Lex Talionis Applies to Gun Owners

Gun Owner’s Mug Shot

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/08/we-have-the-right-to-defend-ourselves-community-rallies-around-utah-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/comment-page-3/#comment-4880165

I have to agree with this gun owner’s arrest.

I am a deeper thinker than to simply side with a gun owner whose house was being burglarized.  While I am loyal to the right of self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property- even to the point of using deadly force, the facts of this particular case seem to indicate that the use of deadly force was not warranted.  I don’t simply side with a person because he owns a firearm and shot at criminals.  (Siding with a gun owner simply because he fired his gun at a criminal is like the black community rallying around a cop killer simply because he’s black.)

Simply firing the gun into the air needlessly and recklessly put people’s lives in danger.  There was no need to put the burglars’ lives in danger.  The homeowner’s life was not in danger.  The Biblical principle for punishing crime is lex talionis- the punishment must fit the crime.  Killing fleeing burglars, as a homeowner and not a member of law enforcement, is both a violation of man’s law and God’s law.  Firing recklessly at them needlessly put their lives in danger.  Putting people in danger recklessly is also a violation of those laws.

Warning shots are rarely ever used in law enforcement.  Also, it doesn’t make sense that the homeowner was trying to scare them away with warning shots and then trying to disable the tire on their car so they couldn’t get away.

There was no need to kill the burglars.  For the homeowner to do so would have been murder despite their crimes.  Therefore there was no reason to put their lives in danger.  I agree with the prosecution of this particular gun owner.What this gun owner demonstrated was not protection of his life and property, but retaliatory justice.  This mind set is the same kind of mentality that turns ordinary citizens into lynch mobs (and the French Revolution).  This gun owner is not judge, jury, and executioner.  Not only was this gun owner abusing his authority (he had no authority to play the role of judge, jury, executioner), but the punishment he was trying to deal out was not in proportion to the crime.

Many of the comments after the Blaze article supporting the gun owner demonstrate that simply having a conservative philosophy is not enough to save our republic.  Only a biblical understanding of virtue and the source of morality will allow us to live in peace and liberty.  If people’s hearts aren’t right with God, they are capable of atrocities, including conservatives.  The mentality of Clare Niederhauser and his supporters leads to mob justice, which is not justice at all.

Read Full Post »

Romney Makes Them Laugh

The reason why conservative humor works and liberal humor doesn’t is that conservative humor exaggerates the truth about liberals, but liberal humor exaggerates the lies about conservatives. Humor is best when there is an element of truth in it.

Below is a sampling of some of the “humor” of the left:

Read Full Post »

Doing My Part

The last two decades in America have seen a decline in critical thinkers.  Fewer and fewer people seem to let the wisdom of morality play a role in their decisions.  More and more people are driven by an emotional response than by a rational one.  Because the nation is in a religious decline, so is our ability to think.   The nation is sharply divided, although I do see encouraging signs of people rejecting collectivism of Obama and the Democrats.

But, there still are ignorant people in our nation who do not let the light of a Christian moral framework inform how they are to vote, even among those who consider themselves to be Christians.  Below is a bit of a Facebook dialogue I had with one of my wife’s relatives.  We’ll call him “DW.”  The discussion all started when he posted this:
Here is the discussion:

DW: This one is for all you Obama supporters out there.
ME: Let’s pray there aren’t too many of them.
DW: We don’t need too many, we just need enough to win.
ME: This election is not about different policy choices.  It is a choice between two completely opposed political philosophies.

One is a European-style, collectivist philosophy of an American-despising, anti-colonialist, who promotes envy and hatred of the “rich,” who believes stealing the wealth of people to give to the “poor” is charity, who believes murdering unborn children is a moral choice, who believes same-sex “marriage” is equal justice, who refuses to protect Israel, and insists that government mandated healthcare is fulfilling our “religious duties.”

The other philosophy is the conservative, American traditional natural law principles of limited government, enumerated federal powers, individual liberty, strong national defense, and religious liberty.

As a Christian I am compelled by biblical principles to oppose Obama’s secular humanistic public policies because they completely ignore the word of God.  As an American I am compelled to oppose Obama because his “fundamental transformation” of America is turning our nation into something ugly and un-American.  It is a shame people who call themselves countrymen of mine support Obama.
DW: You should study the “Tragedy of the Commons” to gain insight for higher taxes on the rich. Israel is not at war, both parties are for national healthcare and religious beliefs should not be imposed on the masses. I would not draw a parallel between countrymen and party affiliation. Jesus’ ministry was not about establishing a political kingdom so I miss the reason Christians are compelled to mix religion and politics.
ME:I don’t need to study another leftist, rabid-environmentalist propaganda sheet.  I understand why leftists envy the rich and hate private property.  Hardin’s* collectivism is more akin to the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Soviet communism, and LBJ’s “Great Society” than to George Washington’s, Patrick Henry’s, John Adams’, Jonathan Edwards’ America.  Private property rights are God-given. Hardin and his followers replace the wisdom of God with their own.

Hardin wanted to take away the “freedom to breed.”  His ethics were truly sick. He advocated denying food to poor countries that were “overpopulated,” hoping that starvation would stem the tide of overpopulation.  Hardin’s philosophy is the stuff totalitarian regimes are made of.  It is completely un-American.

Israel is at war with its Arab neighbors and with terrorist groups within the Palestinian community.  Iran has declared that it will destroy Israel.  Obama’s friends in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have already rejected the peace treaty with Israel.

Both parties do not support nationalized healthcare, and if they did, they both would be wrong.  Nationalized healthcare is immoral, unbiblical and downright un-American.

I agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed.  So why do the Leftists, who cry the loudest “Separation of Church and State,” insist we all be forced by government violence to do our charitable duty to God to pay for healthcare, food stamps, mortgages, cell phones, booze, cigarettes, lap dances for the “poor?”  It appears it is the Left who wants to impose its religious duties on the rest of us.  Charity is an individual religious duty, not one to be imposed by my nosy neighbors who think they are charitable by voting for politicians who use the full force of government to tax the people for the sake of the “poor.”

I most certainly can draw a parallel between who my countrymen are based on party affiliation.  When I see a Democrat president bowing to world leaders, a Democrat Senate majority leader openly rooting for our defeat in Iraq (Harry Reid: “This war is lost.”), Democrats openly arguing that America needs to be diminished in the world, and that there is no such thing as American exceptionalism, and that America is raping the planet’s resources having less than 5% of the world’s population, I can plainly see that those who support the Democrats’ philosophy do not at all look like countrymen of mine.

Jesus was NOT apolitical.  A lot of people make the mistake that Jesus only made his appearance in the “red letters” in the New Testament.  Jesus is the Eternal God who authored the entirety of the Bible.  The entire scriptures say a lot about politics.  And Jesus  is about establishing a political kingdom.  He is returning to wage war on a world’s system that has rejected him.  There are those who try to paint Jesus into a picture of their own making.  They are deceived.  http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/your-own-personal-jesus/

Jesus’ first advent was to be our salvation. His second advent will be our redemption.  No, Jesus was not apolitical.  He said a lot about politics.  He said a lot about politics without running for office.  When Jesus said “Render to Caesar” he said Caesar is only due what authority has been given to him, therefore, government is limited in power.  Neither Caesar, nor my neighbors, have the authority to take bread from my table to feed the poor, or to strip my children to clothe the naked.  Government coerced confiscation of my wealth to “help” the poor is not charity.  It is theft.
http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/1099/

Here are just a few “Christian” reasons why any Christian should be compelled to vote against the Democrats:

1. They support the killing of children through abortion, even after a living child has been born alive after a failed abortion.  Democrats aren’t just un-American. They are barbaric.  http://blogs.christianpost.com/liberty/the-face-that-changes-everything-3903/

2. They support same-sex “marriage.”  God’s design for marriage was from the beginning: One man and one woman. Jesus even affirmed this in the “red letters.”

3. Liberal theology is nothing more than secular humanism in religious terms.  You take any issue and the liberal theologian will side with the secular humanist every time, whether it be abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism, social welfare, private property ownership, etc.

Liberal “Christians” hide behind a false sense of religious sentiment because they think they are helping the “least of these” by forcing other people to pay higher taxes.  It is a phony, pharisaical religion.  It is a shame that people are so deceived to allow innocent children die on the altar of “a woman’s choice” just because they believe they are religious when it comes to charity.

Religious beliefs and politics must mix, otherwise we have not yielded to the sovereignty of Christ. Jesus owns it all, including how we vote.  So if Jesus doesn’t direct how we are to vote, then we have rejected his rightful authority in our lives. (That is not to say the entity of the Church must interfere with the entity of the State. That is completely different than religious beliefs influencing the actions of the State.)

That is why I am compelled to oppose the Democrats and their dear leader, Obama.
______________________________
I am called to the battle of the mind and to expose the “fruitless deed of darkness.” (See Ephesians 5:11).  I do not know how many people will be persuaded by my arguments, but the truth needs a defense.  Arguments alone will not win the day and save our country.  First and foremost should be prayer.  We should be looking at the wicked ways within each of us and repent.  Revival must begin with the house of God, because that is where judgment will fall first.  I Peter 4:17-19.  Our nation will not be saved by a “conservative” revival of the “American spirit.”  It will only be saved if God’s people, called by his name, humble themselves and pray, and seek his face, and turn from their wicked ways.  Only then will God hear from heaven and forgive our sin and heal our land.

So, make the arguments with those lost in an ignorant philosophy, but join me in rejecting secret sins and repent.  Only after repentance will there be revival.
_________________________
*Garrett Hardin is the author of Tragedy of the Commons.  Hardin and his disciples see a large, centralized national (and in some cases, international) government as the only solution to the problems faced by the “commons.”  This large government is what our founders feared and fought against.  It appears, we still have to fight the American Revolution, but now, we have to fight our own countrymen.

Read Full Post »

Democrat Equals Coward

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316111/thought-police-patrol-conventions-radio-row-john-fund

National Review reported a bizarre act of censorship from the Democrats at their convention.  The Democrats conspired to prevent any Democrat of any consequence to appear on any conservative radio program during their convention.  Bankrupt of ideas and short on the truth, Democrats are afraid to be confronted with level-headed, intelligent conservative talk show hosts.  Instead, they prefer the comfort of the echo chamber of their liberal choir in the media.  They cannot bear to have their beliefs challenged.  Democrats cannot defend them and look intelligent at the same time.

With their new censorship policy, Democrats are not simply wrong.  They are cowards.

UPDATE

More cowardice on display.  Diane Feinstein refuses to debate her oppoenent for the Senate and then seemingly ended this interview early.  Democrats are afraid of the truth so the fewer opportunities for voters to hear the truth the Democrats benefit.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ca-dem-senator-feinstein-walks-out-of-tv-interview-over-question-about-why-she-wont-debate-opponent/

Read Full Post »

Bankrupt of Ideas

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/first-obama-response-to-paul-ryan-pick-radical-extreme-quotes-new-york-times/

How original: the Obama regime labels Mitt Romney’s Vice-presidential pick as “radical” and “extreme.”  You cannot go one day without some Democrat describing a conservative as “radical and extreme.”  They always go to this tired tactic from an old playbook. They are out of ideas and cannot creatively or accurately describe their opponents.  The fact is that the Democrats have not had an original idea since Karl Marx.

Two thumbs up for Romney’s VP pick. I like how Ryan’s speech at the Nauticus Museum in Norfolk, Virginia was ideological. This election is not simply about different policy choices. It is about two antithetical ideas of what America is.

One idea is that America is a tool for a collectivist, egalitarian utopia where no one owns any more than anyone else and the “poor” are taken care on the backs of the working class.  It is a place where “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is the motto.

The other idea is an America as a land of liberty, where our rights are given to us by God, where our national motto is still “In God We Trust,” where equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal outcomes, where private property and success is celebrated and defended, where ingenuity, innovation, and hard work are rewarded.

There is a clear choice this election:

Obama’s collectivist America based on a secular humanist religion or an America based on its Judeo-Christian founding principles.

Read Full Post »

Breaking Up With Ann Coulter

I was first introduced to Ann Coulter during my 1L year at Regent University School of Law.  A classmate gave me her book Slander.  I had never read a book as fast as I read that one.  Her command of the language, her sarcastic wit, her ability to choose just the right analogies, and her take on the issues similar to mine made me want to read more of her writings.  Of course, I would always have a dictionary nearby.

I finally got to meet her at the “Clash of the Titans” debate in the fall of 2003 on the Regent University campus.  The attractive and tall conservative writer was as impressive in person as she was on paper.  I looked forward to Wednesdays when I could read her new column.  I would rearrange my schedule in order to catch her appearance on Fox News.

She was a wealth of information on the phony Kwanzaa holiday, the five Central Park thugs, the nature of Democratic mob politics, and much more.

My “love affair” with Ann Coulter’s writing continued until this year.  In her December 28, 2011 column “Only One Candidate Is Right on the Two Most Important Issues,” she began her all-out endorsement of Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.  The next few weeks she used her column as an apologia for Mitt Romney’s candidacy, reminiscent of the fervor of Madison, Hamilton and Jay in using the Federalist Papers to inundate the presses with essays advocating the adoption of the Constitution.

I found that I no longer looked forward to reading her columns.  Not because I opposed Romney, but because she seemed to be straining (perhaps protesting too much) for arguments to prove Romney was the best conservative choice.  She would lash out, alternately, against Gingrich and Santorum.

It’s true Gingrich said all the right things in debates, but sounded like a Populist, if not a Progressive, in attacking Romney on Bain Capital.  Santorum’s defense of earmarks and support for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit earned him the “big-government conservative” label.  But, Romney is not without apostasy to conservatism.  State-mandated health insurance is no less intrusive than federally-mandated health insurance.  Even while Democrats rail against Romney’s current proposed tax plan as favoring the rich, Romney adopts the premise of the Left that tax cuts must be paid for by the rich.

My break-up with Ann Coulter can be traced back to her February 1, 2012 column “Three Cheers For Romneycare.”  In that column she tried to deflect criticism from Romney on Massachusetts’ individual mandate.  In differentiating federal authority from state authority, she inadvertently painted Romney as a Big-State-Government candidate as opposed to Obama as a Big-Federal-Government candidate.

She wrote “States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.”  What she is saying is that Obama’s individual mandate is bad only because he doesn’t have the authority under the Constitution to do it.  Romney’s mandate, however, isn’t bad because states have always forced people to do things.

Regardless of whether the federal government or a state government does it, mandating the purchase of anything in order to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen is still tyranny.

So, I spent some time away from reading Ann Coulter.  After a trial separation I thought I would see if Ann Coulter and I could work things out.  Since Santorum had dropped out of the race, I thought last week’s column, “Fighting the Last War,” would be good for our first date back together.

Alas, it appears that while Coulter is accusing Republicans of fighting the last war, she has been busy writing the last column.  She is still trying to convince us that Romney is the conservative choice.  “Conservatives know perfectly well Romney isn’t a ‘moderate’ — he was our conservative hero just four years ago!”

Conservative hero?  Exclamation point?  I would have taken that sentence as her witty, sarcastic hyperbole before, but her weekly apology for Romney demands a different interpretation.  Romney may be a conservative, but Coulter’s criteria for “hero” status must be pretty low.  Romney’s conservative credentials can hardly be compared to those of Francis Schaeffer, Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley, Jr.  Perhaps she is simply trying to get the base enthusiastic about supporting Romney this fall.

Though our “date” didn’t go so well, Ann Coulter does not have to keep trying to convince me that her new “boyfriend” is a conservative.  If Romney is the nominee, I will support him over any Marxist candidate who wants to fundamentally transform America.  The next election is too crucial to allow “hope and change” to continue simply because Ronald Reagan isn’t on the ballot.

Read Full Post »

Left-Handed Facts

Despite the facts coming out about Jared Loughner, the New York Times is continuing the Leftist narrative.  “He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.”  Conveniently left out of this article is Loughner’s amplifying “grandiose tenets” of “mainstream” left-wing groups, including 9/11 being a plot by the Bush administration.

Buried in page three of the story are facts that paint this shooter as a Leftist and not a “right wing extremist.”  Loughner habitually used drugs including Leftists’ favorite marijuana.  His Jazz Academy director insisted Loughner’s marijuana use left him paranoid.  As this shooter was a pot-smoker, will the Left stop their push to legalize marijuana like they want to ban guns? Probably not.  Immorality and destructive behavior is a trademark of the Left.

His paranoia from his drug use made him hate government. He became intrigued by irrational, anti-government theories. His former girlfriend said “I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves.” This sounds like the Tea Party sentiment, but not when you hear the rest of what he said. Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend said he believed we didn’t need a higher authority. That is not a traditional American view held by the Tea Party.

Although the People are sovereign in the US, we are not the highest authority in the land. The Constitution is subordinate to the People, so it is not even the highest authority in the land. Though the People are the highest human authority in America, only a humanist or atheist can say with conviction that we don’t need a higher authority.

Our founders, that the Tea Party reveres, believed that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled us to govern ourselves. We cannot rightly govern without His word. Those who understand our founding recognize that Washington, Adams, Henry, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, et al. knew that a republic resting on the integrity of the people would not last without religious principles.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle….”  John Adams stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  John Hancock affirmed “Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.”

Jared Loughner is what you get when you mix drugs and a hatred for the authority of God, which is the Democratic Party platform, I believe. As more information is coming out about this shooter, he is more and more looking like a Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frances Fox Piven, and Patty Hearst than a Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Chris Brownwell.

Read Full Post »

The Road to Redemption

As much as I hate to shovel the driveway, I use it as a time to talk to God.  Listening to the news lately and seeing the economic ruin our leaders are driving us to and who our neighbors are voting for, discouragement has left me with holding my hands up as if to say “What’s the use?”  I’ve felt like I’ve been neglecting to do what God has called me to do.  I’ve felt inadequate on the one hand and been lazy on the other. 

While shoveling snow and listening to my iPod God spoke through a few songs.  One was by Rush of Fools, Wonder of the World. 

“Wonder of the world
You’ve been more wonderful to me
and as long as I can speak 
I will say so
I’ll say so.

Wonder of the world
You are displayed for all to see
and for all eternity 
I will say so.”

God has called me to use my writing to speak his glory.  Too often I try to be impressive, witty, erudite, ostentatious, esoteric, pedantic…there, I’m doing it again.  It has been all for my glory.  Really, I often mask the feelings of being insignificant, inept, common, plain, obvious, ignorant.  Realizing this, I stepped away from writing for a while.  Last year God so clearly showed me that my talents were meant  for his glory.  I’ve shied away from writing because I was too often speaking on my own behalf. 

Another song God shared with me is by MercyMe, In the Blink of an Eye.

“You put me here for a reason
You have a mission for me
You knew my name and You called it
Long before I learned to breathe

Sometimes I feel disappointed
By the way I spend my time
How can I further Your kingdom
When I’m so wrapped up in mine”

I’ve been living for my kingdom and haven’t had time for God’s.  We don’t have much time.  We need to be ready for our King’s return.  When he returns, will he find faith on the earth?  Will he find us about our Father’s business?  Have you discovered what it is the Father wants you to do?  Time is short.  There is no more time to waste.  He has called me to passionately demonstrate Truth in the political realm.

We, in America, have been plagued by the need to feel comfortable and secure.  We yield our liberty because we have been taught that we have to submit to our leaders.  Plus, submitting is easier and more comfortable.  But, didn’t we learn the principle that only lawful authority comes from God?  Romans 13:1 states “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

Too many people misuse this scripture to promote submission to tyranny.  “See, it says that we have to submit to the higher powers.”  Notice, the scripture doesn’t say submit to the higher powers simply because they are “the higher powers.”  We submit because they are God’s servants for good.  We submit to only the authority that has been ordained by God.  Authority that does not flow from God is not an authority we are required to submit to.

Furthermore, in America God has made the people sovereign.  Government officials at all levels serve under our authority.  When these officials in government become oppressive and exercise unconstitutional authority, they violate Romans 13:1 because they are not subject to the higher power.  We have a duty to resist them and replace them.

The sovereign people organized in states.  The states created the federal government and shackled it with the Constitution.  Judges, presidents, congressmen, senators, regulators, etc. that abuse their authority are no longer submitting themselves to the higher powers.  They themselves are violating Romans 13:1.  As such, we have no obligation to submit to their unlawful use of authority, only to the lawful decisions they make.

Currently we submit to abuses of authority, like the estate tax, wealth redistribution, protection of abortion, funding of immoral arts, and environmental regulations Congress has not passed, not because the authority they exercise is lawful, but because we don’t want to suffer the consequences a more powerful state can do to us. 

Our road to redemption begins when we recognize the flow of authority: from God to the people, organized in a federal union of separate sovereigns.  The people have to return to an acknowledgement that God is the giver of authority and of our liberty and his law governs how we exercise it.  

“It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice, for they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail.  The religion and public liberty of the people are intimately connected: their interests are interwoven; they cannot subsist separately, and, therefore, they rise and fall together.  For this reason, it is always observable that those who are combined to destroy the people’s liberties practise every art to poison their morals.”
- Samuel Adams

Every time you defend vice, you enable tyrants. I am not talking about criminalizing all vice and it is a strawman argument to suggest Christians want to do so. I am talking that this prevailing attitude in America that enjoys vice, especially sexual vice, will destroy America.  This rejection of moral principles erodes the virtue necessary for a free people to live in liberty.

We must personally reject vice and oppose it where we find without resorting to government authority to criminalize it.  This return to virtue will allow for the moral courage to stand up to tyrants.  Once we no longer fear the consequences of resisting unlawful authority, we will be able to replace the tyrant and live in liberty.  Not fearing the tyrant will lead us down the road to redemption.

Read Full Post »

The Road to Perdition

 Electing conservative, constitutionally literate politicians at all levels of government is only going to treat the symptoms of our problems.  The symptoms are fiscal irresponsibility, government theft of wealth, unbearable environmental regulation, abuse of authority, etc.  The disease is people who have rejected God as the sovereign in the land.  Secular humanism has turned many Americans into their own gods.  Now these man-gods have used the gun of government to rob people.  Instead of saying “Your money or your life” they say “You need to pay your fair share.”

This is where the progressive, liberal “thinker” will offer emotional arguments.  They will say things like “Conservatives want to get rid of government.”  Progressive statists, not satisfied with their own godhood,  have made government their god.  Any attack on big government is a religious attack on their god.  They irrationally lash out at those they perceive challenging their god.

Conservatives, however, do not want to get rid of government.  Thomas Paine stated that “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.”  A conservative does not believe that.  Paine, who disgraced himself later in his life with his publishing of his pamphlet The Age of Reason, did not understand that government is God’s servant to do good and to punish evil doers.  See Romans 13.

Because the hearts of men are wicked, government is necessary.  Because government checks that wickedness and allows us to live in peace, government is good.  The problem comes when wicked men control the reins of government.  Barney Frank using his authority to destroy the housing market.  Eric Holder refusing to prosecute voter intimidation because the defendants are black.  A federal judge in California abusing her authority in issuing an injunction to force the Department of Defense to allowing sodomy in their ranks.

Government is not evil.  People are evil.  These wicked people in government positions are placed there by people whose hearts are wicked.  Voters, whose love of money and immorality controls their choice of politician, vote for politicians who will redistribute wealth, fund immorality, and push an agenda without regard to lawful authority.

The problem, the disease in America is not that there aren’t enough conservatives in office.  The American people do not want conservatives everywhere.  The disease is that a large portion of the American people do not recognize God as their sovereign.  They, therefore,  selfishly choose candidates who make their lives easier, or give them benefits at the expense of others.  Many American voters do not love liberty.  They mistake comfort, security, welfare for liberty.  They demand government steal the wealth of others to give to them.

This disease will not be cured with more conservatives in office.  Don’t get me wrong.  More conservatives will slow down the death of America.  But, the cure will only come after a Great Awakening where the hearts of the people return to the Giver of liberty.  Only when we, as a nation, recognize his sovereignty will we be able to live in liberty.  Until then, as this last election demonstrated (Reid’s, Boxer’s, Brown’s, Frank’s, Dingell’s, Murkowski’s re-elections), we will continue down a road to perdition.

Read Full Post »

Wild At Heart

Recently I read a book by John Eldredge called, Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul.  The author describes authentic masculinity as adventurous, risk taking, ready for any challenge.  Men, created in the image of God, are “wild, dangerous, unfettered and free.”  Men have an inherent desire to be the hero, to carry the day, to rescue the damsel.  Too often men fail to be what they are called to be because they succumb to wounds given them by other men who are too cowardly to play the hero.

Liberty is adventurous; it is not safe.  With liberty comes risk.  Liberty does not suffer feckless, flagitious fools.  Only those morally brave enough are man enough to be free.  Benjamin Franklin captured that principle when he stated “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Our Founders chose to be real men despite the risk.  They chose the path of liberty over the security of monarchy.  They yearned to be free and to break the yoke of tyranny.  That yearning is the pursuit of happiness.  Happiness is not found in prosperity.  It is not found in bipartisanship.  Happiness is the pursuit of liberty.  So many real men gave their last full measure of devotion so their children can live in freedom. 

In a twist of irony, conservatism is wild at heart.  The word “conservative” can mean “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”  “Preserving existing conditions” appears cautious. “Limiting change” does not seem to be adventurous.  However, in the current political climate, “change” has come to mean government bailouts, government health care, government regulation, wealth redistribution.  “Change” means tyranny.  Conservatism’s wild nature seeks to preserve the adventures of liberty from a timid subservience to liberalism’s march toward a world without risks.

Choosing liberalism or progressivism is not adventurous.  It is wimpy.  It is gutless.  Statist liberals and progressives trade the pursuit of happiness for an irrational hope of absolute security and government subsistence.  That liberal transaction is why they push for health care reform and seek the approval of dictators.  Rush Limbaugh constantly states that liberalism is “not an intellectual pursuit.  Liberalism is basically the most gutless choice you can make.  It’s nothing but emotion and feeling.” 

The wimpy liberal chooses government health care, government welfare, social security, minimum wage hikes because he wants to feel safe more than he wants to be free.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The statist liberal is too timid to play the hero.  He masks his cowardice in causes that “raise awareness.”  “Raising awareness” requires nothing of him.  The liberal coward lashes out against the hero with slogans and bromides.  “Bush lied. People died.”  Liberals called Ronald Reagan a warmonger, a cowboy, an idiot.  “Violence leads to more violence” was the chant as Reagan ended the Cold War by extending the arms race so far the Soviets couldn’t keep up and feed their people at the same time.

Bromides require no intellectual pursuit.  Bromides, in fact, prevent thinking.  They stifle debate.  After all, “the science is settled,” right?  The statist liberal tries to discourage the hero so as to hide his own pusillanimity.  If the hero succeeds, the liberal will be exposed as a “chickenheart.”  A liberal prefers the destiny of masters rather than to master his own destiny.

In a speech at a Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner, Rush Limbaugh contrasted liberalism and conservatism.  He stated “liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.  Liberalism’s following a cult figure.  Liberalism is following a demagogue.”  Liberalism is not about thinking.  Thinking is hard.  It takes effort.  Liberalism is about feelings and following.  Feelings are easy.  Feelings just happen.  Following is safe.  Liberals feel comfortable when looking for a master.

In contrast “Conservatism sees Americans, sees potential, sees great opportunity, sees an opportunity for people to be the best they can be using whatever ambition and desire they have.  Reaganism conservatism does not need to be adapted to issues of the day.  There’s no such thing as the conservative version of Big Government.  That is a sellout of conservatism.”  Conservatism is about taking the lead, seizing the opportunities, facing the challenges, rising to the occasion, risking all for liberty. 

Conservatives love the adventure of freedom.  Self-sufficient, rugged individualism is his mark.  He would rather see his business fail than take a government bailout.  In tough times he prefers to accept the generosity of family and friends than rely on the forced charity of strangers.

In the gladiatorial arena of modern politics, Conservatism’s Maximus will always confront Liberalism’s Commodus.  Not because he wants to, but because he has to.  Maximus believes in freedom.  He wants to live in peace, but he is not afraid of the tyrant.  He is loved and honored.  Commodus is controlling, manipulative, despised.  He seeks the public favor, not by principled leadership, but by giving handouts and providing distractions.  The liberal mob can be counted on to stand there idly with their hands out.

Not the Conservative.  The Conservative is adventurous.  He is wild at heart.  He loves liberty more than life.  He is dangerous.  He is a real man.  He is the hero.

Read Full Post »