Dr. Sean Michael Lucas …. “I am actually happy that the majority is governing (in DC)”

I’m not exactly sure what you’d expect (Speaker) Ryan to do (in terms of the omnibus bill). Governance is about compromise. The GOP doesn’t have a filibuster proof majority; the “freedom caucus” has bolted from him again; and so he had to work with Pelosi to finish the job. (I am) not surprised and (I am) actually happy that the majority is governing and not simply trying to shut things down like Ted Cruz.

Dr. Sean Michael Lucas

 

Dr. Lucas is a minister in the PCA and does some teaching at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He’s also written a biography on Dr. R. L. Dabney. I encourage you to go to Amazon to read the reviews of his book. Now before we get to far into this, let us remind ourselves what was in this omnibus bill that Speaker Ryan “compromised” on and which Dr. Lucas has expressed his happiness concerning a governing majority.

The omnibus bill that Speaker Ryan passed via compromise with Pelosi, included,

1.) The continued funding of Planned Parenthood

2.) Quadruples H-2B Visas … thus bringing more immigrants to take American jobs.

3.) fails to defund other harmful regulations, including the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule that has been fairly described as “ObamaCare for your IRA”.

4.) Major amendments to protect Americans against abuses of government surveillance authority were stripped from the bill for the second consecutive year. These included limitations on the government’s content collection authority under section 702 of FISA, and a prohibition on the NSA working with the National Institute of Standards in Technology to weaken internet encryption standards.

5.) Increases Government spending… again. This time by 80 billion over two years. I know … I know … chump change.

6.) $1.2 billion in new funding for the Department of Education,

7.) What amounts to a bailout of the International Monetary Fund, by increasing the U.S. quota for that fund. This means the IMF will have access to even more of our taxpayer dollars to fund bailouts of irresponsible state actors such as Greece.

8.) The Cybersecurity Act of 2015. To begin with, this nearly 140-page, brand new program should be considered on its own, not tucked into a massive bill no one really has time to fully read. This bill is the final product of mashing together the Senate’s CISA bill and the House’s two bills, and manages to contain most of the worst provisions of each of them.

Now let’s start by asking, in what world can a Doctor the Church (in this case Dr. Sean Michael Lucas) be happy where a governing majority votes to fund an organization that is killing unborn babies in such a way as to preserve certain body parts in order to sell those parts on the market? On this point alone Dr. Lucas’ happiness is mind boggling for a follower of Christ to consider.

Secondly, I’m sure unemployed Mississippians in Dr. Sean Michael Lucas’ Church would like to have some of those jobs that Dr. Sean Michael Lucas finds happiness in via the majority that is governing.

I could go on here to mention how the Department of Education is destroying America and ask how the increase of funding of that Department is reason for anyone to be happy about governing majorities. I could ask how a Doctor of the Church (in this case Dr. Sean Michael Lucas) finds happiness in governing majorities when those governing majorities vote to increase the Stasi like surveillance culture in which we currently live. I could ask many more questions here of Dr. Sean Michael Lucas.

However, what I really want to pursue here is how it is that someone like Dr. Sean Michael Lucas can be reputed to be Theologically conservative while appearing to be politically liberal. (I mean how else should I take this quote above except as coming from someone who sanctions the liberal agenda which the omnibus bill represents?)  It seems to me that a person’s Theology is expressed via everything they weigh in on, including politics. I promise you, that politically speaking, this quote is either very liberal or was written while having some kind of physical episode. Aside from the art of contradiction, how can one be theologically conservative while politically liberal?

Did Dr. Sean Michael Lucas ever consider that there might have been a reason why the “freedom caucus bolted” from Speaker Ryan. Maybe that reason was because the omnibus bill didn’t represent … oh, let’s say …. freedom? One more thing, Dr. Sean Michael Lucas, when it comes to shutting down the Government that is something the President does, not Ted Cruz or the House. The President, by vetoing appropriation bills sent to him at that point chooses to shut down the Government. A little civics 101 on the cheap there Dr. Sean Michael Lucas.

And about the compromise which Dr. Sean Michael Lucas says governance is about, just ask yourself, if you’re a Christian, when is the last time the pagan left ever compromised? Did the pagan left compromise on Obamacare? Did the pagan left compromise on the stimulus package? Did the pagan left compromise on “fast and furious”? Did the pagan left compromise in the IRS Lois Lerner scandal? Did they compromise in being forthright with the Benghazi disaster? When has the pagan left ever compromised Dr. Sean Michael Lucas?

I asked some of these questions to Dr. Sean Michael Lucas but he responded by saying he was not going to engage me and asked me not to take offense. I told him I didn’t take any offense in the slightest, but now you know why Dr. Sean Michael Lucas didn’t want to engage me.

 On a different front to Dr. Sean Michael Lucas’ opinions, and pertaining to the politics of what has happened with the omnibus bill it is important to know that  Republicans have made a political calculation that they need a new base and as such they are repudiating their former conservative base. They are reasoning that the threat of losing their conservative base is less of a threat than shutting down the Government over conservative principle. Now Doctors of the Church like Dr. Sean Michael Lucas may be happy about this majority governance but I think it portends dark times for the ethic called for in biblical Christianity.

 


The Elites and their underclass, Anarcho-Tyranny, and Trump

If one desires to understand the Trump phenomenon one must understand where the antithesis lies in the electorate. Many are those who have insisted that the anti-thesis in the electorate is economic. These political pundits have insisted that the electorate anti-thesis is rich vs. poor or upper class vs. lower class or bourgeois vs. proletariat. This has always been too simplistic as Sam Francis tried to tell us via his MAR thesis.
 
The anti-thesis in the American electorate is instead between the Corporate and bureaucratic elite class and their government created underclass clientele vs. those from the middle who produce and pay the taxes to the end of sustaining the bureaucratic and government created underclass’ existence. Putting it succinctly and in the words of Sam Francis, our political contest is not top vs. bottom, but top-and-bottom-united vs. middle.

Now in this top and bottom united vs. the middle class the tool used to leverage the advantage to the top and bottom united is called anarcho-tyranny. For those who are unfamiliar with the idea of rule by anarcho-tyranny, it is the idea that the FEDS allow and encourage lawless anarchy in the Corporate and bureaucratic structures as well as in their underclass clientele all the while practice lawless tyranny against their enemies in the middle. The FEDS, as part of the Corporate and bureaucratic reality, allow anarchistic lawlessness in themselves and their constituency while practicing tyrannical lawlessness against the middle. A recent happening in Mecosta County Michigan serves as an example of this anarcho-tyranny. A gentleman named Wood was passing out leaflets on the public sidewalk in front of the Mecosta county courthouse. These leaflets Wood was handing out explained the nature of Jury nullification. Wood was expressing his first amendment rights when the “tyranny” end of the anarcho-tyranny model landed on him. Wood was arrested on Thanksgiving and bonded for the outrageous amount of 150K. On the anarcho end of the anarcho-tyranny model, about one week after Mr. Wood was given his bond, the same court gave a habitual offender who was charged with multiple counts of home invasion a $75,000.00 bond. The law abiding like Mr. Wood are tyrannized while the criminal class and the bureaucratic elite class move in anarchy.

By allowing themselves and their clientele anarchy while enforcing tyranny on the middle the elite control the contest. Naturally, the middle class is enraged by this anarcho-tyranny model. Trump is tapping into this rage and is becoming the representative of the middle’s rage.

John’s Gospel Theme of the Lord Christ as God’s New Temple

In the Gospel record Jesus’ overt teaching and his subtle conduct prepare us for the temple’s removal as both liturgically no longer necessary and spiritually corrupted. John’s Gospel is especially interesting in this regard:  In John 1:14  John presents Christ as God’s true ‘tabernacle.”

‘The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’

This theme of Jesus replacing  Israel’s religious features recurs repeatedly in his ministry.

1.) John 1:51 —  He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

Here it is the Lord Christ, rather than the Jewish temple or High Priest, who is the nexus between heaven and earth as seen in the fact that “the angels of God (are) ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.’

2.) John 2:19-21 —  Jesus answered, and said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple a building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Here the Lord Christ declares His body to be the true temple.

3.) John 4:21-23 — 21 Jesus said unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem worship the Father. 22 Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in [j]Spirit and Truth: for the Father requireth even such to worship him.

Here the Lord Christ tells the Samaritan woman that the physical temple will soon be unnecessary.

4.) John 7:37 Now in the last and great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying,If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth in me, as saith the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of water of life.

Here the Lord Christ is attending the festival of Tabernacles (cf. John 7:2ff), and he presents himself as the living water. This festival reminds Israel of Moses’ producing  water from the rock (Ex. 17:1-7, Nu. 20:8-13). This event also reflects the promise of the Temple (Zec. 14:8, Eze. 47:1-11).  In John 8:12 the Lord Christ calls Himself the “light of the World,” which reflects the festival ceremony.

5.) In the “I am” debate in John 8:13-59 the Lord Christ appropriates to himself the whole essence of the temple as being the dwelling place of the divine name.  Here we see the Lord Christ, immediately after declaring Himself as the “I am” (8:58) departing from the temple (8:59) which in John’s Gospel serves as his sign that God has departed the temple much as God’s s presences departed the Temple in Ezekiel 10. This departure scene here in John 8 may explain why John does not chronicle the 2nd temple confrontation at the close of Christ’s ministry as is recorded in the Synoptics. For John, when the Lord Christ departs the temple in 8:59 the presence of God has left the Temple.

6.) John 10:22-39

While the Jews are celebrating the Feast of Lights which recalls the re-consecration of the temple under the Macabees, the Lord Christ presents himself as the one who is “sanctified and sent.” Here the Lord Christ comes to the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, which celebrates the Maccabean victory in reclaiming the temple and re-consecrating the altar and temple. The Lord Christ does not enter the temple at this time, but comes only to Solomon’s portico (John 10:23, cp. John 11:56). During this temple celebration the Lord Christ declares Himself to be the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world.”  The Lord Christ shifts the emphasis from the temple to Himself as the one consecrated by God. (John 10:36) The true temple has come. All preoccupations with the old temple are past.

7.) John 12:41 — “These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”

Here the Lord Christ quotes Isaiah 6:5 but now we know that it is the Lord Christ who is the Shekinah glory of the temple that Isaiah witnessed.

Peter Walker argues, in his “Jesus and the Holy City,” that the upper room teaching session in John 13-17 reflects a “temple experience” beginning with foot-washing as an initiation ritual (John 13:33f) and ending with “the high priestly prayer” (John 17). Thus it appears “John’s over-riding message is that the Temple has been replaced by Jesus.”

The necessity of a new temple is seen in the fact that the profanation of the place of Gods’ dwelling. So bad is this profanation that the Lord Christ cleanses the Temple both at the beginning and the ending of His ministry. These temple cleansings are not so much an effort at reform as they are a testimony against the present temple cultus. The true temple is testifying against the corrupt temple.

These thoughts taken from Ken Gentry’s
Navigating the Book of Revelation — pg. 99 – 100

 

Impact of Obamacare & Obamagration On WASC’s

 

Obamacare and Obama-Immigration (Obamagration), which are a reflection of New World Order policy, are WASC (White Anglo Saxon Christian) destruction mechanisms against the WASCS aimed at those generationally ahead of me and those generationally behind me. Obamacare will kill the WASC elderly by depriving them of health. My Mother, my Aunts and Uncles are targeted by Obamacare. Deprivation of needed treatment, needed medicines and needed assistance, culminating in eventual death panels are in their future.

Obamagration is planned so as to eliminate the WASC identity of my Grandchildren and great grandchildren. Obamagration is the attempt to wipe out WASC seed to a thousand generations by the means of forcing assimilation upon WASC’s with those coming from non Western, Non-Christian lands.   If, in two generations, there remains a WASC presence in America that generation will be treated the way South African Boers are treated now. (See Illiana Ilana Mercer‘s book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.)

In point of fact, I would argue that both Obamacare and Obamagration, as the cost and impact of each falls negatively, proportionally speaking, on the WASC community, is the attempt to genocide. Obamacare and Obamagration combined are, by the definition of the United Nations, genocide,

“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


One ironic aspect of all this is that it is WASP’s who will be paying for their own destruction as the transfer of wealth is going from their pockets to the pockets of those being enriched by Obamacare and Obamagration via taxation.

Obama came saying he was going to “fundamentally transform America.” Well, this is happening via his signature legislation of health-care and his criminal activity on immigration. Obama, as a NWO puppet, is seeking to kill off the Christian White majority in this nation.

People who can not or will not see this are not wise or worse yet, contributors to their own deaths and to the death of a whole people group.

Obama and NWO … thy name is DEATH for the Christian white man

White Privilege … A Further Consideration of Calvin College’s Professor Kuilema’s Position

A few points on “White Privilege” that I didn’t cover last week and are the result of continuing to ponder this.

Remember my scratching on this subject came about as a result of this,

http://www.calvin.edu/chimes/2015/12/13/racism-white-supremacy-and-white-privilege/

 Anti-White animus isn’t even the deepest foundation of the cultural Marxist system. Those forever trumpeting “white privilege” don’t just hate whites, though they do hate whites. Even more generally, they hate goodness, and all expressions of excellence in human action, transcendental of any person’s race. Even black excellence must be quashed in the white guilter worldview. Why? Because black excellence indicates a stirring in that black person of Christian activity. It is the hatred of Christ that is the ultimate motive here. Sure, whites are a rough proxy for the Kingdom, but we can’t be equated with it. And so the real goal, which is to establish a perfectly equal hell on earth, must include the subsidiary goal of discouraging even black achievement, despite the putative slogans about affirmative action for blacks. Affirmative action aims, not to pull blacks up from slavery, but to push whites down to slavery. 

Habbakuk Mucklewrath

“White conservatives don’t want to take the lead in preserving what remains of this country’s now tenuous White, Anglo-Euro culture. To take on such a responsibility would make them even more vulnerable to the racial bullets and daggers they have been ducking for years.”

~ Elizabeth Wright, Black Conservative Author

1.) The screed of “White privilege” provides a rational for the soft bigotry of low expectations. This is the “racism” of the liberal white crowd who forever have “white privilege” on this lips. The white liberals scream about how white privilege keeps non-Caucasians down. White privilege insists that it is the white man’s rigged system that keeps non-Caucasians from thriving. Indeed, so bad is white privilege that no non-Caucasian can advance. Non-Caucasians hear this reasoning and, in agreeing with this white privilege nonsense, many cease even trying. After all, why bother trying when the game is rigged for the non-Caucasian to fail? The screaming of white privilege by white cultural Marxists provides both the excuse and the answer for low expectations.  The white liberal, “white privilege screed,” says to non-Caucasians, “We don’t expect you to make it. You have a reason why you haven’t succeeded. You are not to be faulted for not even trying, after all the white man and his system is keeping you down. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. If there is such a thing as “racism” and “white supremacy” it is most often found in the hearts of white liberals.

2.) Now we have to deal with the fact that many non-Caucasians do succeed despite White privilege. How can that be? White privilege says that the system is only for whites. How can it be possible for any non-Caucasian to make it?

Well, the only answer to that, which I can see, is that the white privilege crowd is subtly accusing the non-Caucasians who have made it of “Uncle Tom-ism.” How else are we to explain some non-Caucasians making it in a putatively white privilege system that keeps down all non-Caucasians while most other non-Caucasians don’t succeed, unless we conclude that the non-Caucasians who have made it, despite white privilege, have succeeded by acting white? The theory of white privilege looks to be a implicit accusation of Uncle Tom-ism against all those non-Caucasians who have succeeded in this white privilege culture.

So, here you have the “white privilege” crowd, on one hand, practicing the soft bigotry of low expectations against those non-Caucasians who don’t make it while at the same time implicitly accusing the non-Caucasians who do make it as all being Uncle Toms.

3.) Please understand how this game is played as seen in a couple quotes from the Calvin College professor,

“It must be clearly stated that those who deny white privilege functionally believe in white supremacy, whether they have the courage to write it on a car or not.”

Followed later by,

“This is how the social sciences define racism, not as merely the product of prejudice, explicit or implicit bias, but a system of power based on the invention of the “white race” by people in power. By this definition, we are not all racists.”

So, in Professor Kuilema‘s world if you deny that you are advantaged by white privilege then that proves that you functionally believe in white supremacy. Meanwhile, if you affirm white privilege then by definition, you are a racist because as being white you are part of “a system of power based on the invention of the ‘white race’ by people in power.”  That’s a pretty good trick on the Professor’s part giving us a Hobson’s choice of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Actually, there might be a third option for those who don’t want to be either functionally white supremacists or white racists and that would be the option of just killing yourself and being done with your cruelty to non-Caucasians.  Actually, while I’m pondering it, there might be even a fourth option that some might embrace. They might reason, “if you can’t avoid racism and white supremacy, then go for the gusto.”

Today, they call it “white privilege.” When I was a boy in the 60’s they called it “institutional racism.” It’s intent, as used by cultural Marxists of all colors, is to find a way to guilt Christian white people, who don’t have a lick of animus towards non-Caucasians,  into surrendering their inheritance and contribute to a slow destruction of their generations. It is premised upon the idea that the white man, and the Christian culture he built throughout the West, is uniquely guilty for the lack of advance as seen among those the white liberals number as “the noble savages.” Rosseau would be so proud of the white guilters. “White privilege” premises that no other culture is guilty of sin the way white Christians are guilty of sin. If we could just subjugate the white man, then there would be harmony and understanding, with sympathy and trust abounding.

The ironic thing here is that the white guilters think that somehow if they join in the undoing of the white man that they will somehow escape the destruction of the white man of the type that Illiana Mercer describes in her book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.” In reality white cultural Marxists (white guilters) will themselves eventually be swallowed by the very cultural Marxist culture they are seeking to create just as the old Bolshevists such as Radek, Zinoviev and Kamenev were eventually snuffed out by the very Revolution that they gloried in starting … just as Danton, and Robespierre finally kept a date with the very guillotine which they had sent so many of their fellow Frenchmen.  White guilters could be the second coming of Atticus Finch and it won’t matter. They will eventually be swallowed by the cultural revolution they are fanning to life.