The fatal delusion of Political Salvation

By Robert McCurry – The Wake-Up Herald –

The 2014 mid-term election is over — the Republicans prevailed so what can be expected from the new regime? Will the political party power shift really change things or will it be business as usual?

Patrick J. Buchanan, a seasoned political analyst, says, “Our two-party system is a fraud, a sham, a delusion. On foreign policy, trade, immigration, big government, we have one-party government, one party press; and conservatives are being played for suckers.”

Alabama Governor George Wallace said, “There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.” He was right.

Helen Keller once said, “We vote. What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.” She was right.

In his classic work The Law, first published in June 1850, Frederic Bastiat wrote:

When it is time to vote . . . the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! Are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for them? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people, who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation. ~Frederic Bastiat [1801-1850], French economist, statesman, and author

– Pro-Lifers and a New Republican Congress –

Among America’s many sins that must be dealt with — the most hideous and despicable sin of all — is the murder of 65+ million babies, plus 5,000 babies murdered every day via abortion since January 1973.

Harry Blackmun, a Republican, was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon and confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 1970, by a 94-0 vote. He authored the Court’s Republican majority opinion on Roe v. Wade. Blackmun became a passionate advocate for abortion rights, often delivering speeches and lectures promoting Roe v. Wade and criticizing Roe’s critics.

Sadly, abortion has been a Republican ‘political football’ for many years as indicated by this November 11, 2002, article that is as relevant today as if written this morning.

It is sad to report that pro-life groups are salivating about a new “pro-life” Congress. Poor souls! Their drooling will likely be in vain. I have it from high Republican places that the Party will not really, meaningfully pursue an anti-abortion agenda. There are too many liabilities for Republicans to give anything more than lip service to pro-lifers.

Do not misunderstand me. I am pro-life, and I wish that the Republican Party would make the struggle against child murder central in its effort, but I know they will not. There are too many suburban Republican women with money who would be turned off totally. There are too many Republican men who fear the consequences of live babies complicating their lives for at least eighteen years of child support. They are too many Republican doctors who perform abortions. There are too many Republicans who benefit from abortion, one way or another. There are too many Republicans whose pro-life position is a preference, not a conviction. ~Norman Ravitch, Ph.D., Toogood Reports, Nov 11, 2002

Alas! As Pilate of old attempted to wash his hands of the innocent blood of Jesus two thousand years ago when ‘he washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person [Jesus]: see ye to it” (Matt 27:24), political modernity attempts to wash its hands at the ballot box of the blood of millions of babies murdered by abortion since 1973. But political rhetoric, voting, and a new political regime will not absolve this blood guiltiness. God’s message to America is ‘Repent or perish!’

– The Dominant Christian Political Delusion Today –

The dominant Christian political delusion today is that Republicans represent some kind of cure-all political salvation to be implemented in America. This ability of Christians to lend their faith to unfounded propositions like this one does nothing but convince people that Jesus Christ is a fantasy and that Christians are exceedingly naive.

How can the world be expected to take Biblical claims about Jesus Christ seriously when His followers lend themselves to political fantasies that everyone else on earth knows is false and self-serving?

America’s political history proves that there is no real difference between either of the major political parties when it comes to concern and implementing the will of God in America. The differences are in their rhetoric but not in practice.

Political salvation is a mirage and quicksand.

God’s Word, the Bible — not the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution — is square one, point of beginning to resolve America’s rapid descent into an inevitable demise.

Jesus Christ is Lord! The law of the Lord is perfect! “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us” (Isa 33:22).

Obama vows to use executive action on immigratio​n before new GOP Congress is sworn in

By S.A. Miller – The Washington Times –

President Obama vowed Sunday to move forward with an executive order to ease immigration laws before the end of the year, ignoring dire warnings from Republican leaders that the move will poison his relationship with the next Congress.

The president said he would not wait any longer to address the country’s immigration problems and would grant legal status to most of the estimated 11 million undocumented residents living in the U.S.

“I’d prefer, and still prefer, to see it done through Congress. But every day that I wait, we’re misallocating resources, we’re deporting people that shouldn’t be deported, we’re not deporting folks that are dangerous and need to be deported,” Mr. Obama said in an interview aired Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”

Mr. Obama has been warned against acting unilaterally on immigration by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is likely to become majority leader when Republicans take over the upper chamber in January.

Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican, said the president’s executive action on immigration would be like tossing a “hand grenade” into his negotiations with the Republican-run Congress.

“It would be like the president pulling the pin out of a hand grenade and throwing it in as we are trying to actually work together. I am hoping that cooler heads at the White House can prevail,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Continue Reading

Obama To Americans: You Don’t Deserve To Be Free

By Harry Binswanger – –

President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

“there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.

The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.

Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.

Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.

The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”

They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.

Obama blames economic woes, some real some manufactured (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.

Continue Reading