Category: Politics

The Drudge report is reporting that Hillary Clinton Staffers are circulating a picture of Barak Hussein Obama showing the Illinois Senator Presidential favorite dressed as a Somali Elder.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

Now what is interesting is that Drudge finishes the report with pictures of President Bush and Hillary also in non-Western attire, thus communicating that all kinds of politicians, when touring a country, or when in the appropriate circumstance will likewise dress in apparel indigenous to other countries.

There is a kicker though here.

When you see Bush or Hillary in those pictures with them outfitted in non-Western attire they look goofy — kind of like seeing someone in a pirate outfit showing up at a formal dinner. You can just tell that the person and the outfit are unnatural.

No so with Barak Hussein Obama. When you see Barak Hussein Obama in that outfit you think, “He looks like a Muslim Somali Elder,” or, “He looks like he belongs in that get up.”

I think the picture hurts Obama.

President George W. Bush lied us into invading Iraq.

President Bill Clinton was a serial woman abuser (remember Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Jennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky) and was impeached by the US Congress.

President George H. W. Bush gave us the abortionist David Souter, and signed the (litigious) Americans with Disabilities Act.

President Ronald Reagan gave us the 1986 immigration act with its amnesty and which in retrospect was probably the last opportunity to stem the illegal immigrant flood. President Reagan also bequeathed to us the abortionists Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy and increased federal spending 53 percent.

President Jimmy Carter gave us 12% inflation, 9% unemployment, 21 % interest points and a foreign policy of retreat before Communist advance.

President Richard Nixon fully abandoned the Gold Standard, introduced a wage and price freeze, signed into law title IX legislation, and introduced the suffix ‘gate’ into the lexicon of the American dictionary.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson gave us ‘Guns & Butter,’ Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam, and the legislation that lead to quotas.

President John F. Kennedy turned the White House into a Whore house, gave us the Cuban missile crisis, and the Bay of Pigs and in a good socialistic fashion famously said that the most important question was to ask ‘what we could do for our country.’

President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave us Earl Warren and William Brennan, broken promises to Hungary in its 1956 uprising, increased federal spending 30 percent and created the Department of Health, Education, & Welfare.

President Harry S. Truman incinerated an untold number of civilians.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew the Japanese were coming but because he desired a causus belli did nothing about it, gave Eastern Europe to Uncle Joe Stalin, and gave us hard socialism with the NRA, and the ABC legislation.

President Herbert Hoover increased federal spending 38 percent (current dollars), passed legislation giving welfare to farmers, and corporate interests, and passed massive tax increases.

Do you get the point or do I need to continue?

Sung to the tune of McCartney and Wonder’s ‘Ebony & Ivory’

Ebony and Ovary strange bedmates in p.c. harmony
Black and Female Marxists, seizing glory, its so p.c.
Voters should know Marxists are the same whatever their sex
They will rob and steal from everyone
They live to lie, they love to cry
Before others in a need to survive and remain alive

Ebony and Ovary strange bedmates in violent harmony
Black and Female together, seizing glory, its so p.c.

Ebony, Ovary living in p.c. harmony
Ebony, Ovary, ooh

Voters should know Marxists are the same whatever their race
They will lie about their Muslim past
Lies of change and reaching out
To others in a need to survive and remain alive

Ebony and Ovary strange bedmates in p.c. harmony
Black and Female together, seizing glory, its so p.c.

Ebony, Ovary living in p.c. harmony (repeat & fade)

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.