Labels

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Christian Action Project (CAP) – Notes and Asides –# 1


Sooner or later, I knew that CAP would run into a major defining moment. Before I send out Study 3, we need to address the issue that makes it the defining moment. So, following the ancient wisdom of ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’, I have decided to wade into the matter.

There is a major theological dichotomy which exists in the Christian community, especially in the evangelical family, of which I am a member. There are literally millions of Christians, mostly evangelicals, who believe that the Kingdom of God will begin when Christ returns (the 2nd coming) and will rule for a thousand years. This is further complicated by a belief by some that Jesus will ‘whisk’ Christians away from the coming ‘tribulation’, and then return them to rule over the earth with Him after a few years.  I personally believed that for almost 30 years, having been taught that in my church.

Countless millions of books have been sold by various authors predicting when and how this will take place. I recall trying to prove this to myself during that time, but I could never do that from the Bible logically. It just seemed so convoluted biblically that I couldn’t follow it, but I accepted it as true.
About ten years ago, I was motivated to study the terms that I was vaguely familiar with – pre-millennialism,  a-millennialism and post-millennialism. Frankly, at that time, I couldn’t coherently explain any of them.

After a few years, I finally discovered that I had been a pre-millennialist. Those are the guys I mentioned earlier who believe in the literal 1000 year future Kingdom of God, instantly created by a discontinuous event, when Christ returns. The problem with that concept is that it totally contradicts Christ’s own examples of what the Kingdom is like. In fact, after extensive study on this subject, I discovered that the post-millennialists have all the biblical logic on their side. It’s a little bit embarrassing to admit at this time that I couldn’t see how the Kingdom of God was explained by Jesus’s own words.

If you would like a further, detailed summary of my ‘conversion’ please send an email and I will send out a complete outline of the research I followed.

Suffice it to say, some might be offended by what they read here and in the next few studies. I can imagine that after years (or decades?) of believing something to be true, it would be a shock, to discover that it wasn’t. I know how that is. It happened to me also. It was a bit of a shock, but I wasn’t offended. Relieved actually, because it all made sense.

The ‘future instant Kingdom appearance’ (pre-millennialism) theory and the ‘Kingdom now, in time and on earth’ phase (post-millennialism) are diametric opposites. They are mutually exclusive – they can’t both be right. The Bible doesn’t allow us to choose our own interpretation. The Bible explains the Bible.

Another item, related to this subject, came to my attention from Dr. Marshall Foster’s DVD set “From Terror to Triumph”, when he stated that our view of the sovereignty of God is based on our theology. God is the ultimate authority. Every being in the universe is accountable to Him, believer and unbeliever alike. If that is the case, how can two dedicated Christians believe and act differently when they say they believe the same Bible and worship the same God? It’s their theology – their knowledge of God. We act on what we assume to be true. The trouble is not only what we don’t know, it’s what we assume to be true - but isn’t so! There is no greater pitfall than assuming that what we have learned is the final truth of the matter. We always must be ready to challenge our own beliefs and be able to defend them based on knowledge, wisdom, reason and logic.  If we’re wrong, we must admit it. Christian life is not an ego trip. This is an ongoing lifelong assignment. Joel McDurmon, in his book “Biblical Logic”, defines it this way: “Logic is the systematic study and practice, of discerning and telling the truth.” It never ends, as in ‘prove all things and hold on to that which is good’. When information challenges our belief system, do we ask: Is that true? Or do we react emotionally to protect our pre-conceived opinion? The apostle Paul commended the Bereans for their willingness to always check the scriptures to see if what Paul spoke was true. So should we.

The only thing I can say is that you have to prove it yourself. The Bible is the standard.
If there is someone who thinks I have been deceived, please show me how – and in detail – from the Bible.
Keep in mind, any resources, like books, videos, etc. are a track for us to run on. Christian authors for centuries have written wonderful insights into God’s purposes, but they all must be tested against the Berean standard, to see if the scriptures back up what they say.

Study-3 will be out in a few days

I ask for your prayers always. May God bless all our efforts!


All comments are welcome!!!!!

Progressivism’s Vanquished Foe—Conservatism GOP Politics in a Nutshell - Part 3 of 3 - By James Ostrowski


Note: This is an excerpt from Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America(2014). 
The utter failure of conservative Republicans to combat progressivism in any meaningful way explains the nature of GOP politics today.  Like the Seinfeld sitcom, it is much ado about nothing, but without the laughs.
Having failed to roll back any major progressive program in the last 100 years, how does the GOP manage to keep the votes and donations of the rank and file flowing in sufficient quantities to keep the GOP machine in power? Highly paid and talented GOP consultants have brilliantly risen to the challenge.  There must be something that keeps the troops anteing up their votes and legwork and contributions to the mendacious Republican machine that talks smaller government but never delivers. There is. Here is how the scam works. The GOP whips up a personal hatred of prominent Democrats as a red herring to distract their own rank and file away from their lengthy record of failure. 
How do members of the GOP machine—elected and party officials, government employees and contractors, lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists, keep the gravy train rolling?  Not by proposing to roll back the very same progressive big government that the rank and file basically supports.  That would likely involve losing elections which would threaten to cut off the money spigot.  Rather, the GOP machine deliberately distracts the rank and file’s attention away from ideas, issues and policies, and manipulates the masses into personally hating the leading Democrats du jour.  Brilliant!  Well done.  These operatives, by the way, think that Ron Paul and any other activists who really care about ideas are saps and they are laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Hillary was right. There is a vast, right-wing conspiracy to whip up hatred of Democratic icons like Bill and Hillary and Barack and Michelle primarily for their personal peccadilloes. So long as you hate Obama personally, you won’t be focusing on the GOP’s pathetic record of never shrinking government.  Who cares if the GOP-controlled House continues to vote to fund progressive big government?  What’s really important is that rascal Obama golfs too much and Michelle takes too many vacations.  The nerve!
Conclusion. Conservatism is an idea whose time has come and gone.  While historical liberalism has a long list of monumental accomplishments, one struggles to conjure up a single significant accomplishment of American conservatism.  Conservatism will never wage a winning war against progressivism.  Worse yet, because of its half-hearted defense of market economics; its glorification of militarism and war and law enforcement; its often hostile attitude towards civil liberties; and its endless compromises with progressives to maintain power, the Liberty Movement’s various dalliances with this failed ideology have produced nothing of value, have tainted the Movement and have caused confusion about its true nature.  The Liberty Movement must sever its ties to conservatism and move forward.


Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Donald and Bernie: The Outer Borough Brothers - By G. Murphy Donovan (Thoroughly entertaining - and truthful!)

Nonetheless, we are led to believe that both Trump and Sanders would be disasters. Really? Compared to whom? Surely not a Bush, an Obama, or another Clinton.  America has had three doses of Bush, two draughts of Clinton, and now two too much of Obama. At home, the country is still burdened with debt, deficit, and flirts annually with default. Abroad, those Muslim wars are now about to have Platinum Jubilee with no end to terror, or toxic religious refugees, on the horizon.
After seven seasons of inertia, fiscal incontinence, and yes, serial foreign policy disasters, a lottery might have picked better presidential timber than either of the two American political parties. So why not have the people pick a commander-in-chief 2016? Almost anyone should do better than the usual suspects…..

Hillary’s core constituents are social dependents and women who get their information from the View, their values from daytime soap operas, and their baby sitters from the SimpsonsSouth Park, and the Family Guy. The only voting demographic that might be more callow is one that takes cues from the National Review frat house.
Believe what you will about Bernie Sanders. He’s not Bill Clinton’s wife. Say what you will about Donald Trump too. He’s nobody’s bitch either.

Progressivism’s Vanquished Foe—Conservatism The Failure of Constitutionalism - Part 2 of 3 - By James Ostrowski

The Constitution is not a contract, however, since many view it as such, it will be useful to assume for the sake of argument that it is a contract.  Would you sign a contract with a private firm that gave that firm sole power to interpret and enforce the contract?  Would you sign a contract with a roofer that, in effect, allowed him to charge you $15,000 and not put a roof on your house?  Only a fool would do so, yet, the Constitution is precisely such a sham “contract” as it gives the other party to it sole power to adjudicate any disputes about it.  It is yet another nail in the coffin of conservatism that its chief ideological bulwark, constitutionalism, turns out to be a sophisticated hoax!
As if the above flaws were not enough, constitutionalism has other problems insofar as it purports to be a bulwark against progressivism.  Surely, many constitutionalists believe that the constitution is a statement of various underlying objective truths about the world, human nature, government and politics.  This overlooks the fact that progressives are pragmatists, that is, folks who reject the notion that there is an objective reality outside our minds that we can know and express in words understandable to other people.  To cite a constitution to a progressive is like speaking Mandarin to a Martian or English to a wall.  It’s a pointless exercise since pragmatists reject the notion of objective truth and are solely interested in the practical consequences of ideas and words.  Thus, in the Pork Lawsuit, the five progressive judges in the majority, including two conservative Republicans, no doubt believed that state government must have the tools of economic development to compete with other states and countries that have them.  They were oblivious to whether the Constitution of 1846 was true or not.  It was, in 2011, no longer practical.  The bottom line is that the 90 percent of the public that is progressive, elected progressive governors who appointed progressive judges who gave us a progressive result, the Constitution be damned!


Iowa Analysis by Vox Day and Trump's concession speech

First, congratulations to Farmer Tom, who got the order correct. Second, and unexpectedly, the big news isn't on the Republican side, but on the Democratic one, as Bernie Sanders shocked the Clinton campaign by effectively fighting Hillary to a draw.

Third, the real score is this: Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3. That's how many delegates were awarded.

The only real surprise on the Republican side is that Rubio did much better than anyone expected, including the pollsters. While the media narrative is that Trump is done and dusted, they've been saying the exact same thing since last August, so that's entirely irrelevant. Given that the headline two days ago was "Donald Trump reclaims lead in latest Iowa Poll", it should be obvious that he was never the favorite in Iowa, and indeed, it looks rather like the GOP and the media colluded to try to make a result that would have been considered beyond Trump's reach six months ago appear like a disappointing, campaign-destroying failure. As for the record turnout on the Republican side, I suspect it happened for much the same reason it did in the Hugos last year; to stop the interloper.

The only serious candidate who is done now is Jeb, and it appears the establishment will be lining up behind Rubio in his place. Jeb himself will probably follow suit after New Hampshire. I think Cruz will ultimately be the real GOPe candidate as he is the more formidable of the two Cubans. It's now a three-man race; what would throw a real twist into it is if Trump can win Ben Carson's support. Forget Trump-Cruz, the most politically effective combination would be Trump-Carson.

Think about it. Trump's two main weaknesses with Republicans is religion and character. Besides being black, Carson's two greatest strengths are religion and character. And Trump is already popular among blacks due to his big-man swagger, so if I'm Trump, I'm getting together with Carson and working out a deal to be announced after New Hampshire, but before South Carolina.

And if I can see it, I expect Trump can see it too.

Now onto New Hampshire, where it's going to be interesting to see how the Iowa results affect the Democratic primary. Sanders is going to win, but how will it affect the race if he crushes Hillary there?

One last thing: say what you will about Trump, but he makes the campaign about 200 percent more interesting. I met him back in 1988 at the Republican convention in New Orleans and he's very likable. What seems blustery and over-the-top on camera comes off as more expansive and charming in person. Wherever he is, there is a lot of laughter, and not all of it is obsequious. The man is genuinely funny. I mean, who else would end a concession speech like this?

“I don’t know who’s going to win between Bernie and Hillary. I don’t know what’s going to happen with Hillary, she’s got other problems, maybe bigger than the problems she’s got, in terms of nominations, but we’ve had so many different indications, and polls that we beat her, and we beat her easily. And we will go on to get the Republican nomination, and we will go on to easily beat Hillary, or Bernie, or whoever the hell they throw up there. Iowa, we love you. We thank you. You’re special. We will be back many, many times. In fact, I think I might come here and buy a farm, I love it.”

And that's why the American public loves Trump and the establishment fears him. You just can't be entirely sure he won't actually go and do it.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Poll: 25 percent of federal employees would quit under Trump presidency - This trumps all other reasons for voting for daDonald, eh?

FINALLY! A GOOD REASON TO VOTE FOR TRUMP
This Politico story makes the case that a Trump presidency could do a lot of good even if he never showed up for work:
Poll: 25 percent of federal employees would quit under Trump presidency
By Nick Gass
About 1-in-4 federal employees would consider leaving their jobs if Donald Trump is elected president, according the results of a recent survey conducted by the Government Business Council.
Overall, about 2-in-3, or 67 percent said they would not think about leaving the federal government if Trump becomes president, but 14 percent said they would and 11 percent said they would “maybe” leave. Just 8 percent said they did not knowThe share of Democrats who said they would leave is higher, with 42 percent indicating that they would exit or could exit. 
Okay, I’m starting to see an upside here. Trump might shrink the bureaucracy more than Republicans have been able to do for a generation. He can seal the deal if he promises not to replace any federal workers who quit. Especially with any of the mythical “good people” he likes to mention.


How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996 - by Michael Brendan Dougherty

A man ahead of his timeComments by VoxDay
20 years ago, Sam Francis foresaw something akin to The Trumpening in America's political future:
What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society — something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America — you simply promised to restore the Middle American core — the economic and cultural losers of globalization — to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That's pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, "From Household to Nation," in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham's political realism, and Francis' political analysis always had a residue of Burnham's Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense — the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago — and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn't take Francis' advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, "From Household to Nation," reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

To simplify Francis' theory: There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite. These Middle Americans see jobs disappearing to Asia and increased competition from immigrants. Most of them feel threatened by cultural liberalism, at least the type that sees Middle Americans as loathsome white bigots. But they are also threatened by conservatives who would take away their Medicare, hand their Social Security earnings to fund-managers in Connecticut, and cut off their unemployment too.

I myself have been writing about America's bi-factional ruling party for more than twelve years, but only recently has it seemed that people are beginning to wake up to the fact that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are genuinely on the side of the average white Americans who comprise the genuine American nation.

Sooner or later, all politics inevitably becomes tribal, because the only scenario in which so-called post-tribal politics is possible is in a formerly homogeneous nation that is in the early stages of becoming heterogeneous. In other words, there is no such thing as "post-tribal" politics, there is only pre-tribal politics.

And tribal politics is the larval form of war.