Everyone Has an Opinion and They...

Aw Shucks!

I posted my opinion on my social media page...

And someone said I was wrong!

BUT, their point wasn't about what I said, their response intimated that I was wrong to say it.

What nerve! I was over it, until...

They used the same form of argument (what I call, "the fight for truth") to support a different cause.

***WHAT?!***

Does this person "get it"? I don't think so. And if I said anything...I don't think we'd be friends on social media after that.

So...

Instead, I take up my "pen" (keyboard) to get my thoughts straight and put them out of my mind (literally) and onto the screen.

First, I'll record my 4/30/20 post here (in response to this video):

No arrests were made, thank God.

Do not read the following if you cannot handle [your own] cognitive dissonance:

In my internal monologue, Christians should never have stopped their religious rites. From the beginning there were contrarian epidemiologists who said Do Not Quarantine.

Interestingly, there were epidemiologists (not contrarian) who said We Are Already Too Late to implement mass quarantines.

I really do believe that we are obeying man out of fear (God is not the author of fear), instead of God. God says, "do not forsake gathering together."

'But God, we have livestreaming, video conferencing, and virtual communion!'

"Hmm. You're right. Your virtual obedience will be granted a virtual reward."

Remember, this is my internal monologue...

If this is acceptable, then it will be acceptable if I "virtual church" after the hysteria passes. If that is not acceptable, then why is forsaking gatherings acceptable now?

The science doesn't even support it. I want to be faithful to God and science (immunology). Both say you must have contact to Live.

But my God ordained authorities [civil and religious] say, "stay home." Since I haven't heard of any religious leaders in my area still meeting, I am resigned to unconscionable obedience or unconscionable rebellion.

Though my conscience has been violated, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. So that's worse. Hence my example of obedience from the beginning.

I ask God to break in on my internal monologue: should I move to a state/county where they didn't shut down? Should I move to a denomination that didn't shut down?

It doesn't exist. You can only find small pockets of resistance. Even I'm not resisting, but I am speaking out. Now you know why. Now you know my dissenting opinion.

But I've always been a contrarian. So this is no different. There is no place where this son of Adam can lay his head. Which is why, "here" is as good a place as any to take my stand.

Here I stand, I can do no other. I'm not resisting. It's not in my nature. But I'll not forsake truth.

I think breaking up this funeral to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion. I think quarantining the healthy and forbidding church gatherings to be a violation of the [constitutional right to] free practice of religion and peaceably assemble.

I believe the religious leaders' absolute obedience to the state to be a violation of God's law.

Before anyone tries to break into my internal monologue (which you are obviously free to do as I'm posting this publicly), I will tell you my basis of belief (so you don't have to waste your time).

I believe in the absolute inerrancy, infallibility of the Holy Scriptures as the Words of God. I hold a conservative approach to theology. Thus, I reject modernist interpretations (evolutionary theory, etc). I reject elitist interpretations (new perspective on Paul, etc).

I believe in obedience to authority and in holding our authorities accountable to the truth. No schism; unless they want to take off your head, then maybe schism.

I believe laissez faire is a biblical approach to the civil sphere. So my economics are Austrian (free market), my sociology is conservative.

I hold that most people are scientifically illiterate, to some degree. And those who fashion themselves to be "of science" are like the scientists that Isaac Newton was deathly afraid of (he was neurotic, but they were too political).

There is nothing "settled" in science. What "we know" is really what we believe based on our current understanding. You will always find reputable scientists disagreeing on the correct interpretation of the evidence.

You will always find scientists in politics, who seek to impose their view as the only orthodox position. Sadly this happens in the church too.

If you want to argue, I will always come back to these foundations, because it's why I believe what I believe. I know my "Why", do you know yours?

There were several decent comments and I gave thoughtful responses whether the commenters agreed with me or not.

One comment rubbed me the wrong way.

It has been my experience that, no matter how much you disagree with your bishop, it is best to work to agree with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

I responded:

 It has been my experience that, in order to "work to agree", the disagreement must be clearly stated.

I lack either truth (egregious), understanding (major), or clarity (minor).

Without searching out the matter, your medicine may be prescribed in error.

Without a conversation, how am I to know what I need to repent of?

I have a blog length, stream of conscious response if you're interested. It should be enough to help you understand where I'm at and to properly assess what kind of assistance I may require.

Thank you for your concern and taking the time to comment, I appreciate all feedback, even if I disagree or dislike it. I can only grow from the interactions :)

They did not respond.

Oh well.

I don't know if they lack either the ability or desire to respond. It surely makes it difficult to "speak with my enemies [frenemies, and even friends] in the gates."

I wrote a much longer, stream-of-conscious response that I did not post. I considered making it a blog post, but did not do that either. I thought the short response was better. But, I'll include my longer response here [with minor edits].

What I wanted to say...

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate the sentiment. 

But [your point is] similar to what I was sidestepping when I started attending and joined my current [Anglican Church in North America] ACNA parish. 

Although I didn't abandon my former [Presbyterian Church in America] PCA church or the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] OPC to which I considered myself to be an adherent of. I waited until the Navy moved me from SC to WA, to make the switch.

I would have agonized over leaving if I was a permanent resident in SC and still member of that church.

In consideration of the argument of authority that you brought in, should I go back to the PCA? Should I seek to formally transfer my membership out of the PCA? Does authority mean that I cannot disagree? Is it a silencing? When can I speak out for truth? When can I pursue it without fear of man? Any man?

I'm merely an aspirant [assuming you think I'm ordained, I'm not]. The ordination vows are one of the things that holds me back from relentless pursuit of ordination. My lack of [a Master of Divinity Degree] MDiv is what stops them from pursuing me, so to speak. 

One of the main reasons I left the PCA was my being convinced of paedocommunion. How could I stay and work towards agreement in that case? What about the lack of true Christian discipleship [that I did not get]? Not a lack of desire, but effective implementation. Or is assent merely enough?

I'm good enough at "playing the game" to know that I'm terrible at it and I don't care as much [about that] as I should care. I say, "No, no!" But then I obey anyways. Others say, "Yes, yes!" And get advanced to further their agendas. Who has done the will of the Bishop?

I am obeying. Am I to be silent? If I do not speak/write constructively, the fire in me will burn destructively.

If you can teach me to quench the prophetic spirit, I will follow your advice. I'd rather not carry this burden to [seemingly] feel everyone's pain and [ostensibly] know the truth being withheld from them.

My professional employers to date have tried to snuff it out. But I get the feeling that I can't give up, that I'm not supposed to. It doesn't mean that I'm going to do everything right, it means that I'm going to do what God has created me to do, but I'm willing to be corrected along the way.

How can I incorporate your correction? Can we sharpen iron and get to brass tacks in this matter?

Please don't mistake my questions as resistance. I really want to know. But I go deep into whatever I pursue, so you've got to be patient with my questioning and not take it personal (hard to do, I know).

To let you in on my process, I reduce everything into propositional thinking, if I can. This is why it can be tiring. If I'm wrong to do so--is it wrong for me to have left the independent Baptist Church when I left home for college and attended the OPC? Is it wrong for me to have left behind homophobia, legalism, bullying? No? Then after all that I've left behind in the pursuit of truth, why now have I seriously misstepped? Why is there a tendency among the ordained to mistake [what should be] servant leadership with authoritarian leadership (often in minute [or "seed"] form)?

Why do I notice and why does it bother me so much? And yet, I say nothing. Where is the forum in which I can faithfully express myself? I don't hold self-expression over faithfulness. But neither do I hold faithfulness as a lack of self-expression.

Matthew 18 suggests that if you're correcting me, that you do so privately. And if I resist, that you bring along others to establish the two witnesses requirement of biblical law.

I am not correcting my Bishop or priest [otherwise I'd be violating Matthew 18]. I have seen my priest act in [obedient to God] subversion to the state (according to my understanding), for which I am grateful, but I wasn't going to state it in the [original post] OP, for fear of getting him in trouble. 

More than correcting, I am writing in exasperation. And asking the question, which you did not answer, but instead told me to accept it and seek to agree with it.

I cannot seek to agree with it IF you give me no reasons. I must have the "why?" answered to be able to agree with it, given everything that I know. 

IF I did not post, everyone would think me in alignment. I would be certified "good" even if I [actually] disagreed or did not understand.

Instead, I question, in hopes that my concerns can be addressed, which makes me "bad" and not able to be certified [as "on the team"].

This is how it was in the previous bureaucratic hierarchy that I was employed by. I do not wish for this to be my future once again.

How am I to employ the gifts that God has given me? I'll rear seven boys with the same beliefs, but [to your apparent chagrin] they'll have more courage than I to stand and fight. Unless someone can tell me where I err on my thinking [I won't be changing how I bring them up].

Can you? Will you? I'd love to chat. I have no fear of being absolutely transparent. Either I'm mad or a "true believer". You tell me. Could I know if I was mad?

Everyone tells me I have such great kids, but they don't like to hear how I get the results. [Biblical, I'd say, but others think uncivil.]

Everyone thinks I'm a certain kind of person, but they have no idea as to the internal warfare going on in my [head,] heart and soul. You now have some clue.

Welcome to my internal thought life! Am I right or wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong, I need no reward for where I'm right, that's grace at work. I need Spirit and Christian community to tell me where I'm wrong, so I can continue to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. 

Sadly, [many] people love darkness more than light. I have sought for discipleship within the church and have been let down by those whom I've asked. The church hasn't failed though. My discipleship has happened through their unkind corrections, through internal conviction by the Holy Spirit, and a lot of reading [late] theologians/pastors.

So, while I glean what I can from others, I'm seeking to reestablish a modern catechumenate. One that redeems the totality of the person for Christ. It's scary because I've learned that servant leadership means getting held accountable by those whom you serve!

I drafted this, but did not publish it. Recently however, this person made social media posts that advocate the fight for truth. They essentially made the same point I was trying to make. The only difference is in what social issue they chose to fight for. I suppose they aren't inconsistent with their post. The Bishop would have to disagree with their stance on that social issue, so I'm not accusing them of being inconsistent.

Rather, I'm saying that I can take their posts and seamlessly substitute my social issue for theirs. I am about to quote their posts with my social issue inserted in place of theirs. Here is their 5/28/20 post [with my edits].

I "Loved" what they posted...

As a theologian it is easy to fall into the trap of a [sic] worshipping a God who has become a specimen for examination, dissection, and analysis. A God that lives in a petri dish or in jar of formaldehyde or in a cage next to the other rodentia upon which we subject our experiments only to be left in the lab at the end of the day, apart from the daily messes that our short lives on this spinning ball in a seemingly endless universe is no God at all.

This sort of God stands silent in the face of the atrocities that [the powers of this world] inflict upon [the oppressed] and remains silent as we politicize those atrocities. But this is not the God of Christianity. Yes, our God stood silent in the face of [persecution] and [tyrannical] power and remained silent in the face of [despotic rule] ending in his own execution at the hands of both an oppressive power structure and the zeal of those who lived beneath its foot. But he did so then in our stead...so that we, His people, need not stand silent. His silence before Pilate leading to the cross is the space into which we now speak - not before a Roman Governor but before our own failed systems of power and control [promoted by our states' governors and legislators].

We speak into it neither with lack of self control nor with fear but with purpose. We are not called to speak as oppressors or oppressed, slave or free, jew or greek, male or female but as citizens of a Kingdom in which such atrocities as the [depriving people of their livelihoods] have no place. We speak from a place not of what we are trying to make the world into but from a place of what we believe God is doing, here and now.

We challenge power when power becomes [corrupt] precisely because such power has no place in the world. We challenge zeal when zeal has lost the plot and becomes about [fear-based control] and not justice. Our words are actions, our actions our prayers, [sic] and our prayers, we believe, can change the world.

Let us pray for the soul of [each person deprived of their livelihood] and of all other victims of [state] violence and atrocity...let us pray for our city, our world...and then let us go out into that world as those sent to live in it as it ought to be in opposition to the imperfect and oppressive status quo.

I wish I wrote my original post with such passion! Not really, I would have been seen as too extreme, so my words were more measured. Only because this person wrote in line with the mainstream rhetoric could they write so freely.

Oh that my beliefs walked in silver slippers!

And their 6/5/20 post [with my edits].

Keep writing letters to your various political leaders. Keep making phone calls.

They have [questioned the constitutionality of the lockdowns], but change has still not come to our system of government. Especially important is citizen review for the [governors' executive orders] - where we the people have a say in how we are [governed] and served.

Don't forget to include city officials as well. We need change on a city by city basis too!

So, in response to their improved words (tongue-in-cheek), I will respond as they responded to me.

It has been my experience that, where my bishop has remained silent, so will I. If he is not speaking out against the systems of power, neither will I feel compelled to, though society demands it. No matter how much you disagree with your bishop's silence, it is best to work to align with he who God has made your shepherd. It is what we vowed to do...even if it costs us everything.

Hmm. Not a fan, though I use their words back to them. You can see what Jesus meant when He said, judge not...

For your own judgment will be used against you. If your own words used against you seem to reduce to absurdity, then they were absurd when first uttered. That is my judgment. Please, for my own sanctification, use what judgment I use against me. If I am found wanting, I shall repent.

Go and do likewise.

So what is my point? 

I'm not leveling a charge of inconsistency, but one of justice. It is not just to try to silence me by appealing to a vow which I have not taken. Even if I had, it seems to me that it would still not be just. When we switch the issue to their pet social issue, it becomes glaringly obvious.

They would not stand by in the face of a Bishop that follows society into a violation of social justice. 

Why should I be compelled to follow my Bishop into what I perceive to be a violation of true justice.

I'm not accusing my Bishop of malice. I think there is a discussion to be had, which hasn't happened. I think even if my Bishop agreed with me, the path chosen may still have remained.

Why?

Because discretion is the better part of valor. If enough people in the diocese would feel mislead by a Bishop going against the state, he would be hard pressed to lead them against subtle tyrannies. 

"Live to fight another day," or in this case, live to fight against egregious tyrannies.

Church-State...Christians-Politicians

I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).

What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.

This country needs reform, let alone its prisons.

"Fleming is among more than 1,350 inmates exonerated nationwide in the last 25 years."

Wow, that is heart-breaking. How do we stop wrongly convicting the innocent? Is it better to err on the side of more or less people in prison? Traditionally we say to err on the side of safety...don't assume more people in jail is the "safe" option. We place non-violent "criminals" in prison with violent criminals-literally creating criminals that will surely never leave the US criminal "justice" system. Rehabilitation occurs in the real world, not in lockup with [really] bad people.

Political Groupthink

If you think like we do, you deserve the freedom and liberty to be enslaved by groupthink.

If however you exercise the freedom and liberty to think differently you will be enslaved to the court of public opinion.

Enter Bundy.

His words couldn't be less palatable to contemporary sensibilities...but the question isn't "is he right or wrong?"; the question we should be asking is "does he have the right to think differently?".

Women's Ordination

William Witt's Article Series on Women's Ordination

John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Complementarianism

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE): Free Articles

Big Bad Bureaucracy

Man who never served prison sentence on clerical error awaits fate

So they made a mistake...but in a bureaucracy you can just shift the decimal, or in this case the date to the right and make it "right." Forget about the human element; forget about forgiveness; forget about his family. If they now incarcerate him, it would be a travesty against humanity. The only "slippery slope" is not punishing the bureaucrats who failing at their job would punish a woman and four children for a "clerical error."

The Rise and Fall of the Political Ultra-Rich

The Rise of the Political Ultra-Rich

The most important statement made in this article is the heading of the final paragraph: "How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges." This is the most telling data point of the whole piece. It clues us in to the reality of the situation: the Supreme Court's decision doesn't affect the Rep-Dem stranglehold on political posturing. The writer indicated that there will be a short-term benefit to Reps but that it would only be short, really short.

So in the least pontificated "paragraph" of the article do we find an exquisite exposition of the incredible implications? No. It reads almost as if the article was truncated. It ends abruptly.

So in the spirit of charitable free-lance, allow me to finish the article which was just starting to get good before it got gone.

How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges

Turning to Senate contests, we’re seeing examples of how establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges. In North Carolina, American Crossroads is airing a TV ad for establishment GOPer Tom Tillis highlighting his work for voter ID laws. And in Mississippi, Thad Cochran is using guns and abortion as way to strengthen his conservative bona fides.

But saying that they are merely challenges is to obfuscate the symptoms with the source of those challenges. As indicated earlier in the article, the power of influence is via the power of the dollar, traditionally speaking. However the "Republicans" of today are less traditional. In fact, this is a problem for establishment Democrats as well. The establishment's base of support is dwindling due to changes in the culture, largely brought about by reactionary changes from generation to generation as well as the technological changes that have sparked the information revolution.

The response is revolutionary. What is becoming ever obvious to ordinary citizens is that the bureaucratic machine continues to polarize the public and pander to the politically minded. The establishmentarians fail to realize that the new generation of collective, political activism known broadly as the Tea Party is an idealist, intellectually-grounded, free-thinking, and politically-centrist movement of ideologues that cannot be bought by anachronistic advertising. They deal in the currency of ideas. They are neither republican, nor democrat. They are neither conservative, nor liberal. They desire the one thing that a bureaucratic machine cannot deliver: freedom. And like their forefathers, they are ready to fight for it.

Billions of dollars spent on smear campaigns won't deter the coming tide. If the establishment will not change to suit their constituents, their constituents will change the establishment. The rise of the political ultra-rich is also, paradoxically, the fall of the political ultra-rich.

Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...

Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.

I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant

My crude historical outline of Free-Market thought

Mercantilism gave governments an excuse for privation of their countrysides for the benefit of their "country" or royal coffers. (Terms to google: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV)

Physiocrats or economistes came into existence under authoritarian France. They coined the term laissez faire. They applied the enlightenment ideals of freedom and liberty to economics during a time of growing enlightenment in the culture at large. (Terms to google: Francois Quesnay)

Adam Smith was an intellectual heir to the physiocrats and also English. His Wealth of Nations popularized free market theory. (Terms to google: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)

Carl Menger and others in Austria (I do believe they were also under an authoritarian government) had amazing insights into what really drove the market's pricing of goods: demand. The next generation of Austrian free market economists Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, explained the trade cycle in terms of economic theory thereby discovering the source of the "boom-and-bust" cycle. (Terms to google: supply and demand, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Austrian economics)

Today there is a thriving school of thought call Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute is the de facto headquarters. Some famous or infamous people associated with it are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, et al. (Terms to google: austrian theory of the trade cycle, Murray Rothbard)

To aid in the learning process I am including a list of links to sites promoting liberty in politics and economics:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics."

I also subscribe to GaryNorth.com which is where I get most of my knowledge from. But it costs $15 a month. You can get most of the same information for "free" but you'll have to work harder for it (it'll only cost you time...).

Congressman Ron Paul's website.

Lew Rockwell blog and site.

Constitution Party. I vote for their candidates.

Chuck Baldwin's website (Constitution Party Candidate 2008).

Chalcedon Foundation. A Christian educational organization.

Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul Archives.

Gary North Archives. And his Freebooks website.

If this list isn't daunting enough Google: Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Frederick Hayek, Frederick Bastiat, Adam Smith...

Vote No for those who voted Yes

Find your Representative in the roll call for the vote on the bailout...er, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

My SC Rep Brown is down. Whoever the Democrat running against him may get my vote...

"Nobody really wanted to do this" and yet they did. They didn't want to vote against "their conscience," so they ignored the voters who put them in office. Pardon me!? Honorable Sir/Madam, I am your conscience. You are answerable to me, not Wall Street bankers. But I guess I have no sway with you because I don't pander to you. But I thought you worked for me...

If you (reader) want to make a difference, know that we are in the fight for the long haul.

1. Educate yourself (Google: campaign for liberty, restore the republic, ludvig von mises institute, austrian economics, Christian economics, gary north, ludvig von mises, frederick hayek, carl menger, murray rothbard, laissez faire, austrian theory of the trade cycle, rousas john rushdoony, david chilton, greg bahnsen, ron paul, constitution party, howard phillips, etc.)

2. Stay away from D.C./get involved locally ("All politics is local.").

3. Educate/catechize/indoctrinate your children in the same, thereby perpetuating the growing ranks of freedom lovers (who will do the same, and on and on and on).

Senate roll call vote on the bailout bill.

Senate roll call vote on the bailout amendment.

Update: Gary North's post that inspired my call to arms: A Civics Lesson for Very Slow Learners: American Voters

A small victory for liberty

Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails

Government and the hearts of a people

2 Chronicles 21:11 Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot and led Judah astray.

A government cannot make a nation righteous, but it can lead the people astray. This should be a warning to anyone Christian who may want to get invovled in politics. The state brings only negative sanctions to the nation. The church is to bring the positive sanctions.

Get all the humanitarians out of the government and into the church where they would be more effective (t.i.c.). The Christian in government should have as his priority to prevent/minimize abuses of the tool negative sanctions (a.k.a. "the sword"), but should not be mistaken if he thinks that the state should be used for positive sanctions. Peace will not come by the sword.

CP Email Newsletter; 9/8/08

Rep. Ron Paul Asks Only “Secure Borders” Presidential Candidate to Join His Press Conference:

Chuck Baldwin of Constitution Party to be Joined by Border Agent’s Wife

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) will join former GOP presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul (R-Tex.) at a News Conference at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Baldwin, who joined other constitutionalists at Ron Paul’s “Shadow Convention” on September 2 in Minneapolis, will be joined by Monica Ramos, wife of imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Baldwin has called for the immediate pardon and release of Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for attempting to uphold immigration law.

Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate, invited Chuck Baldwin, the only anti-illegal immigrant amnesty presidential candidate, to the September 10 News Conference. Baldwin, a long-time critic of the open-borders policy,will join concerned Americans attending the annual Hold Their Feet To The Fire Radio Row protest and Lobby Days sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) Congressional Task Force.(www.feettothefire08.com)

Baldwin, a popular political commentator on national TV shows, is a radio talk show host, author of two books, and pastor of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola. Florida. He is the only candidate who received an “EXCELLENT” rating by pro-secure borders group Numbers USA .

The group rated Obama and McCain “abysmal” and rated Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr “bad” on the immigration issue. (http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ImmigrationIssues.pdf)

“The United States government aids and abets illegal criminals, and jails its own law enforcement agents for doing their job. Despite these injustices, both parties controlling our government offer us more of the same with identical pro-amnesty presidential candidates,” Baldwin said.

“Neither Obama nor McCain will end the invasion from the south, nor have they called for the release of our brave border agents. I am the only candidate representing the 75% of Americans who want illegal immigration and amnesty to end.”

In April 2008, Chuck Baldwin was elected by delegates of the nationwide Constitution Party to be their presidential candidate. The CP, founded in 1992, was initially called the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission. It's expected to be on the ballot in almost every state.

____________________________________________________

You can read it online here.

Just further proof that voting "Republican" is a completely wasted vote. Sarah Palin seems to be conservative...Great. What is she going to do when someone else (McCain) gets elected...That's what I thought.

If you want a better political climate in America vote CP, especially if you're a Christian; you won't have to compromise your values for a bowl of porridge.

Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is pretty important to freemen. Re-educate yourself here and here.

It is not a good thing to suspend petitions of Habeas Corpus. What is true about presidents who suspend this "Great Writ?" What is true is that liberty is not their primary concern.

Old Abe was one of those president's who suspended that Great Writ. Here is a book that seeks to re-educate people on why suspension of said law is/was a bad thing and to explain the sort of person who would do such a thing.

Thoughts on Liberty

What is freedom? Is there anyone truly free? It is a question of perspective really. I am not talking about determinism and human free will; I am referring instead to ascription of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is an inescapable concept. It is not a question of "sovereignty or no sovereignty?" but of "who is sovereign?". To the religious, God (or a god) is sovereign. To the atheist, man is sovereign. And in turn, in the modern state, the state is sovereign.

So according to this, there is no freedom. Choices may be made however. You may choose to serve God, man, the state or anything else vying for control over you. I prefer to serve a benevolent dictator. Man and the state rarely prove themselves as such therefore I find myself in service to God. Man and the state will not show benevolence. They are extreme, intolerant, and have the insatiable craving to run other men's lives.

Check out the this article. Great Britain will destroy itself due to destroying freedoms...That is, unless heavy intervention takes place to prevent the natural course of society, tampering with men's freedoms to serve God will remove incentive to build a lasting civilization.

Read 1984 and Brave New World. These books show two very different (though not unlike) conceptions of where the ruthlessness of man will lead him when ascribes all sovereignty to himself (or the state by extension).

Conclusion: If you want to be free to serve God you must resist evil in all its forms. Evil in personal piety, evil in public society, evil in the church (the fabric of society) and evil in office over society all must equally be dealt with.

Re:Re:Letter to My Friend

"Well, I’m back and forth. My only concern is that McCain may have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. I may end up voting Const. party anyway, but what would you say about the justice appointment issue? Do you not believe that McCain would do that, or would you just say that on other issues, McCain’s positions are bad, so though a judge may be pro-life, he may also be anti-liberty, and any compromise on any issue is enough to reject him?"

I wouldn't make my decision for support on one issue. Granted if the Conservative party endorses McCain, and you vote for him on that ticket, you would be sending him the message that you want him to be conservative (i.e. including any appointments etc). However it won't bind him to anything. He can just as simply ignore and patronize his conservative constituent, especially since republicans have us conservatives "in the bag." The future of the Republicans, think "log cabin," is pandering to the homosexual community and trying to be progressive/liberal.

The reality is that we do not need a pro-life judge nominated. This thinking is truly borne of the self-defeating strategy of incrementalism (i.e. accept the evil but slowly work to overturn it). What we need is a president who will himself overturn Roe vs. Wade by resisting evil. This can be accomplished through veto and simply having enough support in Congress to prevent a veto override. I don't think McCain will do this, let alone O'Bama. I'll vote for neither.

I don't know if Chuck Baldwin has this strategy in mind, but I don't think he'll get elected either. That is, if he had a chance I would really work hard at convincing him to adopt this strategy. On the other hand, we need to have this strategy in mind for the day will come, if we faint not, when we will have our candidate take office. Until then, I will labor to spread the ideology of theocentrism in all of life and thought; esp. in politics.

Letter to My Friend

I was going to FWD a Constitution Party email I had but instead found a link http://www.scconstitutionparty.com/DontWasteYourVote.aspx I am really struck that one so principled as yourself would change stride (moral imperative to utilitarian) for "the short term." I thought that principled people like us most often made decisions based on long run consequences.

To tell you the truth, it isn't even good for the "lesser of two evils" to be in power in the short run. No matter who is in office, the same legislation will be signed. No political power rests with any president who is unwilling to resist evil (or at the very least unConstitutional bills). You want the guy who will keep the sluice shut over the guy who would open it...When both are being overrun by a tidal wave.

The liberals don't quit. If they have a bill rejected, they resubmit it until it is signed. They may change the name of the bill (i.e. Federal Reserve Bill, 1913), they may pressure the president (i.e. Howard Phillips referenced Ronald Reagan in a letter saying "they tell me I have to"), or they may try an end run (i.e. watch current events; Ireland rejects EU Reform Bill and now the EU wants to run it through as a Treaty to bypass the voting populace). Any other president other than a true conservative will not resist the liberals...

Vote for Ron Paul: January 19 SC Primary; November 4 General Election

Ron Paul Sets Record

On December 17, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party; Ron Paul's supporters had a Tea Party of their own. Beating out John Kerry's record of $5.7 million raised in a single day in 2004, the Ron Paul Campaign raised $6.04 million.

Ron Paul also won the National Caucus that is not very well known.

Ron Paul Donations needed for Liberty