Bill Dilks
Introduction:
1. “What to do about Christmas?” A problem that is facing New Testament Christians.
2. In beginning to study this problem, let’s realize what we need to do as far as our religious practice. For us to practice something relating to the spiritual:
a. The practice must be given as a command to be obeyed; a principle to be kept; or a precept to be practiced.
b. We must therefore be given enough information by the word of God to do the will of God, lest we practice tradition for tradition’s sake.
3. What follows is an attempt to show from scripture what our practice and attitude should be towards Christmas......
I. The Question Concerning the Date — December 25th.
A. Under the Jewish system, specific dates were given to observe special days along with instructions concerning what to do on those days. See Leviticus 23:4-44. In the New Testament the teaching and practice of Christians meeting on the first day of the week to worship together is documented in Acts 2:42; 20:7; I Corinthians 11 - 16:2.
B. Do we have enough information concerning the birth of Jesus to determine the date from Matthew 2 and Luke 2?
1. Dionysis Exiguss (6th century monk) gave us the B.C. - A.D. dating system. However, this system is at least 4 years off since according to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born BEFORE Herod died. Herod died in 4 B.C. Also take into account the fact that there is no time reference to date the birth of Jesus from the death of Herod.
2. The census in Lk. 2:1
a. Recent discoveries have shown that there was a census taken every two years for a 14 yr. period for tax purposes.
b. It is however interesting to note that this action fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2 concerning the location of Messiah’s birth.
3. The wise men - Matthew 2
a. The problem concerning Mary’s purification and the consecration of Jesus, see Luke 2:22-24.
• According to Lev. 12, Mary had to be purified and Jesus dedicated 40 days after his birth.
• Mary and Joseph offered the LESSER sacrifice of 2 doves (Luke 2:24) and not lamb, see Leviticus 12:6-8. They made the lesser sacrifice because they could not afford the lamb. How could they not afford a lamb if they had already received (according to tradition) gold, frankincense and myrrh?
• The conclusion is that they didn’t have the money to offer a lamb 40 days after the birth of Jesus because the wise men had not yet arrived.
b. The Killing of the Children by Herod - Matthew 2:16
• “Two years and under” - If Jesus was just an infant when the wise men came, why kill toddlers?
• “According to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men” - Why the time reference? Could it be that the star appeared and led the wise men to where Jesus was after His birth with the star appearing on the night when he was born? (An interesting sidelight on the star is that it lead them to Herod..only after they consulted God’s word in Micah 5:2 did the star lead them to Jesus.)
c. Where they met Jesus - “In the house” - Matthew 2:11
• Tradition says 3 wise men met Jesus, Mary and Joseph in a stable in Bethlehem on the night Jesus was born.
• Scripture points out: Mary and Joseph were too poor to afford a lamb as a sacrifice 40 days after Jesus was born (thus not having yet received the gifts of the wise men). The wise men cannot be numbered although they brought three types of gifts, see Matthew 2:11. They met Jesus with Mary and Joseph in a house.
• Conclusion: even if we could date when the wise men came to Bethlehem, the star appeared, the children killed by Herod, etc., it would not and could not give us the date of the birth of Jesus.
4. The shepherds - Luke 2:8
a. Shepherds came in from the hill region and corralled their flocks from around October 15th to around the middle of March.
b. An interesting note on this is that they may have been watching over lambs and sheep raised for sacrifice in the temple. If this is the case, what a parallel!
5. Conclusion: all material in scripture leads away from December 25th, even to the point of not even giving the exact month, let alone giving an exact date.
C. Where did December 25th come from?
1. The Roman Catholic church started celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25th in the 5th century.
2. The context of the date:
a. December 25th coincides with the winter solstice.
b. With this in mind, most pagan cultures calculated this as being the time when all gods related to the sun (Mithra, Osiris, Horus, Hercules, Bacchus, Adonis, Jupiter, Tammuz) were born.
c. In Rome this time was called the “Saturnalia” where a great feast was held and gifts were exchanged in celebration of the birth of the sun.
3. What happened in the 5th century was that the Roman church adopted a pagan practice and set a date from it.
II. A Possible Answer
Note: the following is from “Babylon Mystery Religion” pp.160-162 by Ralph Wilson. Although I can’t agree with everything he says, he does make some interesting points on when Jesus could have been born.
A. Dating Back
1. The ministry of Jesus lasted about 3½ years.
2. The ministry of Jesus ended in the spring during the Passover - John 18:39.
3. Jesus began His ministry shortly after He turned 30 - Luke 3:23.
4. If Jesus died in the spring, and had a ministry for 3½ years, and started that ministry shortly after He turned 30, then a more reasonable time for His birth would be in the early fall.
B. Contrast to the Birth of John the Baptizer
1. John was born about 6 months before Jesus.
2. Zacharias, John’s father, was serving as a priest in the course of Abia in Luke 1:5-13. According to 1 Chronicles 24:10 and the Jewish calendar, Zacharias would have been serving in the Temple (besides on the major feasts) from June 1-8. He would have been obligated to serve the following week which was Pentecost. Soon after this, he left to meet Elizabeth and she conceived John (Luke 1:23-24). If you add about 9 months to this you arrive with John’s birth sometime in the early spring. Add six more months to this and you have Jesus being born sometime in the early fall.
C. Other proof:
1. Taxation (see Luke 2:1-5), which was the reason for the census, took place in the fall after the harvest. Also, there would be no reason for Mary to go with Joseph except that she wanted to go and attend the Feast of Tabernacles with Joseph in Jerusalem.
2. “No room in the inn” (Luke 2:7). This phrase seems a little unusual if you realize that everyone had to report to their own city for the census, which would have meant a shifting of people, but not to the extent of overcrowding This phrase in Luke does however have meaning if one realizes that during the Jewish feasts Jerusalem (according to the Jewish historian Josephus) swelled from 120,000 to over 2 million. The overflow from this surge of people would have spilled over into Bethlehem. This would happen only in the fall and in the spring.
D. Conclusion: although this evidence is not what I would call conclusive, it does seem to logically point to Jesus being born in the early fall and not in December. Note that no specific month or date can be given.
III. A Definite Conclusion: since no exact date, even an exact month, can be arrived on as to the date of the birth of Jesus, then it would be pure speculation to arrive at a date, pure tradition to make religious practice of celebrating that date, and finally, it would be a definite addition of man’s will to God’s will in celebrating that date.
IV. Two Ways of Dealing with the Holiday Season...
A. The Ba-Humbug Complex - premise: it would be wrong to do anything remotely associated with Christmas.
1. Scriptural arguments
a. The keeping of days is mentioned in Galatians 4:8-11 and Colossians 2:16-23, but it needs to be stated that the days mentioned refer to those kept by the Jews under the law. If we wanted to assign religious practice to Christmas, then this argument would be valid.
b. Jeremiah 10:1-5 refers, as some have thought, to the Christmas tree. The context is, however, talking about making an idol. The background of the Christmas tree was in worship of the Scandinavian god Odin, but there is a great difference between an item of household decoration and an item of worship!
2. Contextual arguments
a. Since the word “Christmas” meant Christ’s Mass and “Holiday” meant Holy day, then we cannot have anything to do with them. There Is a problem with this line of reasoning. . . if we eliminate all words that come from such a background, then how will you rename the days of the week since just about every name came from a Roman god. What I’m trying to say is that in the course of time certain words denote something different from what the original intention denoted. One would do well in taking a close look at I Corinthians 8- 10 for the way we need to view matters of this sort.
b. Well, some may argue, if you say that you can’t observe this time in a religious context, then why have anything to do with it at all. This argument pivots on the concept that if people decide to put up a Christmas tree, decorate the house, send out cards, and exchange gifts, then I can’t do it because they do it. Some actions are wrong in themselves (sin), some actions could be called questionable, and others just fall into the realm of opinion. When we take a look at our actions, we need ask ourselves what is our attitude in doing that action. If we assign no religious importance to this season, but choose to celebrate it as a family holiday, then what would be wrong with December 25th as opposed to July 4th or the last Thursday in November?
B. An Alternative Complex — premise: we can use this as an opportunity to reach others and to encourage and build up the church and our families.
1. A principle in the book of Acts: Paul preached in the synagogues (see Acts 9:20) and related to the Greeks in Acts 17 from the point of their “unknown god”. In each case Paul took advantage of the situation and the inclination of the people for things spiritual. If anyone had an inclination to be spiritual in today’s world, it would be at this time when the world would be thinking of the birth of Christ. We need to be careful to be thinking about trying to fulfill the great commission more than filling a gift list!
2. We need to keep priorities right. Answer the following:
a. Do you spend more time trying to cultivate a “Christmas Spirit” over letting the Spirit bear fruit in your life?
b. Does your giving and attendance and work for the church drop because of other obligations?
c. Do you find yourself trapped into giving gifts under compulsion instead of giving freely with love?
d. Are you motivating your children to be good because Santa is watching or because Jesus wants them to be good?
3. Our motivation needs to be right in this. There is no reason why we can’t make this a time of togetherness and love, but the proper perspective needs to be in operation: we are servants of Christ who put the will of God and His kingdom FIRST (see Matthew 6:33).
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A dream unfulfilled
By Dan Clements December 7, 2008
“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.”
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
These are a few excerpts from Martin Luther King Jr. speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. August 28, 1963. I was about one and a half years old at the time of this speech. I first read this speech in high school and thought it was one of the most moving speeches I had ever read. Here was a man that wanted nothing more than to be judged on who he was not on what he looked like. We can’t go back and change history, nor should we try to rewrite it. What has happened in our past is what makes us who we are as a nation today. Do I wish that slavery never existed in this country? You bet, but what was done was done and we need to learn from it so we don’t repeat it. It’s a black eye on this nation and I’m thankful for men like Martin Luther King Jr, who had the courage to point out to a nation the injustice that was still going on in the country at that time.
Fast forward to today and the recent presidential election, and from what I have seen and heard from multiple sources, Mr. King’s dream is still unfulfilled. We have a president elect that was not examined on his character, but was looked at with favor because of his skin color. You would be hard pressed to find much of anything the Lamestream media wrote about concerning Barack Obama’s character.
The conservative thinkers, writers and talkers of America examined Obama’s character and found it wanting. From Obama’s associations with radicals in this country, to his campaign’s projecting Obama as the “ONE”, conservatives were putting out the information the country needed to make an informed decision about who Barack Obama is. For the most part conservatives were and still are pointing out Obama’s character and who he is, and for the most part a majority of the country who voted for him has ignored the facts and has been caught up in the euphoria of making history by electing the first black president.
Members of the 60’s civil rights movement should be ashamed of what has happened in this last election. My fear is that they are not. From my reading and understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. this is not what he wanted for his children or any American, no matter their skin color. Mr. King was not, in my estimation, caught up in being part of history or making it. Mr. King was doing what was needed at the time, no matter how unpopular it was. Mr. King saw an injustice in America and sought to make it right. Martin Luther King Jr. was putting forth THE AMERICAN DREAM, FREEDOM, Freedom from racism, freedom from ignorance, freedom from superficial judgments. Mr. King believed that all people are created equal by God, and this equality should be held sacred by all people. God is no respecter of persons, what gives us the right to be.
When we look at those we give consent to govern over us, we need to use the yardstick of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution when examining what kind of person they are. Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge an individual by the color of their skin. Follow Martin Luther King Jr. in his dream “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.”
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
These are a few excerpts from Martin Luther King Jr. speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. August 28, 1963. I was about one and a half years old at the time of this speech. I first read this speech in high school and thought it was one of the most moving speeches I had ever read. Here was a man that wanted nothing more than to be judged on who he was not on what he looked like. We can’t go back and change history, nor should we try to rewrite it. What has happened in our past is what makes us who we are as a nation today. Do I wish that slavery never existed in this country? You bet, but what was done was done and we need to learn from it so we don’t repeat it. It’s a black eye on this nation and I’m thankful for men like Martin Luther King Jr, who had the courage to point out to a nation the injustice that was still going on in the country at that time.
Fast forward to today and the recent presidential election, and from what I have seen and heard from multiple sources, Mr. King’s dream is still unfulfilled. We have a president elect that was not examined on his character, but was looked at with favor because of his skin color. You would be hard pressed to find much of anything the Lamestream media wrote about concerning Barack Obama’s character.
The conservative thinkers, writers and talkers of America examined Obama’s character and found it wanting. From Obama’s associations with radicals in this country, to his campaign’s projecting Obama as the “ONE”, conservatives were putting out the information the country needed to make an informed decision about who Barack Obama is. For the most part conservatives were and still are pointing out Obama’s character and who he is, and for the most part a majority of the country who voted for him has ignored the facts and has been caught up in the euphoria of making history by electing the first black president.
Members of the 60’s civil rights movement should be ashamed of what has happened in this last election. My fear is that they are not. From my reading and understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. this is not what he wanted for his children or any American, no matter their skin color. Mr. King was not, in my estimation, caught up in being part of history or making it. Mr. King was doing what was needed at the time, no matter how unpopular it was. Mr. King saw an injustice in America and sought to make it right. Martin Luther King Jr. was putting forth THE AMERICAN DREAM, FREEDOM, Freedom from racism, freedom from ignorance, freedom from superficial judgments. Mr. King believed that all people are created equal by God, and this equality should be held sacred by all people. God is no respecter of persons, what gives us the right to be.
When we look at those we give consent to govern over us, we need to use the yardstick of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution when examining what kind of person they are. Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge an individual by the color of their skin. Follow Martin Luther King Jr. in his dream “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Selective Constitutionalism
By Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect
Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore,
not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United
States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "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 accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of
Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various
lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.
Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean
someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born
in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's
secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to
date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which
only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a
"constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a
"constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only
get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when
it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat
appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but
when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn
with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to
actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the
Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After
all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House.
Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he
has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative
and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all
interested in the Obama citizenship issue?
Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama
was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He
was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does
anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack
Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a
"constitutional crisis"? Get real!
Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the
time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign
country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not
qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State
Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief,
U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular
facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
by reason of birth."
Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential
Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in
Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is
now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized
citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run
for President.
But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's
requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals,
most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I
call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional
government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really
could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they
would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W.
Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was
assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment
prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when
Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by
federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush
was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush
overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush
dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when
Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the
United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were
conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the
United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of
Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where
were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over
1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his
fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional
pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they
when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could
go on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in
violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more
so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as
their respective Presidential nominees.
While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional
government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member)
would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in
the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S.
Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate
members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take
was raised while they were in Congress.
However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional
prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the
salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job
without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was
in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It
is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William
Saxbe to be attorney general.
Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited
to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the
manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil
magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God
help us!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect
Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore,
not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United
States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "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 accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of
Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various
lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.
Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean
someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born
in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's
secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to
date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which
only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a
"constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a
"constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only
get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when
it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat
appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but
when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn
with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to
actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the
Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After
all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House.
Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he
has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative
and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all
interested in the Obama citizenship issue?
Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama
was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He
was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does
anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack
Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a
"constitutional crisis"? Get real!
Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the
time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign
country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not
qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State
Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief,
U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular
facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
by reason of birth."
Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential
Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in
Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is
now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized
citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run
for President.
But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's
requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals,
most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I
call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional
government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really
could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they
would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W.
Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was
assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment
prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when
Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by
federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush
was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush
overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush
dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when
Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the
United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were
conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the
United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of
Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where
were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over
1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his
fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional
pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they
when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could
go on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in
violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more
so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as
their respective Presidential nominees.
While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional
government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member)
would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in
the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S.
Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate
members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take
was raised while they were in Congress.
However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional
prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the
salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job
without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was
in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It
is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William
Saxbe to be attorney general.
Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited
to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the
manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil
magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God
help us!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
Chuck Baldwin
Friday, November 7, 2008
Conservatives Lost More Than An Election
By Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2008
That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no
one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain
could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He
didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it
not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did.
The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real
story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives.
For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is
completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was
George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.
Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no
conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a
Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was
the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's
portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal
and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago).
And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian
conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain
neocon agenda.
For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote
themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or
reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless
and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies
were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being
under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more
than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs
during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John
McCain are.
As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of
Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism.
Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.
Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers
on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes,
I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican
Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire
federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won
seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled
Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed
the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have
presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest
spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great
Depression.
Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives"
and laugh. No wonder such a sizeable majority of voters yawned when John McCain
tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer."
How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made
a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone
coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.
Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to
scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is
the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly
unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to
close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun
control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun
Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal
record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia
over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as
John McCain.
But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially
Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political
partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in
shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!
In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an
opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S.
Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He
believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the
bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are
unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those
at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.
The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South
Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street
banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to
citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of
only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.
Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid
pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon
is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey
Graham, of course.
Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life
conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that
state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South
Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of
evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted
for Graham.
Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of
pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before
John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth,
and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They
should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their
Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio
audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a
mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate
laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.
Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W.
Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported
them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they
deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to
blame but themselves.
And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to
understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine
conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the
scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to
constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern
again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from
the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of
two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.
Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2008
That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no
one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain
could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He
didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it
not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did.
The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real
story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives.
For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is
completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was
George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.
Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no
conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a
Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was
the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's
portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal
and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago).
And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian
conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain
neocon agenda.
For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote
themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or
reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless
and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies
were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being
under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more
than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs
during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John
McCain are.
As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of
Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism.
Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.
Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers
on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes,
I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican
Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire
federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won
seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled
Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed
the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have
presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest
spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great
Depression.
Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives"
and laugh. No wonder such a sizeable majority of voters yawned when John McCain
tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer."
How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made
a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone
coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.
Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to
scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is
the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly
unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to
close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun
control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun
Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal
record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia
over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as
John McCain.
But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially
Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political
partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in
shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!
In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an
opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S.
Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He
believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the
bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are
unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those
at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.
The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South
Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street
banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to
citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of
only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.
Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid
pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon
is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey
Graham, of course.
Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life
conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that
state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South
Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of
evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted
for Graham.
Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of
pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before
John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth,
and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They
should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their
Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio
audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a
mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate
laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.
Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W.
Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported
them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they
deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to
blame but themselves.
And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to
understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine
conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the
scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to
constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern
again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from
the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of
two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.
Chuck Baldwin
Where do we go from here?
By Dan Clements November 5, 2008
The 2008 elections are over and some folks are mad and others are elated. For the Constitution Party, it was a win, in that we earned ballot access in 38 states, the most this party has ever earned. And make no doubt, the party earned them.
So what is next for the Constitution Party? We made a good run and a good showing for ourselves, in spite of the lack of press coverage, the lack of debate participation on all levels, and the fact that the deck is stacked against alternative political parties as a whole.
First, we need to gear up on a local level for the 2010 mid term elections. I have started a Meetup group on the internet for the 10th congressional district here in PA, under the Constitution Party banner. I would suggest all Constitution Party members do the same, so they can start organizing thing in their own back yard. We need to find people who like the Constitution Party platform and would support it and promote it.
We need to change the face of politics on a local, state, and federal level. But it must start at the local and state level. It needs to start on a local level, so we can show the electorate we are a serious party. Once we start holding local offices, we need to get the word out about the Constitution Party, and register as many people under this banner.
Next we need to start winning state office positions, so we can change politics on a state level. A couple of changes on a state level would be one, resend the major party status of the Democrats and Republicans. All any political party should have to do to gain ballot access is have a state party chapter as well as a national headquarters, pay a filing fee and that’s it. Two, do away with the winner takes all, when it comes to the Electoral College. If a candidate takes a congressional district, that elector is his or hers. This was the original intent of the founding fathers. Elections would be fairer and people would not feel disenfranchised about their vote not counting.
We need to support groups who will open the debate process to all those folks running for office as long as they have earned ballot access. Participation should not be based on polling data of the biased opinion of the Lamestream media. If you did enough work to gain and earn ballot access, that should be enough to gain debate access.
We need to quit supporting the Lamestream media that has sold their constitutionally protected souls to the highest bidder. By not buying, watching or listening to the wholly bias view of the Lamestream media, we can let our checkbooks do the talking and take away some of their power to influence elections. The Lamestream media needs to get back to reporting the news, instead of crafting the news. If the Lamestream media continues down this path, they are no longer the press and then would not be protected under the constitution.
We have about 735 days of Democan rule in congress, and we can’t waste any of them. We need to donate to the national Constitution Party, so they can advertise more on behalf of the party and get the word out. We need to talk to our friends and neighbors about what is important when it comes to their choices in politics. We need to teach the Constitution to every one we know, so they can make an informed choice. We need to make folks realize that it should be country first, and party second. If the Constitution Party ever left its roots, I will be the first to drop them and look else where.
I host the internet radio talk show BACK TO BASIC on Blog Talk Radio, and I talk a lot about the U.S. Constitution, the founding documents, and the founding fathers. I will continue to fight for this country over my microphone, and change minds one at a time through thoughtful debate and correct analyses of current events. I have and will look at all things political through the prism of the U.S. Constitution, and if they don’t pass muster, then I will voice that to my audience. We all need to speech out and keep the Constitution Party in the minds of the supporters now and in the future. We should not surrender this country without a fight.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
The 2008 elections are over and some folks are mad and others are elated. For the Constitution Party, it was a win, in that we earned ballot access in 38 states, the most this party has ever earned. And make no doubt, the party earned them.
So what is next for the Constitution Party? We made a good run and a good showing for ourselves, in spite of the lack of press coverage, the lack of debate participation on all levels, and the fact that the deck is stacked against alternative political parties as a whole.
First, we need to gear up on a local level for the 2010 mid term elections. I have started a Meetup group on the internet for the 10th congressional district here in PA, under the Constitution Party banner. I would suggest all Constitution Party members do the same, so they can start organizing thing in their own back yard. We need to find people who like the Constitution Party platform and would support it and promote it.
We need to change the face of politics on a local, state, and federal level. But it must start at the local and state level. It needs to start on a local level, so we can show the electorate we are a serious party. Once we start holding local offices, we need to get the word out about the Constitution Party, and register as many people under this banner.
Next we need to start winning state office positions, so we can change politics on a state level. A couple of changes on a state level would be one, resend the major party status of the Democrats and Republicans. All any political party should have to do to gain ballot access is have a state party chapter as well as a national headquarters, pay a filing fee and that’s it. Two, do away with the winner takes all, when it comes to the Electoral College. If a candidate takes a congressional district, that elector is his or hers. This was the original intent of the founding fathers. Elections would be fairer and people would not feel disenfranchised about their vote not counting.
We need to support groups who will open the debate process to all those folks running for office as long as they have earned ballot access. Participation should not be based on polling data of the biased opinion of the Lamestream media. If you did enough work to gain and earn ballot access, that should be enough to gain debate access.
We need to quit supporting the Lamestream media that has sold their constitutionally protected souls to the highest bidder. By not buying, watching or listening to the wholly bias view of the Lamestream media, we can let our checkbooks do the talking and take away some of their power to influence elections. The Lamestream media needs to get back to reporting the news, instead of crafting the news. If the Lamestream media continues down this path, they are no longer the press and then would not be protected under the constitution.
We have about 735 days of Democan rule in congress, and we can’t waste any of them. We need to donate to the national Constitution Party, so they can advertise more on behalf of the party and get the word out. We need to talk to our friends and neighbors about what is important when it comes to their choices in politics. We need to teach the Constitution to every one we know, so they can make an informed choice. We need to make folks realize that it should be country first, and party second. If the Constitution Party ever left its roots, I will be the first to drop them and look else where.
I host the internet radio talk show BACK TO BASIC on Blog Talk Radio, and I talk a lot about the U.S. Constitution, the founding documents, and the founding fathers. I will continue to fight for this country over my microphone, and change minds one at a time through thoughtful debate and correct analyses of current events. I have and will look at all things political through the prism of the U.S. Constitution, and if they don’t pass muster, then I will voice that to my audience. We all need to speech out and keep the Constitution Party in the minds of the supporters now and in the future. We should not surrender this country without a fight.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Why McCain and the RNC lost!
By Dan Clements November 5, 2008
Last night the election took place and Barack Obama walked away with a convincing Electoral College vote. The popular vote was much closer, but when it comes to electing presidents, it’s the Electoral College that counts.
Barack Obama run a good campaign and out spent McCain 2 or 3 to 1. In this article we will not deal with the dishonesty of the Obama campaign, these have been enumerated throughout the presidential race. And winning at any cost, without regard to morals, honesty, and playing by the rules is no win at all, it’s a hollow victory in my opinion.
John McCain and the RNC lost this time around because they read the American people wrong and the conservatism of the American people. John McCain was no conservative, and I surmise politically he never has been. John McCain is a Washington insider, and to talk about change from his position on the inside didn’t ring true with most Americans. John McCain is a liberal leaning moderate, and a RINO (Republican in name only.)
John McCain tried to out socialize the socialist in this campaign and it didn’t work. And before you get mad at me, think about all the pandering John McCain did with your money, the bailout, healthcare, energy, government bureaucracy. In my mind it is evil to try and buy votes with promises of spending voter’s money through the manipulation of the different government bureaucracies you may control when you become president.
Another reason John McCain lost, was his lack of support of the U.S. Constitution. In John McCain’s political life it is clear to this talking head that the U.S. Constitution was low on his priorities when it came to doing what is right for America. If John McCain would not have supported three big pieces of liberal legislation, campaign finance reform, amnesty for illegal immigrants, carbon cap and trade, he would’ve had a better time convincing American he is a conservative. If John McCain would have went back to the U.S. Constitution, and campaigned on it, I’m convinced he would have won in a landslide. If John McCain would’ve stood against the bailouts and distinguished himself on this point, the election would have turned out different.
And let’s not forget about the RNC, they had left their conservative roots when they put G. W. Bush up for the presidency in 2000. They no longer showed that they had conservative criteria in which to allow people to run under the RNC banner. This last primary cycle showed just how moderate the RNC has become, by putting forth the most liberal group of men running under the RNC banner. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, are the most liberal so called conservatives I have ever seen allowed to run under a so called conservative party banner. The RNC has no stomach to discipline its own anymore.
And what about the talking heads on conservative talk radio who during the primaries had nothing good to say about McCain, but when he won the RNC nomination, men like Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, just to name a few, supported him just because they were putting party ahead of country. They tried to convince you to vote for John McCain, just to keep Barack Obama out of office. They pointed to John McCain’s military record as a rallying point to say he is a conservative, even though all other evidence pointed to the contrary! Why didn’t they look at the RNC and say “if you are not going to discipline the party and keep liberal Republicans from ruining the party, convince me why I should support you?” Why didn’t they, like me, look for a new party to put their political energy into, instead of rewarding the failure that is the RNC, by supporting it?
This is the first campaign in a long time that I was not emotionally committed to. I’m a member of the Constitution Party, and I had no elusions about winning the presidency, we did a good job just getting on the ballots in 38 states. I wrote Chuck Baldwin in, here in PA, as is my right and I feel good about my vote no matter what some RNC supporters may think.
In the end John McCain and the RNC failed because of their lack of conservatism.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Last night the election took place and Barack Obama walked away with a convincing Electoral College vote. The popular vote was much closer, but when it comes to electing presidents, it’s the Electoral College that counts.
Barack Obama run a good campaign and out spent McCain 2 or 3 to 1. In this article we will not deal with the dishonesty of the Obama campaign, these have been enumerated throughout the presidential race. And winning at any cost, without regard to morals, honesty, and playing by the rules is no win at all, it’s a hollow victory in my opinion.
John McCain and the RNC lost this time around because they read the American people wrong and the conservatism of the American people. John McCain was no conservative, and I surmise politically he never has been. John McCain is a Washington insider, and to talk about change from his position on the inside didn’t ring true with most Americans. John McCain is a liberal leaning moderate, and a RINO (Republican in name only.)
John McCain tried to out socialize the socialist in this campaign and it didn’t work. And before you get mad at me, think about all the pandering John McCain did with your money, the bailout, healthcare, energy, government bureaucracy. In my mind it is evil to try and buy votes with promises of spending voter’s money through the manipulation of the different government bureaucracies you may control when you become president.
Another reason John McCain lost, was his lack of support of the U.S. Constitution. In John McCain’s political life it is clear to this talking head that the U.S. Constitution was low on his priorities when it came to doing what is right for America. If John McCain would not have supported three big pieces of liberal legislation, campaign finance reform, amnesty for illegal immigrants, carbon cap and trade, he would’ve had a better time convincing American he is a conservative. If John McCain would have went back to the U.S. Constitution, and campaigned on it, I’m convinced he would have won in a landslide. If John McCain would’ve stood against the bailouts and distinguished himself on this point, the election would have turned out different.
And let’s not forget about the RNC, they had left their conservative roots when they put G. W. Bush up for the presidency in 2000. They no longer showed that they had conservative criteria in which to allow people to run under the RNC banner. This last primary cycle showed just how moderate the RNC has become, by putting forth the most liberal group of men running under the RNC banner. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, are the most liberal so called conservatives I have ever seen allowed to run under a so called conservative party banner. The RNC has no stomach to discipline its own anymore.
And what about the talking heads on conservative talk radio who during the primaries had nothing good to say about McCain, but when he won the RNC nomination, men like Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, just to name a few, supported him just because they were putting party ahead of country. They tried to convince you to vote for John McCain, just to keep Barack Obama out of office. They pointed to John McCain’s military record as a rallying point to say he is a conservative, even though all other evidence pointed to the contrary! Why didn’t they look at the RNC and say “if you are not going to discipline the party and keep liberal Republicans from ruining the party, convince me why I should support you?” Why didn’t they, like me, look for a new party to put their political energy into, instead of rewarding the failure that is the RNC, by supporting it?
This is the first campaign in a long time that I was not emotionally committed to. I’m a member of the Constitution Party, and I had no elusions about winning the presidency, we did a good job just getting on the ballots in 38 states. I wrote Chuck Baldwin in, here in PA, as is my right and I feel good about my vote no matter what some RNC supporters may think.
In the end John McCain and the RNC failed because of their lack of conservatism.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Financial crisis shows danger of ‘stuffaholism’
By Steve Diggs | for The Christian Chronicle
October 22, 2008
________________________________________
These are very frustrating days for America. We all have questions about the current economic crisis and its repercussions. What has happened? Who is at fault? What does this mean for my family’s future?
As Christians, we place our faith in an unchanging God. But as citizens, we want to know about the circumstances that led to a massive breach of our trust.
While there’s plenty of blame to go around, at the heart of it all was the belief that God was wrong, that the borrower is not the slave of the lender (Proverbs 22). We began to believe that by digging an ever-
deepening hole that we could eventually build a mountain of wealth.
We are a culture that is saturated with “stuffaholism.” Jesus referred to this as “loving the things of this world.” We have fallen for the lie that equates stuff, sex and money with happiness. If that were true, then the happiest families would all be in Hollywood!
Sadly, many Christians who are called to be the “salt of the earth” have lost our savor. Many of us are in the same mess. Even Christians, who would be critical of others who abuse drugs and alcohol, think nothing of anesthetizing the pain they feel when the credit card bill arrives by going back to the mall.
There are three lessons that might turn this very difficult experience into a learning experience and growing opportunity for us:
• Jesus’ half-brother James put a high premium on wisdom (James 1:5). Today there seems to be confusion between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is what tells us that tomatoes are a fruit; wisdom is what tells us not to put a tomato into a fruit salad.
Today’s world has plenty of knowledge but a dearth of wisdom. It’s time to realize that whenever one gets something for nothing there eventually will be a disproportionate price to pay.
• King Solomon was fond of saying, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Is this so different than any other crisis, including the Great Depression? The root cause is the same. It pivots on the three things that John warned the early Christians to be on guard against. “Do not love the world, nor the things of the world … For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 John 2:15,16).
• The best financial teaching is in the Bible. Paul told his protege, Timothy, the secret to dealing with money in 1 Timothy 6:17-19: “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”
Note the three things Paul says to wealthy Christians (and in a global sense, a majority of us are wealthy).
First, he tells us not to be prideful and arrogant.
Second, Christians should not put their trust in their 401(k) plans. As we’ve all seen, dollars in the bank do not guarantee anything.
Third, the wealthy are encouraged to enjoy their wealth — but to be ready to share at the drop of a hat. It gets back to appreciating the difference between knowing a lot about wealth and actually having the wisdom to use our wealth properly.
I would submit that what we are experiencing might not necessarily be a bad thing. Most humans (Christians, too) only look up when they have been sucker-punched and are lying face-up on the floor. That’s when we tend to see the eternal through the temporal.
Will we as a nation get through this? I suspect we will. Over the last 100 years, stocks have gained value in every 10-year period, including during the Great Depression. Will there be pain in the meantime? I suspect there will be.
The question is: How will we respond to this tempest in the teapot of eternity?
What if this causes Christians to again become salt? What if we led by example? What if we bought fewer “extras?” What if we paid off our credit cards, bought cars we could afford and saved more than we spent?
What if we always had money to give to others — and were truly ready unto every good deed?
STEVE DIGGS is a minister for the Antioch church in Nashville, Tenn. He presents the No Debt No Sweat! Christian Money Management Seminar at churches and other venues nationwide. For more information, see www.stevediggs.com or call (615) 300-8263.
October 22, 2008
________________________________________
These are very frustrating days for America. We all have questions about the current economic crisis and its repercussions. What has happened? Who is at fault? What does this mean for my family’s future?
As Christians, we place our faith in an unchanging God. But as citizens, we want to know about the circumstances that led to a massive breach of our trust.
While there’s plenty of blame to go around, at the heart of it all was the belief that God was wrong, that the borrower is not the slave of the lender (Proverbs 22). We began to believe that by digging an ever-
deepening hole that we could eventually build a mountain of wealth.
We are a culture that is saturated with “stuffaholism.” Jesus referred to this as “loving the things of this world.” We have fallen for the lie that equates stuff, sex and money with happiness. If that were true, then the happiest families would all be in Hollywood!
Sadly, many Christians who are called to be the “salt of the earth” have lost our savor. Many of us are in the same mess. Even Christians, who would be critical of others who abuse drugs and alcohol, think nothing of anesthetizing the pain they feel when the credit card bill arrives by going back to the mall.
There are three lessons that might turn this very difficult experience into a learning experience and growing opportunity for us:
• Jesus’ half-brother James put a high premium on wisdom (James 1:5). Today there seems to be confusion between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is what tells us that tomatoes are a fruit; wisdom is what tells us not to put a tomato into a fruit salad.
Today’s world has plenty of knowledge but a dearth of wisdom. It’s time to realize that whenever one gets something for nothing there eventually will be a disproportionate price to pay.
• King Solomon was fond of saying, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Is this so different than any other crisis, including the Great Depression? The root cause is the same. It pivots on the three things that John warned the early Christians to be on guard against. “Do not love the world, nor the things of the world … For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 John 2:15,16).
• The best financial teaching is in the Bible. Paul told his protege, Timothy, the secret to dealing with money in 1 Timothy 6:17-19: “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”
Note the three things Paul says to wealthy Christians (and in a global sense, a majority of us are wealthy).
First, he tells us not to be prideful and arrogant.
Second, Christians should not put their trust in their 401(k) plans. As we’ve all seen, dollars in the bank do not guarantee anything.
Third, the wealthy are encouraged to enjoy their wealth — but to be ready to share at the drop of a hat. It gets back to appreciating the difference between knowing a lot about wealth and actually having the wisdom to use our wealth properly.
I would submit that what we are experiencing might not necessarily be a bad thing. Most humans (Christians, too) only look up when they have been sucker-punched and are lying face-up on the floor. That’s when we tend to see the eternal through the temporal.
Will we as a nation get through this? I suspect we will. Over the last 100 years, stocks have gained value in every 10-year period, including during the Great Depression. Will there be pain in the meantime? I suspect there will be.
The question is: How will we respond to this tempest in the teapot of eternity?
What if this causes Christians to again become salt? What if we led by example? What if we bought fewer “extras?” What if we paid off our credit cards, bought cars we could afford and saved more than we spent?
What if we always had money to give to others — and were truly ready unto every good deed?
STEVE DIGGS is a minister for the Antioch church in Nashville, Tenn. He presents the No Debt No Sweat! Christian Money Management Seminar at churches and other venues nationwide. For more information, see www.stevediggs.com or call (615) 300-8263.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Character and Principle!
By: Dan Clements September 6, 2008
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines character as; 2a: one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual. Principle is defined as; 1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct.
Most folks think that a person of character and principle are people who do the right thing, even when no one is watching.
From a military stand point, John McCain is a man of character and principle. He proved it over and over again when he was a POW in Viet Nam. There is no one I would rather be with in a military pinch, than John McCain. Mr. McCain showed he is a man of the highest character and principle when it comes to being a military man.
From a political stand point, John McCain is on shaky ground, when it comes to character and principle. Let me make this point clear, when John McCain was in the military he adhered to the UCMJ, and lived by a code of honor few Americans have experienced or understand. In John McCain’s political life, he has proven time and time again, he does not adhere to a code you can put your finger on. As an American, we live in a constitutional republic, and have a constitution that we need to live under and adhere to. Time and time again John McCain has refused to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, something that He and I both swore an oath to uphold, defend and protect. I’m not a combat veteran, but I served our country honorably for 4 years in the U.S. Navy, and 3 years in the PA Army National Guard.
McCain co-authored a campaign-finance reform bill that angered advocacy groups on the right and the left. He co-authored cap and trade carbon legislation with then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain angered the GOP base last year when he championed an amnesty bill that would have set up a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The bill bombed, and rightly so, but not before McCain insulted almost every critic of the bill. If you look at most of the legislation either sponsored or co-sponsored by John McCain, you don’t see much of the U.S. Constitution. When did our law makers stop considering if a bill was constitutional or not? When did being a maverick where the constitution is concerned a good thing?
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines maverick as; 2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. I don’t care if John McCain wants to be a maverick in the Republican Party, but I wish he would stop playing fast and loose with WE THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION! John McCain is not the only politician doing this, but he is the political leader of a political party and may wield great influence if elected POTUS. John McCain has shown the American people time and time again, at least politically, he is a man of little character and principle. To continually go against the U.S. Constitution on a whole host of issues, only show us one thing, John McCain doesn’t understand what the Constitution is for or how to uphold, defend, and protect the same outside of the military!
This is the reason why November 4th I will be pulling the leaver for the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. If you listen to Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, they want to lead according to the U.S. Constitution, and bring this country back to its constitutional roots. Chuck Baldwin, when he becomes POTUS, will cut the size of government, including doing away with the IRS. Chuck Baldwin will secure our borders, and bring to this country a more constitutional foreign policy. Chuck Baldwin is a man of character will use the U.S. Constitution as his guiding principle in governing WE THE PEOPLE!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines character as; 2a: one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual. Principle is defined as; 1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct.
Most folks think that a person of character and principle are people who do the right thing, even when no one is watching.
From a military stand point, John McCain is a man of character and principle. He proved it over and over again when he was a POW in Viet Nam. There is no one I would rather be with in a military pinch, than John McCain. Mr. McCain showed he is a man of the highest character and principle when it comes to being a military man.
From a political stand point, John McCain is on shaky ground, when it comes to character and principle. Let me make this point clear, when John McCain was in the military he adhered to the UCMJ, and lived by a code of honor few Americans have experienced or understand. In John McCain’s political life, he has proven time and time again, he does not adhere to a code you can put your finger on. As an American, we live in a constitutional republic, and have a constitution that we need to live under and adhere to. Time and time again John McCain has refused to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, something that He and I both swore an oath to uphold, defend and protect. I’m not a combat veteran, but I served our country honorably for 4 years in the U.S. Navy, and 3 years in the PA Army National Guard.
McCain co-authored a campaign-finance reform bill that angered advocacy groups on the right and the left. He co-authored cap and trade carbon legislation with then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain angered the GOP base last year when he championed an amnesty bill that would have set up a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The bill bombed, and rightly so, but not before McCain insulted almost every critic of the bill. If you look at most of the legislation either sponsored or co-sponsored by John McCain, you don’t see much of the U.S. Constitution. When did our law makers stop considering if a bill was constitutional or not? When did being a maverick where the constitution is concerned a good thing?
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines maverick as; 2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. I don’t care if John McCain wants to be a maverick in the Republican Party, but I wish he would stop playing fast and loose with WE THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION! John McCain is not the only politician doing this, but he is the political leader of a political party and may wield great influence if elected POTUS. John McCain has shown the American people time and time again, at least politically, he is a man of little character and principle. To continually go against the U.S. Constitution on a whole host of issues, only show us one thing, John McCain doesn’t understand what the Constitution is for or how to uphold, defend, and protect the same outside of the military!
This is the reason why November 4th I will be pulling the leaver for the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. If you listen to Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, they want to lead according to the U.S. Constitution, and bring this country back to its constitutional roots. Chuck Baldwin, when he becomes POTUS, will cut the size of government, including doing away with the IRS. Chuck Baldwin will secure our borders, and bring to this country a more constitutional foreign policy. Chuck Baldwin is a man of character will use the U.S. Constitution as his guiding principle in governing WE THE PEOPLE!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Friday, September 5, 2008
What does, environmentalism, communism, secular humanism, and moral relativism have in common? Force
By Dan Clements
September 1, 2008
Every “ism” I mentioned in the title of this article has one thing in common, Force. I’m a person who doesn’t react well when someone tries to force me to do something. When I was a young lad in school, every now and again a bully tried to force me to do something, usually something that I didn’t wan to do. And for the most part it turned out badly, for the bully in the end. Either I would handle the situation on my own, or friends would step in and help. Either way, the bully was stopped and life moved on.
I’m no different today. When someone tries to bully me, more times then not I push back. I’m not talking about physical intimidation; I’m talking about intellectual intimidation. Don’t squirt me with a hose and then try to tell me it’s raining, that dog won’t hunt.
In order for the “ism’s” to accomplish their goals, they need to force its agenda on an uneducated, unsuspecting populace. They work on peoples emotions and fears by telling them half truths and out right lies. They tell them that the earth will burn up, freeze, or just outright not support life anymore as we know it, without offering any proven facts to back up their arguments.
They tell the people that the only way they can live meaningful lives is for the government to control every aspect of their lives, and yet have very little controls placed on their own lives.
They tell the people that there is no God and try to use science and superior human intellect to deny the evidence that is right in front of them.
They tell you there are no moral absolutes. Oh really? They try to convince the people there are no black and white in moral issues, only shades of gray, except when something bad happens to them.
And how do they do this? One way is to keep the people so busy working or playing, they don’t seem to have the time to keep themselves informed. Either we are working till sometime in July to pay all the taxes we owe every level of government, or we are in debt up to our eyeballs and have no spare time, because we are working two jobs. And then when we do have some spare time, we can’t think about anything else except or own self indulgences we use as an escape from reality, so we can get through our jobs until our next time off. What a circle of life we have.
And if some how we do find time to try to inform ourselves, the Lamestream media is to busy kissing up to the cause of the moment, to properly inform the people on all aspects of an issue, and letting them decide for themselves what to think. God forbid.
We have an education system that is designed to keep people on the lower end of the intelligence scale, because we are to worried about whether little Johnny, or Susie are going to complete a senior project for graduation, instead of making sure they know the three “R’s”, government, economics, and self reliance. It doesn’t take a village to build a healthy society; it takes individuals well grounded in truth, facts and reason to make the society healthy.
The proponents of the “ism’s” have only one tool to move their agenda forward in the face of fact, truth, and reason and that’s force. It comes in the form of intellectual intimidation, judicial legislation, or out right brute force of arms.
Secular humanism and moral relativism use intellectual intimidation to move forward. Just because someone has a degree hanging on their wall doesn’t mean they are wise or intelligent, only that they are educated. Wisdom and intelligence come with time and experience. They try to use their education to prove they are right without providing any facts or evidence to prove their arguments.
Environmentalist and communist are cut from the same cloth. Oh the environmental movement may have started out with lofty goals and ambitions, but when the communist saw a way to try and control people through environmental reforms, they couldn’t line up fast enough. There is entirely too much liberty and freedom going on out there, and what better way to control people, fear. Fear is a big motivating factor. If they had my event in the Olympics, I would win it hands down every time. The event would be the 100 yard dash in a total blind panic. Once you make people afraid of something, the easier it is to force them to do something about it. People don’t think when they are afraid, they only react.
Tell people whatever it takes to make then afraid, an environmental crisis, a corrupt government out to take over your country or your life, a false religion killing people and remaking countries in their own twisted ideology, rouge corporations making to much profit yada yada yada. You get the picture.
The only defense against “isms” is knowledge. I not talking about any old run of the mill knowledge, I’m talking about knowledge grounded in fact and truth. This type of knowledge only comes with effort and hard work. This type of knowledge only comes from employing logic to the arguments that are presented to us by those who seek to control us. Don’t ever except what I say at face value. Contrary to popular belief, I do make mistakes and can be wrong, and I’m secure enough in my conservatism to admit that.
When you here or read something, no matter what the subject, especially when it comes to politics ask questions. Don’t be afraid to hurt someone’s feelings by asking them questions. If the person you are asking the question of, is truly intelligent and wise, they will not hesitate to explain their position, and give you facts and truth to back up their position. How ever, if the person you ask a question of evades the question, or better yet gives you a non answer, be afraid of what comes next from that person. Honest, truthful, caring people will always take time to lay out their arguments so anyone can understand the argument and come away from the encounter better informed.
The only way the “isms” can survive? We the People keep ourselves ignorant. True and factual knowledge is power and people who want to control other people will do anything in their power to keep people like mushrooms, in the dark and full of manure!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
September 1, 2008
Every “ism” I mentioned in the title of this article has one thing in common, Force. I’m a person who doesn’t react well when someone tries to force me to do something. When I was a young lad in school, every now and again a bully tried to force me to do something, usually something that I didn’t wan to do. And for the most part it turned out badly, for the bully in the end. Either I would handle the situation on my own, or friends would step in and help. Either way, the bully was stopped and life moved on.
I’m no different today. When someone tries to bully me, more times then not I push back. I’m not talking about physical intimidation; I’m talking about intellectual intimidation. Don’t squirt me with a hose and then try to tell me it’s raining, that dog won’t hunt.
In order for the “ism’s” to accomplish their goals, they need to force its agenda on an uneducated, unsuspecting populace. They work on peoples emotions and fears by telling them half truths and out right lies. They tell them that the earth will burn up, freeze, or just outright not support life anymore as we know it, without offering any proven facts to back up their arguments.
They tell the people that the only way they can live meaningful lives is for the government to control every aspect of their lives, and yet have very little controls placed on their own lives.
They tell the people that there is no God and try to use science and superior human intellect to deny the evidence that is right in front of them.
They tell you there are no moral absolutes. Oh really? They try to convince the people there are no black and white in moral issues, only shades of gray, except when something bad happens to them.
And how do they do this? One way is to keep the people so busy working or playing, they don’t seem to have the time to keep themselves informed. Either we are working till sometime in July to pay all the taxes we owe every level of government, or we are in debt up to our eyeballs and have no spare time, because we are working two jobs. And then when we do have some spare time, we can’t think about anything else except or own self indulgences we use as an escape from reality, so we can get through our jobs until our next time off. What a circle of life we have.
And if some how we do find time to try to inform ourselves, the Lamestream media is to busy kissing up to the cause of the moment, to properly inform the people on all aspects of an issue, and letting them decide for themselves what to think. God forbid.
We have an education system that is designed to keep people on the lower end of the intelligence scale, because we are to worried about whether little Johnny, or Susie are going to complete a senior project for graduation, instead of making sure they know the three “R’s”, government, economics, and self reliance. It doesn’t take a village to build a healthy society; it takes individuals well grounded in truth, facts and reason to make the society healthy.
The proponents of the “ism’s” have only one tool to move their agenda forward in the face of fact, truth, and reason and that’s force. It comes in the form of intellectual intimidation, judicial legislation, or out right brute force of arms.
Secular humanism and moral relativism use intellectual intimidation to move forward. Just because someone has a degree hanging on their wall doesn’t mean they are wise or intelligent, only that they are educated. Wisdom and intelligence come with time and experience. They try to use their education to prove they are right without providing any facts or evidence to prove their arguments.
Environmentalist and communist are cut from the same cloth. Oh the environmental movement may have started out with lofty goals and ambitions, but when the communist saw a way to try and control people through environmental reforms, they couldn’t line up fast enough. There is entirely too much liberty and freedom going on out there, and what better way to control people, fear. Fear is a big motivating factor. If they had my event in the Olympics, I would win it hands down every time. The event would be the 100 yard dash in a total blind panic. Once you make people afraid of something, the easier it is to force them to do something about it. People don’t think when they are afraid, they only react.
Tell people whatever it takes to make then afraid, an environmental crisis, a corrupt government out to take over your country or your life, a false religion killing people and remaking countries in their own twisted ideology, rouge corporations making to much profit yada yada yada. You get the picture.
The only defense against “isms” is knowledge. I not talking about any old run of the mill knowledge, I’m talking about knowledge grounded in fact and truth. This type of knowledge only comes with effort and hard work. This type of knowledge only comes from employing logic to the arguments that are presented to us by those who seek to control us. Don’t ever except what I say at face value. Contrary to popular belief, I do make mistakes and can be wrong, and I’m secure enough in my conservatism to admit that.
When you here or read something, no matter what the subject, especially when it comes to politics ask questions. Don’t be afraid to hurt someone’s feelings by asking them questions. If the person you are asking the question of, is truly intelligent and wise, they will not hesitate to explain their position, and give you facts and truth to back up their position. How ever, if the person you ask a question of evades the question, or better yet gives you a non answer, be afraid of what comes next from that person. Honest, truthful, caring people will always take time to lay out their arguments so anyone can understand the argument and come away from the encounter better informed.
The only way the “isms” can survive? We the People keep ourselves ignorant. True and factual knowledge is power and people who want to control other people will do anything in their power to keep people like mushrooms, in the dark and full of manure!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Monday, June 30, 2008
Abortion is health care?
By: Dan Clements
The argument about abortion has hit a new low at least were I’m concerned. Abortion is health care? What is there about carrying a baby to term is unhealthy for a woman? What percentage of woman is risking their health by carrying a baby to term? According to the Guttmacher Institute, nationwide about 7.14% of abortions are sought for health reasons. That means 92.86% of pregnant woman are choosing abortion for reasons other than health.
I have just been reading an article about liberty and equality. Liberty: The Other Equality (Roderick T. Long). The article talks about three different types of equality; socioeconomic, law, and authority. The first two presuppose that that the people that are administering equality are benevolent and have the people’s best interest at heart. The third, one states that we all have the same authority over our own liberty. I prescribe to this form of liberty. In America no one can take my authority or liberty unless I give it up! I may forfeit my liberty through an unlawful act, but in the final analysis, it was my choice to break the law and I must face the consequences for my actions.
The unborn child has the same authority in regards to liberty as I have, or the mother has. No one except the child can relinquish that authority, and the U.S. Constitution was put in place to protect life, liberty! Although we as parents are the guardians of our children’s liberty, we cannot forfeit that liberty for them under any circumstance, nor usurp their authority when it comes to their liberty. This is not to say the child is not under subjection to their parents until the legal age of accountability. This subjection is a benevolent dictatorship in my house, where the rule is “my house my rule.” The subjection in my house is limited to what the child can do, not who they can be. I emphasize what they “can be”, that means I allow them the freedom to become what they want, not what I want.
In a free country, people are given the freedom to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, as long as that freedom doesn’t take away from someone else’s freedom or liberty. Equality of authority is the only way we can truly be a free people. I don’t have the authority to take someone’s life or property. Nobody in these United States has the authority to take something from me by using the government as the means to do so. In the same manner government can not legalize abortion, because that would be usurping the authority of someone else without their permission!
If we really want to be a free people and become again the America our founding fathers envisioned, then we need to, as a self governing people, take back from the government and from wrong thinking citizens, OUR AUTHORITY, OUR LIBERTY AND GIVE BACK TO THE UNBORN THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO THE SAME!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
The argument about abortion has hit a new low at least were I’m concerned. Abortion is health care? What is there about carrying a baby to term is unhealthy for a woman? What percentage of woman is risking their health by carrying a baby to term? According to the Guttmacher Institute, nationwide about 7.14% of abortions are sought for health reasons. That means 92.86% of pregnant woman are choosing abortion for reasons other than health.
I have just been reading an article about liberty and equality. Liberty: The Other Equality (Roderick T. Long). The article talks about three different types of equality; socioeconomic, law, and authority. The first two presuppose that that the people that are administering equality are benevolent and have the people’s best interest at heart. The third, one states that we all have the same authority over our own liberty. I prescribe to this form of liberty. In America no one can take my authority or liberty unless I give it up! I may forfeit my liberty through an unlawful act, but in the final analysis, it was my choice to break the law and I must face the consequences for my actions.
The unborn child has the same authority in regards to liberty as I have, or the mother has. No one except the child can relinquish that authority, and the U.S. Constitution was put in place to protect life, liberty! Although we as parents are the guardians of our children’s liberty, we cannot forfeit that liberty for them under any circumstance, nor usurp their authority when it comes to their liberty. This is not to say the child is not under subjection to their parents until the legal age of accountability. This subjection is a benevolent dictatorship in my house, where the rule is “my house my rule.” The subjection in my house is limited to what the child can do, not who they can be. I emphasize what they “can be”, that means I allow them the freedom to become what they want, not what I want.
In a free country, people are given the freedom to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, as long as that freedom doesn’t take away from someone else’s freedom or liberty. Equality of authority is the only way we can truly be a free people. I don’t have the authority to take someone’s life or property. Nobody in these United States has the authority to take something from me by using the government as the means to do so. In the same manner government can not legalize abortion, because that would be usurping the authority of someone else without their permission!
If we really want to be a free people and become again the America our founding fathers envisioned, then we need to, as a self governing people, take back from the government and from wrong thinking citizens, OUR AUTHORITY, OUR LIBERTY AND GIVE BACK TO THE UNBORN THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO THE SAME!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Serve or be served?
By Dan Clements
The 2008 election season is in full swing. The Lamestream media has its two big box party nominees in place, and all is right with the world. We can all just go about our business as usual and know that we are going to be served by the best people possible. Right?
Let take a look at that for a minute. Who is serving who? If you look at the Obama campaign, it’s not we the people. You can look at any major issue facing the American people today, and you will not find one solution from the Obama camp that does not pander to a special interest groups, violates the U.S. Constitution, or take and usurp more of our freedoms and liberties!
When it comes to the economy, Obama doesn’t have clue one how a FREE market economy works, nor even how to find out how a FREE market economy works. Or maybe more to the point doesn’t care! He wants to tax achievement and success through windfall profits tax on oil companies. Obama either doesn’t know or care that WE THE PEOPLE own these PUBLICLY TRADED companies and the only ones that will be hurt are WE THE PEOPLE! Obama panders to the “Green Mafia” who are communist in disguise, and want only to bring down America so they can be in charge.
Obama, if elected, wants to nationalize as much of the nation as he can get away with. The sad part about this is, that a lot of Americans will let him get away with this, because of how effective the Liberal Social Fascist in our government have duped the public into letting them take care of them. Some Americans have become so lazy and don’t want to take care of themselves, that they have allowed the government to be their nanny. It is so bad, that if you suggest that people take care of themselves they are scared into compliance by the LSF’s on the premise that they will lose all that they have. Thing is, Americans that live off of the government largesse, have already lost what it means to be truly American.
Immigration, national security, healthcare, judicial appointments, states rights, and the list goes on, you fill in the blank, all these issues if elected, Obama will do the will of the special interest groups and the DNC under the guise doing it for the people.
And let’s not forget McCain. John McCain is the very definition of RINO. If McCain is a conservative, then I’m the pope! McCain admits to not knowing much about the economy, and from what I have seen and heard, he doesn’t know much about the U.S. Constitution either. McCain wants to give $300 million to someone for inventing a new battery for cars. Where is he going to get that money from, the Chinese? That’s the only place, because we are broke as a nation. If elected, there is no guarantee that McCain will not cave into the LSF’s in congress and be just as liberal as Obama! The Democrats have a seat with his name on it on their side of the isle, so he can rest his feet when he is over their. McCain needs a few lessons in FREE market economies also.
There is only one clear choice for POTUS, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Chuck understands the role of government, the FREE markets, the U.S. Constitution, and WE THE PEOPLE in making America great! Chuck gets it when we talk about limited, constitutional government. How we the people are in charge and not the politicians we send to Washington D.C. We need to take our government back from the special interest groups and the LSF that permeate the lives of OUR elected officials.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
The 2008 election season is in full swing. The Lamestream media has its two big box party nominees in place, and all is right with the world. We can all just go about our business as usual and know that we are going to be served by the best people possible. Right?
Let take a look at that for a minute. Who is serving who? If you look at the Obama campaign, it’s not we the people. You can look at any major issue facing the American people today, and you will not find one solution from the Obama camp that does not pander to a special interest groups, violates the U.S. Constitution, or take and usurp more of our freedoms and liberties!
When it comes to the economy, Obama doesn’t have clue one how a FREE market economy works, nor even how to find out how a FREE market economy works. Or maybe more to the point doesn’t care! He wants to tax achievement and success through windfall profits tax on oil companies. Obama either doesn’t know or care that WE THE PEOPLE own these PUBLICLY TRADED companies and the only ones that will be hurt are WE THE PEOPLE! Obama panders to the “Green Mafia” who are communist in disguise, and want only to bring down America so they can be in charge.
Obama, if elected, wants to nationalize as much of the nation as he can get away with. The sad part about this is, that a lot of Americans will let him get away with this, because of how effective the Liberal Social Fascist in our government have duped the public into letting them take care of them. Some Americans have become so lazy and don’t want to take care of themselves, that they have allowed the government to be their nanny. It is so bad, that if you suggest that people take care of themselves they are scared into compliance by the LSF’s on the premise that they will lose all that they have. Thing is, Americans that live off of the government largesse, have already lost what it means to be truly American.
Immigration, national security, healthcare, judicial appointments, states rights, and the list goes on, you fill in the blank, all these issues if elected, Obama will do the will of the special interest groups and the DNC under the guise doing it for the people.
And let’s not forget McCain. John McCain is the very definition of RINO. If McCain is a conservative, then I’m the pope! McCain admits to not knowing much about the economy, and from what I have seen and heard, he doesn’t know much about the U.S. Constitution either. McCain wants to give $300 million to someone for inventing a new battery for cars. Where is he going to get that money from, the Chinese? That’s the only place, because we are broke as a nation. If elected, there is no guarantee that McCain will not cave into the LSF’s in congress and be just as liberal as Obama! The Democrats have a seat with his name on it on their side of the isle, so he can rest his feet when he is over their. McCain needs a few lessons in FREE market economies also.
There is only one clear choice for POTUS, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Chuck understands the role of government, the FREE markets, the U.S. Constitution, and WE THE PEOPLE in making America great! Chuck gets it when we talk about limited, constitutional government. How we the people are in charge and not the politicians we send to Washington D.C. We need to take our government back from the special interest groups and the LSF that permeate the lives of OUR elected officials.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Monday, May 12, 2008
SHOULD WE USE RONALD REAGAN AS THE YARDSTICK?
BY: DAN CLEMENTS
Speculation has been flying around about whom John McCain will pick as VP? And pundits have been saying that he needs to pick someone that is more like Ronald Reagan so he can capture more of the conservative Republican vote.
Even though Ronald Reagan was the first president I voted for, and he was the most conservative politician to come down the pike for a long time, we still should not compare our politicians today to any politician of the past. Why? Because the bar set by politicians keep changing. The Republican Party is no longer the home of true conservatives and Ronald Reagan would not recognize it today as the same party he fought for through the 70’s and into the 80’s. The reason I’m picking on the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party is, the Democrat Party left conservatism behind around Woodrow Wilson’s presidency and never looked back. The Republican Party for many years had touted that they where the home of conservatism and the ideas of smaller government.
This Presidential election cycle has shown the true nature of the Republican Party. In my short political life of 28 years, I have never seen a more liberal slate of politicians run for the supposed conservative Republican Party! The only ones who even came close to being conservative where, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and possibly Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, are the most liberal Republicans I have ever seen. And you ask how I came to this conclusion? I have compared them the U.S. Constitution and the founding documents of this country and found them wanting (not the documents but the men). Ron Paul was the only one running that is the true conservative, because he used the U.S. Constitution as his standard and guide. But Ron Paul will not give up his standing in the Republican Party and run on a third party ticket, what a waste!
The Constitution Party picked its presidential nominee April 26th, Chuck Baldwin.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on Chuck Baldwin:
In 1980 and 1984, Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to carry the state for the Reagan-Bush electors. He claims to have played a major part in the registration of some fifty thousand Christian conservative voters. In 2000, however, he vacated the Republican Party on grounds that the Bush-Cheney ticket was too liberal.
In the 2004 presidential election, Baldwin was Michael Peroutka's running mate and candidate for Vice President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The two ran on a platform of "God, Family, and the Republic." The Peroutka/Baldwin campaign publicly spoke out against abortion,[3] women in the military,[4] and the Iraq War.[5]
Baldwin considers Bush roughly equivalent to national Democrats. In 2006, he voted in favor of disaffiliating the Independent American Party of Nevada from the Constitution Party.[6]
Baldwin effectively endorsed U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the 2008 presidential election in a column on August 30, 2007, entitled "Conservative Republicans have only one choice",[7] having declared: "Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal." On December 19, 2007 he released a video officially endorsing Congressman Paul.[8]
Baldwin has written specifically against the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudolph Giuliani. Prior to the death of the Reverend Falwell in 2007, Baldwin had criticized his old mentor for having supported official Republican nominees in general elections regardless of the candidates' positions on issues vital to conservatives. He decried Falwell's past affiliation with George W. Bush. Jonathan Falwell, Jerry Falwell's heir as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, meanwhile, endorsed Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination, another candidate that Baldwin strongly repudiated. Baldwin is known as a staunch opponent of what he calls the "new world order" and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On December 7, 2007, Baldwin issued this statement in a column:
Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nations--and their own--survival.[9]
By any measure of conservatism, Chuck Baldwin has it in abundance. When we use the U.S. Constitution as our yardstick, there is only one clear choice for POTUS that is Chuck Baldwin and his VP Darrel Castle. Please go and read the Constitution Party platform. Measure our party’s platform against the U.S. Constitution and see if we don’t measure up as a party and our nominees as individuals.
So this November when you go to the voting booth, don’t throw your vote away on the two big box party’s. Don’t vote because you are against something, or you are picking the lesser of two evils. Vote because you stand for the Constitution of the United States, and those who want to uphold it, and bring this country back to its constitutional roots!!!!!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Speculation has been flying around about whom John McCain will pick as VP? And pundits have been saying that he needs to pick someone that is more like Ronald Reagan so he can capture more of the conservative Republican vote.
Even though Ronald Reagan was the first president I voted for, and he was the most conservative politician to come down the pike for a long time, we still should not compare our politicians today to any politician of the past. Why? Because the bar set by politicians keep changing. The Republican Party is no longer the home of true conservatives and Ronald Reagan would not recognize it today as the same party he fought for through the 70’s and into the 80’s. The reason I’m picking on the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party is, the Democrat Party left conservatism behind around Woodrow Wilson’s presidency and never looked back. The Republican Party for many years had touted that they where the home of conservatism and the ideas of smaller government.
This Presidential election cycle has shown the true nature of the Republican Party. In my short political life of 28 years, I have never seen a more liberal slate of politicians run for the supposed conservative Republican Party! The only ones who even came close to being conservative where, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and possibly Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, are the most liberal Republicans I have ever seen. And you ask how I came to this conclusion? I have compared them the U.S. Constitution and the founding documents of this country and found them wanting (not the documents but the men). Ron Paul was the only one running that is the true conservative, because he used the U.S. Constitution as his standard and guide. But Ron Paul will not give up his standing in the Republican Party and run on a third party ticket, what a waste!
The Constitution Party picked its presidential nominee April 26th, Chuck Baldwin.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on Chuck Baldwin:
In 1980 and 1984, Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to carry the state for the Reagan-Bush electors. He claims to have played a major part in the registration of some fifty thousand Christian conservative voters. In 2000, however, he vacated the Republican Party on grounds that the Bush-Cheney ticket was too liberal.
In the 2004 presidential election, Baldwin was Michael Peroutka's running mate and candidate for Vice President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The two ran on a platform of "God, Family, and the Republic." The Peroutka/Baldwin campaign publicly spoke out against abortion,[3] women in the military,[4] and the Iraq War.[5]
Baldwin considers Bush roughly equivalent to national Democrats. In 2006, he voted in favor of disaffiliating the Independent American Party of Nevada from the Constitution Party.[6]
Baldwin effectively endorsed U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the 2008 presidential election in a column on August 30, 2007, entitled "Conservative Republicans have only one choice",[7] having declared: "Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal." On December 19, 2007 he released a video officially endorsing Congressman Paul.[8]
Baldwin has written specifically against the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudolph Giuliani. Prior to the death of the Reverend Falwell in 2007, Baldwin had criticized his old mentor for having supported official Republican nominees in general elections regardless of the candidates' positions on issues vital to conservatives. He decried Falwell's past affiliation with George W. Bush. Jonathan Falwell, Jerry Falwell's heir as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, meanwhile, endorsed Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination, another candidate that Baldwin strongly repudiated. Baldwin is known as a staunch opponent of what he calls the "new world order" and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On December 7, 2007, Baldwin issued this statement in a column:
Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nations--and their own--survival.[9]
By any measure of conservatism, Chuck Baldwin has it in abundance. When we use the U.S. Constitution as our yardstick, there is only one clear choice for POTUS that is Chuck Baldwin and his VP Darrel Castle. Please go and read the Constitution Party platform. Measure our party’s platform against the U.S. Constitution and see if we don’t measure up as a party and our nominees as individuals.
So this November when you go to the voting booth, don’t throw your vote away on the two big box party’s. Don’t vote because you are against something, or you are picking the lesser of two evils. Vote because you stand for the Constitution of the United States, and those who want to uphold it, and bring this country back to its constitutional roots!!!!!
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
DON’T BLAME THE SYSTEM!
BY: DAN CLEMENTS
There has been a lot in the news lately about the Democrat presidential primaries. With the nomination going the convention with no clear winner, it looks like it will be a hot time in the old convention. Let’s not forget about
But they see nothing wrong with the Lamestream media picking favorites in the Republican primaries and influencing voters. Grandma always said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
Liberal pundits or using this primary season to try to promote the National popular Vote. This is an attempt to do away with the Electoral
Wikipedia’s definition of the Electoral college is:
The United States Electoral
Liberals have no problem using this system to determine a nominee, except when they think the system has been corrupted, (I.E. Operation Chaos). "We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?'" said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. "I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office."
The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral
This kind of end run is necessary because the only way to get rid of the Electoral
These last few paragraphs were taken straight from the National Popular vote website. The liberals that support this are only showing there contempt for the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if you can’t do things the right way (I.E. the amendment process) then let’s do an end run around the U.S. Constitution.
The beauty that is the Electoral
So don’t blame the system if you can’t win under the system. Primaries and general elections are for the candidates and the support system they have in place to win or loose. If it becomes a close race and there are recounts, don’t blame the system!
The U.S. Constitution was implemented to protect not only the individual from an overreaching government, but also to give a voice to those states who may be in the minority, populationaly speaking!
M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
THE SECOND AMENDMENT: TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT
By: Dan Clements
When reading anything, we must employ a hermeneutic. Usually we do this on the fly as we read. The most simple hermeneutic is who, what, when, where, why, and how. The one I use to study the Bible or an historical text is; lexical-syntactical, historical/cultural, contextual, theological (for my bible study), special literary methods. In order to be faithful to the word of God, I must read, study and understand Gods word the way God wants it understood. In order to do this I must have a logical method to employ so as not to misunderstand God’s word. We must look at the U.S. Constitution in the same way.
Our founding fathers laid out the Constitution while we were still under Articles of Confederation. We had a form of government that the founding fathers thought would not last long or provide for the safeguards that they sought to protect the people and the nation. So the republic was born.
In the preamble of the Constitution the first words are “We the People.” No where on earth and in no other time in history has a group of people come together with the Idea that the “people” were the supreme authority! That the power of government was granted by the people, and the people have the right and duty to control or change the government as they see fit under the constraints of the Constitution.
The ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and the Federalists Papers, were and still are foreign to most people and governments around the world. And unfortunately they are foreign to a lot of Americans. It saddens me that more Americans do not take the study of our founding documents more seriously. It is hard to say if the lack of understanding is intentional or just laziness on the part of the people.
Social/fascist, don’t like the U.S. Constitution, because it puts the power where it belongs, in the hands of the people. The LSF (liberal, socialist, fascist) in this country and that populate the higher echelons of the Democrat party and higher learning, think that the common citizens of this country are not smart enough to govern themselves, so they try to take away the every powers the U.S. Constitution protects, namely, THE BILL OF RIGHTS. We the People should never ever forget that we grant the
The second amendment is one of the first amendments that need to go under fascism. The right of the people to defend themselves, their families and their possessions from individuals or governments is fundamental to freedom.
Here are some quotes from our founding fathers I found on guncite.com:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The
Did you read the words of two of our founding fathers? Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. Sound familiar? Does this sound like the 1920’s and 30’s! This is what happened in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The people were disarmed, and once this takes place, the last check and balance on the government is gone and freedom is soon to follow!
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The right to bear arms is an American birthright? You bet it is and much more. Mr. Coxe understood that governments are only as moral as the men and eventually woman, populating government and bureaucracies are. It seems to me that the LSF’s in this country forget that our military is made up of freedom loving volunteers, who understand the cost of freedom and how to hold onto it. For the LSF’s to think for one moment that the American fighting soldier would turn their weapons on freedom loving Americans, who are only exercising their God given right to defend themselves, they are sadly mistaken. Ever hear of unlawful orders? Soldiers take and oath; I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD. Do you read anywhere in that oath to protect and defend the government? No, it states the protection is of the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic! The U.S. Constitution sets up how the government shall govern. If at some point the government no longer governs according to the U.S. Constitution, we as American citizens can change that government back to it’s Constitutional foundations.
Too many people in this country have let the government do pretty much what it wants without regard to the Constitution. You can not make any laws that tries to take away the fundamental rights of the people, because the people are the supreme power that gives the authority to be governed and therefore the right to bear arms precedes government, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that we as American citizens enjoy and will jealously defend.
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan from 9am-Noont EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Conservatism is Relative!
By: Dan Clements 02/09/2008
As most of my listeners know I have been a member of the Constitution Party for almost six months. I did not come by this decision easy or lightly. I had been a Republican since I was 18 years old and supported the party until last September. Ever since Ronald Reagan left office, I believe the party has been redefined and pushed to the left. In this election season more than any other I have been through, the Republican Party does not have a clear conservative choice to vote for. Of all the Republican candidates, only Ron Paul can be called conservative, yet he was vilified by both mainstream political parties and the pompous mainstream press.
The question that needs to be asked is; how has our country gotten so far off course that someone who lives and votes according to the Constitution (Ron Paul) can be considered a kook or out of the mainstream. Has the country finally forgotten its Constitutional roots? Are we letting the LSF (liberal, social, fascist) have free rein in our country to the point that the Constitution doesn’t mean anything anymore? Are our politicians so power hungry that they will say and do anything just to obtain power? Have We the People become to lazy to govern ourselves? Do we even care what happens to our country anymore? Are we so self-absorbed that we don’t make sure that the people we put in office adhere to their oath of office?
As I thought about this article, it is clear that the term conservative has taken on a whole new meaning, even by conservatives. As a conservative, how do you define the term and apply it to your life? What standard do you use to measure your conservatism? Is it Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater,
Conservatism is relative to what you compare it to. As an American, my only standard can be the Constitution. It is the only document that you and I can use to see if we are conservative or not.
Conservatism defined; 2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
This is a basic definition from Webster dictionary and I submit to you the basis for my definition of conservatism.
We need to return this country back to its Constitutional roots before it’s too late and more drastic measures are needed to correct the present situation.
It is a shame that men like Newt Gingrich don’t seem to define conservatism by the Constitution. In his CPAC speech, Newt was telling the audience that with John McCain, we would only have to fight with him 20% of the time. Oh really? It seems to me that John McCain has been wrong about 75% of the time when it comes to conservative public policy.
And I take umbrage with Mr. Gingrich when he called third party politics dumb. What would you call spending a lot of time and money trying to find out what the American platform is, when all you had to do is look at the Constitution Party platform and see we already knew and stated the American platform. Compare the two platforms, http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=bf4a5257-45e3-4a94-97fc-57e2d7ecb6f9
With the exception that the American Solutions platform wants to give away money to the private sector, the Constitution Party has had it right for a long time now. As an American I must use the U.S. Constitution for my standard in defining conservatism. I can not and will not sit idle while so called conservatives redefine what a conservative is, so they can stay in power or defeat other political parties.
The home of true conservatism is the Constitution Party. We hold the founding documents of this country in high regard, and have stated that on numerous occasions. The founding fathers got it right the first time, with help from God. Yes the Constitution has been amended in the past, and may be in the future, but the process is slow and deliberate so as not to make a mistake, and if one is made it also can be corrected.
In this time in history, I would have to say the Democrat Party at the leadership level has become LSF, the Republican Party is now the party of moderates and compromisers, and the Constitution Party has now become the home of the true conservative.
We the People have a historic opportunity to take back our county through the political process. If we are to adhere to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution; We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the
Words mean things, and we can not in all good conscious let people redefine the term conservative, to meet their needs wants and desires. As far as I’m concerned if you are left of the U.S. Constitution, you’re left of conservatism. Remember conservatism is relative.
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan from 9am-Noont EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)