Left Destroys More than It Builds take California for instance.

So sad that this is complete truth and not an outrageous opinion. Immorality is a plague and a very dangerously harmful for society as GOD keeps warning all with so much warning that they are without excuse. For it leads to eternal damnation which is well deserved for us all. And GOD's Common grace is known loud and clear. These are the people in leadership who bow the knee to satan whether they know it or not. IS their agendas more important than losing their souls?
RW

From California to the Boy Scouts: Left Destroys More than It Builds
by Dennis Prager
02/24/2009
LINK http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30829

Virtually throughout its history, and certainly in the 20th century, California has been known as the place to go for dynamism and growth. It did not become the richest, most populous, and most productive state solely because of its weather and natural resources.

So it takes a lot to turn California around from growth to contraction, from people moving into the state to a net exodus from the state, from business moving into California to businesses leaving California.

It takes some doing.

And the left has done it.

California’s Democratic legislature has been more or less able to do whatever it wants with California. The Wall Street Journal has described the result:

“The Golden State -- which a decade ago was the booming technology capital of the world -- has been done in by two decades of chronic overspending, overregulating and a hyperprogressive tax code …”

One might argue that’s this is a politically biased assessment. So here are some facts, not assessments:

-- California’s state expenditures grew from $104 billion in 2003 to $145 billion in 2008.

-- California has the worst credit rating in the nation.

-- California has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation, 9.3 percent -- higher even than the car manufacturing state of Michigan.

-- California has the second highest home foreclosure rate.

-- California’s tax-paying middle class is leaving the state. California’s net loss last year in state-to-state migration exceeded every other state's. New York, another left-run state, was second.

-- Since 2000, California’s job growth rate -- which in the late 1970s was many times higher than the national average -- has lagged behind the national average by almost 20 percent.

-- California has lost 25 percent of its industrial work force since 2001.

Joel Kotkin, one of the leading observers of urban America, the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, recently wrote an essay on California, “Sundown for California.” He begins with these words:

“Twenty-five years ago, along with another young journalist, I co-authored a book called “California, Inc.” about our adopted home state. The book described ‘California’s rise to economic, political, and cultural ascendancy.’ … But today our Golden State appears headed, if not for imminent disaster, then toward an unanticipated, maddening, and largely unnecessary mediocrity.”

That is what left-wing policies have done to California. In Kotkin’s words, “the state legislature decided to spend its money on public employees and impose ever more regulatory burdens on business.”

Last week, Intel, the world’s largest maker of computer chips, announced that it would invest $7 billion to expand its facilities. Where? In Arizona, Oregon, and New Mexico. But not in California, the state in which Intel is headquartered.

The left is bringing the greatest state to its knees.


What generations created, the left destroys. There are few productive and noble institutions in America that the left has not hurt or attempted to hurt. But while the left destroys a great deal, it constructs almost nothing (outside of government agencies, laws, and lawsuits).

Take the Boy Scouts. For generations, the Boy Scouts, founded and preserved by Americans of all political as well as ethnic backgrounds, has helped millions of American boys become good, productive men. The left throughout America -- its politicians, its media, its stars, its academics -- have ganged up to deprive the Boy Scouts of oxygen. Everywhere possible, the Boy Scouts are vilified and deprived of places to meet.

But while the left works to destroy the Boy Scouts -- unless the Boy Scouts adopt the left’s views on openly gay scouts and scout leaders -- the left has created nothing comparable to the Boy Scouts. The left tries to destroy one of the greatest institutions ever made for boys, but it has built nothing for boys. There is no ACLU version of the Boy Scouts; there is only the ACLU versus the Boy Scouts.

The same holds true for the greatest character-building institution in American life: Judeo-Christian religions. Once again, the left knows how to destroy. Everywhere possible the left works to inhibit religious institutions and values -- from substituting “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” to removing the tiny cross from the Los Angeles County Seal to arguing that religious people must not bring their values into the political arena.

And, then there is education. Until the left took over American public education in the second half of the 20th century, it was generally excellent -- look at the high level of eighth-grade exams from early in the 20th century and you will weep. The more money the left has gotten for education -- America now spends more per student than any country in the world -- the worse the academic results. And the left has removed God and dress codes from schools -- with socially disastrous results.

Of course, it is not entirely accurate to say that the left builds nothing. It has built vast government bureaucracies, MTV, and post-1960s Hollywood, for example. But these are, to say the least, not positive achievements.

In his column this week, Thomas Friedman describes General Motors Corp., as “a giant wealth-destruction machine.” That perfectly describes the left many times over. It is both a wealth-destruction machine and an ennobling-institution destruction machine.

Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy

I had to post this. It is a good lesson.

Issues analysis
Christianity and conservatism: Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy
A brief history of conservatism: Part 16
February 26, 2009
Fred Hutchison, RA analyst
LINK http://www.renewamerica.us/analysis/hutchison/090226

In the last essay in this series, part 15, we discovered in history a strong correlation between Christian spirituality and the vitality of Western culture. However, spirituality by itself is not enough. Issues of truth and doctrinal orthodoxy are equally important. A spiritually charged people who faithfully declare God's Truth can turn the tides of history. Therefore, let us now turn to questions of doctrine.

In this essay, part 16, we shall explore some of the logical correlations between Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy. When I speak of orthodoxy, I mean the great truths of the historical creeds and the confessions of the church.

In the first essay in this series, I proposed that the five streams of conservatism have always had a positive influence on Western culture. This is particularly true of Christian conservatism — when the doctrine is orthodox and the truths of the faith are propagated boldly and without compromise.

Christian truth claims transform Europe

The truth claims of Christianity preoccupied the scholars at the monasteries and universities of the 11th through the 13th century. They pursued the truth with extraordinary enthusiasm, zeal, and intellectual vigor. Watering down the truth to pander to the crowd — as is so often the practice today — would have been unthinkable to these zealots.

Interestingly, some of the learned debates of scholars in the 12th century were attended by large crowds of ordinary people — who shared in the general zest for truth. Never has a common people been so enthusiastic about the battle for truth. Never have students burned with such intellectual excitement and displayed such an earnest striving after Truth — with the possible exception of the students who sat in the olive groves of Plato's Academy, or the students who walked in the gymnasium colonnade of Aristotle's Lyceum, and were called the "peripatetics," or the students who walked in Zeno the Stoic's colonnade which overlooked the Agora of Athens.

However, the enthusiasm of the European "scholastics" was ultimately shared by perhaps a thousand-fold more students than ever sat in Plato's Academy olive groves, or strolled in Aristotle's colonnade. As marvelous as the teachings of the Greek philosophers were, it was a small-scale enterprise compared to the Medieval European universities, and ill timed in history for a maximum cultural effect. Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno appeared after the golden age of Athens was over — and the culture was set in its ways.

In contrast, scholasticism appeared shortly after 1100 A.D., when European civilization was brand new. Therefore, scholasticism had a seminal influence in molding of the culture of Europe when it was impressionable and pliable. The twelfth century was particularly flexible and dynamic, and the developing culture was rapidly changing.

The greatest of the "scholastics" was St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). His works are still included in the Western literary canon. The "Thomists" — scholars who specialize in Aquinas — still appear on the scene when there is intellectual ferment among people who have a renewed interest in metaphysics.

Scholasticism gives Europe the edge in rationality

From almost the beginning of the civilization of the High Middle Ages, Europe had a uniquely rational culture. Scholasticism was formally developed in the early decades of the 12th century. European culture was then in a very early stage of formation, because the civilization was born in the second half of the 11th century. Europe became the premier society of rationality and remained so until the early days of the 20th century. The historical advantages of Europe were mainly advantages of reason and the educated intellect.

Other natural advantages of Europe like navigable rivers and natural harbors had to be aggressively exploited by intelligent men. The proliferation of wind mills, water mills, and machinery for cutting stones and hoisting stones betokens a society of restless minds seeking to solve practical problems. The slumbering minds of the Dark Ages had to be awakened to such tasks. Scholasticism and education in the Cathedral schools and monasteries were a key stimulus for that awakening of the mind.

The scholasticism of the universities and monasteries was a truth-seeking venture sponsored by the church. Therefore, it was Christianity that gave Europe its edge over other civilizations in its rational powers. The triumph of scholasticism was a triumph of doctrinal orthodoxy. During the scholastic debates of the early 12th century, orthodox views soon triumphed over heterodox and heretical views.

Thus, European culture was shaped and enlightened by the theology of doctrinal orthodoxy. Most of the remainder of this essay will be devoted to establishing the affinity of doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy.

Conservative vs. modernism

Just as conservative theology (i.e., orthodox doctrine) is compatible with conservative political philosophy, liberal theology is compatible with political liberalism and progressivism — i.e., the politics of modernism.

Liberal theology can be characterized as modernism wrapped in a Christian package. Modernism is the common enemy of conservative theology and conservative political philosophy. None of the links between Christianity and conservative political philosophy that we shall explore in this essay are applicable to the nominal Christianity of liberal theology.

Conservative theology and conservative political philosophy are the friends of reason and civilization. As we shall see in the next essay, Modernism in the 20th century has fallen to a shocking state of intellectual and moral decadence and has become the enemy of reason and of civilization.

A tight theology and a loose political philosophy

The fact that there are logical connections between conservative theology and conservative political philosophy does not imply a perfect fit. There are points of tension. Therefore, It is a loose fit, not a tight fit. A loose fit is good enough for a political philosophy, but only logical precision is acceptable for orthodox theology. Whereas the great creeds of the faith required an exacting precision of language and concepts, political philosophy needs only to provide a good general fit, like clothes purchased off the shelf that need not be custom tailored for a perfect fit.

Beware of doctrines that are woven too loosely and political philosophies that are woven too tightly. Loose doctrines are an invitation to heretics. Tight political philosophies collapse into narrow ideologies, which are not amenable to debate. Such ideologies alienate natural allies and make political compromise impossible.

Perfectionism and political disaster

We just came through a political campaign in which the search for the perfect conservative candidate led to the mutual assured destruction of all the conservative candidates. As the ground was littered with conservative bodies, John McCain, a moderate candidate whose chances had long been written off, stepped forward and claimed the Republican nomination. He was beaten by a vague and inexperienced liberal Democrat named Barack Obama.

Perfectionism is suicidal in politics. I speak as one who was guilty of insisting upon the perfect conservative and fought against the imperfect conservative candidates who might have won.

As a sadder and wiser man, my mission now is to unite the five historical streams of conservatism. That would be unfeasible if all five groups were perfectionists or defined their cluster of ideas as narrow ideologies. The five schools of conservatism can only work together if a loose fit is tolerated. A loose fit allows each of the five schools of conservatism to learn from each other. Each of the schools has its own special wisdom that is needed by the conservative movement as a whole.

Now let us turn to the central theme of this essay. To wit: There are affinities and logical correlations between Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and conservative political philosophy. A theologian could write tomes on this subject, but we are limited by space and time to consider a small sampler of the affinities.

Man has a nature

"I believe in God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." This first line of the Apostle's Creed confesses that God is the creator. If God created man, he also designed man. If man has a design, he also has an innate nature. An integrated design is not subject to material change, but is fixed over time. Thus, human nature is fixed throughout the centuries and is universally shared by all mankind.

Modernists almost universally deny that man has a universal nature — and insist that man is a construct of culture, environment, economics, and biology. In contrast, doctrinally orthodox Christians and political conservatives almost universally insist that man has an innate nature.

Modernists believe that human nature is in flux and that men were essentially different in former centuries. Therefore, they are skeptical about the wisdom of the past. In contrast, theological conservatives and political conservatives insist that man has always been essentially the same. Therefore, they cherish the wisdom of the past.

Here we get a look at the great gulf between modernism, on one side, and conservatism on the other. We also observe how theological conservatism lines up with political conservatism in opposition to modernism.

Human nature and legislation

If man has no nature, but is a construct of society, as liberals think, the legislator will tend to think that he can fashion a better man through social engineering programs. In contrast, if man has a nature based upon a design that is fixed and unchanging, as conservatives believe, social engineering programs designed to change human nature can only inflict injuries upon man or stifle his nature.

Seventy years of social engineering by the Soviet Union failed to change human nature the slightest amount. The relentless attempt to change human nature turned the entire society into a wretched and joyless prison filled with dysfunctional people.

In contrast to the soviet tyrants, the thoughtful conservative legislator will review proposed legislation to determine if it runs against the grain of human nature. He will examine a proposed new law in an attempt to ascertain whether it is oppressive to human nature or whether it will provide wholesome boundaries in which man can flourish.

Political conservatives and theological conservatives will usually unite to oppose social engineering programs. Liberals and communists generally favor such programs. It is patently obvious why conservatives are invariably anticommunists and why historically, many liberals have had a secret sympathy for communism. This offers us a clue as to why poorly informed conservatives have long had difficulty in differentiating between liberalism and communism.

Although Christian conservatives and political conservatives generally agree in their opposition to social engineering programs, Christian conservatives put the emphasis of the principle that only divine grace can change the human heart. Traditionalist conservatives emphasize that government social engineering projects rend the delicate social fabric. And Libertarians are primarily concerned with how government programs interfere with individual initiative.

In Adam's fall we sinned all

Doctrinal orthodoxy requires one to see that although man is harmoniously designed with an innate nature that was originally good, his nature has been fatally corrupted by original sin. I like to think of man as having a well-designed constitution that has been contaminated.

Man is "totally depraved" in the sense that the contamination of wickedness has reached all his faculties and every part of his constitution. Man is not totally depraved in the sense of being absolutely evil, for that would be absurd.

The most evil of men — like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and bin Laden — started with an innate propensity to sin, and willfully pursued evil thoughts and evil deeds through various stages of development. In the fullness of time, they brought forth a highly developed evil, if not an absolute evil. The human lifetime is too short and the developmental process is too slow to produce an absolute evil. In like manner, a saint is overtaken by death long before he can realize a perfection of holiness.

This being understood, orthodox doctrine traditionally holds that there is no human faculty that has been left pure and uncontaminated by original sin.

The evangelist Charles Finney is regarded by some doctrinally orthodox theologians as a "pelagian" heretic, because he limited the scope of original sin. He asserted that the mind and the will was not automatically contaminated with original sin — and that man is as sinful or as righteous as he chooses to be. Finney preached the gospel on the assumption that men can choose their way into faith.

To the contrary, the doctrinally orthodox reformer Martin Luther taught us that 1) all of our faculties, including the mind and the will, are contaminated by original sin; 2) we are in bondage to sin until God sets us free through His grace; and 3) faith is a gift from God.

Man was originally good but became bad through Adam's fall. The opening lines of the McGuffey Reader were: "In Adam's fall we sinned all."

"Original sin" was inherited by all of Adam's progeny — meaning all mankind. The harmony of the original design was disrupted by the deep-seated wickedness of the human heart. It is not possible for us to return to Eden and regain the original harmony and goodness of God's design by relying on human strength and making human efforts. That is why we need a Savior.

Man is a contradiction

Traditionalist conservatives like to say that "man is a contradiction" and is capable of evil. This is a mild, common-sense view of the dark side of human nature. It is what the daily experiences of life and the lessons of history consistently teach us about man.

There is a tension between this view and the orthodox Christian view, but when it comes to politics and legislation, most differences seem to fade away.

Once again, we observe the loose fit of conservative theology and conservative politics. These two groups are easily united in political ventures against liberals who have convinced themselves, God knows how, that man is inherently good.

The bewitching of the conservatives

The ascendancy of liberalism unites the conservatives to the extent that their eyes are open to perceive a common enemy. One of the reasons conservatives were not united in the last election cycle was that the eyes of many were blinded in such a way that they failed to perceive the rise of leviathan out of the pit — that is to say, the rise of the far left into power.

Why were they blinded, deceived, and bewitched? One reason is that they slipped away from conservative principles. A Christian who forgets biblical truths can backslide and be deceived by the world and the devil. A political conservative who loses his grip on conservative principles can be deceived by the liberals or compromised by deals with moderates.

Some conservatives tried to balance conservative principles with incompatible modernistic concepts. As we shall see in the next section, this practice debilitates the conservative and induces a slide down a slippery slope to the left.

Wishful thinking

When liberals deny the palpable reality of the dark side of human nature, they reject all the lessons of life and experience. Such a denial suggests a powerful delusion or a childlike naivete.

During my late teens, around the time I was thinking about becoming a conservative, I remember telling a liberal college instructor that his arguments were based on "wishful thinking." The stubborn notion that man is inherently good was behind much of his naivete. We live in a broken world, and it does no good to wish otherwise as a naive child might do.

The willful denial by liberals of the evil that lurks in the human heart has, in some cases, an element of malice. Such a denial suggests a primal rebellion involving an indignant rejection of the harsh reality of the broken world in which they find themselves. "I refuse to believe that men are the rascals and knaves which they appear to be. Therefore, I insist that they are otherwise." The malice inherent in their rebellious denial is sometimes turned against conservatives who are pessimistic about human nature.

Can fallen man become virtuous?

Some theological conservatives believe that although man is depraved, he can cooperate with a development process leading towards virtue with the help of "common grace," an empowerment from God for the believer and the unbeliever alike. Through common grace, a "noble pagan" like Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius had reached some degree of light on truth questions. He knew the difference between good and evil, and between virtue and vice. By all accounts, he made significant headway in his quest for virtue and wisdom.

However, common grace without the special grace that comes with conversion to Christ is not enough. For all his virtue and wisdom, Marcus Aurelius wasted the substance of Rome with futile, tactically foolish wars against the northern barbarians. He persecuted the Christians. He designated Commodus — his foolish, malicious, and delusional son — to be the heir to his throne. Socrates was wrong. The rule of philosopher kings is no panacea.

Conservatism can be problematic

There is a problematic dichotomy with a creature who has a good design, but has become evil through rebelling against his Designer and resisting his design. According to Aristotle, virtue consists of thoughts and actions in agreement with the design of man. Vice consists of doing things that are "against nature" — that is to say, against the nature and design of man. This is not an intellectually easy nor intuitively obvious concept. A distinction must be made carefully made between a good design and a deep corruption.

Due to the failure to make this distinction carefully, fault lines have formed among conservative theologians and conservative political philosophers. The fault line can form from two kinds of errors: 1) downplaying human depravity by overemphasizing the goodness of the design; and 2) downplaying the goodness and harmony of the design, due to a preoccupation with human depravity. The first error might lead one to trust in man too much and to slip towards the left, theologically and politically. The second error might lead one to reject Natural Law philosophy, which is indispensable to a coherent systematic theology and a rational conservative political philosophy.

The difficulties do not end here. The conservative must carefully distinguish between the sinful nature and the habitual propensities that have developed from a long series of choices. A mistake here can lead to all kinds of sloppy thinking. Theologian John Gregory Mantle characterized this sloppy thinking by referring to self-righteous Christians as those who have built learned behavior upon a corrupt root.

The opposite error is to downplay the wickedness of a sinner by making the excuse that the person is merely following bad habits. This error leaves out a moral appraisal of the long series of wicked choices that were made to develop the bad habit. One can justly refer to someone as an "evil man" if he has spent a lifetime cultivating evil patterns of behavior. Certain criminal psychologists have determined that hardened criminals often start cultivating evil imaginations in childhood and perform many experiments in turning the thoughts into deeds. Through such experiments, they become proficient in increasing stages of evil. (See Inside the Criminal Mind by Dr. Stanton Samenow.)

A tutelary paradox

I have always had a pessimistic view of human nature, and at the same time have always been optimistic that individuals can eventually fulfill the destiny inherent in their design — with the help of divine grace. However, the developmental process of maturing and getting ready for one's ultimate destiny can be very long and very difficult. Many stray from the straight path that leads to the fulfillment of their destiny.

Some folks think that a potential destiny and manifest depravity are an impossible contradiction. I regard both dimensions of human nature as a tutelary paradox that can lead one slowly to wisdom and personal growth. The paradox is a motivator to seek help from God and to be delivered from the sins and vices that might bar one from fulfilling his destiny.

The particular and the universal

Some libertarian conservatives and some traditionalists emphasize the particular and unique qualities of individuals to such an extent that they doubt that man has a core nature with universal qualities. The denial of universal human nature of underlying the individual particulars is why some libertarians reject the idea of a universal moral law.

The confusion of not seeing the forest of human nature for the trees of individual particulars can be cleared up by a refresher course in Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. Both men taught us how to differentiate "essence" and "accidents." Aristotle's universals subsist as the "essence" of particular things. In other words, one's core human essence — that is to say, one's humanity — is universal. The "accidents" are those superficial, tangible details, particularities, and eccentricities that make a person a unique individual. Recognizing the unique personality but ignoring the underlying personhood is an error of logical distinctions; e.g., "He is a rascal and a clown; therefore he is not a human being." The error is insulting because it is reductionistic.

Precisely because Aristotle's and Aquinas' thought was so deeply woven into Western culture, the West was long able to avoid extremes in collectivism and extremes in individualism. The West lost this facility in direct proportion to the decline of metaphysics after 1800 A.D. The political liberals of the present time swing wildly between collectivism and a lawless, atomistic individualism. It is no accident that metaphysics is anathema to them.

The existential mistake

Another Libertarian mistake is of the Existentialist type. It involves a failure to differentiate between essence and existence. Existentialists are obsessed with finding an "authentic" mode of existence. It is an extreme version of the American quest for a self-defining and trendy "life-style." Such preoccupation with modes of existence tends towards the neglect of "essence," the inner humanity that exists independently of one's modes of existing. Aristotle or Aquinas can clear up the problem by clarifying the difference between essence and existence.

Why cannot man be content just to exist and not be so concerned about his personal modes of existence? Because man is a finite, contingent, insecure, proud being who must attach himself to the world by raising a banner that he exists. "Look at me. I am right here, right now, and am expressing myself in a unique manner. Therefore, I exist!" The man who is spiritually mature enough to completely dispense with "raising the flag" is very rare. However, an obsession with "raising the flag" of existential self-expression is a sign of abnormal insecurity and immaturity.

Unlike man, God's essence is the same as his existence, because he is complete and self-contained in the perfection of his being. If he "raises the flag," it is purely an act of love and never an attempt to ground or vindicate his existence.

Those who can't differentiate between essence and existence do not understand man. Those who think God has modes of existence does not understand God.

The West used to have a good balance between individual creativity and archetypal forms in the arts and literature. Now, the existential quest for radical individuality of expression has thrown the arts and literature into chaos.

A universal moral law

All designs have rules of operation. When one buys a new kitchen appliance, there are always written directions about how to operate the appliance and what one should not do with the appliance, lest it malfunctions and becomes dangerous to the user.

Since man is a designed being, there are rules and laws concerning what he may do that are salutary to his nature and what he may not do lest he destroy himself and his neighbor. These rules, laws, and precepts are the same for all people. Therefore, a universal moral law must exist. The moral law has been unchanging and universal ever since man has been on earth.

Considering that man is a designed being, Is there an instruction booklet for man, provided by the designer? Yes. We call it the Bible. The one thing on which the Old Testament and New Testament are in perfect agreement is the core elements of the universal moral law that are summed up in the Ten Commandments. Old Testament ordinances that were specific to Israel and were not universal in applicability were abolished in the New Testament — but not the precepts of the Ten Commandments.

Many modernists deny the existence of a universal moral law, and call such things the "value judgments" of individuals. They assume that because a modernist will often invent his own moral cosmos, the moral law of conservatives is the same kind of personal invention. They give this presumption away when they claim that the command against adultery is a personal value judgment. Not so. A universal moral law is the exact opposite of a made-up value that is unique to the individual.

One's positions on innumerable political issues will hinge upon whether he thinks there is a universal moral law, or dismisses such laws as individual "value judgments." For example, consider an example of a free-floating value judgment: "The babe in the womb is part of my body. I can do anything I want with my body. Therefore, I have the right to kill the baby. My free choice to do so makes it right."

The first sentence is contrary to scientific fact. The second sentence is contrary to natural law and biblical teaching. The third sentence is contrary to the universal moral law. The fourth statement comes from the funny farm of solipsism. This cluster of concepts ignores the spiritual reality that the babe in the womb is a person.

The invention of tailor-made value stances of this kind pander to personal comfort and unrestrained lusts. They promise freedom from consequences and from personal responsibility. In contrast, authentic moral laws require self-denial, develop personal virtue, and promote the general good of the family, the neighborhood, and the community.

The self-contradictory nature of modernism

In contrast to the fault-lines of conservatism, modernism has stark contradictions. As we have seen, the conservative fault lines can often be reconciled or reduced to a loose fit. However, it is dubious whether the contradictions of modernism can be reconciled or made to work together.

Modernists say: 1) man does not have a nature; and 2) man is inherently good. These two propositions are contradictions. If man does not have a nature, he cannot be inherently good, or inherently bad, or inherently anything.

Modernism posits an impossible contradiction and is therefore a false world view.

Modernists have an absurd view of the world. It is no accident that Sartre came to believe that life is absurd.

If men were angels

James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution wrote, "If men were angels no government would be necessary." We would not need police or a justice system to punish evil doers. Liberals, who believe men are good unless they are mentally ill, or emotionally damaged, sometimes propose that we substitute therapy for criminal punishment.

A liberal judge in my home town let a child molester off on probation in order that he could get "therapy." Was this morally deranged judge impeached? No, he was defended by the liberal press and was re-elected.

Some liberals say, "Society is the cause of criminality. Therefore, let us fix the root causes in society, instead of punishing criminals."

When there is a crime wave, conservatives talk of hiring more police and building more prisons, and liberals talk about therapy and social engineering projects. A Christian who believes in the fall of man must be skeptical that therapy can make an evil man good or that social programs can cure the real cause of crime that lies in the darkness of the human heart.

In the novel The Lord of the Flies, English school boys were cast adrift on an island and quickly reverted to savagery. When a seaman came to rescue them, a boy named Ralph realized how far the boys had sunk into depravity. He wept for "the end of innocence and for the darkness of the human heart." The boys were delivered of the illusion that man is naturally good, and it hurt to give up this pleasant illusion.

When I was on the college debate team, an argument was made that welfare programs do not corrupt the beneficiaries because "people have an innate desire to work." This point was baldly asserted on the grounds that man is naturally good and therefore tends to prefer virtue to vice.

That kind of thinking prevailed when the New Deal and Great Society programs were designed. The result was a great mass of welfare families who remained on the government dole for generations. Their idleness multiplied their vices and shattered their families. They did not sit at home studying the Aristotelian virtues.

Rights and duties

In our political culture today, those who shout the loudest about rights are the most likely to deny duties. This is the behavior of the dead beat, the moocher, and the con man. While I expect such moral decadence from liberals, I am embarrassed to confess that some libertarian conservatives carry atomist individualism to extremes and demand rights while denying duties.

If man has a nature, he must have both rights and duties connected with that nature. Governments that respect human nature are obliged to protect the innate rights of an individual against the infringements of other men. Since human nature is constant, these protections should be enduring principles of law. At the same time, no one should be offended when the legitimate duties of citizenship are called for.

If man has rights, he must also have duties. It is inconceivable that the creator would design man to soak up rights and deny duties. The man who demands every benefit but shuns every duty is despicable. He is a parasitic narcissist. It is unthinkable that man was designed to be this way.

To suppose that man is here solely to serve only his private ends calls into question the idea that man really has the innate dignity that warrants special rights and privileges. We can't have it both ways. Either man has both rights and duties, or he has neither.

Self-government

If man has both rights and duties, the full flourishing of his nature would require that he exercise himself in meeting those duties. If man is capable of arousing himself from self-seeking activities to carry out his duties, the unavoidable implication is that man is capable of governing himself — or, to some degree, moral and self-disciplined men who are thoroughly socialized as responsible members of the family and the community are capable of governing themselves.

The capacity of men to govern themselves makes it possible to have a Republic of free men and a limited role for government. The greater part of the government will be self-government. The lesser part will be civil government. It is no accident that at a time when individual self-control is in decline, an increasing number of citizens are calling for an increased scope of government programs and government regulation.

The restoration of self-government

It is not enough for conservatives to fight against the expansion of government. They must show the way — through example and teaching — to the restoration of self-control by individuals.

It is not enough to be virtuous and to teach the classical virtues to the populace. The preaching of righteousness, holiness, personal responsibility, and self denial, long absent from America's pulpits, must be restored. Perhaps an entire generation of pandering seeker-sensitive ministries must pass from the scene, so that a new wave of godly men, with their hearts on fire for truth and zeal for righteousness and holiness, might rise up from the grassroots of America. The sharp edges of doctrinal orthodoxy, which have been blunted and rounded off in the fear that someone will be offended, must once again be a razor-sharp two-edged sword.

This has happened several times before in American history. That is why we have had such a long run of self-government and personal freedom.

Freedom within boundaries

All designs are integrated with boundaries and limits. This truth is known to every engineer and architect. If man is a designed being, all of life must be conducted within limits. Virtually all doctrinal and theological conservatives understand this.

However, liberals and modernists frequently talk about the absence of limits on the possibilities of an individual. This popular idea passes for wisdom and enlightenment, but it is a notion so filled with fantasy and folly that even a child should know better.

All ideas about a life without limits are destructive to man. Many Americans are lured to their doom by the pied piper of "no limits." They boldly throw off boundaries, thinking it will set them free and they can then do the impossible.

This is madness, of course. Man is a created being and therefore is finite and is obliged to live within boundaries, like them or not. Get used to it.

God has placed each of us on earth according to "appointed times," and has established the "boundaries of our habitation" (Acts 17: 26). He has put us in a particular place at a particular time to do business for Him in a particular station in life. Our lives have starting and ending times, and the community, province, or nation in which we live has boundaries. Every kind of work we might do is hedged about with duties and boundaries. God himself has established these "boundaries of our habitation." We flourish and find our freedom within these boundaries.

Everyone who knows they are not God but are mere created men should understand this in the marrow of his bones. Unfortunately, 20th century modernism promotes a powerful delusion that we are gods, and not men, and therefore have no limits. As we shall see, in the next section, it was Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) who opened this pandora's box to poison the souls of 20th century men.

Conclusion

Christian doctrinal conservatism, allied with conservative political philosophy, is a good antidote to Nietzsche's nihilistic modernism. Christian conservatism is uniquely potent in fighting modernism.

Therefore, Christian conservatism is indispensable as one of the five branches of conservatism. Without it, the other branches will be in constant danger of being seduced by modernism and drifting to the left.

© Fred Hutchison

Video, Will Obama be like Lincoln?

Interesting.


RW

VIDEO;Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist Claims 'communist usurper' plunges country into chaos.

Order out of chaos? Hmmm sounds familar. I wonder why?

NOW why cannot these TRUHTFUL questions be in the public eye 24 hours a day? YES PEOPLE, THEIR IMMORAL AGENDA HAS ARRIVED and continues. IF these allegations are true WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVE THEM WRONG? And for now the whole Campaign year up to the elections and occupancy, same old corrupted politics different President, Congress, Senate, House, etc etc. WHAT will really CHANGE?
When will the Constitution be followed truthfully again if ever?



Again I say to America, if America wanted the First Black American President, TELL ME WHY DIDN'T YOU PICK A PERSON WITH ACTUAL EXPERIENCE LIKE MR KEYES?




Again all things done in secret will be exposed in the LORD JESUS's time.

RW

The GOD WHO IS THERE.

100% TRUTH.

The God Who Is There (from desiringgod.org)

February 12, 2009
By D. A. Carson

In an essay entitled “Do Christians Have a Worldview?

” Graham Cole begins with the following lines as his opening paragraph:

He took the blade. It was bright silver. He loved the way it glistened. It felt good in his hand. He cut deep into her chest again and again. He showed no emotion, no recognition of her humanity. She lay motionless, her life gone. He made no attempt to cover the body. Later that night over a beer he openly talked to a stranger in the bar about what he had done. The stranger felt ill.

What does the paragraph mean? If the words refer to a serial killer boasting about his latest savage triumph, the sentences are pretty ghastly, and the man in the bar should call the police. On the other hand, if the words refer to a forensic pathologist who talks about his autopsy of a particularly interesting corpse, there is no criminality (though there may be a lack of professionalism in talking like this to a stranger). How you interpret the quoted lines depends entirely on the context.

That is the problem we face today when we talk about “Jesus.” For some, “Jesus” is no more than profanity. For others, he is a moralist who makes you feel bad if you start having fun. Or he is the founder of a world religion like other founders of world religions—Muhammad, for example. Or he is “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild” who loves to turn the other cheek and who is never, ever, angry. Or he is the Jehovah's Witness Jesus, a pretty impressive second-string god, but certainly not to be identified with the one, true God. Or he is an empty cipher with virtually no content at all. All of these different hearing groups constitute contexts in which what we say about Jesus will be understood (or misunderstood).

Where a church enjoys good, biblically faithful ministry, Scripture itself will gradually and decisively correct these contexts that are so far out of line with what the Bible says. But suppose you are just beginning to share your faith with someone who lives in one of these hearing contexts—what then? Where do you start?

The apostle Paul faced these challenges in the first century. When he was preaching in a synagogue (for instance, in Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13), he was dealing with people who believed there is one God, that this God is creator of everything in heaven and earth, that he is sovereign and holy, that the problem with human beings is their rejection of their Maker, that salvation must first and foremost reconcile us to this God, that history is teleological (that is, that it is heading to a telos, an end, a climax), that there is a final judgment to be faced, that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, that God alone prescribes how people are saved, and so forth. Paul did not have to establish any of these points: He and his hearers held them in common. In such contexts, Paul focused most of his attention on who the promised Messiah must be: He must be not only the long-awaited Davidic king, but he must suffer and die, and rise again. That was the most disputed point between unconverted synagogue attendees and Christians.

But when Paul finds himself preaching to pagans in Athens (Acts 17:16-31), not one of the propositions I’ve listed above is shared by Paul and his hearers. As a result, he takes time to establish all these points, and a few others, before introducing Jesus. Otherwise the Jesus he wants to proclaim will be misunderstood, because Jesus will be placed by Paul’s hearers in the wrong context.

Learning to evangelize men and women who know nothing about the Bible and who are bringing their own “baggage” or “context” with them does not require a super intellect or a Ph.D. in biblical theology. What it requires is learning to get across a lot of things that we Christians simply presuppose.

There are quite a lot of ways of doing this. One of them is to focus on a variety of biblical texts drawn from across the entire Bible and work through them with people. One might begin with Genesis 1-2: “The God who makes everything.” Genesis 3 becomes “The God who does not wipe out rebels.” We keep working through the Old Testament and eventually arrive at the New, coming to topics like “The God who becomes a human being” (John 1:1-18). The wonderful atonement passage in Romans 3 covers “The God who declares the guilty just.” Gradually the Bible becomes a coherent book. It establishes its own framework; it is the context in which alone Jesus, the real Jesus, makes sense.

This is what we’ll aim to do at Bethlehem’s North Campus on back-to-back Friday nights and Saturday mornings, February 20-21 and 27-28. The seminar is called “The God Who Is There: Naming God in a Pluralistic World.”

Clearly this series will not attract those who are unwilling to learn. But it may teach the gospel to friends who know little or nothing about the Bible and who are willing to think their way through the Bible, even if only in a preliminary way. It may establish baby Christians in the fundamentals of the faith, of what the Bible says, of how to read it. And it may teach a few mature believers how to share truths they presuppose with a new generation of lost men and women who know nothing at all about our beloved Master.

I hope you’ll join us.

VIDEO: DOES ANY AMERICAN REMEMBER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE JULY 4TH 1776?

SO Sad that no AMERICAN save a few even cares about our history, the glory GOD gave this nation, and to show all the world that actually a PEOPLE can rule equally if HE is HONORED above all things because the GOVERNMENT IS ON HIS SHOULDERS FACTUALLY.
And now here we are in a mess our LEADERS have put the People through because the WE THE PEOPLE voice truly is silenced by the WICKED few who are out to continue to spread the plague of immorality and wickedness ever proving the BIBLE is true to HIS EVERY word. DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT OUR NATION ANYMORE TRUTHFULLY?
Oh how awful to fall into the hands of an angry, just and righteous GOD when we knew better every second of our lives. And the worst thing that will ever befall man will not be hell but standing in front of HIM as our Judge when HE could have been our Savior saying to us who LOVE HIM "Well done faithful servant enter into the JOY of your LORD".
The second worst thing will be the deserved punishment of the second death in the LAKE OF FIRE as is promised for GOD's enemies. And who could ever say to HIM, "What have you done"? How many times does HE have to show and tell you?

“For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.”- John 3:16

What a merciful GOD and HIS mercy will endure forever for those who truly LOVE HIM.

RW FEB 2009

VIDEO on the truth of the Stimulas Skyrocket. What is wrong with our Government?

Answer: Our Government has lost it way completely with an illegal President, a Congress, a Senate, and House of Reps. creating Socialism and a People who continue to support UNCONSTITUTIONAL progress that continues daily ever disgracing all who fought to keep AMERICA FREE and not in debt to anyone or anything RIGHT KING GEORGE?
This is what Happens when a Society forgets GOD, its morals, and it's history and clings, tolerates, and or practices immoral practices selfishly. Nations become swallowed by its own sowing and reaping wickedness plain and simple. Just like PLATO said " An unsupervised DEMOCRACY always becomes a Dictatorship"..... Whether the tyranny is one man or many. And that is when they IGNORE the PEOPLE because they are in power get it? They do what they want because they know most AMERICANS do not care so they slither in serpentine like and slowly rob our freedoms away disintegrating our CONSTITUTION right before our eyes. AND YOU THINK THE MEDIA WILL EVER REPORT THE TRUTH?
Say no to the Stimulas PEOPLE because actually there is NO CURRENCY just PAPER the FEDS PRINT WHICH IS NOT WORTH ANYTHING BUT TOILET PAPER GET IT. THERE WILL BE NO RELIEF. And you thought the new administration would be better? Think again.
Praise GOD for HIS judgments.
RW FEB 2009


Find more videos like this on The Patriotic Resistance


REMEMBER SOCIALISM NEVER LASTED IN CHINA DO YOU REMEMBER? HOW ABOUT BEFORE THE BEGINNINGS OF THE UNITED STATES. GET IT ? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THE SOCIAL TYRANNICIDE.
ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH OR WILL YOU BE A STUPID AMERICAN ALLOWING YOUR CORRUPTED GOVERNMENT CONTINUE TO ROB YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM? YOU DECIDE?

Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama?????

AND STILL THE DISHONESTY AND THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE CONTINUES.
But we must remember no one truly gets away with anything, GOD SEE ALL AND REVEALS ALL.


OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office
Posted: February 10, 2009
9:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama's birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

(Story continues below)




Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 235,000 others and sign up now!

According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."

The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn't so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.

"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.

However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama's birthplace, they were refused.

"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.

More specifically, those who doubted McCain's eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.

That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.

"What I'm arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients' due process under the 5th Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]," Apuzzo said.

Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.

Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.

"We're not a monarchy," Apuzzo said, "People have a right to know."

He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.

He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.

"Before that, everything really was premature," he said. "He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position."

He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.

"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.

Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama's birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."

The lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child and on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan in the '80s, as well as conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.

Apuzzo told WND the biggest reason to investigate further is the fact that Obama has refused to allow public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

Several of the legal cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

While Obama's campaign team called the cases garbage, here is a partial listing and status update for several of the cases:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

SPIRITUALLY DEAD Government??? See for yourself

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Commentary: SPIRITUALLY DEAD AND CONDEMNED (Jim R. Schwiesow)

. . . . We are about to transition from the lies, deceit and prevarication of one administration to the lies, deceit and prevarication of another; it will be, in fact, merely a continuation of the same betrayal of constitutional guarantees; unlawful and unrestricted immigration; insecure borders; wild frivolous spending; and government encouragement of a deeply immoral societal abjection. Babies will continue to be murdered; vice will be condoned and promoted for the revenue that it evokes; the government will persist in abrading constitutional protections; and the people's sovereignty will be bartered away so that the nation can be melded into a one world system.

George Bush, during his reign, feigned a mild disapproval of some of these condemnable odium's, but did nothing to deter the practice thereof. No words were uttered to marshal opposition and no actions were taken to lead the nation and its people onto righteous paths. While George Bush merely condoned - by his inaction and indifference - these abominations, Barack Obama actively pursues and encourages legitimacy for, and government-instituted protection of, the same . . . .

Despite the fact that our new self-proclaimed messiah, Barack Obama, will swear on Lincoln's Bible to be the deliverer of a reliant, dependent, deluded, narcissistic and hedonistic people he will fail as miserably as George W. Busch ever did, perhaps worse. When an ignorant people ultimately discern that he possesses no divine qualities and is unable to save their jobs, their homes and their lavishly decadent lifestyles he will be as despised as was George W. Bush. He had better savor and delight in the present worship by an erratic and fickle people because it will be short lived.

I was interested to learn that Mr. Obama, like one of our recent previous presidents, venerates Abraham Lincoln, and has purportedly communed with his spirit . . . In fact he has disclosed that he has on prominent display in his office a portrait of Lincoln that has actually spoken to him [Whoa! - Ed.] . . . .
It comes as no surprise that the new president has no knowledge of God's forbiddance of divination and necromancy. I would recommend to him chapter ten verses thirteen and fourteen of 1 Chronicles for some Godly instruction [see Scripture quote at bottom of this news page -Ed.] . . . .

The day of rebuke is hard upon this nation; we are on the cusp of the day of reckoning for our mockery of God's laws and well beyond the pale in regard to national sin. Every day of every week the level of decency, righteousness and morality descends to new lows. Murder, thievery, debauchery and crookedness are the norm rather than the exception, such behavior is the way of life of many on all levels of our society . . . .

This nation is doomed, but there is yet hope for individuals. Seek ye Jesus the Christ and confess your sins and ask for forgiveness, then forsake old ways and place yourself in His hands. His power and His might is beyond that of puny men and earthly kingdoms. He is the Alpha and the Omega and He will be with you even unto the end of the age.

Source:newswithviews.com

State allows men to identify themselves as women and vice versa

Is society really going that mad and sick trying truly hard to force everyone to accept sin and perversion as normal and of good natures? Doesn't this prove that all man is continually evil and is of total depravity unless they are called and saved meaning, brought back to right standing with GOD and HIS righteousness? Oh man why do you continue to sin against your Creator and force others to accept your selfish perverted decisions?

WND Exclusive
Driver's licenses let applicants pick gender
State allows men to identify themselves as women
Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The state of Massachusetts, which has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexual relationships in law, has taken a bold new step to allow applicants for drivers licenses to select their gender on official documents.

The decision by Rachel Kaprielian became public when an organization promoting family values obtained a copy of a letter she dispatched to a homosexual lobbying organization.

The letter to Marc Solomon of MassEquality said the state Registry of Motor Vehicles "has amended its policy to enable transgendered individuals to more easily change the gender designation on their licenses and identity cards."

Kaprielian said the new provisions no longer will require applicants to submit medical proof of sex reassignment surgery.

"Under the new policy, the letter said, "an individual who wishes to change the gender marker will submit an updated application together with a Gender Designation Change Form, signed by him or her and a medical provider attesting to the gender that the individual considers himself or herself to be."

The organization that obtained the letter, MassResistance.com, said the decision has "huge implications" for society.

"Essentially, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided that for legal purposes of identification, a person's actual sex is meaningless. The gender 'you consider yourself to be' is now officially used. This is madness. But it's now the state policy," the organization said.

"A man using a women's restroom or women's locker room would now show police a legal, official Massachusetts identification that he 'is a woman.' He could get this on the basis of 'the gender he considers himself to be' with the agreement of a 'medical provider,'" the organization said on its website.


"A male elementary school teacher can start coming to school wearing women's clothes and using the girls' rest rooms or locker rooms. And this will extend everywhere throughout society, in businesses, public accommodations, schools, and everywhere else," the group warned.

MassResistance said Kaprielian quit her state House seat last year to run the state agency. She had been a "reliable pro-abortion, pro-homosexual vote," the group said, but "no one thought that she would go this far."

Homosexual newspapers documented how Kaprielian worked "behind the scenes with various extremely radical homosexual/transgender activist groups" on the plan, MassResistance said.

The state already had what MassResistance described as a "radical" policy on the issue. It allowed people getting their drivers licenses renewed to use a check-off box for "change of gender." It let people change their gender designation but required medical documentation.

Commenting on the policy, the pro-Catholic blog LesFemmes-TheTruth referred to homosexuals "playing wedding and house."

"It's bad enough when individuals do this, but when the government starts playing the game as well, the people are literally living in the STATE of insanity. Massachusetts is a perfect example," the blogger wrote.

Congress sued to remove prez from White House

This will truly never go away and the media thinks they can continue to hide these facts and by not REPORTING THE TRUTH they continue to try to bury this possible acts that are hanging over his head. It is no wonder he wants to silence the conservative media, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and whoever criticizes him. Such a continuous soap opera. And the lawsuits continue to grow.
Obama please come clean and end this situation because this will continue to haunt you if it is true you are not a natural born citizen. If you are not a natural born citizen then you are creating a civil cold war against this nation from that respected office and an all right attack on the US Constitution you took an oath to protect if you are a natural born citizen.

'There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.'
Proverbs. 21:30


Congress sued to remove prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure the Constitution is upheld'
Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.

Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

In provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified."

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman's objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'" he wrote.

Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS.com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

IF THIS IS REALLY TRUE THEN AMERICA SEE THE ATTACK AGAINST OUR NATION BY THE STUPIDITY OF WILLFULLY IGNORANT WHO VOTED IN A USURPER INSTEAD OF ONE WHO CAN BRING AMERICA BACK TO THE THE LAND OF THE MORALLY FREE.

May the LORD judge by his terrible and sweet judgment and save his lost.

RW