A principle that is consistently trustworthy is that if the State takes upon itself some particular responsibility many people will not take it upon themselves to be concerned about their responsibility to provide for themselves whatever it is the government is providing for and further will come to the point that they can no longer imagine people being able to function without the State being responsible for whatever responsibility they have seized from the citizenry.

So, for example, if the State promises to provide a retirement pension (i.e. — Social Security) there will be people who are no longer concerned about their responsibility to save for their own retirement, and there will be many people who begin to believe that without Social Security retirees will starve to death. People, then who are against Socialist programs like Social Security are then believed, quite wrongly, to be for retirees starving to death.

This is a theme that has been played up quite recently, as applied to Medicare. Any thought of initiating a program to privatize Medicare to some degree was linked to the conviction that people would be thrown off cliffs if the Government was not completely responsible to provide for elderly health insurance.

The premise is that if anybody wants to do anything to put an end to entitlement programs that clearly are not working that person is for letting or even helping people die. The idea hawked by Socialists and by those who support socialist programs is that people who are against Socialistic programs and wealth redistribution schemes are cruel-hearted monsters who don’t like people.

This is ironic when in point of fact it is the Socialists who are the cruel-hearted monsters. Socialists who devise these schemes are subsidizing (giving money to, and rewarding) outcomes that we should all want to see eliminated. It is the very definition of cruel-hearted to devise a program that will increase the number of people who will need that program because of the attraction of free money. When Socialists create a Social Security program they create more people dependent upon the State for their retirement since people believe that the State will provide for them in their old age. Socialists and Socialist entitlement programs, like Social Security, are the non-compassionate cruel-hearted ones because by their creation of entitlement programs they enlarge the pool of people who will become dependents upon the State.

The idea that people will starve to death without these entitlement programs is myth and such an idea is only used in order to demonize those who are opposed to creating a class of people who are dependent upon the state and to scare people into voting against those who desire to return freedom and responsibility to the electorate.

The lie that without entitlement programs people will starve to death (or be thrown off cliffs) is seen in the reality that before these entitlement programs came into existence people did not starve to death and were not thrown off cliffs. Social Security was made law in 1933. People prior to 1933 were not dropping like flies in this country from starvation prior to 1933. No, the creation of Social Security (and other like entitlement programs) is never because of the impoverished people it is putatively designed to help. The creation of Social Security (and other like entitlement programs) is done out of the desire to make people dependent upon the State, thus creating a constituency of voters who will consistently vote for people who promise to keep the entitlement subsidies flowing.

The irony is that if anyone is guilty of wanting to starve people to death it is those who create entitlement programs. I worked for my first seven years of the ministry with people who were dependent upon entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and what I saw were people who were given just enough money to remain dependent upon the State but not enough money to actually flourish.

America existed for its first 150 years without entitlement programs. Families and Churches took upon themselves the responsibility to take care of one another without the State’s interference. If we ever return to a time when entitlement programs end we will return to a time when Families and Churches once again are strengthened to do what the State currently does.

“The zeal of facebook Christians to abandon biblical principles of voting and statecraft in order to justify voting for Ron Paul tells us something: you do not have to believe in “big government” in order to believe in the Messianic State. It is only because men look for societal salvation in small princes, rather than in the name of the Lord, that they cast the law of God behind their backs in order to elect a man who refuses to bow to Christ’s royal prerogatives over civil government. Thus the civil government that the Ron Paul voters want would be every bit as “Messianic” as the one that their opponents lust after.”

Daniel Ritchie, Facebook, January 4, 2012

Here we have a quote that reveals the zeal of a modern day facebook Christian who doesn’t like the putative zeal of Christians who he thinks do not have the right kind of zeal — the kind of zeal that he has.

Before we get into the disagreements with Mr. Ritchie, I want to note that while at this point, I intend to vote for Rep. Ron Paul if I can I do acknowledge that there are issues he supports that I do not think are Christian. Paul’s recent vote supporting homosexuals in the military is not the vote a Christian man would have made. Also, Ron Paul’s fuzzy stand on illegal immigration is a head scratcher. I also would that Rep. Paul would clearly articulate that the Constitution as it currently stands outlaws Abortion, and because of that States should overturn laws on their books that are contrary to that Constitutional requirement. I also do not believe that Dr. Paul’s Libertarian instincts will work in a country that has been balkanized by both it’s legal immigration policy pursuit since 1965 and it’s benign neglect of illegal immigration. The balkanization is seen also in the country being divided by the agenda that has been pursued by the cultural Marxist elite vis-a-vis a more traditional and historic understanding of Americanism. In short, I think the Libertarian instinct will only work in a country that shares a common world and life view. Because of the world and life view balkanization that exists in this country America as a country is no longer a nation.

Now having noted my direct disagreements with Rep. Paul, I want to spend a few lines pointing out Daniel Ritchies errors.

1.) Not all Christians who intend on voting for Ron Paul have abandoned biblical principles for voting and statecraft. When one is being threatened to be eaten by a wolf one is not abandoning biblical principles for voting and statecraft by voting for the person who promises to kill the wolf, even if he has body odor and is personally uncouth. Our greatest need of the hour in order to restore biblical statecraft is for someone to slay the Leviathan State. This is the platform on which Dr. Paul is campaigning. Biblical statecraft will not be restored until the Leviathan state is slain. First things first. To suggest that any Christian who intends to vote for Ron Paul is abandoning biblical principles for voting and statecraft is like a Jew complaining that the person who stopped the rape of his wife was not circumcised. It is true that there are faults with Dr. Paul, but currently he is the gentleman who promises to help us with our most current and pressing problem. Mr. Ritchie just isn’t thinking correctly.

2.) Mr. Ritchie assumes that those Christians who intend to vote for Congressman Paul, intend to do so because they believe in the Messiah State. This is an unwarranted assumption on Mr. Ritchie’s part. It may be the case, that Christians intend to vote for Rep. Paul because they do not believe the Biblical notion of State can be retrieved unless the current incarnation of the State is put to rest. The current God-State is sucking up all sphere sovereignty that has Biblical warrant to exist. All because I vote for a man who promises to draw proper sphere sovereignty boundaries for the Nation State does not mean that I believe that the result will be a Messianic State. Such a vote only means that I am using Rep. Paul as a bludgeon to restrict the ambitions of the current Messianic State. Mr. Ritchie’s reasoning is without merit.

3.) Christians who intend to vote for Ron Paul are not necessarily looking for societal salvation. In point of fact, I fully expect for Rep. Paul to fail in his agenda since I believe that this nation, short of remarkable providence, is beyond the point of no return. Personally, I am voting for Paul, because I believe a President Paul would be less inclined to use draconian measures than the other Statist candidates to stop the break up of these united States that I foresee happening. That is hardly the reasoning of a Christian who is looking to Rep. Paul to provide societal salvation.

4.) I do agree with Mr. Ritchie that every government is obliged to “Kiss the Son,” lest the magistrates perish in the way. I also agree with Mr. Ritchie that as Christians our support should be for those candidates who promise to “Kiss the Son.” However, I also believe that in our situation when all the other Magistrates for President are for “Kissing the Devil,” it is the better part of wisdom to vote for a man who intends to de=fang the Leviathan State then voting for those who want to sharpen the Devil’s fangs.

“It is absurd that a man should rule others, who cannot rule himself.”

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/19/gingrich_slams_cnns_king_for_question_about_ex-wife.html

America’s temperature was taken last night at the Republican debate and the temperature reveals she is dead. Newt Gingrich plays the role of an indignant outraged candidate who insists that he is “appalled” by the media’s questioning of his adultery committed during his first marriage. Only in America could a man who is a serial adulterer get to play the role of the righteously indignant. Keep in mind that the very same type of people who were giving Newt a standing ovation were the people who were so outraged when it became known that President Clinton was having forbidden and unlawful carnal knowledge of Monica Lewinsky.

But, Newt can receive a standing ovation in spite of his serial adultery because the American citizenry sees the double standard of the media. The press taught us that women in Clinton’s lives were nuts or sluts and so since President Clinton received a pass from the media for his trailer park behavior why shouldn’t their candidate receive a pass from the media for the trailer park behavior of their candidate? The media to this day has not vetted candidate Obama. We know very little of his Marxist past. What of his relationship with renown Marxist Frank Marshall Davis? How did Obama’s attachment to the teachings of Marxist extraordinaire Saul Alinsky mold and shape him? How tight were Barack Hussein Obama and 60’s Marxist radical Bill Ayres?

If Clinton and Obama receive a pass from the media for their sultry and blemished past why shouldn’t the past of all the candidates get a pass … including the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich? If Clinton and Obama and Newt get a pass from the media for their past why should anybody care that Rick Santorum’s wife spent a good deal of her life during her 20’s shacking up with a abortion doctor that was 40 years her senior? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now, understand, I don’t think that any of them should get a pass. And I don’t think it is unfair if Newt’s adulteries are exposed for all the world to see while others with pasts more egregious are ignored. What is “unfair” in all of this is that the press would purposely hide any of the candidates past that needs to be known by voters. So, if Newt gets hung out to dry, and others don’t … Newt is only getting justice and has nothing to complain about except the fact that the others didn’t get justice. Newt’s past not being exposed by journalists only piles up the injustices, it does not make everything fair. Fair would be asking not only Newt the hard questions about his serial adultery but it would also be demanding that Obama tell us about his Marxist past.

Secondly, we have to understand why there is such a double standard in the media. The media is governed by a humanist world and life view and therefore they have an interest in destroying anybody who becomes the champion of those segments of the citizenry whose worldview is different than the major media. The media holds the putatively conservative candidates (even if those candidates are only conservative in their rhetoric) to a different standard so that the media can destroy those candidates who are advancing a worldview that is contrary to their own. Notice, most often this is done to support the sexual revolution. Herman Cain is seen as conservative and so what is brought forth are all of his sexual liaisons. Newt Gingrich is seen as conservative so the media brings forth his alleged demand for a “open marriage.” Before that they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas with salacious stories of pubic hairs on coke cans. The media, in destroying these candidates, is at the same time destroying a worldview that at least rhetorically opposes the humanist pan-sexual worldview.

However, as delighted as the media is in pulling the rug out from under supposedly conservative candidates we, as Christians, should even be more delighted even though there is clearly a double standard. Christians can be satisfied by a “listen to what I say, don’t look at what I do” candidate being exposed because we don’t want blatant hypocrisy being the face that represents our convictions.

So, for my part I would say that Newt’s serial adultery disqualifies him from my vote. God does grant forgiveness but God granting forgiveness does not mean that there are no consequences to his adulterous actions. And one consequence, in my way of thinking is that given the fact that he could not rule his own home well, then he should not be entrusted to rule the country. In the words of Albert J. Nock, “really, when one thinks of it, what a preposterous thing it is to put the management of a nation, a province, even a village, in the hands of a man who cannot so much as manage a family.”