Category: Politics

I am doing my best to ignore the Obama orgasm, and yet it is almost impossible to get completely away from the “never met a lie we wouldn’t tell” media. Consequently, I have heard that Obama is going to extensive lengths to invoke the specter of Abraham Lincoln. Obama is using the Bible to be sworn in that was used by Lincoln when he took the oath of office. Also there is the reality that he took a Lincolnesque train trip from Illinois to Washington DC. There is even word that at one of the festivities after the inauguration they are going to eat the same type of food served after Lincoln was inaugurated on China that is a replica of that used in 1861.

Now, I know I am cynical to a fault but I find myself asking what is the meaning of this Lincoln parroting. Is Obama cleverly signaling that he, like Lincoln’s dispossessing of the South in favor of Northern industrialists, is intent on dispossessing one part of the population in the interest of another? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent of trampling on the civil rights of Americans who oppose his policies? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to grow the power and authority of the centralized state? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is going to institute the draft? Is Obama signaling that he, like Lincoln before him, is intent on spending outrageous sums of money on internal improvements?

There are other similarities between Lincoln and Obama. The rhetoric of each is (was) mesmerizing. They were (are) both inexperienced lawyers from Illinois upon taking office. They each had (have) a cursory attachment to Christianity all the while explicitly denying its essence. They each had remote relationships with their Fathers.

Lincoln was great for America if you belonged to the special interest group that he represented. If you weren’t part of that group then Lincoln was death.

Or maybe Obama just likes stovepipe hats.

In defense of the departing Bush William Duane Yelley wrote,

“How soon we forget what Bush went through. Constant attacks on our assets stopped after 9/11. We don’t have Osama but he can’t stop running. The liberal cry (lie) of no WMDs ignores the 40,00 munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents and 3,000 tons of chemicals to produce agents found and the 500 plus WMDs found since 2003.

Inheriting a budget that had been “deferred” by the previous administration and unsound housing and economic policies he attempted to reverse since 2001 has given him the reputation Clinton deserves. Giving Bush the credit for private financial failures only indicates our country is ready for socialism.

It’s a good thing we had a man with testicular fortitude who could care less what the liberal media said than the alternatives.”

Bret responds,

1.) Even the Bush administration concedes they were wrong about WMD in Iraq. That dog won’t hunt. Their intel was wrong and invading Iraq was a major error that some of us warned about at the time.

2.) That Clinton was worse than Bush is no reason to recommend Bush. Read Hayek’s book ‘Road To Serfdom’ to see why the worst rises to the top in Totalitarian States. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have been pond scum rising to the top. (And by the way, everyone should keep in mind that it is Ronald Reagan that we have to thank for the Bushes. Apart from Reagan there is no way Bush I gets elected and so no way that Bush II has the skids greased for him to the top. Thanks Gipper.)

3.) Bush did not try to reverse Clinton’s housing policies. See,

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080928_rove.htm

From Carter forward the politicos have been on this mad rush to multi-culturalism and diversity. The housing industry has been one way they’ve been trying to destroy American brand identity in favor of political correctness brand identity.

4.) Bush does share the credit for helping creating a housing bubble that burst, as the Sailer article proves, and he will share credit for socializing our financial markets with his foolish bail-out.

5.) Bush was a liberal idiot. The Liberal Media is a idiot. Their differences lay in the fact that Bush was Fascist while the media is more international socialist. The fact that the media has criticized Bush does not prove that Bush is not a liberal.

6.) Josef Stalin had testicular fortitude also. I’m not sure that is a particularly noble attribute when you’re as glaringly wrong as Bush has consistently been.

It is a curious trait of the human creature to get all nostalgic at the changing of the guard. Bush’s departure ought not to gin up nostalgia but rather disgust. Disgust for his “No Child Left Behind” idiocy, disgust for his prescription medicine for Senior’s bankruptcy, disgust for his attempt to give amnesty to 15 million illegal aliens, disgust for his locking us into socialism with the bailout, disgust for the Iraq war, disgust for his role in the minority mortgage meltdown, disgust for the “Patriot Act,” disgust for muscling up the position of chief executive thus setting the table for a even larger tyrant, disgust for Bush’s signing statements that basically turned all legislation into whatever he wanted it to mean, disgust for garbled syntax, trying to dress Harriet Miers in a black robe, inviting an Imam and a Rabbi to the 9/11 pantheon “worship” service, and for working so assiduously to surrender our sovereignty as a nation (North American Union). And finally disgust because for eight years we’ve had to put up with looking at a President that looks like Alfred E. Newman.

The Bush II presidency has been shameful, and the fact that any Christian desires to get all sentimental about seeing him leave office is quite beyond me.

Now B. Hussein Obama will be even worse but there is very little to nothing to go all nostalgic over regarding the Bush administration.

“New York city had come under the control of William Macy Tweed of Tammany Hall — the infamous Boss Tweed. Tweed, a massive man with a thick beard and somber, searching eyes, had begun his career of bribery in a small way in 1859, when he and two fellow Democrats paid off a Republican politician and bought the right to name their friends as election inspectors. Within four years, Tweed had begun to drain money out of the city treasury. He held the post of Deputy Street Commissioner, which allowed him to make deals with contractors who supplied road-building materials to the city. Tweed and his co-horts decreed that the contractors were to raise the prices to the city by 35 percent over a normal profit. Of this sum, Tweed kept 25 percent and paid 10 percent to another city official. As the Tweed ring grew wealthier, it expanded its power steadily. Control of the city was assured by purchasing votes. Thousands of immigrants who could barely speak English were given citizenship and enrolled as Democrats. For a dollar or two apiece, Tweed bought their voting loyalty. Some Democrats voted two or three times, while the bribed election inspectors looked the other way. In one election, the Democratic candidate received the votes of 8 percent more New Yorkers than were listed in the whole voting population.

Tween eventually bribed the mayor of New York City, the Governor of New York State, the city and state legislatures, and countless minor officials….In 1869 all contractors doing business with the city were told to add a 100 percent overcharge to their bills and pass the extra money along to the ring. Later the fraudulent percentage went even higher. The symbol of Tweed’s misdeeds was the New York County Courthouse opposite City Hall. It was supposed to be built at a cost not exceeding $250,000, but between 1864 and 1872 some $600,000,000 was spent on the building, and $8,000,000 more was paid out for mythical work supposedly done by Tweed accomplices. The bill for carpeting the courthouse alone was $4,829, 426,26 — enough to carpet most of New York city. The plumbing contractor collected $1,508,410.89. A plasterer named Garvey billed the city for $3.500,000. The cost of forty chairs and tables was $170,279.60. All told the Tweed Ring milked the city for at least $75,000,000 between 1868 and 1871; one historian put the total losses at more that 200,000,000.”

Lloyd Robinson
The Stolen Election — pp. 89-90

By itself this argues one reason for the necessity to keep government checked. Big Government, historically speaking, has been characterized by graft. (You certainly didn’t think that recently opened Visitor Center in Washington D.C. only exceeded its projected building cost by hundreds of millions of dollars due to unforeseen difficulties did you?) Smaller government, with its trimmed down money flow helps insure lesser attraction of the cockroach class to the food supply.

Second, citizens shouldn’t be shocked when they hear of a crooked politician on the take. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt? The shock should come on the day that they meet an honest politician — should that day ever come. You can bet your bottom dollar that the very people that are prosecuting Blagojevich, as well as the politicians screaming about the injustice of Blagojevich’s actions are hip deep in their own graft. Diogenes lives, and continues to search in broad daylight, holding his lantern high, as he looks for an honest man.

Third, when you cause government to swell by increasing its access to the public till you guarantee that men of principle and honor will not pursue politics. Conversely, thus, what you will get running government, is, as I mentioned above, the cockroach class. If you want to find men and women without honor, without morals, and without shame all you have to do is find a government that is flush with money. Remember the whole Clinton imbroglio. Not only did we find out our President was a whore monger but we found out that the Speaker of the house (Newt Gingrich) had been whoring around. Likewise, we found out the Republican that was supposed to replace the Speaker of the House (Bob Livingston) was a whore monger. Honesty in government? — Please.

Doug Wilson and I had a brief couple of exchanges in one of his Obama Nation building threads.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6096&Data=3003#posts

I remain convinced that all of Doug’s cheer leading for McCain / Palin was both counterproductive and just plain wrong. Doug defended his actions and in a post this morning spends several paragraphs seeking to justify his vote. Doug Wilson’s words are in blockquote. My response follows.

One of the valuable things I learned from Rushdoony was the idea of the inescapable concept. It is not whether we will impose morality through our laws, but rather which morality we will impose. It is not whether there will be an ultimate god for every political system, but rather which god it will be. Not whether, but which.

I learned this likewise from Rush. It is a lesson that I wish all Christians would learn. Because this is true, we can and do insist that all governments are theocratically arranged. Theocracy is an inescapable concept. In government there will always be some God or gods at the top of the food chain and all that is being done in the government and in the legislation is being done pursuant to the commands of that god or gods.

Now, here is what Doug did with his vote, in light of this idea of inescapable concept. Doug yoked his strength to John McCain and voted for the god of humanism, in the hopes that the god of humanism would do something (appoint pro-life judges) to cause itself to fall and crumble. How much sense does it make to vote for one of the chief prophets of humanism / socialism (the other chief prophet being Obama) in hope that the chief prophet of humanism / socialism would makes some decision that would lead to the fall of humanism / socialism?

In the same way, all attempts at political engagement (or disengagement, for that matter) provide yet another setting for the same principle to manifest itself. No matter what you do, or where you go, you will find yourself tied to others doing the same thing for very different and frequently disreputable reasons. It is not whether you will have strange bedfellows, but which strange bedfellows you will have.

This is a true observation! However, the question isn’t one of whether the guy next to me who is voting for the same guy I am is a weirdo. The question is whether the guy both the weirdo and I are both voting for is going to be true to the weirdo’s interpretation of the candidates agenda or to the interpretation of the agenda that I have of the candidate we are voting for. Now, as to John McCain there is no doubt what his agenda was. McCain was for open borders. McCain was for stem cell research. McCain was bad on the second amendment. McCain was bad on the first amendment. McCain was he of “we’ll keep the troops there 100 years if necessary” fame. McCain was bad on judges (remember the gang of 14). And yet despite all this Doug voted for McCain. The problem wasn’t that Doug was voting next to a weirdo who actually wanted McCain to do all of that. The problem was that Doug (as a leading luminary in Christian “conservative” circles) voted for the weirdo.

If I vote Republican, as I did in the general, in the hope of getting one or two more pro-life Supreme Court justices, I find myself cheek by jowl with somebody else pulling the lever because he will be getting some sweet kickbacks on a defense contractor.

Let’s review this. Doug is supposed to have a prophetic streak about him, and I admit that Doug often does a good job of reading the tea leaves of the culture. But what Doug was asking us to do in the election cycle was vote for McCain in hopes that Palin was going in influence McCain to nominate pro-life SCOTUS justices. Even on the face of it such an idea is laughable. However, when you combine this idea with the reality that everybody knew that the US Senate, which has to give its approval for SCOTUS nominees, was going to go overwhelmingly liberal, the idea that a President McCain was going to nominate, let alone get through the Senate pro-life judges is double laughable. Doug must have been smoking peyote to believe that a President Maverick McCain, already famous for screwing the conservative base of the Republican party, was going to give the country justices who would reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and promising this time she won’t move the football before Charlie Brown kicks it, Doug fell for the Republican recurring party line. A wise sage of the Church should not have fallen for such transparent “Lucy” lies.

If I vote for Ron Paul, as I did in the primary, I find myself cheek by jowl with another fellow up here in the sticks of north Idaho with swastikas all over his backhoe. I know, an absurd example, but it is not as though I haven’t seen that kind of thing with my own eyeballs. Now I am not “contaminated” by either one, unless I overtly own or connive at their evil deeds — like Obama did with Ayers. But I am doing the same thing that they are doing, and I am doing it at the same time . . . strange bedfellows. And I can’t get away from this law by forming a political party of one, and heading up for the tall grass of the high mountain pastures. Lots of people have done that, and many of them are fruit loops.

Doug is right again here, however the observation is not an escape route to justify his wrong headed vote. The problem was never with the weirdo that Doug was voting with the problem was the weirdo Doug was voting for. The problem isn’t with strange bedfellows, the problem is with strange head of the household. No one is advocating voting for a party of one. What people are advocating is that Christians quit voting for a known quantity who promises to be other than they’ve always been. Doug should know that you never ever listen to what a politician says. You only look at what they’ve done.

If mere unity of action contaminates, then I am as contaminated by voting for purist Third Party candidates as I am by voting for the Establishment solons. The one difference is that the impurities present more of an intellectual challenge to the Third Party guys, because their raison d’tre is . . . purity. The pragmatists running the big tent circuses don’t really care about that because all they want is warm bodies checking their boxes, clearly and legibly.

Now here we find a glitch in Doug’s understanding at what I and others are doing when we vote third party. The issues for me isn’t “the pure as the wind driven snow purity” of the third party candidate. I realize that there is impurity in guys like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr. I could list them for you. No, the problem for me is the impurity of the guys in the major parties. I don’t expect perfection. But what I am looking for is a guy who is actually not promoting government that is trying to crush the basics of a Christian world view. So, my reason for existence (raison d’tre) when it comes to voting is not the pure as the wind driven snow candidate. The reason for existence when it comes to voting is voting for someone who is moving in a different general direction from the two major parties.

So, if I accept the “guilt by association” argument, I have to accept it across the board. If I don’t, then I don’t. As I said, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and had he made it to the general, I would have voted for him there. Had he been elected, I would have supported him fully and enthusiastically for the entire three weeks of his presidency. Having said this, anybody who thinks that there weren’t a bunch of unsavory characters and moonbats supporting his run is somebody who doesn’t get out much.

Once again, Doug is correct, but his correctness doesn’t have anything to do with voting habits error. Yes, when you vote third party you are voting with moonbats, however, you’re not voting for a moonbat as he was when he voted McCain.

And having said that, I recognize that there are different kinds of moonbats — for example, there are the kind who draw up working models of a new constitutions in their trailer park near Houston, and there is the respectable kind of moonbat who gives away billions of dollars by the fistful to failing banks in the hope of correcting problems caused by financial irresponsibility. Heh.

But the difference is that neither Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr were drawing up working models of a new constitution, while McCain did vote to give away billions of dollars for … well, who knows where it finally went to? Now, this isn’t to say that Baldwin or Barr didn’t have problems. They weren’t pure and they certainly did have problems. This is to say that at the very least they wanted to move away from collectivism.

Ron Paul understands the Federal Reserve system, and none of the eggheads running that system do. When someone suggests a sane solution to the financial crisis, everyone cries for “realism,” not remembering that it was very similar calls for “realism” that got us into this mess. And so I would be happy to vote for Ron Paul despite unsavory support for him in the background. But when I decide to vote McCain, don’t try to dissuade me by pointing to the unsavory assocations there. I know all about that — but I know about it in every direction, and not just in focused partisan directions. You can’t even identify with Mennonite pacifists without getting into weird associations with communist thugs with blood stains up to their elbows. Welcome to earth. Welcome to political engagement.

NOBODY IS FAULTING YOU DOUG WILSON FOR VOTING WITH WEIRDOS. WE ARE FAULTING YOU FOR VOTING FOR WEIRDOS. As far as I’m concerned Doug could hold a party and invite all the weirdos he voted with to come if he and they hadn’t voted for a collectivist, socialist, anti-second amendment, anti-first amendment, anti-American sovereignty weirdo.

The same kind of observations apply to the Constitution Party, the Libertarians, and anybody else numerous and effective enough to get themselves on to the ballot.

At the end of the day I want to conduct myself in principled ways, caring the most about the advance of the kingdom of Christ, and the preservation of human dignity. And so here is the main point. The litmus test of all principled (biblical) political engagement is this: as you engage, are you willing to recognize and denounce the whackjobs who will (inevitably) associate themselves with what you are seeking to do? If so, well done, and God counts your vote, wherever it is cast. If not, then you are just a shill, whether for the big party pragmatists or the little party pragmatists.

You will not advance the Kingdom of Christ by voting for people (like McCain) who are representatives of the Kingdom of anti-Christ. You will not advance the Kingdom of Christ by thinking that representatives of the false God of humanism (McCain or Obama) will do things that will work to pull down the god of humanism. This is the problem with Doug’s reasoning. Doug has forgotten that a political party divided against itself can not stand and so in order to stand it won’t do things to advance the Kingdom of God. Doug has forgotten that Beelzebub is not going to cast out Beelzebub. McCain, as a representative of Humanism was not going to bring down the God of humanism. No way. Never ever. Wasn’t going to happen. Not a snowball’s chance in Hell. Therefore, he had no business voting for McCain, and worst yet, giving other Christians justification for voting for McCain.

Whenever I write about this, the comments invariably divide down a predictable line, with both sides circling the wagons. Both sides point out the glaring faults in the other side. Big deal. Pagans know how to do that. Point out the faults of your own approach, the one you have decided to take. Remember the beams and motes. If you decide to vote Republican, acknowledge that there is much justice in the observations made from the nickel seats of the Third Parties. If you decide to vote for a Third Party candidate, recognize that there is justice in the criticisms mounted against them. That is a genuine third way.

I’m sorry Doug … I will not recognize that voting for Republicans that are known collectivist and humanists is a wise thing to do. I’m glad to admit that every now and again in some races there are Republicans that can be voted for in good conscience (Ron Paul comes to mind) but on the whole the definition of insanity remains doing the same thing over and over again (in this case pulling Republican levers) while expecting different results. Doug, you were just plain wrong to vote for Republican McCain wistfully imagining that a Vice President Palin was somehow going to keep him honest on SCOTUS nominees. Politically speaking that was the thinking of a novice.

What a field day for the heat,

A thousand people in the street,

Singing songs and they’re carrying signs,

Mostly saying, “Hooray for our side.”

Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qG6UIr8z