Category: Politics

“(Beza) now made the traditional distinction between tyrants who usurped their office and legitimate authorities who became tyrannical. Usurpers were to be resisted fervently, ideally by the authorized lower magistrates. But if these magistrates failed, even private persons, following the example of the ancient McAtee’s (oops — make that Maccabees), could lead the resistance if God opened a way to them. Legitimate authorities who became tyrannical, however, could be resisted only by the lower magistrates, such as the electoral princes in the Holy Roman Empire or the Estates-General in the kingdom of France. Private persons could and should disobey unjust orders and laws, or flee the jurisdiction. But they could not fight or resist on their own. ‘[We] do not cease to beg our brothers to arm themselves only with patience, until God comes to their aid, either in another way, or by raising up a [new] prince.’

These early reflections were ‘an embryonic justification for democratic revolution’ writes Robert Kingdon. Bez’s argument in a nutshell was this: the political office was ‘ordained by God and represents God in the world.’ But the political officers who occupy that office depend for their authority upon ‘the public consent of the citizens.’ When the political officer no longer respect his office and no longer represents God in the world, ‘public consent’ can give way to ‘public dissent.’ When this dissent is expressed properly through the lower magistrates, the political officer loses his authority and must be resisted, and if necessary forcibly removed from office.

John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights — pg. 104-105

Now the question that commands our attention is whether our current situation here in these United States is a situation where tyrants have usurped their office or whether it is a case of legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical. Actually, I think this could be argued both ways. The former argument would reason that we have tyrants who have usurped their office because they are in violation of their oath to the Constitution. This violation of their oath to the constitution would de-legitimize any claim they might have to being legitimate authorities. On the other hand one could argue that they are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical if only because they were lawfully elected to their positions. My instinct is to go with the former argumentation thus allowing more freedom for the individual to resist the tyranny but for the sake of discretion and prudence, I will, at this point, side with the latter argument that our current usurpers are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical and who can only be resisted in the context of lesser magistrates. I think when we are considering a topic such as ‘faithfulness by public dissent’ we should be err on the side of caution.

The implication of this is that, we as Christians, should be earnestly petitioning God that He would be gracious to raise up lesser magistrates in order to lead His people against the tyranny that we are currently under in these United States. The second implication of this is that if God should raise up lesser magistrates to oppose the current tyranny that we are under it would be disobedience to God to not support these lesser magistrates with oaths of fealty and deeds of valor. If God should be pleased to raise up what some would characterize as ‘lesser magistrates’ to lead against what some would characterize as ‘greater magistrates’ we would need to return to the motto that ‘obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.’

Until such a time as God changes the equation here we must give Him no rest in making known our desire of magistrates who would rule consistent with His Word. Also, we must be willing to bear all that is levied against us by wicked rulers as God’s just judgment against us for being complicit in arriving at this point where the foundations of righteousness are being decimated.

In the end though we must note this…

Given the right conditions Reformed doctrine requires faithfulness by dissent or to put it another way, should God provide the right conditions a lack of civil disobedience would be disobedience to God.

“The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was defended in its day on a variety of grounds — with Enlightenment arguments among the most well known. It is no small commentary for this volume, however, that every one of the guarantees in the 1791 Bill Of Rights had already been formulated in the prior two centuries — by Calvinist theologians and jurists among others. Some of these rights were already formulated by Theodore Beza and the French and Scottish resistance fighters of the the later sixteenth century, more by Johannes Althusius and the Dutch constitutionalists at the turn of the seventeenth century, still more by John Milton and the English Puritans in the middle of the seventeenth century, and more yet by the New England Puritans from John Winthrop and Nathaniel Ward in the seventeenth century to Elisha Williams and John Adams in the eighteenth. Moreover, a number of the core ideas of American constitutionalism — popular sovereignty, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, church and state, and more — were also quite fully formulated by Calvinists in the prior two centuries, especially in the Netherlands, England, and New England….The Calvinists wove many strong theological threads into the fabric of early American Constitutionalism.

John Witte Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights; Law, Religion, And Human Rights In Early Modern Calvinism — pg. 31-32

The very idea of an American Nation grew up out of the soil of Calvinistic Christianity. This doesn’t mean that all of the Founding Fathers were Calvinists or Christian. Nor does it mean that those who were Christian were perfectly consistent in their Christianity. What it does mean is that the origin, shape, and trajectory of These United State was Christian and Calvinistic. Even those Founding Fathers who were furthest away from Christian thought had been largely immersed in a cultural milieu wherein they imbibed Christian and Calvinistic political thought categories. Indeed, one can argue that even the Enlightenment arguments stemming from Locke, Rousseau, and others that some used to justify disunion with England were arguments that owed their origin to Christian categories.

In the book quoted from above Witte’s labor is to show how a long history of Calvinistic thinking in political theory by eminent theologians and jurists ended up shaping the West’s jurisprudential self understanding when it comes to the issue of natural religious rights. Witte contends that Reformed political theory eventually became so standard that it became the proverbial water in which Westerner’s swam for centuries.

This thesis runs contrary to much of what we are taught growing up about how the Enlightenment, as crystallized in the French Revolution, yielded to men rights of individual liberty that were unknown due to the stultifying presence of Christian ideas of Monarchy, Aristocratic privilege, and religious establishment. What Witte has done is to uncover the long Christian and Reformed legacy that spoke of the right of men to liberty against tyranny, tracing the story from Calvin’s genesis work on political theory in relation natural religious rights, to Beza’s development in light of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre by Roman Catholic upon the Hugenots, to Althusius development in light of the Dutch Revolt against the Roman Catholic Philip of Spain, to Milton’s work in England during the conflict with King Charles I, and finally to the work of New England Puritan in the Holy Commonwealth. In each successive stage Witte draws out how Calvinistic political theory developed and adapted to the events swirling about and how Calvinist political theory sought to apply Scripture as a means by which men could understand their roles given their times.

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama

Well, in today’s rapid news cycle this is already old news but I just heard this today and couldn’t resist commenting on it.

I’m just going to go through what I see here in the order I see it.

First, ‘I got two daughters?’

Never mind.

Second, he is going to ‘teach them morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how his daughters can be immoral girls when they decide to reject the values that he teaches them. If Barack is going to teach his daughters ‘morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how to best violate what they have been taught isn’t the giving to them information on how best to violate the morals and values they have been taught a moral and a value they are being taught?

Third, notice how sex outside of marriage is just a ‘mistake’ — you know, kind of like putting more sugar in the cake batter then the recipe called for, or setting your alarm clock an hour earlier then what you really wanted.

Fourth, Barack says that babies are a punishment. It is not a wonder that the guy has never met an abortion restriction that he likes. If babies are punishment then by all means let us kill them off in every way we can.

Fifth, having babies and being infected with an STD are considered parallel punishments. Indeed, getting pregnant might be less of a punishment for their ‘mistake’ then being infected with STD since it is easier to get rid of the baby punishment then some STD punishments.

Sixth, I think this confirms that if B. Hussein Obama is Islamic, he is only nominally Islamic. I don’t think a full fledge Muslim would give the information on how to have ‘mistake free sex’ to his young teenage daughters. I think we are going to give up this idea that he is a closet Muslim and be satisfied with the fact that he is a Black Nationalist Marxist.

I’ve been over and over this issue with Government educators but,

1.)Outside of marriage there is no such thing as ‘mistake free sex.’

2.)When you teach children how to have ‘mistake free sex’ you are teaching them to have sex. You cannot consistently, on the one hand, say something is inadvisable (that’s the strongest language Government educators will use about sex) and on the other hand teach someone how to most effectively do that which is inadvisable.

When Bill Clinton was going through his impeachment imbroglio I alway had the sense that conviction in the Senate was never going to happen because it was a case where the Senators realized that Bill Clinton would take everyone down with him. The lack of voting for impeachment was more a case of everyone protecting their own backsides then being particularly concerned about Bill’s backside. Nobody is going to pull the rug out on anybody else because everybody is standing on the same rug.

I had seen this kind of behavior before in a business setting where because employees and management alike had the goods on one another, employees and management alike were covering each others backs.

Be patient…I’m going somewhere with this.

Now Hillary shows up and she is beat, and yet, she hangs around. Why is that?

Could it be that Hillary, unlike Barack, knows where all the bodies are buried and knows who buried them. (Considering that we are talking about the Clintons I need to tell you that the first sentence in this paragraph was a metaphor.) Could it be that like the impeachment process where Bill knew that the result of his going down would be his taking everybody with him, that Hillary knows that if she doesn’t get the nomination people are going to be exposed?

I think they call it ‘Blackmail.’

It’s pure conjecture but it makes more sense then anything else that is being offered out there right now as an explanation as to why either

1.) Bill wasn’t convicted in his impeachment trial

2.) Hillary is still being seriously considered as the possible presidential candidate even though there is no mathematical way that she can catch Obama in the delegate count.

Something has to account why she believes that she can still get the nomination.

If you believe that it is really going to be the case that super-delegates will vote for her because she has a better chance in the general election I think you need to give up your heroine addiction for awhile.

Remember, politics is a leverage game. Its all about who has the leverage.

I’m guessing Hillary and Bill have boatloads of leverage.

In my fevered mind all of the above would also explain why the back water media (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc.) are giving her all the negative coverage. They want Obama, not because they are infatuated with Obama. They want Obama because they are tired of being tied to somebody who has them by the short hairs.

Remember … its pure conjecture.

From an article dated 11 April, 2007 recording a interview with Barack Hussein Obama.

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,” he concluded.

So, Senator Barack Hussein Obama believed that Don Imus should have been fired for referring to female Black Basketball players as ‘nappy headed ho’s,’ but the vile vitriolic hatred that spewed from Jeremiah Wright’s mouth must be understood in the larger context of American racism?

I know … I know … the double standard is a black thing and so I wouldn’t understand.

If you haven’t been able to tell, I am definitely exercised over this bilge.