This saps credibility from the notion that there is any starkly fateful difference between GOP Republicans and Obama-faction Democrats. They are opposite wings of the same elitist faction, flapping in unison as socialism takes flight. … (“Is Republican infighting a bad thing?”)
As I anticipated, “the elitist machinations of the sham party system are predictably moving America toward another false choice between an avowed socialist Democrat and a prevaricating socialist Republican.” Marco Rubio’s endorsement of Mitt Romney kicks off an orchestrated wavelet of “influential” endorsements, signaling an end to the sham competition that culminated in a not very credible “dramatic face-off” between Romney and one of his 2008 cheerleaders, Rick Santorum. After a brief flash of truthfulness in which Santorum admitted that the “choice” between Romney and Obama is a falsehood liable to be fatal to American liberty, the former U.S. senator has dutifully retracted it. Not only will he break out his briefly discarded Romney-for-President pompoms on cue, he manfully allows as how it would be his patriotic duty to consider serving as Romney’s VP if asked to do so.
Read this article at wnd.com ...
Alan Keyes counters 'religious freedom' claim regarding contraceptive mandate
In my WND column last Friday, I pointed out that “every assertion of a fundamental human right necessarily relies in turn upon an assertion about what is right.” Today this fact is more often than not ignored, even by Americans who profess to be ardent defenders of the liberty America’s founders intended to establish and preserve. Madison succinctly summarized the founders’ understanding when he said that “Justice is the end of government, it is the end of civil society. …” But the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the end or aim of the institution of government is to secure God-endowed unalienable rights. (“To secure these rights governments are instituted among men. …”) Justice is thus identified with the security (safe existence) of unalienable rights, because both are identified as the singular end or aim of government. (If A=C and B=C, then A=B.)
This appears even more plainly when we recall that the root of justice (Latin “iustus”) is right (Latin “ius” or “ious”). But in the context of the Declaration’s stated purpose for government, God endows right (i.e., He provides the “income” that establishes it; He determines what goes into it; He is the source of its conceptual substance or meaning). In the Declaration America’s founders declare that the colonies “are, and of right ought to be free and independent States. …” Their free condition is thus identified as a matter or right, a consequence of the substance or meaning which God endows their nature. By invoking their natural right they invoke the authority of the Creator, which is its source and substantiation.
Since the founders’ assertion of freedom invokes the authority of the Creator, the validity of the assertion depends on its conformity with the substance or meaning of right established by that authority. But this dependency has a consequence. It restricts the assertion of freedom within boundaries determined by this conformity to God-endowed right. Freedom is therefore not an unlimited potential for action. The assertion of freedom is valid only for action in conformity with the substance or meaning of right as established (endowed) by the Creator.
By this straightforward logic Abraham Lincoln was bound to conclude that one cannot have the right to do what is wrong. If it is wrong, for instance, to murder innocent people, one cannot claim to do so as a matter of right. If it is wrong, by enslaving them, to violate their God-endowed liberty, one cannot claim to do so as a matter of right.
Read this story at wnd.com ...
… it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments)
Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill. (Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”)
In March, 2009 I posted an article on my blog calling attention to Obama’s “moves to make medical workers ‘Slaves in Conscience.’” Such persecution of conscience was unavoidable once Obama’s commitment to evil principle was armed with the powers of the presidency of the United States. What I wrote in that article is worth rereading now that many Roman Catholics and other Christian people are finally being roused to recognize and act against it:
Catholics and other professing Christians should take note. Except they repent of it, those who voted for Barack Obama surely face grim judgment from the Supreme judge of the World for their enlistment in the electoral army of this paragon of evil. But even before such judgment in the next life, in this life we will all have to suffer the grim consequences of his abandonment of respect for the unalienable rights to life and liberty.
Too bad that, in 2008 and before, so many of these lately roused Christians lost sight of the example of America’s founding generation. It would have instructed them to “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties,” reacting against Obama’s proven commitment to evil principle before “usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise.” Of course such precautionary discernment requires the ability to think and act in terms of principle (i.e., the first beginnings of action). With his characteristically practical wisdom, Christ admonishes us to understand that evil comes “out of the heart” (Matthew 15:19). It originates (as the Creator observes in Genesis 6:5 and 8:21) in the intentions of the heart, which are made manifest in the characteristic thoughts and ideas that reflect the workings of the mind.
With respect to the fundamental issues of moral right, Barack Obama’s rejection of the most fundamental “laws of nature and of nature’s God” has been clear throughout his career, especially in his adamantine commitment to the murder of human posterity, before and after birth. This is why it was a moral atrocity for a university claiming to educate in the tradition of Catholic Christianity to honor Obama after his election. This is why it is morally irrational for professing Christians to support creation of a health-care delivery system dominated by an administration of government scrupulously cleansed of every acknowledgement of the existence and authority of the Creator.
Whatever the outcome of the political tempest being stirred by this latest episode of Obama’s entirely predictable disregard for the rights of conscience, this is only the beginning of the era of persecution.
Read this story at wnd.com ...
He calls on the people to reject elites' 'choice of evils' dilemma
The elitist faction that engineered Barack Obama’s occupation of the White House is clearly determined to overthrow government of, by and for the people founded upon the God-acknowledging principles of America’s Declaration of Independence and established by the Constitution of the United States. Though, at the very least, a large plurality of Americans oppose the elitists’ moral and economic deconstruction of liberty, the results of Florida’s just completed GOP primary vote suggest that, as in 2008, the sham electoral process of the twin-party system will offer them no more than a Machiavellian “choice of evils” in the 2012 general election. They can have Mitt Romney, the proven crypto-socialist former governor of the ailing socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Or they can rely on Newt Gingrich, who frothed with enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler’s literally elitist “Politics of the Third Wave”.
Among other things: Toffler’s writings call for abolition of the United States Constitution and the concept of national sovereignty. Toffler calls for a world government, which will be ruled by technocratic elites. There are entire subchapters in the book titled “the sub-elites” and the “super-elites.” The Third Wave lays out a society similar to Huxley’s Brave New World, but sprinkled with some Republican lingo. Toffler suggests religion should be replaced with loyalty to government and refers to religion in our current system as “cults.” The book describes a society where abortion, homosexuality, and divorce are not only accepted but idolized. After all, Toffler proclaims the need to reduce world population, which the aforementioned would indeed facilitate. Gingrich calls Toffler his mentor, which explains Gingrich’s connection with the militant environmental movement. In 2007, Gingrich wrote … “A Contract with the Earth,” [in which ] Gingrich describes himself as a “green conservative” and states that environmental issues transcend politics and cannot be dealt with using conventional governance.
How can the GOP’s partisan apparatchiks and dutiful talking bobbleheads deadpan the suggestion that either one of these elite faction marionettes represents a conservative alternative?
Read this article at wnd.com ...
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government."