled Banner", and that another group refused to either stand or remove their hats during the opening prayer.
Despite my frustration with those that perhaps did not know better, my infuriation with my fellow countrymen's apparent total lack of respect was all-encompassing. This bubbling displeasure was not quelled at the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. To my amazement, they left out the "under God" part. This was followed by a couple behind me expressing their assent to this bastardization and their glee at my now-apparent disgust with my surroundings. Their exact quote: "What if you're an atheist, get over it."
Needless to say, not long after this, my family and I staggered away from this heretical display, following our overhearing an entire conversation taking place during a moment of "silence" and the playing of taps. We were thoroughly exasperated by the depths of politically correct depravity that is now embodied by our nation's capitol and the lack of both civic knowledge and national pride displayed by its inhabitants.
Our nation has sunk to new lows. Once those who critiqued our nation (some violently so) had a rational and discernible basis for their critique. Their disrespect for some aspects of America was an act of civil disobedience in hopes of her reform. In the present day, the world has devolved to what can only be described as ubiquitous ignorance. Our sins are those of omission rather than commission, and our complaints rest only in a lack of satisfaction of our latest and thus most dire desire.
These thoughts all but cemented my earlier sentiments as truth. We are being dumbed down, relegated to the role of ants in a colony who's only responsibility is to uphold the status quo, our pride in our God and our nation are being defined as "archaic" and "insensitive", and, most of all, our sovereignty as a nation is being slowly eroded in the name of increased unity.
We are the "Brave New World." We are saturated with ignorance and separated only by the status we wear on our jeans. We are the "Vanity Fair" from Pilgrim's Progress, and we are ripe for enslavement.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Subtle Attacks on Christianity
Barak Obama's statements about us "red-staters" in "fly-over country", in reference to our God and our guns, betrays a bias that merits discussion. In a world rife with fears over religious "extremism", one in which the nightly news is saturated with scenes of carnage from around the world of "religion run amok", I have noticed a trend with regard to the treatment of Christians by bureaucratic governmental agencies and major media outlets alike. That trend can only be defined as disdain. The attempt to mitigate Christianity to a government and media-labeled "loony bin" is palpable.
The demonization of religious fundamentalism has long been with us, however, the blatant couching of a Biblical world-view as something that is only for zealots and those who take religion just a little "too seriously" has been incrementally inserted into the public mind, and is something of a new "tactic" undertaken by those with a vested interest in mitigating the Judeo-Christian basis of the American experience. In the treatment of stories like the "Branch-Dividians" in the mid-1990's and lately the Mormon community in Texas, the assertion that anyone who would take religion to heart is in some way mentally deficient or emotionally disturbed has been propagated not by overt statement, but rather by the dismissive and critical pallor under which these stories are presented.
This hue of dangerous eccentricity, by any definition, is one distinct from that which is cast over the traditions and epistemic stances of any other major world religion. The relativistic "kid gloves" worn to handle these other faiths are visibly absent. In other words, the urge to rationalize, legitimize, and normalize (bordering on idolize) the abhorrent behavior within other religious groups, for some reason is not present in the discourse on Christianity. In a society where an Islamic "honor killing" or the Hindu practice of "Satee" can be tolerated without so much as a peep of objective distaste, and can even be presented in an intellectual context as a "unique" practice of another "culture" that holds an ancient and significant role in said culture, (that, by the way, cannot be criticized due to the state-imposed lack of objective footing for fear of the inference of "right" and "wrong", or offending someone unless they happen to be a Christian conservative), how then can a Christian' s individual choice towards spanking, abstinence, the right to life, or love of family be criticized as backwards, archaic, or even "abusive?" The double standard is now, more than ever within American society, a brightly drawn line that marks a stark juxtaposition. No matter your doctrinal differences with him, if David Koresh can be labeled a "nut-job" by most for shooting at ATF and FBI agents bent on invading his home through windows with guns in hand, and yet millions of Muslim globally are treated as "victims" when the world erupted in violence in the wake of an editorial newspaper cartoon; in a society where Muslim foot baths are placed in airports in hopes to make said people feel welcomed and where Christian children are prohibited from silent prayer in school, how can anyone deny the evident nature of the two distinct and separate standards used to judge, well, Christianity and "everyone else?" Perhaps now, one's motivation toward tangential and hurried judgement of Koresh and his ilk, even within the Christian community, merit self-examination. In short, are you a "nut job" for what you believe?
If one were to lend even tertiary credence to the above statements, then one owes it to oneself to examine the probable cause behind the modern American media and governmental disdain for Christianity. Why do they hate us so much? My answer, we don't fit the mold of the modern homogenized globalized society. We don't feel "it takes a village" to raise our children, but rather would like to school them in our homes. We don't believe in the Oprahesque all-inclusive dogma of a "higher power", but rather accept a singular God and avenue to salvation. We don't see children as a "punishment" like Barak Obama (or B.O. for short), but rather see them as blessings from God. And finally, and perhaps most germane to our discussion, we will always choose our God over our government. We refuse, contrary to the contemporary trend, to deify governmental policy as the savior of all, and rest in our assurance that the nature of man, even in its most righteous incarnation, is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. We refuse to subjugate our beliefs behind the Clinton-contrived veil of "private life" and are called to live out our calling in service to our God. In short, we owe God our most stringent allegiance, and are specifically called not to subdue that allegiance especially due to governmental compulsion. We are, for lack of a better term, the new "counterculture."
As with prior definitions of counterculture, the current zeitgeist and powers-that-be are made uncomfortable by even a hint of the differences we embody, i.e. the Divine Presence within our lives. We are, as alluded to by the term "culture war," locked in what can only be described as a dialectic confrontation of Hegelian proportions. However, unlike prior clashes, we, as the counterculture minority, are not seen as upstarts by the current societal members, but rather as an oppressive regime to be sloughed off in hopes of a newer more free existence of man. We are the last true impediment toward the anticipated acme of human evolution foretold since the dawning of the enlightenment. In the absence of objective standards and individual rights born out of the Christian construct, future generation will no longer be judged by standards, and have no expectation of individual rights nor culpability. With Christianity dead, man can be the "animal" that he has dreamt of being since Darwin. On top of those concepts, we are the last threat (outside of the Muslim world, and we all know what is happening there) to the new non-judgemental and all-inclusive religion that is, for lack of a less trite term, humanism. With all of its governmentally enforced diversity and acceptance, the only law is that judgement based on any assertion of universal truth is not allowed. And, like any other circular argument, defeats itself by positing the absence of a standard as the standard, the absence of God as god, a disdain for faith as the only acceptable manifestation of faith.
We are under attack. Our rights are being subverted with rounds of applause, as evidenced by the recent scandal in a Wisconsin Christian school, where children who were thought by state officials to have been "abused" (read spanked) , and were forced to disrobe by a state thug. The minds of the next generation are taught to resent Christianity by outlets like M.T.V. The world in which we must live is one where homosexuality is embraced and marriage is scoffed at, one where fully developed fetuses are pulled from their mother's womb and murdered, where higher education is nothing more than indoctrination toward atheistic statism, where the rights of animals are held in higher regard than humans. As the prophet Isaiah stated, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil."(Isaiah, 5. 20) I for one will not be counted in the number of those who do so. Scripture calls us to be "as wise as serpents and as Innocent as doves."(Matt 10.16) To turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity is both decaying and being systematically condemned and marginalized would be a choice towards ignorance. We must make the stance that our so-called "conservative leaders" won't. We must reject the false choices presented to us as a body politic. We must make a stand, and when we have " done everything to stand. Stand therefore." (Ephesians 6.13-14) If revolution is what it takes, then revolution it must be. Perhaps the Spanish revolutionaries stated it best when they said "it is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees." So, be unpopular, be a "religious zealot", be a "Bible thumper", if not for yourselves then for the next generation.
And for you non-religious conservatives, keep in mind that the existence of God as he is defined within Judeo-Christian culture and the United States Constitution, is the entity, whether actual or purely legal, that guarantees the rights you hold so very dear. If God were to be expelled from the modern mental lexicon, that would leave only government as the source from which all freedoms flow. If you are not made a man by God. then you are made a "citizen" by government.
The demonization of religious fundamentalism has long been with us, however, the blatant couching of a Biblical world-view as something that is only for zealots and those who take religion just a little "too seriously" has been incrementally inserted into the public mind, and is something of a new "tactic" undertaken by those with a vested interest in mitigating the Judeo-Christian basis of the American experience. In the treatment of stories like the "Branch-Dividians" in the mid-1990's and lately the Mormon community in Texas, the assertion that anyone who would take religion to heart is in some way mentally deficient or emotionally disturbed has been propagated not by overt statement, but rather by the dismissive and critical pallor under which these stories are presented.
This hue of dangerous eccentricity, by any definition, is one distinct from that which is cast over the traditions and epistemic stances of any other major world religion. The relativistic "kid gloves" worn to handle these other faiths are visibly absent. In other words, the urge to rationalize, legitimize, and normalize (bordering on idolize) the abhorrent behavior within other religious groups, for some reason is not present in the discourse on Christianity. In a society where an Islamic "honor killing" or the Hindu practice of "Satee" can be tolerated without so much as a peep of objective distaste, and can even be presented in an intellectual context as a "unique" practice of another "culture" that holds an ancient and significant role in said culture, (that, by the way, cannot be criticized due to the state-imposed lack of objective footing for fear of the inference of "right" and "wrong", or offending someone unless they happen to be a Christian conservative), how then can a Christian' s individual choice towards spanking, abstinence, the right to life, or love of family be criticized as backwards, archaic, or even "abusive?" The double standard is now, more than ever within American society, a brightly drawn line that marks a stark juxtaposition. No matter your doctrinal differences with him, if David Koresh can be labeled a "nut-job" by most for shooting at ATF and FBI agents bent on invading his home through windows with guns in hand, and yet millions of Muslim globally are treated as "victims" when the world erupted in violence in the wake of an editorial newspaper cartoon; in a society where Muslim foot baths are placed in airports in hopes to make said people feel welcomed and where Christian children are prohibited from silent prayer in school, how can anyone deny the evident nature of the two distinct and separate standards used to judge, well, Christianity and "everyone else?" Perhaps now, one's motivation toward tangential and hurried judgement of Koresh and his ilk, even within the Christian community, merit self-examination. In short, are you a "nut job" for what you believe?
If one were to lend even tertiary credence to the above statements, then one owes it to oneself to examine the probable cause behind the modern American media and governmental disdain for Christianity. Why do they hate us so much? My answer, we don't fit the mold of the modern homogenized globalized society. We don't feel "it takes a village" to raise our children, but rather would like to school them in our homes. We don't believe in the Oprahesque all-inclusive dogma of a "higher power", but rather accept a singular God and avenue to salvation. We don't see children as a "punishment" like Barak Obama (or B.O. for short), but rather see them as blessings from God. And finally, and perhaps most germane to our discussion, we will always choose our God over our government. We refuse, contrary to the contemporary trend, to deify governmental policy as the savior of all, and rest in our assurance that the nature of man, even in its most righteous incarnation, is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. We refuse to subjugate our beliefs behind the Clinton-contrived veil of "private life" and are called to live out our calling in service to our God. In short, we owe God our most stringent allegiance, and are specifically called not to subdue that allegiance especially due to governmental compulsion. We are, for lack of a better term, the new "counterculture."
As with prior definitions of counterculture, the current zeitgeist and powers-that-be are made uncomfortable by even a hint of the differences we embody, i.e. the Divine Presence within our lives. We are, as alluded to by the term "culture war," locked in what can only be described as a dialectic confrontation of Hegelian proportions. However, unlike prior clashes, we, as the counterculture minority, are not seen as upstarts by the current societal members, but rather as an oppressive regime to be sloughed off in hopes of a newer more free existence of man. We are the last true impediment toward the anticipated acme of human evolution foretold since the dawning of the enlightenment. In the absence of objective standards and individual rights born out of the Christian construct, future generation will no longer be judged by standards, and have no expectation of individual rights nor culpability. With Christianity dead, man can be the "animal" that he has dreamt of being since Darwin. On top of those concepts, we are the last threat (outside of the Muslim world, and we all know what is happening there) to the new non-judgemental and all-inclusive religion that is, for lack of a less trite term, humanism. With all of its governmentally enforced diversity and acceptance, the only law is that judgement based on any assertion of universal truth is not allowed. And, like any other circular argument, defeats itself by positing the absence of a standard as the standard, the absence of God as god, a disdain for faith as the only acceptable manifestation of faith.
We are under attack. Our rights are being subverted with rounds of applause, as evidenced by the recent scandal in a Wisconsin Christian school, where children who were thought by state officials to have been "abused" (read spanked) , and were forced to disrobe by a state thug. The minds of the next generation are taught to resent Christianity by outlets like M.T.V. The world in which we must live is one where homosexuality is embraced and marriage is scoffed at, one where fully developed fetuses are pulled from their mother's womb and murdered, where higher education is nothing more than indoctrination toward atheistic statism, where the rights of animals are held in higher regard than humans. As the prophet Isaiah stated, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil."(Isaiah, 5. 20) I for one will not be counted in the number of those who do so. Scripture calls us to be "as wise as serpents and as Innocent as doves."(Matt 10.16) To turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity is both decaying and being systematically condemned and marginalized would be a choice towards ignorance. We must make the stance that our so-called "conservative leaders" won't. We must reject the false choices presented to us as a body politic. We must make a stand, and when we have " done everything to stand. Stand therefore." (Ephesians 6.13-14) If revolution is what it takes, then revolution it must be. Perhaps the Spanish revolutionaries stated it best when they said "it is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees." So, be unpopular, be a "religious zealot", be a "Bible thumper", if not for yourselves then for the next generation.
And for you non-religious conservatives, keep in mind that the existence of God as he is defined within Judeo-Christian culture and the United States Constitution, is the entity, whether actual or purely legal, that guarantees the rights you hold so very dear. If God were to be expelled from the modern mental lexicon, that would leave only government as the source from which all freedoms flow. If you are not made a man by God. then you are made a "citizen" by government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
