In 1940, newly elected Prime Minister Winston Churchill rallied his countrymen to the looming Battle of Britain with the words, “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and it Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.”
I’m certainly not here to argue with Churchill’s assessment of his country’s finest hour. But if yesterday’s vote by the British to leave the European Union didn’t quite rise to the level of their stand against the Nazi war machine, it was, nevertheless, a most impressive feat. One I never thought I would see.
The globalists and oligarchs threw everything they could at the Brexit partisans, including their usual tired mix of fear mongering, dire warnings of economic catastrophe, and bogus charges of racism.
And it failed. All of it.
Likely, this won’t be the end of the issue. Globalists aren’t the sort to go quietly into that good night.
But for those who love liberty, this was a sweet victory. It proves that ordinary people can see the corrupt establishment demagoguery – the constant siren song wooing them trade their precious freedoms for a mirage of bureaucratic security – for the lie that it is. And it gives hope to others who seek to do likewise.
Elections, a Biblical View
And speaking of oligarchy, perhaps the biggest complaint this year among both Democratic and Republican voters has been has been the blatant rigging of the primaries by the elders in both parties.
That the Deep State’s favorite candidates were being promoted was obvious enough to any reasonably astute observer all along. But if there were any remaining doubts that the respective party hierarchies have nothing but disdain for their ordinary voters, Curly Haugland’s extraordinary CNBC interview should dispel all doubts.
According to Haugland, “political parties chose their nominee, not the general public.” And this mistaken idea is the fault of the media. He even went so far as to openly wonder why parties even bother with primary elections at all.
The CNBC panel, to their credit, was dumbfounded by Haugland’s arrogance.
All this raises the question, so just what is the proper procedure for holding elections anyway?
As Scripturalists, we must turn to the pages of the Bible to find the answer. In Acts 6 we find the most detailed account of the process of holding elections in the church. There we read,
Now in those day, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “it is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business (Acts 6:1-3).
Note well, it is not the assembled apostles who were in charge of nominating and electing the seven to their office, but ordinary Christians were tasked with this responsibility. John Robbins described the church’s election process this way,
In this example [Acts 6], written for our learning, the apostles overthrow some of the most cherished practices of ecclesiastical societies today. First, their appointing of officers, including teachers like Stephen and Philip, was not done without the consent of the congregation. From this we learn that ordinary Christians have the right to choose their own officers and teachers. Teachers, much less priests, are not to be imposed on congregations. Furthermore, the apostles did not even presume to propose men for the approval of the congregation; the congregations were to seek out men themselves, for ordination by the apostles. The apostles neither imposed nor chose congregational officers (The Church Effeminate, 31).
If the assembled apostles refused the right to impose church officers on the people, much less does any present day political party have the right to impose presidential candidates on its voters.
More Fiction Peddling
Speaking of arrogance in high places, one of the most memorably haughty presidential statements in recent years was Barak Obama’s January 2016 declaration during his State of the Union address. In it, he decided that anyone who dared criticize the economic recovery during his term in office was just “peddling fiction.”
So in that spirit, here’s some more fiction for you. According to a headline on Zero Hedge, “Caterpillar Retail Sales Decline for Unprecedented 42nd Consecutive Month.”
This is a big deal for the simple reason that many consider Caterpillar to be the bellwether stock of the world’s economy.
According to noted financial commentator Jim Cramer, “The only conference call you will ever need” is Caterpillar, it “is my gospel, my go-to call on which many of my decisions are based…it is a superb evaluator of what’s happening in each of the countries it sells in and gives you the most thorough description of each economy…Caterpillar’s the primer, the source for your global outlook…”
From the chart below, we can see that Caterpillar went into negative growth territory back in 2013 and has remained there ever since.
And that, folks, is not fiction. It’s a snapshot of a global economy in recession, regardless of what the powers that be want you to believe.
Islamist Shoots Up Gay Nightclub, Second Amendment to Blame
By now, the Orlando night club shooting’s old news, but it keeps on making headlines.
According to all right thinking mainstream commentators, the reason for the atrocity is not the fact that institutions, such as Pulse nightclub where the shootings took place, that openly promote sodomy are permitted to exist. Neither is the problem with Islamic extremism. Neither does it lie with the US foreign policy of preemptive war that has reduced much of the middle east to a smoldering ruin, thus creating masses of Muslim refugees, some of whom greatly resent their host countries.
No. The problem, we’re told, is with wing-nut Americans who, for no apparent logical reason, bitterly cling to their guns and religion and resist all common sense gun control laws.
But upon careful examination, often what is called common sense turns out to be nonsense. And this is surely the case with the gun control laws proposed in the wake of the Orlando massacre.
For example, Democrats have decided to resurrect calls to prohibit individuals on the “terror watch list” from purchasing a gun. “Why, it’s common sense that potential terrorists shouldn’t be able to buy guns!,” or so goes the argument. As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, “there is no excuse for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns.”
But this argument falls flat upon even the most cursory examination.
In the US we have something called due process, and it’s guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part, “No person…shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Reid and his supporters want to prevent people who have been put on the “terror watch list” from buying guns. But ending up on this list is not the result of conviction in a court of law, but simply a matter of bureaucratic caprice.
“When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database,” is the way Charles C.W. Cooke phrased it.
Reid’s proposal is tyranny, plain and simple, and it ought to be resisted by all Americans concerned about preserving their liberties.