“The Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.”

Representative Christopher Shays — Connecticut

Given the way that Bush has invoked God in a recurring fashion during his presidency one can hardly fault people for connecting the Republican Party with Theocracy. In point of fact I couldn’t agree more with Rep. Shays. The difference between myself and Rep. Shays, I would guess, is that Rep. Shays thinks that theocracy in the Republican party as it governs is a bad thing that can be avoided while I think that theocracy in all political party’s which desire to govern is a inevitable and unavoidable thing that is good or bad depending on which God (Theo) the government or power (cracy) is serving.

As I have said ad nauseum all political arrangements are Theocracies. The trick is always being able to identify the god or gods in the arrangement. President Bush has taken neo-con ideology and has coated it with Jesus talk and has given us a neo-con Theocracy. If Barack Hussein Obama were elected we would get a Theocracy shaped and fashioned by black liberation theology and socialist and neo-liberal political theory, coated with the requisite Jesus talk. If Hillary Clinton were elected we would get a Theocracy shaped and influenced by radical feminist theology and socialist and radical liberal political theory. At least with Hillary I don’t think we will get the Jesus coating.

In many respects this election is being reduced to a battle of the (false)gods vying for supremacy, and the policy pursued will depend which of the representatives of the respected gods is elected. Once one of the gods is elected the consequence will be that his (or her) adherents will get the best government teats to suck on. Another consequence will be that with the rise of a new Theocracy, particularly if a Democrat is elected, the bottom rail will be on top — which is to say that the priests and priestesses of the god who is elected will displace the priests and priestesses of the present god in charge. This will mean that if Obama is elected that Black people, who embrace liberation theology, of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s mindset, will be favored in the Theocratic halls of power and only people who agree that black ‘Louis Farakhan’ type folk should be on top will have influence, while if Hillary is elected, radical feminists will be favored in the Theocratic halls of power, and only people who agree that the God of radical socialist feminists should be on top will have influence. The point to see here is that since these candidates have the views they have because of the Theology they believe — which stems from the God they serve — the consequence of their election will be continued Theocracy.

Now what is interesting is that the media will smell this out in those candidates perceived to be ‘conservative’ while leaving the radical Democratic party theocrats alone on the issue. For example, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (both really liberals) had this God issue before them all the time. This reveals that the media only sees the danger of Theocracy coming from putatively conservative Christian or putatively conservative psuedo-Christian sources. The media fails to see the Theocracy that either Obama or Hillary would rule over.

Let’s look at Obama for a second. Obama has appealed to the Christian vote, making innuendo that the Christian Right has hijacked the Christian faith and that faith needs to be appealed to again to bring people together. Obama has made appearance in some very large Evangelical Churches in order to speak (Rick Warren’s Church comes to mind.) Further Obama has sprinkled his speeches with Christianese. Obama clearly is influenced by something he is calling Christianity. Now given that this version of Christianity is only a shell that has been infused with the heart of a liberal social gospel, and the lungs of black liberation theology, and the kidneys of socialism, sustained with the convictional flow of blood that white people are evil, one can only wonder why the mainstream media isn’t concerned about the Theocracy that Obama represents.

Now, as I said, Hillary hasn’t coated her campaign with all the Jesus talk that Barack Hussein has but none the less she is still campaigning as a representative of her feminist god. This god, like all gods has a social gospel that it wants to see the government help implement. Hillary and her feminist god for example desire to involve the government ever more deeper into family life as seen in her yet to be denounced earlier efforts to harness the States power to insure that children could divorce their parents. In a 1973 article entitled ‘Children Under The Law,’ Hillary criticized the,

“pretense (that) children’s issues are somehow beyond politics,” and scorned the idea that “families are private, non-political units whose interests subsume those of children

Twenty three years later she could bang that drum again,

“As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn’t really any such thing as someone else’s child…for that reason, we cannot permit discussions of children and families to be subverted by political or ideological debate.”

This stance on children serves Hillary’s feminism in the theocratic use of Government to be the universal mother to children that belong to everybody thus freeing women to become the fully realized human beings they can’t become if they don’t make work or career a priority over being a housewife and mother.

Also given other consistent stances it is clear that Hillary’s Theocracy would pursue the non-Christian economics of socialism, yoking mega Corportism with mega Statism.

The over arching point here is that Theocracy is inevitable and unavoidable. Some god or gods will be that which the government is organize around and beholden to. Whether it is B. Hussein Obama or Hillary or McCain, we will continue to have a Theocracy.

Since this is true, isn’t it reasonable for Christians to desire a government that is in some shape, way, and fashion, organized around Christian convictions and beholden to the omni-benevolent God of the Bible? Certainly no Christian government will ever fully manifest all that God’s people will find in the ultimate city of God — a city that God has in store for those that love Him, but just as the fact that our own personal sanctification will never be perfect in this life doesn’t keep us from pursuing that perfection, so the reality that we will never build the perfect Christian city that God has in store for us in the fullness of the eschaton shouldn’t keep us from pursuing that excellence as God gives us strength.

Further, since Theocracy is a inevitable and unavoidable category why should we, as Christians, try to keep thinking that governments can be Theocratically sanitized? Even when Christians promote a putatively benign pluralism we have to see that such a government is headed by a panoply of gods, who in their ruling theocratic consortium, forbid any uniquely singular God to rule. This is the theocracy of polytheism, which, when examined closely, is really a Theocracy where the State rules as God determining how far the competing gods can go in the pluralistic culture that it has created in the name of polytheistic pluralism.

The reason that I close with such thoughts is that the Reformed world continues to have gentlemen like Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster West, as seen in a recent Heidleblog entry, who insists that it is possible to have non-theocratic government. To keep insisting such a thing is to keep whistling past the grave yard that such willful ignorance will land us in if we don’t contend for the crown rights of King Jesus in the civil realm. And when this insistence of pluralism continues in the face of exhaustive explanation it is hard to see how such advocacy doesn’t end in treason to King Jesus.

Famous Whoppers

“I am not a crook.”

Richard Milhouse Nixon

“There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

Gerald Rudolph Ford

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.”

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton

“In other words, he (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) has never been my political adviser; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.”

Senator Barack Hussein Obama

If anybody believes Barack Hussein Obama on this score they will believe anything. Remember Barack Hussein Obama has attended Wright’s Church since he was 26 years old. We are to supposed to believe that Obama never ever heard Wright speak the way that he has been caught speaking on countless occasions?

Please, Mr. & Mrs. American Electorate let’s not be stupid.

John Milton, & Peter Townshend on not getting fooled again

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that’ all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!

I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?


There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!


Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Which being interpreted by John Milton means,

New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large

This is the way that Milton put it a few hundred years before Pete, Roger, Keith and John.

Because you have thrown off your Prelate Lord,
And with stiff vows renounc’d his Liturgy,
To seize the widowed whore Plurality
From them whose sin ye envied, not abhorred,
Dare you for this adjure the civil sword
To force our consciences that Christ set free,
And ride us with a Classic Hierarchy,
Taught ye by mere A.S. and Rutherford?
Men whose life, learning, faith, and pure intent,
Would have been held in high esteem with Paul
Must now be named and printed heretics
By shallow Edwards and Scotch What-d’ye-call.
But we do hope to find out all your tricks,
Your plots and packing, worse than those of Trent,
That so the Parliament
May with their wholesome and preventative shears
Clip your phylacteries, though bauk1 your ears,
And succor our just fears,
When they shall read this clearly in your charge:
New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large

Milton wrote in the same type of climate as the ‘Who.’ Each era was marked either by revolution or the prospects for revolution. Each era revealed the hypocrisy of those who wanted to take over.

Milton, writing after the English Revolution was saying that the presbyters, like the Anglicans before them, were a ‘new boss that was the same as the old boss’ in terms of wanting to enforce a particular brand of cultural orthodoxy.

Poor Milton, if he had only known what kind of money he could have made putting his sentiment together with a guitar.

Assurance & The Objectivity Of The Covenant

Bret said It is the same kind of promise that was extended to Israel… both to the Israel of Israel and the Israel that was not of Israel. When considering the promise in light of knowing the whole story it is conditional to the reprobate and unconditional to the elect.

David responds,

Agreed, but then how does this establish personal assurance of salvation? The thing FV tries to do is to point to the sacraments and the covenant to establish assurance because they are supposed to be “objective”, but then it has a doctrine of the covenant that is conditional and includes reprobates, curses and the possibility of apostacy. But FV, not being a paragon of logical consistency, fails to see that it undercuts itself in making this very move.

David, I’m not FV so what I am about to say is my answer. I don’t know how the FV would answer it.

As a pastor I deal with two types of people when it comes to the issue of assurance. On the one hand I deal with believers, who realizing God’s great holiness and their own behavior in light of that holiness struggle haplessly for assurance regardless of how superior their Christian character is. They have trouble bringing themselves to believe that God can really forgive them. To these ‘naval gazer’ types
I first admonish them for looking so intently inwardly rather then outwardly but I also say, “Christ is for you and He has given the Sacraments to confirm that He really has forgiven you. Take and feast on Christ and know that you are accepted for the sake of the work for you of He who is conveyed to you in the Sacrament.” In short I emphasize the objectivity of the covenant. Luther made a move somewhat similar to this. When the devil would come to him and remind him of his great sins, Luther, being overwhelmed, would finally say, “It’s true, It’s true, but I’ve been baptized.” The covenant is objective.

On the other hand ministers have to deal with those in the congregation who need to hear a different emphasis because they are dispositionally relating to the covenant in a different manner. These are thus whose lives are characterized by a neglect of pursuit of holiness in favor or a pursuit of behavior that is inconsistent with a professing Christian. To these I need to remind them that the very same covenant that must be taken as rock solid assurance by the naval gazers is a covenant that offers no assurance to ‘the people of God’ who are acting like “dogs returning to their own vomit, and sows, having been bathed, to their rolling in mire.” Indeed that very same covenant that is a rock of assurance to the navel gazers who will look away from themselves to Jesus is a rock that will crush the libertines.

To the former I must tell them to rightly presume on grace. To the latter I must warn them of the danger of wrongly presuming on grace.

Now that can be made to look contradictory, as you have done above, but given how I’ve explained it, and given the fact that different people in the Church with different problems need to be spoken to differently I fail to see the contradiction.

Hillary ain’t never been called a trigger

As I noted yesterday, race is continuing to seep into the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes.

Since yesterdays post about Geraldine Ferraro saying that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ms. Ferraro has resigned from her loose connections with the Clinton campaign.

Today, however there is more news on the race front. As I have mentioned before Barack Obama has a black racist as a Pastor. It seems that Obama has been attending this Church for twenty years and considers Rev. Jeremiah Wright a sort of mentor. This Rev. Wright Married the Obamas, baptized their children, and his Church has been the major recipient of the Obama’s charitable giving over the years.

Now, this is no casual relationship between Pastor and parishioner. Barack Hussein Obama obviously likes what he sees in his Pastor which is confirmed by the reality that Rev. Wright is now connected to the Obama campaign.

Here we have this cozy relationship between these two men. Isn’t it profitable for us that Rev. Wright’s sermons have been transcribed over the years so that we can have a peek into the kind of Spiritual mentor that Obama has esteemed over all these years?

Quoting Rev. Wright from some of his sermons,

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people, Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“God d&*% America for treating its citizens as less than human. (We’re living in the) “US of KKK A.”

So here we have this Holy Man who has been so profoundly influential on Barack Hussein Obama. We know that the Obama’s have been listening to this kind of Black whitey hatred for 20 years. Now, we can understand, perhaps, why Mrs. Michelle Obama recently said,

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”

If I sat under the kind of preaching that constantly gave doses of how Black people were victims and were being hustled by White people I likewise might say for the first time in my life I was proud of my country, if I saw my spouse making headway in a campaign for President.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a window into the soul of Barack Hussein Obama. It is a dirty window, that not even a forced resignation of Rev. Wright could clean. For twenty years Wright has been, in Obama’s own words, his “sounding board”, “moral compass”. “mentor”, and “spiritual inspiration.”

II.)Political Calculations

Of course this does irreparable harm to Obama both now but more so if he makes it to the general election. As this becomes more widely known you can forget about the White Middle Class Union workers of Pennsylvania voting for Obama in the upcoming primary. Also if he makes it to the general election the rantings of Rev. Wright will be played every day on every radio talk show in the nation, with the results, as I’ve said before, that White America will not elect a Liberal Democrat Black man.

In the end Obama is no different then Jesse “New York City is Hymie Town” Jackson or Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton. In a sane country these revelations would destroy a candidate, reducing him to being able to garner only black voters.

BUT America is not sane so who can say what will happen.