Archive for April, 2016

Ted Cruz_2

Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina.

This is the first of what, Lord willing, I hope will be a regular feature on this blog. Posts that deal in brief with multiple topics. For lack of a better name, I’ll stick with calling it This ‘n That for now.


Peddling Fiction

In his January State of the Union speech, President Barak Obama shot back at critics of his economic policies, saying they were “peddling fiction.” Since that time, the stock market has staged a recovery and now sits at all time highs, despite the steady stream of bad economic news.

But while the stock market continues to levitate, the incomes of ordinary Americans stagnate. As trends forecaster Gerald Celente tells it, “A report by the University of Michigan illustrates the Gilded Age wealth inequality that now prevails. The median American household was 19.6 times poorer than an average household in the 95th percentile in 2003. By 2013, the average household in the 95th percentile (top 5 percent) was 24.2 times richer than the median household and 426.5 times richer than the average household in the 25th percentile.”

Constitutional capitalism, the economic and political system of the Bible, is what lifted the people of Western Europe and North America out of poverty in the wake of the Reformation. It is the application of the implications of the Gospel created the broad-based prosperity of the middle class that those of us blessed to live in the West have come to enjoy and even take for granted.

But as the heirs of the Reformation have rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the chimera of humanism and socialism and big government, prosperity has been destroyed, freedom has shrunk, and the inevitable result has followed: the re-enserfment of the once-prosperous and free middle classes of these nations.


Read Full Post »

Pat McCrory

Pat McCrory, embattled governor of North Carolina.

Oligarchy:  Government by the few; a form of government in which the power is confined to a few persons or families; also, the body of persons composing such a government.


American oligarchy. What a strange term it is. In the years immediately following the cold war, it was common to hear about the Russian oligarchs. These were unscrupulous men who were alleged to have acquired great power and wealth after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, and to have done so in a dishonest fashion. But back then, no one ever spoke of an American oligarchy.

But now, more and more it is common to hear people speak of about an American oligarchy. And it would seem they are onto something. Consider:

  • Gay Marriage: In June 2015, a body of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court found that the US Constitution guarantees homosexual couples the right to marry. And this in spite of the fact that 1) the Constitution says nothing about marriage, that 2) large numbers of the American people oppose gay marriage and that 3) many states, including Ohio where I live, had laws prohibiting gay marriage that were put there as a reflection of the will of the people. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, any attempt by states to offer some measure of protection to those who oppose the encroachments of the aggressive, unbiblical homosexual lobby are met with the strictest denunciations from oligarchs in both business and culture.
  • Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid: Some politicians come with baggage. Hillary comes with a whole baggage train. That Mrs. Clinton is a felon is almost a certain. For her guilt has nothing to do with the content of the emails she had on her private server. As former CIA officer Scott Uehlinger put it, “The fact that she set up a private server, in and of itself, means she is guilty of a felony right there. Obviously, by having a private server, she was conspiring to evade her signed sworn statements that she would uphold secrecy agreements. The fact that simply established that (private server) regardless of what was on it, she intended to go around and circumvent the law.” Any ordinary American would long ago have found himself rotting in a cell in Leavenworth for committing just a fraction of the violations Hillary almost certainly has committed, and yet not only does she not suffer the legal consequences for her actions, but she is allowed to run for the nation’s highest office with nary a peep from the national press.


Read Full Post »

Bernie Sanders_2.png

Bernie Sanders

Last week we reported that democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was off to see the wizard. And sure enough, he got his audience. According to this report from the Daily Beast, Sanders, in Rome for a conference celebrating Centesimus AnnusCentesimus Annus, a papal encyclical by John Paul II, is a semi-Marxist celebration of an earlier papal encyclical by the 19th century socialist pope Leo XIII; pope Leo’s encyclical, titled Rerum Novarum, is a strident, socialist attack on constitutional capitalism, the economic and political system of the Bible – received his hoped for meeting with the pope during the senator’s stay in the Vatican.


The article quotes the pope as saying, “This morning as I was leaving [Rome], Senator Sanders was there. He knew I was coming out at that time, and he had the kindness to greet me. When I came down, he introduced himself, I greeted him with a handshake, and nothing more. It’s common courtesy, this is called common courtesy.”

The pope is further added, “If someone thinks that greeting someone is getting involved in politics, I recommend that they find a psychiatrist.”

In that case, I’d better schedule some couch time next week, because by all means I believe that the pope’s decision to meet with Sanders was political.

I’m not sure what is more offensive about this meeting. The fact that the pope is clearly attempting to influence the American presidential election, or the fact that he’s lying about it. The Roman Catholic Church-State is perhaps the most political organization on earth. And this pope may well be the most openly political man to hold the office in some time. For Francis I to dissimulate about his political meddling is insulting, but not unexpected coming from a Jesuit.

Of course, Sanders is not the only current presidential candidate to cozy up to the current occupant of the seat of Antichrist. Shortly before the pope’s visit to the US in September 2015, Hillary Clinton had this to say about Francis I,

I am not a Catholic, but I am a great admirer of the pope. I think that what he’s trying to do is take this venerable institution, the Roman Catholic Church, and really, once again, place it on a firm foundation of scriptures of Christ’s words.”

A few weeks later, still in September 2015, she penned an article for the National Catholic Reporter, in which she opined,

His Holiness Pope Francis calls Earth “our common home.” “Our common home requires our striving for the common good,” Social Service Sr. Simone Campbell, one of the Nuns on the Bus, wrote earlier this year.

In one short paragraph, Clinton used the blasphemous title favored by the popes, His Holiness, flacked for the socialist environmentalist movement, and for good measure threw in one of Rome’s favorite, antichristian economic buzz words, “the common good.” Quite an achievement that, and in a mere thirty-five words to boot.

At the same time Hillary went pandering in the National Catholic Reporter, Ted Cruz decided he wanted a piece of the papal action as well. In an article appearing in the Federalist, Cruz gushed about Pope Francis, writing,

Pope Francis has spoken to the world, proclaiming the inherent truth and goodness of life, marriage, and religious liberty. I am grateful for his leadership on these central issues. In an era when many global leaders are descending to relativism, his courageous defense of the dignity of the human person, the beauty in the sacrament of marriage[as a Baptist, Cruz is well aware that Evangelicals do not consider marriage a sacrament; here, he adopts the language of Rome, apparently to score political points with Romanists; it is this sort of subtle pandering that casts Cruz as a political opportunist rather than a man of principle], and the duty to speak for those who are persecuted is a light to the world of the scriptural truths that are ever-present in our lives.

So, Ted Cruz believes that the Man of Sin can too speak the truths of Scripture. Given the abject failure of the Protestant pulpit to warn people about the true nature of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church-State, we now are treated to the spectacle of a an Evangelical Senator from Texas falling all over himself to praise Antichrist. A strange sight indeed.

The only candidate who thus far has not kissed the Bishop of Rome’s ring is Donald Trump, who called the pope “disgraceful” for questioning his Christian faith. From what this writer has been able to observe, Donald Trump is no Christian. But when it comes to assessing the pope, I’d say he’s right on target.

Read Full Post »

The past week saw US presidential candidate Donald Trump at the center of another controversy, this time related to the issue of abortion. In an exchange with MSNBC host Chris Matthews during a Town Hall in Wisconsin, Trump responded to Matthews’ question, “Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?,” by saying, “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.” Matthews asked a clarifying question, “For the woman?” To which Trump answered, “Yes, there has to be some form.”

As a result of his remarks, Trump has come under fire from both pro-choice and pro-life advocates. On the pro-choice side, critics have been quick to seize on Trump’s statement as a correct logical inference of the pro-life position and, therefore, a good reason to reject pro-life arguments in favor of continuing support for Roe v. Wade. As pro-choice writer Jill Filipovic put it, “If abortion is murder, then women who have them are criminals – right?,” and further, “When you make something illegal, it comes with penalties – this is how criminal law works.”

Many pro-life advocates have moved to distance themselves from Trump’s comments, with one abortion opponent stating categorically, “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” Marjorie Dannenfelser, another pro-life supporter, responding to Trump’s remarks said, “But let us be clear: punishment is solely for the abortionist who profits off the destruction of one life and the grave wounding of another.”

Matthews’ question should be of interest to anyone involved in the abortion debate, especially to Christians, whose faith implies respect for both life, law and logic. With that in mind, what should Trump have said in response to Matthews’ question? The best option open to Trump, and he would have been entirely within his right to do this, would have been for him to punt. Why is this? Because Matthews asked the question of Trump as one, “running for president of the United States [who] will be chief executive of the United States.” But the Federal government has no constitutional role in the abortion debate. As Ron Paul observed,

[T]he Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states (Liberty Defined, 2).

But underlying both Matthews’ question and Trump’s response appears to be the assumption that abortion does, in fact, properly fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But if there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution itself, it is hard to see any reason for the federal courts to have jurisdiction on the matter of abortion.

Instead of allowing himself to be dragged into Matthews’ trap, Trump could have sidestepped the issue by stating he would like to see jurisdiction concerning abortion returned to the states. This can be done, “with a majority vote in Congress and the signature of the President” (Liberty Defined, 7). This approach would have allowed Trump honestly to position himself both as an opponent of Rove v. Wade and an advocate of limited, constitutional government. It would also have saved him a good deal of embarrassment and backtracking.

Read Full Post »

The latest LGBTQ attack on property rights comes to us courtesy of Rose Trevis, a transgender man – i.e. a woman posing as a man – who has filed suit against Hawleywood’s barbershop in Long Beach, California.

The suit was prompted when Trevis was refused service by the barbershop that has a policy of serving men only. “I felt very upset, I guess discriminated against,” Trevis said. Trevis has retained famed attorney Gloria Allred to represent her.

The last few years have seen an explosion of such suits. Florists, bakers, photographers and bed and breakfast owners, all going about their own business, have found themselves the targets of an aggressive, fascist, unbiblical homosexual rights movement that seeks to use the power of the state to force its agenda on everyone.

In many cases, the business owner’s Christian beliefs were the basis of the refusal of service. In others, such as the barbershop in Long Beach, no religious objection was put forth, only company policy was cited.

Some who support a business owner’s decision to refuse service to homosexual or transgender customers attempt to defend this decision on the basis of free speech, while others do so on the basis of religious liberty. Both defenses, well intentioned as they are, fail for the same reason: the issue is not one of free speech or religious liberty. This issue at hand is one of property rights. Does a business owner reserve the right to refuse service for any reason, or may a customer force him to perform a service against his will?


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: