Constitutionalist Commentary part 1

This is part one of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This first part will cover the Preamble to the party platform. You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

They begin by giving glory to God. As a Christian, and a firm believer in the law of sowing and reaping, I view this as only right. Without God, there can be no success, no progress, and no freedom. Ascribing God the honor due Him is tantamount to a successful nation. This is seen throughout the Old Testament with Israel’s example, as well as other honorable mentions.

From there, we move on to an acknowledgement of the foundations of this country. Though revisionists have attempted to rewrite the majority of our nation’s history, the fact remains that this country was founded on Biblical principle. The fact remains that the majority of the founders were Christians, though their dogmatic and theological beliefs varied.

There is one glaring fact about this section that I wish to expound upon. For this country to have grown in the way it has, and succeeded in the way it has, there could be no other foundation other than the Bible. The Koran demands unbelievers be converted, by any means necessary. The redes of Wicca, or witchcraft, allow for gross misconduct, so long as no other living person is harmed. Atheism would never have founded a nation wherein religion is practiced freely. However you look at it, the principles and precepts upon which the nation was founded could come from only one place- The Bible.

Now some have stated that the first and second commandments come into direct contradiction with the Constitution. I want to take a moment to address this. The idea is that, because the first two commandments deal with having no other god before God, the first amendment is contradictory. Thus, most people using this argument are doing so in hopes of “proving” the United States was not formed on a Christian foundation. The argument is fundamentally flawed, however, when one takes into account the fact that it allows for the free practice of religion, but does not demand the adherence to a specific religion. As such, it is not anything even close to a contradiction; rather, it is further proof of the wisdom of the Founders. They formed the country based upon the whole of the Bible, rather than just a few parts.

Now we come to the five principles listed at the end of the preamble. I will list and comment each one.

· That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness… I agreed with these words when I first read them in the Declaration of Independence, and I continue to agree with them. Some may point out that the word “property” is not found in the original Declaration- This is wrong merely on a technicality. The word is found within the original, but not within the ratified version.

· That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights… This is a point I believe to be one of the most at risk liberties in our nation today. The regulatory nature of every form of government, from local to federal, in regards to property is preposterous. More to the point, the fact that these rights are continually trod upon through the use of sovereign ownership, in whatever form it takes, is a supreme violation of the people’s will, and a betrayal of their good faith.

· That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all… Some may disagree with this statement; I do not. Government was never meant to be a wet nurse, a “Daddy Warbucks,” or a savior. It was meant to be a sentinel- Ever vigilant to the welfare of the citizens. Welfare is not defined as a check every week or so. It is the well being and peace of every individual to live out life and live to the fullest. However, it is not the government’s job to assure that person is able to live at the peak of their potential- Merely that they have the opportunity and chance to do so. Everything else is up to the individual. Basically, the statement of the government is this: “I keep you safe, and provide the peace and the law to allow you to succeed; get to it.”

· That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights… Nowhere in history do we see a government remain a champion of liberty and freedom. If there were such a government, it would still be around today. As such, every government must remain constantly and consistently in check at all times. There is need for growth and flexibility, but there is also a requirement for a very specific boundary that will not, and cannot, be crossed. This government has crossed it long ago.

· That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed… This is how the above commentary is achieved. That the Constitution remain the highest law of the land; that said law not be changed except in great need, such as the Civil Rights movement; and that no part of the Constitution be altered to allow for greater government power. Power truly does corrupt, and it will corrupt a system as easily as a human being. Once corrupted, the entity will continue to grow, much like cancer. Thus the need for absolute accountability on the part of the public servants, which will begin with a heavy emphasis on the word “Servant.”

This is my commentary on the Preamble of the Constitution Party. It is, in my opinion, one of the most accurate appraisals of where this nation needs to be. No other party has the wherewithal to champion such a goal. Certainly no other party is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to return this nation to its original design.

Next, I will be looking at the next section: Sanctity of Life.

FDR, Nationalism and H.R. 973

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

~Franklin D. Roosevelt

I find it very interesting on more than one level that FDR, a man who lived about half his life as a cripple, made a statement such as this. I am not slamming him for being crippled- In fact, that is about the only thing I hold him in esteem for. The man was the only physically challenged president we've had, and he did a pretty decent job in many respects. The problem is that he also did a horrendous job in many others.

Actually, one of the first reasons I find it interesting is that it is a quote many liberals would wish to champion. Notice, I did not use the words Democrat or Republican: Truth be told, there is very little difference between parties any longer. No there is only ideology, and that breaks roughly into Conservative and Liberal, with many riding fence in between; but I digress. It is a quote they would champion because it sounds like a truthful statement from a heroic figure. The man could not walk, yet look at his keen observation!

I cannot help but notice, however, that the only backwards walking I've seen from most modern Conservatives is derived from their need to clean up the past administration's mistakes. The charge I often hear is that Conservatives are stuck in the past- Well, people who clean up someone else's disasters often are, though not by choice.

This brings me to an article I read earlier today originally written by the late Howard Zinn. In it, he lambastes what he terms "Nationalism ... One of the great evils of our time." The problem is, Zinn proceeds to describe patriotism- Not Nationalism. Now mind you, this man was a veteran. He fought in World War II. Thus, it was strange to read such a gross mischaracterization- He ascribes the very attitude which gave rise to Hitler to patriotism.

Take, for instance, this excerpt from the beginning of the article:

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blesse

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

This is not Nationalism- This is patriotism that is being attacked here. Perhaps more amazing in its sheer foolishness is the fact that the article attempts to paint the United States of America as unimportant, unexceptional and far from unique. He ends his abomination of an article with these words: "We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history ... We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

This is humanism at its best- Not to mention historical revisionism, interpretive deviance and terminological hijacking. While I agree that the U.S. has no feet to stand on from a moral perspective in many instances, the rest of his closing statement is purely progressive liberal bull.

I bring this up because once again, a Conservative has to set the record straight.

Nationalism is what Germany experienced during the rise of Adolph Hitler. It is an extreme attitude of superiority centered around a single powerful figurehead. The ruler institutes symbols and the subjects show reverence and/or deference to these without question, criticism or complaint. It was this attitude that allowed Hitler to not only come to power, but also to taking his first steps towards eternal, historical infamy. When Hitler was questioned, what resulted was often a less than pretty sight; within his government, individuals who stood against him wound up catching a bad case of death.

Contrasting heavily with this is Patriotism. Patriots support their nation, think highly of their nation and appreciate their nation. However, they are also highly critical if something seems to be affecting it for the worse- They speak out, demanding a return to proper adherence to rule of law, for instance. Or, hypothetically speaking, denouncing as wrong something as obvious as electing a duel citizen to federal public office. In this country, this sort of thing can be done at any time, anywhere. In this country, patriots rally behind a flag and their troops while demanding accountability from their leaders. In this country, people can do this without disappearing unexpectedly- Or being slaughtered on the spot.

This article exemplifies perfectly the need for H.R. 973. In short, it spells out the need for all courts, from Municipal to Supreme, decide cases based solely upon US Law and no other. It seems so simple and common sense that one might be tempted to dismiss it as unnecessary. Such a dismissal would be a colossal mistake, however.

As indicated in the earlier example, common sense is far from commonplace nowadays. As such, people are needing, more and more, for things to be spelled out for them. Our leaders in D.C. top this list. For this reason, I urge you to phone your Reps and Senators and demand their support and passage of this bill. It's simple, it's common sense, but in the long run, it may save this country.

If you don't know who your Reps and Senators are, try this handy online tool.

Regulation and Foul Play

There are certain things that this government does which truly annoy the crap out of me. Certain things such as... Banning cloves because they're supposedly trainer cigarettes- Though studies show differently. Studies actually showing that cloves account for less than 1% of all underage smokers preference. Studies further showing that though menthols are far more addictive, they remain legal.

Such as... Anti-bacterial soap potentially being banned by the FDA and EPA. Such as... A fool's group attempting to outlaw Happy Meals throughout the nation. Such as... A group trying to get trans fat banned.

If you want to know more about what's got me so riled up, check out the PDF booklet written by Ronin Lawbringer. All the links are below, and I do have permission from the author to make this available freely.

It all boils down to this: Freedom in this country is not freedom. Instead, it has become a simpering attempt at complacency while the overlords bilk us of everything.

Time to take a stand.

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - Megaupload

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - Rapidshare

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - Hotfile

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - FileSonic

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - FileServe

REGULATION: A Dirty Deal by Ronin Lawbringer - MediaFire

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 2

Earlier, I spoke of the next destination in our lives- Not this finite one you and I live on planet Earth, but the one we live within it. Like a box within a box, our eternal spirit is merely housed within a finite physical shell. We are created as dependent eternal beings; able to live beyond physical death, but dependent upon our Creator for that life.

This is overlooked in modern Christianity, and has been for some time. In fact, there have been those "hellfire and brimstone" preachers which have pushed forward the idea of our earning our right to enter Heaven here on Earth. These say that if one dies in sin, one falls through into Hell. Strangely enough, no sin is present in this world save that which grieves the Holy Spirit- That is if I'm reading my Bible right. Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that humans are perfect, nor am I committing heresy.

What I am saying is that MY Bible states Christ died for the sins of ALL. That means every one of them, not just the ones we repented of this morning. In fact, the only sin which is not forgivable- Is not accepting that very forgiveness. It's the ticket to board the cruise ship; if you have it, you go- If not, you don't.

Nevertheless, these wonderful preachers made their money convincing people that they were hot because Hell was right beneath them... And not because they were packed into a tent tighter than sardines. It was this ministry of condemnation that gave rise to such mindsets as that of the noted agnostic, Robert Ingersoll. It was he who stated thusly:

They say that when god was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing with him on the subject of the Trinity. They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be.

Individuals who say these things seem not to be understanding a very crucial fact: We humans are eternal, within a finite vessel. In the beginning, after the Fall of Man, yet before the Sacrifice, all of humanity understood this. Indeed, Cain mourned that his punishment for killing Able was too great to bear. "Everyone who comes across me shall slay me," he states, giving reference to his own eternity within the finite.

Today, however, this seems to be the sum of existence for many, and how sad is that?! Regardless of the tragedy encompassed by such a life stance, it progresses and grows. Many are taken in by this foolish thinking, and the various forms of "logic" which spring up around it. Such as the idea that mankind is doomed for its rejection of God's love, when in reality, man is doomed for its fallen nature.

Much like a car with a shorting central computer, our lives spit and sputter and refuse to run well. Continuing on with this sort of problem could lead to far more serious disaster: A sudden seizing of the brakes and the remainder of life as a paraplegic, for this example. We could continue on, not knowing this fate is awaiting; or we could bring it in to the mechanic, who has already paid for the replacement so as not to burden us with the price.

This truth is NOT what Bell operates under in his most recent book. Instead, he presents his version of "truth," one that leaves out the troublesome issues of Hell and eternal justice. He asks, in essence, what kind of loving God would damn a human soul to eternal punishment? The answer, he states, is that God would not. Thus he commits to the ages an atrocious error, one which Satan himself has fabricated: The assumption one knows the Creator based upon a sole aspect.

If God is Love, than how could He damn a soul? If God were solely and completely the sort of fuzzy love we associate with teddy bears and Santa Claus, than He could not. Fortunately, God is so much more. In fact, we often start at the wrong end when teaching on the love and/or wrath of God. However, before we get to that point, we first must define terms according to the Bible, not according to today's understanding.

First, we must understand that Love is not merely a fuzzy feeling. The opposite of love is not hatred, and love has the ability to be seemingly cruel. The opposite of love is apathy, for even hatred errupts based upon love. The seeming cruelty of love takes place when it must allow for discipline and punishment. A parent hates punishing a child, but it must be done at times. Why? Because love desires the very best. Allowing an action heedless of future wellbeing would not be love- It would be gross indulgence. Thus, love will seem very cruel when the object of love does not act in its own best interest.

Then we must look to wrath. Wrath is not the form of anger we see today. If anything, it too comes from a point of love. Wrath is the natural response when the object of love acts contrary to its best interest. It is anger, disappointment and sorrow together as one. Anger that one could be so thoughtless as to disregard one's wellbeing so entirely. Disappointment that one could do so more than can be credited to mistake. Sorrow that one must be opened to punishment as a result of wrongdoing.

Where we tend to get things backwards is our teaching of the reasons for the Wrath. Most say that it is man's rejection of Christ's Love that brings the wrath. In fact, this is wrong. It is man's fallen state which brings the wrath. Sinful man does not reject the love of Christ- he rejects the sacrifice, thus taking the full weight of his own sin back upon himself.

God is not only Love. He is also just. Justice can abide nothing but complete and absolute conformity to upright living; that is, living according to the desires of love. Anything other must be punished. It is perfect love which leads to perfect justice. Love desires the very best; wrath is the result of infraction upon obtaining the best; justice responds to the infraction.

Our sin affects our entire being, a blemish upon an undying spirit. Yet we seem to believe it a temporary thing. Because of this false belief, many see the idea of Hell as being entirely too much. In reality, however, it is a just punishment based upon the lasting decision of an eternal being to reject a permanent covering. In effect, man is already charged with his crime, and the punishment is death. When man rejects the sacrifice, he rejects his own plea bargin- The one thing which could get him out of that death.

And yet, with all of this, people seem to believe an eternally lasting crime not worthy of an eternal punishment. The crime not forgiven, the only one, is the one for which forgiveness is not sought. Those eventually sent to Hell are sent, not because of God's desire to punish, but because they have condemned themselves.

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 1

The Roman poet Virgil stated that "we each bear our own Hell."

William Shakespeare once famously penned "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."

Oscar Wilde observed that "we are each our own devils, and we make this world our Hell."

Each of these statements seem to be a point that Rob Bell's latest book could originate from. In actuality, they reveal something rather true about this world; namely, that it can be a living hell, and that such a hell is based solely upon our own choices. Our decisions and the subsequent consequences can be disastrous, affecting not only our lives, but those of the people around us. It can truly be a hell of such dark and terrible conditions that we may be happy to see the Hell of the afterlife pale in comparison. Such a notion would truly bring happiness to many and satisfy most who are itching to hear something they like.

Now where have I heard that phrase about itching ears before?

Oh, yes. Second Timothy 4:3-4 --

³The time is coming when people won't listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. ⁴They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories.

That pretty much speaks to the latest happy-happy thoughts to come from the mind of Rob Bell. Now, within this book Rob suggests that Hell is a myth- Not outright, but in so many words. More literally, he makes the same historically rooted arguments every other anti-judgment person has ever made: That Gehenna was the local city dump always on fire, etc. He then jumps from these points to say that Christ never once spoke of eternal damnation.

Is he reading the same Bible I am, or did he mistake his Emergent Church Translation for a copy of Finding Peace Within? Before anyone gets upset with me about this, bear in mind that the Seventh Day Adventist church is founded on the idea of annihilation and soul sleep, as opposed to an eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. Bell does not suggest this, but he's on board at least as far as Cecil Perry, President of the SDA church in England, has remarked. Perry made the statement in 2000 that:

“The message of hell is in stark contrast to the message of hope and love and tends to engender fear”

(“British Seventh-day Adventists Warn Against ‘Stoking’ Hell Fires,” Religious News Service, April 2000).

That's right- Apparently, fear is no longer allowed within the Christian faith. Now, I'm not going to outrightly claim the SDA church is not Christian. I am not doing this right now because at this point, I do not want to be sidetracked.

The reason I find it interesting that there is this sudden desire among the various Christian branches to erase Hell from the picture. It is almost as if everyone would rather the idea of an eternal judgment is TOO wrong, or TOO harsh. In fact, the idea of an eternally lasting judgment issued by an eternally just God makes eternal sense.

There is a strange correlation between this thought and some other observations. The first observation was made by Ms. Madalyn Murray O'Hare, when she famously stated: "The fear of hell is the basis for the Christian faith." In fact, that is not the basis of the Christian faith- Though such stark contrast in viewpoints has not been helped in current times by the likes of Fred Phelps.

In fact, it is the fear of God that is the basis of Christianity, and not fear as defined by 1, 2, and 4 of Websters Dictionary. Let's be honest about this- Even our modern definition of fear does not begin to describe what is spoken of in the Bible. Admiration, reverence, and the sort of "fear" felt when entering the presence of a very powerful but highly respected leader is what's spoken of... Not terror.

However, it IS this terror sort of fear that is spoken of by Perry and O'Hare. It is also this sort of fear which has led countless people to reject the truth of the Bible; these people who would rather be happy in a finite and mortal existence than be infinitely secure. The sort of fear that encourages people to make a joke and mockery of its very existence. It was funny man Jim Carrey whose character stated: "Maybe there is no actual place called hell. Maybe hell is just having to listen to our grandparents breathe through their noses when they're eating sandwiches."

This same fear is what has led people such as O'Hare and Perry to reject its teaching, or object to it, one of the two. The idea that there could be justice in the world, and beyond it, apparently does not sit well with those who do not wish to live by any moral or ethical code but their own. These are the people who claim that Hell is already present here on Earth; that we need not have one which will last for eternity, because we have one which can last our entire pitiful existence. As some might say, one which can last the most important part of our life: The part for which we are alive, and not merely memory. In the words of Ed Babinski--

Given headaches, backaches, toothaches, strains, scrapes, breaks, cuts, rashes, burns, bruises, PMS, fatigue, hunger, odors, molds, colds, yeast, parasites, viruses, cancers, genetic defects, blindness, deafness, paralysis, mental illness, ugliness, ignorance, miscommunications, embarrassments, unrequited love, dashed hopes, boredom, hard labor, repetitious labor, accidents, old age, senility, fires, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes and volcanoes, I can not see how anyone, after they are dead, deserves "eternal punishment" as well.

Here's a twist, however. What if this so-called "most important part" is not? What if the most important part, that which we should live for, is to come? Some may argue that we should not look ahead, that we should live in the moment and for today. What good is that, I answer, if today's rash decision impoverishes one tomorrow? Every part of life is dependent upon the preceding part: An infant dependent upon his birth; a teen his childhood; an adult his teen years; and an elder their entire life experience. What if the transition of life to death is much like the transition from womb to cradle? The womb is all the infant knows, yet there is another eighty plus years before it outside of that womb.

As such a possibility cannot be ruled out, and no evidence can be presented to conclusively prove otherwise, one can certainly entertain thoughts of the outside world- The world beyond this existence. However, there is a serious misconception regarding the destination of the dead. This misconception hinges on the idea that there are merely two places a departed spirit can go: The first being Heaven, the second being Hell. There is, in fact, a third; the hall of judgment. There is no purgatory, no place to work off one's sins, but there is a place where one discovers if one's sins are covered by the Blood of the Lamb... And their own acceptance of that gift. It is here that we, having shaken loose the bonds of time, gather after death. It is not our final destination, but it is our next.