Blagojevich Was A Amateur — Corruption Has Been A Constant

“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.

Some Interesting Insights On The State Of Theonomy By Someone Who Should Know

Bret asked Chris Ortiz — Editor Of Chalcedon Magazine,

Do you get the sense that people are giving up on theonomy or are, in their estimation, “moving beyond it?”

Chris Ortiz responds,

A little bit of both, I think.

Part of the problem remains the central dividing line between Rush and North’s emphasis upon authority: Rush says family; North says church. The institutional emphasis of the church led to an over politicization of theonomy and dominion. Now, theonomy is equated with politics. In addition, much of institutional Church (Protestantism) at the same time views theonomy as a cancer to the organized church. Tyler failed, and that still haunts Christian Reconstruction.

On the other side is the Federal Vision where we are witnessing a quasi-repeat of Jordan, Sutton, and Chilton’s high church emphases in the 80s. Only this time, a few are moving all the way to Rome.

At present, those with greatest interest in Theonomy are stemming from the freedom/constitutional movements and the recent revival of conspiracy theory. This is due largely to the fact that reconstructionists have been consistent in identifying the inherent evil of statism, fiat currencies, etc.

Dave Ehnis followed up with a great question,

Chris, where does Bahnsen fit into this Venn diagram?

David, that’s a good question, because, in my opinion, Bahnsen was always the X factor in Christian Reconstruction. Bahnsen did not subscribe to North and Sutton’s five-point covenant model, and he disdained James Jordan’s Interpretive Maximalism. However, he also was a dedicated local church man of the OPC persuasion being very committed to the Westminster Confession. This set him somewhat at odds with Rushdoony. The present leader most reminiscent of Bahnsen’s basic positions is probably Joe Morecraft. They both embody a remarkable consistency to Presbyterian tradition.

A Small Conversation with Paul M.

Election Cycle 2008 and the Christian

Bret 1

Natures proves it is the purpose or proper function for Mammals to kill their young. Nature tells us that this is normative. Similarly homosexuality is normative as it is clearly the purpose and proper function of nature.

Paul M.

Those aren’t arguments, Bret.

Say’s you Paul M.

I took your requirements for Natural law and put my previous statements in your Natural law arrangement demand. Your saying it is not an argument does not make it not an argument. Now, I’m sure that since it refutes your objection you would consider it not an argument but I’m glad to let the reader decide.

Bret 1

No straw man here Paul. Quite to the contrary what I see you doing is using a straw man to try and rescue natural law as being acceptable.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Sure it is Paul. It is an argument advancing the idea that you didn’t make an argument in your previous post but just an accusation. I took your argument about what Natural law is and I proceeded to show you that what I said could easily fit under your thinking of natural law.

Bret 1

No, but neither was God appealing to Natural law when he said that. The ant provides a proper lesson to those whose epistemic apparatus is working somewhat properly and whose presuppositions are what they ought to be.

Paul

How does the “ant” do that? How would the reasoning go?

That “ant” does that the same way that all the heavens declaring the glory of God does that Paul M. Or are you denying general revelation? Remember all reality points to God. The problem isn’t in the sender but in the receivers. The “ant” is a testimony of God’s reality to all who are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Let me guess though Paul M. …. that’s not an argument.

Is unbelief not proper function rational?

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/rru.html

So Sudduth disagrees with Plantinga. I’m quite confident that somewhere out there, there is somebody who disagrees with Sudduth and has written a dissertation showing how Sudduth is allegedly wrong just as Sudduth as shown that that Plantinga is allegedly wrong. I didn’t read the whole thing. When I finish my Polanyi I’ll be sure to turn my attention to it. Thanks for the link though. I hear that Sudduth is a smart guy.

So many books … so little time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

Bret 1

However, allow someone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about ants and the ant could as easily teach them that we should all live in houses made of cones of sand. Proper conclusions about ants will not be arrived at by people who hate God consistently. Telic conclusions are always affected by presuppositional beginning points.

Paul M.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Neither is that Paul M. I think they call that an assertion.

You’re arguing:

1. A
______

2. Therefore A.

And you’re arguing

1.) Not A

_______________

Therefore Not A

Ah, but the difference Paul M. … that with Scripture there is a written objective to appeal to. In Natural law each man interprets what is right in his own eyes.

Really, Bret? This is not an argument, again, Bret.

Oh Darn.

And neither is yours an argument Paul. Once again, I think it is called an assertion.

Bret 1

“When the heretic appeals to scripture wrongly to the law and to the testimony we must go.”

Paul M.

“So. The point is that anyone can cite anything they please, this doesn’t “make it so.” Your changing the goal posts doesn’t avoid the non-sequitur you made.”

I never said that anyone citing anything they please “makes it so.” Do you often put words in people’s mouth Paul M.? I’ve often found when one does that it makes it easier to win the discussion.

I said we go to the law and testimony. From that point let the appeal to Scripture unfold.

And please do provide for me my alleged “non-sequitur” and my “changing of the goal posts” that you asserted but did not argue for.

Bret 1

“However when the Natural law theorist interprets incorrectly … well, what objective standard do I appeal to in order to correct him? Right reason? Surely a Van Tillian wouldn’t go for that idea. Whose right reason?”

Paul M. responds

Typical Van Tillian, confuses questions with arguments.

LOL … Typical philosopher wannabee elitist who started with Van Til and now has “grown beyond” him…. confuses rhetorical questions for not being arguments.

By the way you didn’t answer the argument caught up in the rhetorical question. Clever move.

Paul M.

Should I respond, “whose interpretation of Scripture?” The heretics? Yours? Surely the “Van Tilian” hasn’t just been hoisted by his own petard, has he?

Whose asking questions now? Should I snort at you and say … “Typical elitist philosopher wannabee, confuses questions for arguments?

Still, unlike you, I’ll provide an answer. Maybe this will compel you to answer my earlier question.

The interpretation that most consistently aligns with all of Scripture and itself grows out of Scripture. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority found in a true interpretation of God’s Word, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

What are you arguing? Are you arguing that all there is, is interpretation? How po-mo of you. Or are you arguing that fallen man can start with fallen reason and interpret general revelation aright to the point of being able to construct God honoring cultures?

In terms of petard hoisting … well, you’ll have to explain more clearly, as opposed to asserting, that Van Til has been hoisted upon his own petard. I know that is a common accusation but I’d like to see you flesh it out all the same.

“Paul M>

Of course, what Scripture affirms is objective, same with natural law. but you’re confusing our interpretation with the thing-in-itself.

No, I’m not. I fully recognize that natural law is itself objective. I also fully recognize that the fallen man coming to natural law has an agenda that is informing him not to read the objective natural law aright. However, unlike with Scripture, when the fallen man interprets Natural law in a bent fashion, there is nothing I can check his bent interpretation against. There is no “law and testimony” to repair to in order to dispute with the kind of natural law interpretation that the Nazi’s appealed to, for example.

Now, should we take what sounds to be the implications of your positions then all we have is the interpretation since it seems to be the case that you have given us the Kantian problem of never being able to get to the “thing-in-itself, as located in the Noumenal realm.” But if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” then how could we even have an interpretation of the “thing-in-itself?” Indeed, if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” how do we know there is a “thing-in-itself” to get to in order to interpret wrongly?

Sorry…. more of those questions.

Paul M.

“You acted as if natural law means “go outside and look at nature” and you act as if simply quoting Van Til has some of sanctifying effects that works ex opere operato.

Says you. Who is Paul M. that I should be mindful of his assertions?

But let’s cut to the chase in all this Paul.

One man says: “God says that it is sin to murder.”

Another man says “Natural Law says it’s wrong to murder.”

2 Observations:

* I know God has authority over my life and I know that HE can cast me into Hell for transgressing HIS law. Natural Law cannot send me to hell because it has no power or authority. In fact, not even special revelation law can send me to Hell. Law has no authority. Only The law Giver does.

* Universals Laws, whether natural or special cannot be justified apart from an appeal to God’s special revelation. Paul, if you think thinks otherwise, demonstrate it! It looks to me that your making law, not the law giver, to be your final authority. In short, you’re deifying law.

Thanks to RD for offering the last section of this response.

Nationalization & Propaganda

Toledo is only about two hours from Charlotte. Yesterday’s Toledo’s Mayor Carty Finkbeier lobbied Congressman Henry Waxman to implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” It seems that Mayor Finkface has had some problems with radio station WSBD actually exposing and opposing “His Honors policies.” Some time ago Speaker Pelosi indicated her support of re-instituting the Fairness doctrine. (If this “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t a classic example of government euphemism doublespeak I don’t know what is.) Many have opined that they will go after freedom of speech on the radio through the back door of what is called “localism” which invokes an arcane aspect of policy that encourages radio stations to be sensitive to local programming concerns.

Now, to be honest, I have a large problem with the depth of much of talk radio, but for all its depth problems it still remains a cut above the New York Times, L. A. Times, Washington Post, and most major newspapers. Talk radio for all its Hannity shallow cheer- leading is still above all the shallow cheer-leading of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and all the other mindless talking heads of main stream media television.

This is all about State control. The State doesn’t like not being able to control the flow of information and it doesn’t like talk radio rallying the troops to melt phone lines down when significant mindless legislation is being pushed.

I heard Senator Shumer of New York recently try to make the case that if the FEDS are charged with making sure pornography doesn’t go into American homes then why is it so bad to think of the FEDS being in charge of what can and can’t be said on the radio. I will have to say that I would prefer pornography being an option for television viewing if that would mean the FEDS couldn’t control the flow of information on the radio.

You know this statist paternalism is getting suffocating. Shortly, you will be able to murder the unborn, born (remember Obama’s opposition the “Infant Born Alive Act”), and the elderly but not be able to choose to whom you can listen to on the radio. The State is working on total control.

Fellow Americans you better wake up. Fascist nationalization has already begun. The banks, the mortgage companies, the financial industry and the money supply are in government control. It won’t be long until our health care will be nationalized. Having nationalized the economy the next step will be the propaganda step. Talk radio, and the internet alone stand in the way of the total control of information and propaganda.

This is some serious reality we are living through.