Category: Politics

In an effort to stifle the opposition, Hitler invited 40 prominent church leaders to meet with him on January 25th. He said, “You leave the care of the Third Reich to me and you look after the church.” That sounded good, but Hitler still planned to control the church through Reich Bishop Müller.

The story of the confessing Church in Germany is somewhat known among Christians in America. One reason that I explicitly and vehemently reject radical Two Kingdom Theory is because of some deep and heavy research while an undergraduate in the relationship between Church and State from 1933-1945 in National Socialist Germany. In this culture the Church had been co-opted by the State to the point that only a very small percentage of German Christians were willing to stand against the patriotic and nationalistic fervor that swept over Germany. Luther’s Two Kingdom Theology had been preached throughout the German Lutheran Church and it was this theology that made it easier for the National Socialist regime to compromise any resistance that might have arisen in the Church.

While Luther’s Two Kingdom Theology is not exactly the same as that being pushed by Radical two Kingdomists today (it had more of a flavor of State over the Church), I still am concerned about the radical two Kingdom theology that is being advocated today by the faculty at Westminster West since it is not difficult to see similar conditions being created within the Church in These United States as existed in the Church of National Socialist Germany from 1933-1945. After all, according to the Radical Two Kingdomists the Church as the Church is not to speak to the civil realm since the civil realm is to be spoken to by individual Christians citing not God’s revealed word (Scripture) but rather using God’s creation word (Natural law) as authority. Could a Church saturated in radical two Kingdom theology (R2kt) find it within themselves enough of a spine to stand athwart the wicked intentions of Machiavellian Statist magistrates? Could a Church saturated in R2kt find it within themselves the ability to protest the actions of the magistrate in any action except an attempt to control the Church? (And the question begs being asked as to why any Magistrate living in the same culture as a R2kt Church would bother to worry about the Church since it could be no threat whatsoever to his {or Her — HRC} designs.)

Now the account cited above has an encouraging ending.

As the clergymen were leaving, Martin Niemöller addressed Hitler: “Herr Reichskanzler, you said just now, `I will take care of the German people.’ But we too as Christians and churchmen have a responsibility toward the German people. That responsibility was entrusted to us by God, and neither you nor anyone in this world has the power to take it from us.”

Niemoller is an interesting case. First, theologically speaking he was hopeless, embracing the tradition of Karl Barth (as Dietrich Bonhoffer did as well). Second, Niemoller initially supported Hitler only later realizing the danger of Hitler’s movement. Third, even well into the conflict, Niemoller sought to oppose the policies of National Socialism while taking great pains to communicate that he wasn’t opposing Hitler. Still, to his credit Niemoller spoke more directly on this occasion to Hitler than he was accustomed to being spoken to. Finally, to his credit Niemoller was eventually arrested.

Given R2kt it is difficult to see how any minister would ever be arrested for speaking Biblically revealed truth to authority.

One final word that is somewhat ancillary to all this. American Christians should heed the lessons of the vapid, empty, and unwarranted patriotic and nationalistic fervor that swept over German Christians from 1933-1945. American Christians should realize that all because something is wrapped in the flag of one’s national origin that does not make that policy, law, or view sacrosanct. While we should all love our country, there are times when love for country means we are against our countrymen because we are for our countrymen.

I have received a number of e-mails recently chastising me for being inconsistent in supporting Ron Paul given his views of abortion (States should decide), Gay Marriage (States should decide) and Homosexuals in the military. This will be a brief attempt to explain my reasoning on this issue.

First of all, those who have followed my articles will know that right from the very beginning of the Paul phenomena I have said that he is not a perfect candidate and that he is clearly and overwhelmingly wrong on the abortion issue. The Constitution in the Fifth Amendment clearly gives the Federal Government the legal responsibility to insure that none of its citizens are ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ Abortion clearly is a deprivation of life without due process of law and the Federal Government has the Constitutional Responsibility to protect life. Congressman’s Paul’s Libertarian tendencies work against him at this point and make him severely wrong in advocating a policy so clearly contrary to both the Constitution and Scripture.

So given this conviction why do I support Paul? The reason is because Ron Paul desires to return this Country to Constitutional Government and under Constitutional Government a State that desires to secede from these United States can do so and I can think of no better reason to secede from the Republic then a refusal to be associated with sacrificial child murder in its rankest form. Under the Paul plan if some States desire to allow in utero murder then apparently they can but also if any State is convinced they can not be yoked with that kind of murderous tyranny then Constitutionally they are free to leave. If we are going to be Jeffersonian here then let us have it all the way. (See the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.)

As to Congressman Paul’s insistence that the States should decide on homosexual marriage I am in agreement with him for the reason that I do not think it is the State’s business to be in the ‘licensing of marriage’ business. This is a function that should be happening within the sphere of the Church and not the State. The State has been given the Sword as a ministry of justice, not the Surplice that it may approve, or conduct by proxy, marriages. This country existed for quite some time without the State being in the marriage business and I see no reason why we should have to get the States permission to marry.

Finally, on Homosexuals in the military issue, I once again believe that Paul is in a clear error that violates Scripture and the earlier standard that followed Scripture set by one General George Washington. In an instance where a sodomite was caught in the Washington’s army, Washington wrote,

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

The fact that any candidate can seriously suggest that having buggery in the Military shows how far we have slipped from basic morality. This position of Congressman Paul once again reveals that his Libertarianism is getting the better of him. Still, Paul deigns to return us to Constitutional government, where at least theoretically, a State could secede due to such unconscionable policy from its Federal Government and so I support his candidacy with all the passion I can muster, going so far as to suggest that Christians who do not support his candidacy are not thinking Biblically.

I support Congressman Paul for President. I do not support him when his Libertarianism turns into a license that would harm the collective culture due to how it can help breed an immoral cancer that infects the soul of a nation.

Tonight I ran into an well informed, articulate and intelligent young man who is home schooled. I am not surprised by his polish for he comes from a good family. His Father is a good man who, like many beguiled homeschoolers, supports Mike Huckabee. There likewise may be some kind of official connection between the family and the HSLDA organization, which would account for why Father and Son are such adamant Huckabee supporters. In the course of the evening I made the comment that Mike Huckabee was a Liberal Statist. The young man hurried over to me and asked me if he could talk to me about my comment. What follows is a paraphrase of our conversation.

Mark — “You know Mike Huckabee is not a Liberal.”

Pastor Bret — “Why sure he is Mark. When you look at his tenure as Governor of Arkansas the tax level went up significantly during his time in office.”

Mark — “But Pastor you don’t understand. Huckabee had to raise taxes in order to attract better teachers to Arkansas since the pay rate for teaches in Arkansas was among the bottom in the United States.”

Pastor Bret — “Mark, I thought your Dad would have taught you that it is wrong for the Government to create make work jobs. Public teaching is nothing but a government works project. If Governor Huckabee was Christian he would have, at the very least, encouraged parents to pull their children out of government schools instead of helping to perpetuate and bolster them by stealing from some people in order to give money to school teachers who are teaching our children with a anti-Christ theology. Increasing pagan teacher’s salaries is no Biblical reason for picking somebody’s pocket through increased taxation Mark.

Mark — “Pastor you don’t understand that one of those tax increases was approved by 80% of the people.”

Pastor Bret — “Mark, if 100% of the people voted to steal from one set of people in order to give the ill gotten gains to another set of people does it make it right for a Governor who claims to be a Christian to support that kind of legislation?”

Mark — “So you don’t think that they should have taken care of their roads?”

Pastor Bret — “Taking care of roads would be one of the legitimate exercises of government Mark. He could have taken the money the State stole from the people to give to teachers and used it for the roads Mark.”

Pastor Bret — “Now let me ask you a question Mark. How can Governor Huckabee not be a Liberal Statist in light of the fact that he wants to pay the state tuition cost for the children of illegal immigrants? Mark, where will the money come from in order to subsidize the education of the children of illegal immigrants? Naturally, it would come from the pockets of citizens of Arkansas who would probably prefer to spend their money on the needs of their own respective families.”

Mark — Silence.

Pastor Bret — “Mark, obviously you’ve looked at the issues and that being so how can you try and insist that Governor Huckabee is not a Liberal Statist when the President for the ‘Club for Growth’ said of him ‘Huckabee’s ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation.'(?) That sounds like a Liberal Statist by any objective standard.”

Mark — Silence.

Pastor Bret — “Mark, you also have to wonder about the presence as a key adviser on Huckabee’s staff of a high profile member (Richard Haas) of the Council of Foreign relations. I don’t know if you know much about the CFR Mark but it is an organization that is committed to a globalist policy which would result in the eclipsing of American Sovereignty. Certainly that is what we might expect from a liberal Statist.”

Mark — Silence.

Pastor Bret — “Finally Mark you need to keep in mind that Conservatives from Huckabee’s own denomination have said that the Governor never supported conservative causes when he was involved in the Southern Baptist denomination.”

Mark — Silence.

Pastor Bret — “You are well read Mark but you need to go below the surface. Mike Huckabee is a liberal Statist and he is all the more dangerous because he wraps all his policy talk in Jesus clothing. He actually may be the worst candidate in the field right now because so many of his policies are so far away from the Christian faith he is so constantly invoking.

Now, you and your family might want to consider Ron Paul. Congressman Paul is the closest thing to a Christian candidate in the campaign right now and he would be worthy of your support.”

For more detailed information on the perils of Mike Huckabee go to,

http://www.spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/

http://www.home-school.com/news/huckabee.html

Well, the results from the New Hampshire primary are almost complete. By all accounts, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has defeated Barak Hussein in the politically correct contest of two representatives of two victim groups. Voters in Democratic primaries are now reduced to showing their pc sensitivity by voting for the victim of gender discrimination or they can show their pc sensitivity by voting for the victim of racial discrimination.

The victory for Clinton will now reverse all the talk, since her loss in Iowa, about how her candidacy was on the verge of oblivion. Not only the talking heads but also the pollsters were telling us that Hillary was going to get soundly trounced in New Hampshire. I don’t know why anybody gives any of these political soothsayers any credibility.

On the Republican side war hero John McCain revived his Presidential aspirations with Mitt Romney running second. This means in the first two Republican primaries Republican voters have given a victory to men who are big government, tax hiking, immigration loving politicians. The difference between McCain and Huckabee is that the former doesn’t blame Jesus for his policies while the latter can’t say ‘Jesus’ enough. It looks like the Bushes have effectively destroyed the party of Reagan and have redefined conservative to mean ‘globalists who steal the taxpayers money to use it for Republican extension of Empire internationally and the destruction of America through immigration at home.’

As I have said countless times the two parties are offering us candidates that differ only in details. The big picture of both parties is Big government championing international socialist globalism. The effect of the pursuit of these policies over the long haul will be to create an economic equality among the nations that flattens out the prosperity of the citizens of the world so that all will be equally miserable. The exception will be the economic aristocracy which will be comprised of both the Government class and the International Corportist class who are currently working together to forge the chains of globalist socialism.

The only man who offers an alternate vision to this evil melange is Dr. Ron Paul who received about 8 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Dr. Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates is for sound, hard currency. Dr. Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve (something similar to what President Andrew Jackson did once upon a time). Dr. Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates wants to eliminate the IRS and the Federal Income Tax. Dr. Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates wants to end America’s role as Globo-cop. Dr. Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates wants to deconstruct the Welfare State. Congressman Paul in contrast to ALL the other candidates wants to eliminate the incentive for illegal immigration.

Is the small turnout for Paul in the first two primaries indicative that Americans are no longer for genuinely limited government at home, restricted involvement overseas and a national identity at home that is protected by a sane policy on immigration?

Iowa has spoken, and what Iowa has said has left the political scene in disarray in both parties.

First of all the Iowa caucus credentialed two candidates who are not electable unless they somehow manage to run against one another in November. America is not ready to elect a Black man with the middle name of Hussein who used to be a drug dealer to the Presidency nor will it elect someone who wants to take the nation back for Jesus, even if the Jesus that he wants to take the nation back to is a tax hiking, immigration loving, felon pardoning, big Statist, deity who has nothing to do with the fellow by the same name who walks through the Scriptures.

On the Republican side Huckabee won Iowa by means of identity politics combined with scorched earth populism. Huckabee at one and the same time managed to come off as the champion of the marginalized Christians who voted for him in spades and the guy who is willing to take on greedy Wall Street as the champion for the little guy. He has constantly clothed himself as the ‘Jesus candidate’ from the go while on ‘the Tonight show’ where he said, “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off,” in response to a Leno question revealed again his not so cloaked populist appeal. Huckabee won in Iowa by being one part Elmer Gantry and one part William Jennings Bryan. Republicans voted for Huckabee in Iowa not because of who he is but rather because he is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being the champion of the Christian middle class. If Huckabee can continue to tap into that wave he will be able to ride it a very long way.

Elsewhere on the Republican side news remains good for everyone but Romney. Huckabee’s victory adds life to the McCain and Giuliani campaigns if only because Romney’s loss in Iowa keeps him from wearing the mantle of inevitability which would have come with wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. As it stands Romney must now win in New Hampshire without an Iowa bounce or it will be very difficult for him to recover. Because of Romney’s defeat in Iowa McCain looks like the Romney alternate in New Hampshire. Similarly Giuliani’s strategy of surviving until the larger and more left leaning states vote now seems more doable without a clear front runner being in a dominant position. Fred Thompson’s third place finish allows him to move on to South Carolina where he hopes to get a win to breathe life into his campaign and finally Ron Paul’s double digit vote combined with his deep pockets probably insures that he will be a considerable factor in the primaries until the very end.

Iowa has made hash out of the Republican campaign and it is difficult to see how New Hampshire could un-hash it.

On the other liberal side Iowa likewise created uncertainty. The anointed Mrs. Clinton was un-anointed being relegated to third place behind the neophyte guy named Barak Hussein and the populist John Edwards. Hillary isn’t going to go away with this loss but neither is she going to be coronated any time soon as Queen of the Dems. Hillary’s problem in Iowa, despite her money and party connections is her inability to connect with Middle America. Most politicians come across as phony but Mrs. Clinton excels at coming across as phony. Edwards’ second place finish allows him to move on but after spending two years in Iowa campaigning it is an open question whether or not he can reproduce his strength in other states where he hasn’t established virtual residency. Senator Clinton will have to find a way to chop Barak Hussein off at the knees. Being a Clinton she has the ability to do that. The question is whether or not she can do so without coming across like Tonya Harding trying to snuff out Nancy Kerrigan. Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure with high negatives but as I said earlier she still has the party machinery and lots of money in her pocket and so shouldn’t be counted out just yet. If she gets trounced in New Hampshire though, Katy bar the door.

Iowa thus has made hash out of the other liberal party campaign as well, though New Hampshire could un-hash it with a convincing Barak Hussein win.

On the Republican side I am beginning to think that this could be a process where no candidate gets enough delegates before the convention to put him over the top thus leading to a brokered convention with smoke filled rooms and back room deals and where all kinds of antics, hijinks and skullduggery will be on display. As a Ron Paul guy that delights me. On the side of the other Liberal party I don’t think Democrats are going to nominate Barak Hussein unless they have a death wish for November, which is why I still think that when the smoke clears Hillary will be the last man standing.

New Hampshire here we come.