Though many people people seem to think it does. They say things like, “If only that had been included in the U.S. Constitution” or “You know, we need a law that says_______”. But simply writing something on paper does not, necessarily, assure anything.The problem with our country today is NOT that we have an insufficient number of pieces of paper that are, supposedly, to govern us. The problems we have today are caused by our being an anti-Christian people, a stiff-necked people in rebellion against God, the God of the Bible, the only true God there is. My theological mentor Dr. RJ Rushdoony wrote about this trust-in-paper belief many years ago: … Continue Reading
THE “USA TODAY” photo (5/14/12) of Mark DeMoss on the platform at Liberty University with Mitt Romney reminded me of a lengthy email exchange I had with Mark in 2008 about religion and politics. Mark — who says he is a Christian — is a PR Big Shot working hard to sell Mormon Romney to Christians, just as he worked hard to sell McCain-Palin to Christians. The DeMoss family has given millions of $$$$$ to Liberty U. so it was no surprise when Romney appeared there recently to speak. … Continue Reading
IT’S AS IF BARACK OBAMA is wearing a bracelet with the letters W.W.S.D. — What Would Satan Do? Bad enough that he would endorse sodomite “marriage”*. But to do so while mentioning in the same breath how he is a “practicing Christian,” how he’s obeying the Golden Rule and how he thought about Jesus on the Cross, is despicable. For Obama to, in any way, associate God, the Lord Jesus Christ, with his view that those who God says deserve the death penalty should be allowed to get “married”, is God mockery, is blasphemous, is a sacrilege. We must, as Christians, look in the mirror and ask ourselves: Why has God imposed on us as President a militant, vehement, in-your-face, practicing God-hater? And make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is President because God put him there! Comments?
* Sodomites/lesbians can NEVER “marry” because has defined, forever, “marriage” as one man, one woman. Period.
Those who doubt and/or deny that our country was founded as a Christian country suffer from a very common malady today: They simply do not know what they are talking about. No country simply drops out of the sky, turn-key ready with all its laws, customs, etc. And so it was with America.
Our founding, on this continent, began 150 or so years before the official founding period with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Thus, what preceded our official founding is the foundation upon which our official founding is founded. This is well-documented by a former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, David J. Brewer, in his book titled “the United States As A Christian Nation” (John C. Winston Co.,, 1905). As Brewer notes: … Continue Reading
NEWT GINGRICH is often referred to as “brilliant”, as “the smartest guy in the room” (I assume that is when he dines alone.) But, I see no evidence of his “brilliance” or “smartness” unless you equate both words with the ability to run your mouth on a variety of subjects with no particular connection one with the other. In any event, the most important question about a person is: Do they have WISDOM?
God, in His Word, the Bible, commands us: “Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Proverbs 4:5-7). A marginal note in the 1599 Geneva Bible on Proverbs 4:7 says this verse “shows that we must begin with God’s Word, if we will that other things prosper with us, contrary to the judgment of the world, which make it their last study, or else care not for it at all.” … Continue Reading
NEWT GINGRICH IS, literally, a man of no principle when it comes to what government should or should not be doing. He is simply for “what works” and against “what does not work.” Take, for example, Glenn Beck’s recent interview of Gingrich in which Gingrich was asked about his support of Federal subsidies for ethanol. Neither Scripture nor the U.S. Constitution give any authority to civil government for such a subsidy.
Beck says, correctly: “Why would we, why would we go into subsidies, though? Isn’t ‑‑ aren’t subsidies really some of the biggest problems that we have with our spending and out‑of‑control picking of winners and losers?”
Gingrich: “Well, it depends on what you’re subsidizing. The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton’s first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. We have always had a bias in favor of investing in the future. We built the transcontinental railroads that way. The Erie Canal was built that way. We’ve always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because they’ve made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world. But what I object to is subsidizing things that don’t work and things that aren’t creating a better future. And the problem with the modern welfare state is it actually encourages people to the wrong behaviors, encourages them not to work, encourages them not to study.” … Continue Reading
As various candidates come forth to present their tax plans, here is what Dr. RJ Rushdoony has written re: God’s “tax plan”; this from his article, “The Meaning of Theocracy.”
“In Biblical law, the only civil tax was the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). This tax provided an atonement or covering for people, i.e. the covering of civil protection by the State as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). This very limited tax was continued by the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem, and from 768-900 AD helped make the Jewish princedom of Narbonne (in France) and other areas a very important and powerful realm (see Arthur J. Zuckerman: ” A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768-900” (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1965, 1972). This tax was limited to half a sheckel of silver per man. … Continue Reading
MITT ROMNEY, on Sean Hannity’s radio show, re: attacks on his Mormonism, says the idea that we should select people for public office in part on their “religion” is a “very unAmerican-type approach,” that our Founders “made it clear” that religion was not to be the basis on which we select candidates. Romney praises our “v†ery unique” system in this country where we respect diversity of religion, diversity of faith.
Well, now. Our Founders (in the colonial period) did NOT “make clear” what Romney thinks they made clear. To these Founders, in ways too numerous to mention here, “religion”, namely the CHRISTIAN religion, was most relevant as a qualification for holding public office, for jury duty and was most relevant for all of public and private life. This was even more true in the earlier founding period from the early 1600s to the early 1700s.