Archive for month: December, 2013
Ok I’m going to get into the Duck Dynasty fiasco as it’s viewed in the rear view mirror. It left me asking some questions mostly. First, Mr. Phil Robertson made it quite clear that he was speaking for himself and his personal point of view. And he quoted directly from the Bible regarding homosexuality. While a MSNBC host publicly, on the air, stating wanting to defecate in the mouth of former governor and presidential candidate Sandra Palin … but that’s a non-issue? If it was truly a matter of discrimination and intolerance, than expressing pride in one’s heterosexualness would be just as viciously defended by the same people. After all it’s about being treated “equally”. Right?
If one were to truly analyze the whole dust-up over what Mr. Robertson said and the context in which he said it you may conclude that his comment wasn’t the main issue. What he said, if said a mere twenty, or even ten years ago would have only gotten scant attention. And it would have been viewed positively more than negative I dare say simply because he would have been stating something based on what the majority of Americans already hold as cautionary fact, Biblical principles. And it would not have been viewed via such irrational politically correct prisms. He quoted the Bible in public as a prominent celebrity, of one of the most popular cable shows in history. Probably if he had said that women should have as many children as they wanted-without a man-and that they should strive to take more traditionally male roles he probably would have been praised. But he quoted the Bible in a Liberal venue against the exaggerated popularity of homosexuality’s cultural equalization to that of heterosexuality.
But I don’t even see the views on homosexuality as the totality of the gross negative reaction to Mr. Robertson’s statement of his personal views. But that he publicly endorsed and represented old fashion masculinity, both in what he said and his stance that he would not be moved from that position, come what may. In today’s cultural assault on the very idea of what a man is and or should be, in order to turn the very word masculine into hate speech, he made it clear, that based on his interpretation of Biblical scripture, a man should only be with a woman, and a woman only be with a man. The push to equate, or even supplant, heterosexuality with that of homosexuality and to engineer a socially secular society, where there are no societal absolutes, can not succeed with a dominate masculine or a traditionally American family culture or society.
So, what was really the target of the venomous hate? It was not Mr. Robertson. It certainly had nothing to do with tolerance, intolerance, equality, nor inequality. The real target was Christendom. And why did the advocates and proponents of groups such as GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] lose? Because despite the long fight to abolish Christianity and the tenets of Christendom from the consciousness of the American people, still the majority of which, though too often silent, recognizes the truth behind the very principles upon which this great nation was founded still holds true.
Christianity and Christians are not just catching hell here in America for their principles and beliefs, but too in the Middle East and throughout Europe. Traditional Western Culture is under assault in ways that would have seem unfathomable just a couple of generations ago. Whether we are being assaulted and persecuted by radical Islamist or radical Secularist, there has been, and is, a silent war being waged against Christendom all over the world. What the firestorm over Mr. Robertson’s comments did, and his subsequent victory, was to put the battle on front street for all to see that there is an eternal effort to suppress and eliminate Christianity in every form from our society.
The tenets and principles of Christianity is woven throughout our nation’s founding principles and documents. It is our identity. It too is woven throughout the nations of Europe. That’s why the sudden marriage of the political elites of the Western Powers and the Gay Rights Movement is so confusing and unsettling for many, on both sides of the ocean. To the political elites it is just a matter of politics and their expansion of power. But to many of the silent majority it is a matter of fundamental principles and it is a fight for our view of our civilization and way of life. A fight that we are not yet ready to surrender.
Imagine if the so-called Black-American leaders had the strength of Nelson Mandela’s philosophy of forgiveness and great love for this country rather than become so invested in the exploitation of racial ills of the past and encouraging gross and destructive sense of entitlement and thus a further division and weakening of this great nation?
Today Mr. O called for more redistribution of wealth. What is surprising is not that he said it, what is surprising to me is that anyone is actually surprised that he said it. Since he has been in the public life he has clearly displayed and demonstrated his core belief of wealth redistribution and a government-centered economy, not just by his words, but by his actions and by the people who he has associated with. Obviously many of us just were not paying attention. The Cowboys must have been playing.
“No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law…”1800’s French political economist and author of The Law Frederic Bastiat
As I look at futuristic movies, such as Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and The Book of Eli, I always notice two apparent ingredients; there’s little or no moral integrity amongst the people and they have little or no respect for the rule of law. In short there’s a breakdown in social order. As I continually witness the federal Administration either unilaterally change laws to suit its agenda or blatantly subverting or ignoring its own laws and the Constitution with seemingly no or little care of retribution – either politically or from the citizenry, and the subsequent subconscious or conscious reaction by the American people to begin themselves ignoring and or subverting laws and customs of our society, the question that one must ask how far is all out lawless?
The most recent acts by the U.S Administration, via the Democratically dominated Senate, is to unilaterally make the vote of those represented by Senate Republicans virtually irrelevant with the so-called “Nuclear Option” in order to get Mr. O’s controversial judicial appointments through. And then the Administration decides in order to help the chances of the Democrats in the 2014 Elections, Mr. O decides to once again moves a deadline in the Affordable Care Act, i.e, Obamacare. This time he moves the deadline for employers to become compliant with Obamacare from the first of 2014 to the first of 2015. In October he unilaterally moved the deadline for individuals to have signed up for coverage for Obamacare from February to March. But the Affordable Care Act was signed into law nearly 3 years ago! It is law! Signed, sealed, and delivered! How is it that he can just wake up and change it, whether it be for political reasons, or any other, without any input from Congress? The answer…because Congress and the people of America and the United States allow him to. Can you imagine the shit storm that would have come about if Reagan or G.W would have in any way sought to alter their tax cuts to benefit Republicans and make themselves look better? It would have been UUUUGLY!
I am not saying that Mr. O is the first President or government official to play loose with the implementation of our laws, but no president has done it so brazenly. And with Mr. O, there has been deafening silence and or quiet acquiescence by the Establishment Media and the Elite Republicans. But lets not forget other laws that proved to be not worth enforcing by the nation’s head Executive:
Mediaiet.com reported a December 3, 2013 congressional committee hearing, constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government. Lets not forget that Mr. O, as all presidents have done, swore an oath to that he would faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don’t see any ambiguity here.
An argument can be said the law is truth. If law is supposed to be the truth and the highest enforcer and defender of the truth/law willfully ignores or circumvents it and or its process, then it [the law/truth] must be a lie/not lawful. Right?
The psychological effects of witnessing the highest seat of power in our nation blatantly and repeatedly disregarding his oath to execute laws with impunity helps to decrease trust in the nation’s government, not and trust in our neighbors as well. We are observing an Administration on a mission to initiate legalized plunder, transferring from one group of citizens – whether it be rights, privileges, property, or wealth – to another citizen like no other man to sit in the seat of the Presidency, even at the expense of America’s future prosperity. And he is doing this right in front of our stunned and bewildered eyes with barely a hint of genuine opposition visible. Frederic Bastiat described legal plunder to be, “Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
When the chief Executive of our nation is allowed to choose what laws to enforce, what Constitutional provisions to adhere to, do we truly have law? If the government allows people to stay in our country illegally and grant them benefits that are prohibited to our own citizens, how can we say that is right? If the government decides to change the definition of what marriage is, therefore violating the very principles and customs upon which this nation has long rested without any true justification, other than political, how can we say that is right? If we can not trust the highest law enforcer and executive to respect and enforce our laws, who can we turn to honestly enforce our laws? How can we tell our children that honesty, being truthful, and being of good character are of the of highest moral traits when they openly see dishonesty and moral debauchery being so richly rewarded? Should we be truly surprised when we hear even the youngest of our citizens disrespecting authority or grounds that prior generations would dare to tread? And at what point should we no longer look for the government to protect us or be honest with us? Movies such as Mad Max do not have to be depictions of our nation’s future…unless we choose for it to be.