• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    January 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec    
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    texan2driver on Mueller Team Scrubbed Peter St…
    PrayThroughHistory on Mueller Team Scrubbed Peter St…
    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of Totalitarian Rule

Commentary embedded below in this color.

Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of China’s Xi Jinping’s Totalitarian Rule

12-18-2018 | George Thomas

Many on the left, and many Christians with their heads in the sand, deny that Christians are being persecuted around the world.  Well, they are.  However, it’s not only Christians who are being persecuted, especially in nations with totalitarian governments.  Religion makes a totalitarian government/ruler nervous.  Why?  Because totalitarian rulers and governments see themselves as the only god that should be worshipped.  When you have a large and growing portion of the populace NOT worshipping at the alter of government, you have a lot of people thinking for themselves who may at some point rise up and overthrow you.

Early Rain, like scores of other congregations, is outside government control as part of China’s burgeoning so-called underground or house church movement.

Appearing on CBN News‘ WorldBeat, Todd Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs, says this movement has touched every corner of China.

“And that’s the exciting thing, all across China, there are house churches, there are what they call ‘family churches’ and the reason the Communist government is so worried is because there are far more Christians in China than there are members of the Communist Party,” Nettleton told CBN News.

So, what does a totalitarian government or ruler do to people who are threatening their power?  They tighten the screws.

In recent months, Beijing has waged a brutal and widespread crackdown to stop the growth of these unregistered churches.

“This crackdown I think is a direct response to the fear of the Communist Party leaders who see the church growing way faster than the party is,” Nettleton said.

This has been going on since the beginning of time.  In Christ’s time, Rome was the government, and the Emperor was god.  They tolerated Judaism as long as the people stayed in line and paid their taxes.  The Jewish religious leaders were often complicit in the oppression of the Jews because they had it good.  As long as the people followed the “advice” of the religious leaders, and didn’t cause any trouble, Rome made sure they stayed in power, and got paid well.  When Jesus came along, He was preaching a message that was revolutionary, but in a peaceful way.  Nonetheless, people were turning away from the Jewish faith to follow this revolutionary person, so the Pharisees and other religious leaders saw Jesus as a threat and attempted to have Him killed.  When that failed, they whipped up the crowds against Jesus and had the Romans take Him.  The Romans didn’t really care as long as there was order and taxes.

In more modern times, you can look at socialist, communist, and muslim nations/governments.  In all of these examples, any god other than government (islam is a system of government hiding behind a thin veneer of religion) is seen as a threat to the government.  The response has ALWAYS been the same. 

This is what’s happening in China right now, and is happening to a greater or lesser degree all over the world.  Yes, even in the United States.

In America, we haven’t lost the freedom of religion YET.  However, one can’t take an objective look at how religions, especially Christianity, have been treated over time in our country and honestly say that persecution of religions isn’t increasing.  America was FOUNDED on Christian principles.  For most of the next two centuries, we largely lived by those principles, but the forces of evil have been attacking those principles and our Constitution since before the ink it was written in was dry.

The process has been slow, but we have seen Christians and Christianity slowly chased out of the government, the schools, the courts, and into the confines of the churches themselves.  The churches have also been infiltrated by people who attack, alter, and water down the Gospel.  It is very difficult today to find a church or preacher who teaches EXACTLY what’s in the Bible without fear or apology.  You have churches calling themselves “Christian” that are openly violating CLEAR commands of the Bible.  They are embracing things that God CLEARLY calls sin, and in doing so are leading many people straight to Hell.  On this front, Christianity and other religions are under attack because people don’t like to be told they are wrong.  They don’t like to be told that what they are doing, what feels good, what is easy, is a sin.  They want their ears tickled so they will feel good about themselves. 

Back to the totalitarian angle, why are Christians and people of other religions being persecuted so vigorously?  We’re in the way.  We’re a roadblock.  We remind people that they are wrong, and expose their wrongs to others by holding them up to a black and white standard that never changes.

Now authorities routinely target houses of worship, destroy crosses, burn Bibles and arrest pastors.

Mr. Fengang, who once predicted that China could become the world’s largest Christian nation, says the government, headed by Xi Jinping, views Christianity as a threat to the party’s long-term political aspirations.

“Christians are the remaining NGO’s (non-governmental organization) in the shrinking civil society in China,” Wang warned. “Under Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, they are really trying to establish a totalitarian rule of Chinese society and the Christians are standing in the way of totalitarianism, so that’s why they’ve become a target.”


Link to article:  Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of China’s Xi Jinping’s Totalitarian Rule


Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.


A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/

Australia Gets it. Why Don’t We???

Are the Australians really that much smarter than we are? Or are we simply choosing to be this stupid?

This quote sums up the entire affair: 


America was formed over more than 200 years by trial and error, having learned from thousands of years of history prior to our founding.  We created a nation unlike any other on earth, better and more free than any on earth.  We created a Constitution and form of government to protect the liberties for which we struggled so mightily.  If you wish to live in America, or even become an American, then you must assimilate and adapt to America.  We don’t have to adapt to you. 

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE.   We didn’t force you to come here.   You asked to be here.   So accept the country  YOU accepted.’

The Constitution and our way of life are diametrically opposed to sharia law.  Sharia can not coexist with our Constitution. If you despise liberty and feel the need to live under sharia law, or any other code of conduct that violates out Constitution, then leave.  There are plenty of 3rd world hell-hole sewers in the world who practice such lifestyles and will gladly allow you to submit to the subjugation of sharia law.



Posted on January 1, 2011

(Prime Minister Julia Gillard –  Australia )

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the  government targeted radicals in a bid to head off  potential terror attacks.

Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.


Continue reading

Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages

If you say that Christianity is not under attack in this country, you are either an idiot, or one of the attackers. There’s just too much evidence that it’s happening.


Air Force Suspends Christian-Themed Ethics Training Program Over Bible Passages

By Todd Starnes | Published August 03, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Air Force has suspended a course that was taught by chaplains for more than 20 years because the material included Bible passages.

The course, called “Christian Just War Theory” was taught by chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and used Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments to show missile launch officers that it can be moral to go to war.

Continue reading

Liberals Launch Christian Witch Trials

Christians knew it was coming. It was only a matter of when. The direction of the attack was only slightly a surprise, as many thought the crusade against Christianity was going to me lead by muslims. They are complicit agents in the assault, but it is liberal/progressive “thinkers” who have placed themselves above God, and decreed themselves to be supreme beings.

I have news for these liberal/progressives. They should look at history of ALLLLL the times God has put people like you in their place. Remember the “great” liberal Voltaire, who thought that he was living in the “twilight of Christianity,” and that the Bible would disappear from the earth within 100 years? Kind of ironic that after Voltaire’s death his house was used to print, or at least store Bibles. Time and time again throughout history, those who mock God are proven to be nothing but deceived, and deceivers.


Return to the Article

July 21, 2011

Liberals Launch Christian Witch Trials

By Peter Heck

Break out the pitchforks and light the torches!  The leftist media is in the midst of launching a modern day version of the Salem Witch Trials.  Except this time the target isn’t those who blaspheme against the Christian religion, but rather those who practice it.  The inquisition began almost two weeks ago when Diane Sawyer and her ABC World News Tonight team christened a very provocative and alarming “investigation” into the beliefs of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.

Huma Abedin Weiner – More than just a victim?

What do we really know about Mrs. Weiner? No question, Anthony was, well, a real wiener. Got it. But as the old saying goes, it takes two to Tango. What do we know about her? Why is someone with family members that have ties to terrorist organizations in a high level government position with access to classified information, and the ear to our public officials?

Curious, don’t you think?


Huma Abedin Weiner

Through all the talk about Anthony Weiner we have mostly listened to jokes about his private parts and his name. His wife was often mentioned as a victim to his online tomfoolery. Today I want to talk about his wife, Huma Abedin Weiner.

In 1996, while Bill Clinton was president, he and Hillary met Huma while on a trip to Saudi Arabia. It’s unclear what transpired, but she ended up in Washington DC with close ties to the Clintons. We now know she is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy Chief of Staff. This is a very sensitive position so we would think Huma was well vetted.

Huma Abedin Weiner is a devout Muslim. Her brother, Hassan, works at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) at Oxford University. He has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian Al-Azhar University, is well known for a curriculum that encourages extremism and terrorism, and is active in establishing links with OCIS.

Continue reading

If You Disagree With Me, Don’t Hate Me, Debate Me!

Here is a lively exchange I had with a visitor to this blog that I thought was worth sharing.  He and I obviously have differing views on many subjects, but this visitor was courageous enough to be willing to discuss and support his beliefs in a civil, open manner.  BRAVO!  This is what freedom of speech is all about.  It’s not just about saying what you believe, but about listening to what others believe and then discussing WHY.

I’ve highlighted my comments below in crimson for clarity of who is saying what.

The original post and comments can be found here (https://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/obama-admin-using-bernie-madoff-accounting-pyramid-scheme/)

I am all over the web, so I can’t honestly say I remember leaving a comment on the Lone Star Times site. Regardless, I’m glad you stopped by to take part in the Great Debate. We may not always agree, and that’s OK. As I always tell people, “If you disagree with me, don’t hate me, debate me.

Wow, the post on LST must have really struck a chord. Lots of good stuff in your commentary to discuss. I’ll hit the highlights with some commentary of my own.

In fact, I consider the Bill or Rights (and particularly the 1st Amendment) the single most important document ever adopted in this Country’s history and the one thing that distinguishes us from all other nations.

We must also remember that it is the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the 1st. Our founding fathers had seen what would happen when a populace was unable to defend itself against a tyrannical government. In the founding or our country, when they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”, they knew that this would be impossible unless they had the power to protect themselves not only from external enemies, but from a government gaining too much control over their lives.

This makes me very, very concerned by the people who talk about making sure that America “is a Christian nation”….and who do not seem to understand that as Jefferson expressed it and as Madison wrote it—the 1st Amendment establishes a “wall between church and state.”

I will not assert that we are a Christian nation in the sense that some form of Christianity is the official religion or that it is required for citizenship. I will assert that America was founded on a Christian foundation. Many try to deny that, but it is an obvious truth. When a “wall between church and state” is spoken of, the modern (mis)interpretation of that is that there can be no religion or any display of religion in government. Hogwash. It means that the government can’t “establish,” or force you to be part of any one religion, as some countries have done by having an official state religion. Greece with the Orthodox Church is an example. What’s worse is that the modern interpretation of “separation of church and state” is applied in a very anti-Christian way. The “wallers” I’ll call them, attack Christian prayer in school, but provide prayer rooms for muslims. “Wallers” attack nativity scenes or menorahs, but force schools and government offices to display hateful “God is a fag,” or “There is no God” signs and displays. The so called separation of church and state is being used to attack Christianity and Judaism.

I see “defense” as being more than just the military might—it also includes our economic might and our moral position in the world—which, unfortunately, George W. and Chaney did much to damage.

Defense and military might? Yes. Defense and economic might? Definitely. Defense and our “moral position” in the world? Now the waters get muddy. Defense is just that. It’s our ability to prevent others from harming us. Economic might directly ties into defense as it allows us to pay for the things necessary to defend ourselves. Our moral position in the world is not tied to defending ourselves. Our interactions with other nations and our reasons for those interactions define our moral position. However, two different people could view the same action in completely different “moral” lights. Was it “moral” to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Some look at the instantaneous loss of life and scream “immoral!” However, when one understands that killing several thousand people with the A-bomb likely saved nearly 2 million lives, it’s not so immoral anymore. One must also consider who started that fight in the first place with their deception in Washington covering their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Many liberals view “might” as wrong. They feel that because we are (were?) wealthy and powerful, or a super-power, that this somehow makes us villains around the world. Were we taking over lands for the purposes of conquest and gain, then that would make us the bad guys. However, this is not the case. We ended two wars in Europe and one in the Pacific with multiple “invasions,” and all we asked for in return was a place to bury our dead. We didn’t enslave anyone. We protected, and still protect most of Europe and Japan (our former enemies) while they run their own lives. As for G.W. Bush and Mr. Cheney, their biggest mistake was not controlling our borders or our spending.

“Richard Nixon made me a Democrat” because of his abuse of the American system, his disregard for the Bill or Rights and his criminal activities.

To this I must ask how you feel about Barack Obama. As illustrated in the post I’m linking to here (https://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/obamas-secret-power-grabs/), Obama has done the end-around on every part of the constitution that he has been able to get away with so far. Cut and paste Obama’s actions into the Nixon presidency, and there would have been an execution, not just an impeachment. The progressives have gained a lot of ground since the 1970’s in eroding the foundation of our nation, as evidenced by the weak response to the abuse to our laws and constitution.

(Don’t tell me “everybody does it’. That is partially true…but few have done it to the level Nixon did.)

Many do it, and there is no excuse for it. As to the level of corruption and law breaking, again I beg you to compare Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. While Nixon was wrong and deserved punishment, what he did was child’s play compared to what Obama is doing now. Campaign fraud, voter intimidation, breaking or ignoring house/senate rules, on and on.

I also found myself unwilling to continue to argue with people who opposed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other program designed to improve the life of the less fortunate of our population.

As is always the case, we were much better off before government took over control of ____ (fill in the blank). Before we had Social Security, yes there were homeless people and people who otherwise needed help, but there were a lot fewer of them. When people kept most of what they earned, they were more charitable. Through local organizations and direct giving, communities helped people by giving them a hand UP, and taking care of those UNABLE to take care of themselves. Now the government takes a dollar away from our community and gives us back 50 cents. How does that help? They have promised all these benefits that they can’t pay for. How does that help (except to buy votes)? In an attempt to pay for the benefits, they raise our taxes to the point we can’t afford to be charitable anymore. How does that help? And to top it all off, there are a WHOLE LOT MORE of the so called “less fortunate” now than there were then. Many are able, but unwilling to work because they can get enough benefits for nothing to make a minimum wage job just too “inconvenient.” Sounds like a success to me.

Then we move on to Medicare/Medicaid. Supposed to provide insurance and lower health care costs. Hasn’t done either. Before we had Medicare/Medicaid and other government interference in the medical system (as well as other confiscation of my wealth like Social Security and other taxes), I could AFFORD to go to the doctor and pay cash for a visit. If I needed a procedure that was too expensive for me to pay for outright, I worked out a payment plan with the doctor himself. Now because of government interference, forcing doctors and hospitals to provide health care to those who can’t pay for it, they have to pass the cost along to those who can. We’re not just talking legitimate emergency care here. Many illegal aliens and others, who can no longer afford insurance or medical bills BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND INTERFERENCE CAUSED THEM TO SKYROCKET, are using the emergency room for primary care. Those who actually pay their bills get pissed off about paying the tab for those who abuse the system, laws are passed saying that doctors and hospitals can’t pass along the cost, and then the hospitals and doctors simply go out of business. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE. The border states are the worst hit by this phenomena due to the unchecked influx of illegal aliens.

Health care is not a right. It is a service or commodity just like anything else we EARN the money to pay for. Calling it a right is akin to saying “slavery is OK.” Calling it a right means that you are able to force a person to become a doctor at his own expense, and then force him to provide medical service to you without compensation. That is slavery. If you say “of course he has a right to compensation,” then you are saying it’s OK to take money from me against my will to pay your medical costs. That’s robbery and theft. Rights are given from God, not from man. Having people in our government call something a “right” doesn’t make it so. A right does not come at the expense of another.

So, to sum this up, helping the “less fortunate” is a good and admirable goal. But it is a goal best accomplished by allowing the citizens of the most charitable nation on earth to decide for themselves to help those people out. The government is at best inefficient at the task, and typically fails miserably.

One last thing on this topic. Don’t confuse “lack of success” with being “unfortunate.” If you worked to EARN what you have, and you have more than the next person, you have no reason to feel guilty about that.

(Plus you may remember that Southern Republicans—like John Tower—opposed the Civil Rights Act just as strongly as did most Southern Democrats—except the same Ralph Yarborough we both admire for his courage.)

Just remember that it was republicans, even southern republicans that gave blacks the right to vote, and it was democrats that took that right away with things like “poll taxes.” It was democrats who founded such organizations as the KKK, and it is liberal/progressive/democrat policies that have encouraged the black community to largely sit around feeling like victims with their hands out to the democrats. When a black person makes something of him/herself, the democrats and the blacks who support them immediately turn on that person and call them “Uncle Tom,” or “a sellout to the black community.” What a bunch of crap. Bill Cosby is right. Unless people take responsibility for their own actions, their own family, and their own community, they will always be oppressed victims.

(Unlike you I can not call myself a “Carter Democrat” because, although I wound up voting for him, as a Southern Catholic who had been told one two many times by “good ole Southern Baptists” that I was doomed to hell while living in a small Texas town in the 50s, I was worried about his Southern Baptist background.

I am a Christian who associates with Southern Baptists, as long as they preach and teach what is in the Bible. I have seen many Southern Baptist churches (and those of many denominations) that do not. Just because someone is a “good ole Southern Baptist” doesn’t make them good or bad. I’m registered republican, but am really a conservative. Barack Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 some years. Does that make him a Christian? No. Just because Jeremiah Wright calls himself a preacher, does make his church a Christian church? No. As a “former” muslim who preaches a radical black-nationalist message which is not supported by the Bible, many would say “definitely not.” In Jimmy Carter’s case, I would call him a liberal misguided Southern Baptist who is basically just an idiot.

However, I do believe that, if our system is to continue, we must attempt to help every American have an “equal opportunity” to succeed…..Unfortunately, I believe—as you probably do not—that that means that Government must take steps to “level the playing field”.

We are guaranteed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are not guaranteed anything beyond that. We are not guaranteed a job, a house, a specific level of income, or any such thing. We are only guaranteed the right to pursue them to the best of OUR abilities, not to pursue them on the backs of someone else. Our nation was founded on getting everyone to the starting line of the race. It doesn’t guarantee how anyone will run the race, or who will win it. But to have a chance of winning, you must run. Barack Obama and liberals are trying to distort this by picking winners and losers in life. They are choosing which companies succeed or fail. They are choosing which people succeed or fail. This is un-American. We can’t ALL win the race, and the prize can’t be the same either. When you allow those who can achieve more to do so, they are more able to help those who can’t. When you don’t allow them to succeed, and make them pull the wagon full of those who can’t or won’t run as fast, NO ONE gets to the finish line because the achievers see no benefit to excelling because the fruits of their labors are redistributed to those who did not earn them and do not deserve them. The “playing field” as you call it, is actually level. It’s the same for everyone. It’s just that some people are more able to navigate it. That’s just the way things are. Your and others attempts to “level the playing field” are in reality attempts to force an equal outcome. That’s communism. Let’s say your IQ is off the charts on the smart end. You go to school with a bunch of people who can barely write their own name. If we level the playing field in the classroom to bring these people up from failing grades, you receive a middle of the road grade instead of the “A” that you earned. Or, the teachers dumb down the level of instruction to the lowest common denominator where everyone gets an “A.” You are bored and learn nothing, while the rest learned little because they were unwilling or unable. Everyone finished the same, but what has that gained society? We graduate a bunch of people with high self esteem until they can’t get a job because they don’t know how to make change. Our society suffers for such misguided efforts to “level the playing field.”

I am also aware of the fact that all kinds of groups have “lobbyists” and that all kinds of groups, not just conservatives try to use government to advance their ends. However, unlike you I do not automatically label this bad…Instead they are part and parcel of our form of government and,…

A politician’s job is supposed to be to represent the people who elected them. Their job has morphed into getting re-elected. Politicians spend nearly 2/3 of each business day dealing with matters related to fund raising for their re-election campaign. Much of that has to do with lobbyists. I know several politicians, and the lobbyists who lobby them. It is a corrupt game. Just calling it “part and parcel of our form of government” is exactly the same justification that Nixon could have used (and probably did) for defending the break in to a rival political headquarters to gain a political advantage. Where do we draw the line? The politicians are beholden to the special interest groups and the money they donate to their campaign rather than to the constituents who elected them. This is where I throw out the hand grenade of term limits. Many will say that we have term limits called “elections.” I would say that this would be true if we still had a nation of CITIZENS. A citizen educates him/herself on the issues, on the candidates, on our system of government, on the constitution on which it is based, and casts a responsible vote. Today we have an increasing number of people who know nothing about the things listed above, and cast votes base on misinformation that they willingly believe because they have allowed themselves to be led astray largely due to their own laziness and ignorance. This is also where we see the rapid rise of the zero-liability voter who pays little or no tax yet has a voice in how TAXPAYERS dollars are spent, usually to give the zero-liability voter more “free” stuff. It’s a vicious political cycle centered around the acquisition and maintenance of POWER. The founding fathers never intended the words “career” and “politician” to be uttered in the same sentence. Elected officials were intended to REPRESENT their constituents for a season while the issues were fresh on their minds. Then they were to return home and go back to whatever life they had, or make a new one if they so chose. They were never intended to make a fat life in Washington at our expense.

“be very, very careful when you have a group that wants to be regulated.”

I’ve heard it said that “you don’t f*** with a man that sleeps next to a woman he never screws. They’re unpredictable.” The only groups I see that want regulation are the ones who are unable or unwilling to achieve success on their own. Refer back to the “level playing field discussion above.

Instead it makes me a realist.

I’ve also heard it said “No, I’m not a pessimist. At some point the world sh**s on everybody. Pretending it ain’t sh** makes you an idiot, not an optimist.” If you view your glass as half empty, you are called a pessimist. If you view your glass as half full, you are called an optimist. If it doesn’t matter to you whether you say your glass is half empty or half full, but you know you must guard against some idiot coming along and spilling it or drinking it, THEN you are a REALIST. That would be me.

B, thanks again for engaging in the debate and being willing to share WHY you believe what you believe. If we can’t defend our positions, why do we have them in the first place? I look forward to debating other issues with you in the future.

%d bloggers like this: