The Republican Party (and its great fortunes)

By: Christian Malone

When you hear someone talking about the “fortune” of the Republican Party, you might think that I’m talking about corporate donors, or the provisions thrown out of McCain-Feingold recently by the Supreme Court. no, not at all.

Their great fortune is that the “Tea Party” movement, the grassroots libertarian conservative movement which is turning into a pseudo-party and is currently polling higher than the mainstream Republican Party when compared as an election between these two and the Democrats (I’m assuming that not too many Democrats will be swayed by the “Tea Party”), has not decided to eat the Republican Party alive.

http://whalertly.com/wordpress/2010/01/22/the-republican-party-and-its-grand-fortune/

Scott Brown, Senator-elect (R-MA) [just saying that makes me happy], is a man on a path to great things in national politics because he defeated Goliath, securing the seat of the late Edward Kennedy, a great champion of modern American liberalism, and hero to many in the Democratic Party. He secured a seat that was held by a progressive incumbent Democrat for 49 years. An extremely popular progressive Democratic incumbent in a state where Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans (but both are outnumbered by unaffiliated voters). He deserves much credit, and he also should be feared by Republicans, such as John Boehner, because right now he commands the respect of having a mandate from the people of Massachusetts to really stop “politics as usual.” And that means you, House Republican Leadership, and you too Senators. And you, John McCain.

That means: stop the politics of attack and negativity. Noone wants to vote for you, they just don’t want to vote for Democrats. Those that do hold up being a Republican, as if it were a value. Republican is mostly a way of saying I’m not a Democrat, and I lean right. The same way as the Democratic Party is mostly a way of saying I’m not a Republican, and I lean left. It’s a term of division, and of partisanship. I know I just stated the obvious. But that’s my point, division is nothing to celebrate. I am a libertarian, conservative, single-payer supporting, right-wing leaning American, who votes with the Republican party because they usually value firearms rights and generally restrict government intervention.

The Tea Party movement is a movement which rejects the notion that party should be the reason why representatives vote for or against issues and bills. They seem happy enough to elect Republicans for the time being, but eventually they will realize that the Republicans are still just following their leadership in a lot of cases. They still have a Whip, whose job it is to coerce, albeit gently, Republicans to vote with the party line.

This may be the death of the Republican Party. I actually hope so, because that would leave the Democratic Party in a convenient place for me: as a dinosaur; an obsolete mechanism of a long forgotten era of partisanship.

Yes. Before you ask out loud, yes. I realize this is all very ambitious to assume that a grassroots organization which is supposed Republican astroturf could become a major political party and upset the system as we know it. But as a student of history, as well as politics, it is not difficult to conclude that it could happen, and has happened, sometimes with bad results, sometimes good. For the best, but also the worst example I can think of, look at the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. They gained support because they had what the people wanted: prosperity in the face of ruin. The Tea Party may hold the same prospect to a conservative and moderate majority that is tired of the machinations of the two-party system and the implications of constant, highly partisan elections for the House, local offices, Senate, and President to top it all off. And, to prosperity, we add another value that they carry as a banner: Liberty. Combine this with the noble traditions of the United States, and you have a force to be reckoned with.

Finally, the NSDAP had pride. They were proud of being German. They had nationalism on their side. They made defeated Germans feel good about being German again. This is coming from a Political Science major. I’m not analyzing their societal norms, or their morals, i’m analyzing their electoral behavior, so make sure to chill out here. They made people so proud to be German they were willing to persecute anyone who wasn’t Germanic, and wanted to “liberate” their “German” brothers in the Sudetenland, Austria, and so on. This may be what the Tea Party does to a conservative base who was denied anything resembling a spot at the table when the Democrats gained a supermajority in the Senate (Thanks Arlen, you son of a…)["I thought you were a lady! So act like one." (AKA sit down and shut up, or go back to the kitchen. That's what it sounded like to me, but Michelle was very patient with him, more than I would have been. Act like a gentleman then, if you want her to act like a lady.)].

The thing that saddens me is that the reason the Democrats no longer have a supermajority is the death of Ted Kennedy. I pray for his family, and I commend him to the Lord happily, because I really do think that he was trying to fight for the people all those years. God bless you Ted, rest in peace with the Lord. If I had a choice, I’d rather Ted still be here. And Scott Brown could defeat him when the time came. No political gain is worth a life.

My Stance(s).

This is my version, I suppose, of the political courage test. I dearly hope that someday in the future, while running for office, someone digs this up and tries to call me out on my positions, because sometimes I don't get to state them all. I have quite a few positions, as you will see shortly...

This is in no particular order, just in the order in which I think of them.

Abortion: Illegal in most cases. Legal in the case of medical necessity, legal in the case of rape or incest. The physician will make the decision as to medical necessity. The physician may be held accountable if the abortion is done without any medical cause or these special cases, and the woman may be held accountable if fraud is involved. Late term abortions always illegal, no abortions in the third trimester.

Firearms: Continue the instant background check system, strengthen the system to include psychological profiles. Punish those who sell knowingly to criminals. Hold firearms manufacturers harmless in sales. Allow non-violent felons to own firearms. Keep no records regarding firearms ownership whatsoever. Allow concealed/open carry everywhere, encourage school teachers to carry openly or concealed in classrooms. Allow graduated licensing for minors, standardize national concealed/open carry licenses and classes.

Narcotics: Decriminalize all forms of narcotics ownership, sales, and use. Criminalize the "cutting" of drugs with harmful substances. Tax recreational drugs very heavily.

Alcohol: Eliminate drinking age. Maintain and strengthen punishment of impaired driving/operation of firearms/machinery. Allow concealed/open carry in liquor-license businesses.

Tobacco: Continue to require the Surgeon-General's warning on tobacco products. Remove smoking/tobacco age.

Prostitution: Decriminalize. Tax heavily, require disclosure of all medical issues related to STIs, prosecute fraud, abuse, and trafficking. Continue to ban underage prostitution.

Gambling: Allow all forms of gambling, but continue to allow sports commissions to ban officials and players from gambling in their own sports or in certain other related sports.

Roads: Raise speed limits dramatically, shift focus from high speed offences to wreckless driving and intoxication. Improve funding for roads.

Social Security: Allow opt-out of Social Security insurance.

Healthcare: Pay for all medically necessary or expedient procedures. Allow second tier insurance to pay for optional, overly risky or experimental procedures. Do not take over hospitals/healthcare practices.

Public Transport: Improve bus system cross-country, build more railways.

Marriage: De-institutionalize marriage, recognize unions between free people associating for tax purposes with one another for sexual or non-sexual reasons. Provide full rights for homosexuals and polygamists.

Flag-burning: Criminalize as an act of war against the United States of America. Prosecute heavily, punish harshly.

Nudity/Topfreedom: Decriminalize nudity as a state of dress in public. Continue to prosecute lewd acts in public.

Defense: Allow for preemptive action. Increase military salary. Create a track by which those who cannot afford college can serve for a period of time either before or after enlistment to pay for college. Continue "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Consider review of sodomy policy in the UCMJ.

Federal disaster aid: Continue to fund FEMA, but make clear that the federal government has no responsibility by law to provide any relief to those affected by disaster.

Police: Make clear that the police exist for the maintainance of the law, and also for protection of the public from lawbreakers, but that the police cannot protect every individual at all times. Encourage private arms ownership.

Financial industry: Deregulate in general, but require disclosure of practices for review by customers and potential customers for all products and services.

Fiat money: Continue practice, but attempt to balance inflation and deflation so the dollar stays steady.

Affirmative Action: Discontinue, but tax those who employ discriminatory hiring practices and who hire based on race. This tax applies to those who, having a complaint filed against them, have been found by an expert to have denied hiring/retention to employees based on race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. Exceptions exist for those catering to specific audiences and who explicitly state this in doing business.

Campaign finance: Deregulate.

Welfare: Implement workfare as the only policy for work-eligible individuals. Continue to provide aid to disabled individuals.

Education: Nationalize the primary and secondary public education system. Create guaranteed loans for those wishing to go to post-secondary institutions who show satisfactory progress and reasonable time of completion. Create cap on amount of money loaned.

Voting: Implement Instant-Runoff Voting. Allow increased freedom for third parties and unaffiliated candidates.

Environment: No caps on emissions unless they prove poisonous or harmful to humans. Replace much of America's power grid with smart grids, allow and encourage building of hundreds of new nuclear power facilities, open and support Yucca mountain facility.

Any other issue: Ask me. There are many issues about which I have less concern, such as prison reform, but would be happy to think about and express my opinion on.

I really do hope someone looks at this when they go to vote for me or not. I am an issues voter, as such, I expect people to judge me by my positions on the issues.

Constitutionalism

Today, I was confronted with a number of views, some of which offend my own personal philosophy more than others. Once again, I will state, my philosophy is completely and totally linked with my theology, and the two can never be seperated. That being said, perhaps I should better explain the rest of what I believe, which may put me at odds with your average libertarian, and most constitutionalists, and pretty much every conservative who has yet to consider my ideas. This philosophy is most certainly radical. I'm not ashamed to say it, I am a radical. I also wish to run for office someday, and if successful, I would love to destroy, completely, the power our government has gained over the lives of the American people, through legal means, by way of the construction of a new goverment, which would be extremely and explicitly limited in domestic policy. This will almost certainly require a complete overhaul of the government. Or, actually, a new government. 

Now, having laid that out, here I may possibly break with my Constitutionalist friends if I haven't done it already. I was discussing the Constitution with a friend in class, when I realised, perhaps he was right. He was arguing that what I would call tyranny of the majority, which is the current social policy of the United States government as well as the governments of the several states, was completely Constitutional if held to certain limits. Also, I am a believer in Lockean principles. While he combined Locke with Hobbes, with whom I have endless disagreement based on theology and the belief in the natural good of man, assuming he recognizes the love of Christ, he did make clear arguments based on social contract theory which mandate entering into a contract for reasons of practicality. Perhaps Locke was wrong by my philosophy too, although he would still be very close, because he allowed God into his methods and based his philosophy of grace and God himself.

Let me make something clear. I am never practical excepting in my own personal affairs. I do not give a darn what the implications are for society, there is no justification for tyranny on the level which it is exerted by our government, which is one of, if not the, freest civilized country in the world. Practicality is no concern in philosophy, unless you write it in to your philosophy. It is more prevelant in atheistic, agnostic or secular philosophy, because it is assumed that there is no constant standard of good or bad, right or wrong, where it must be defined by the philosophy itself. However, I assume that we are all immortal if we choose, and that physical harm or suffering is not nearly the worst outcome in life, and that this bodily life has only one purpose, to better understand God. This life holds no fear for me.

Also, I hold a number of things to be psychologically true. I find that all of the rules that it teaches about unconscious thought are negated by conscious thought. If I was coming up with this theory because I am psychologically prone to, would it be invalidated because it was natural? If you are aware of these psychologial tendencies, analyze them, analyze yourself, and question your logic and reasoning in your philosophy, the effects of unconscious psychology do not apply. It is just as likely that these tendencies could lead to the right answer as it is that they will lead to thw wrong answer. I say personally, and it cannot be held otherwise unless you dispute my theology, that people can be essentially good, and can be trusted. I also hold that they have responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, barring mental incapacitation.

Interestingly enough, I still believe that the government should protect the weak, meaning that any harm that you do to someone must be authorized by all parties involved. This requires additional clarification, which I will provide in future postings. This is one of only two functions which I hold to be justified. The other function is the protection of the people from foreign enemies, namely war. Also, I have no love for state's rights in an ideal situation. I see no reason why tyranny of the majority should be okay at the state level but not the federal. My only concern is the rights of the individual, and of entities created by the free association of people. This is my only goal in government, to protect and promote the rights (via negative freedoms, not positive in most circumstances) of the people to be free from all oppression. Anything else should not be expected from my politics, because I believe it to be inherently wrong. 

Now, after having seen this, tell me if you agree with my conclusion. If you are almost anyone in the mainstream of America, you will disagree, because you have been told that you need government in your life, and have never been presented with a counterpoint to this, because it was held to simply be evident by society, and by human nature. Consider for a moment my philosophy, because I believe if nothing else, you will at least find it to be valid. Consider it on its merits. If you do not know my theological basis, ask me, I would love to explain it in all detail. I would say that where some apply the Constitution as being the guiding principle to society, others would say that it is human nature, bred into us by evolution. I place God at the heart of society, which will lead to an obviously different conclusion. So please, consider the methods by which the philosophy and the final conclusions are reached. If you had drawn your guidance from the same sources which I used, would your own conclusion be so different? 

Was blind, but now, I see...

I feel the need to write this post in rebuke to my own actions, for the credit I have taken throughout my life for the things which I have done... These things which I have taken as my own doing have become sinful, not because the acts themself were sinful, but because they were either done for my own glory, or without giving proper credit to the Inspiration. I rebuke myself because I am the only one whom I may rightly judge. I know my own heart, as does God, and I know that it strays from him. 

Also, when I say things which are condemnatory towards others, although I strive not to and have not done so purposefully, this is amongst the greatest of sins, because it presumes that I know their hearts and their intentions, and also that I am to be the judge of sins. God alone is my judge and the judge of all peoples and nations. If I have ever said to any of you that the only way which we can judge men is by the word of the Scripture, that is true, but with a condition or two. Those conditions are that the person is in the process of repentance and reconizes their own sinful nature, and the second is that we ourselves understand the true nature and definition of sin. It is a thing which I struggle with more than any other problem, because I struggle with sin more than any other crisis in my life. In the end of my dwelling in this worldly body, it is not by the actions and pronunciations of others that I will be judged, I will be judged by my own actions, my own intentions, my own heart, and I will be found wanting, away from God by virtue of my sinful ways, but it matters not. I have a Saviour, bearing the marks of my sin for me, in His perfect sacrifice. All my sins are washed away by His blood, and I am free of the wages of sin, now and forever. Thank you for this gift Lord! We are free!

In this, I rejoice, and say to you all, hallelujah! All praise be to the Lord, for we are free, and we wll dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever. To those who have seen oppression by those who claimed to follow God with their mouths even as they slaughtered His people with their hands and trampled them with their feet, I say to you that I am truly sorry. These people whom you have witnessed never knew my God, my God was distant from them as they did this, my God could not even look at those who killed others this way. The Crusades, fought in the name of our Father and the Son, were never meant to be. The Inquisitions were carried out by men who forgot His divine words. It matters not if a man can quote scripture left and right, all hours of the day. Watch his actions, and you will know truly what he believes, those who practice aggression certainly have never seen my God, or have turned away from him. 

In the same vain, those who condemn with their tongues also have never heard my God. My God said do not judge, lest by the same standard you will be judged. To those who stand on the Oval and yell condemnations and damnations at "freaks," "sinners," and "whores," I say to you that when you search your heart, you will find all the same temptations as they have, but what you will hopefully find, recessed in your soul, is the Word which you knew so long ago, which taught you to love unconditionally and with prior agenda or hope of personal reward. If you are so concerned about their sins, live amongst them always, making sure that the Word never leaves their presence. They wll not give up their sinful ways without being shown God's love first. We are the vessels by which God demonstrates his love to others.

I have a friend, who recently said something which disturbed me, that there were evangelists out there who would only preach the "lovey-dovey stuff," the grace, redemption by faith, love for all part of the message of God. I ask, what other message is there? He tells us to turn from our sinful ways, and we try, but we all fail. We have all fallen short of the glory of God, and without Him, we could continue to do so. I see no message of pain or punishment in the Bible, because he gives us a way out of all of that, by which we may all be saved and never fear anything of this world or punishment again. No one who actually understood the Word could ever turn away from God, it is not possible. I say that if you see a man who is struggling with sin, and does not understand it, take pity on him, and help him understand. We would all say that it is right to take pity on a man and help him physically, but if that man was struggling with the spirit and rebelled against God, it is all too tempting to rebuke him and say that he has made his choice, now let him live with it. I am myself extremely guilty of this, and I would like to ask for the same as I am asking for others. If you see me led astray, would you not do as a good shepherd should and stop me if you can? I do not usually resist or protest when others try to help, only when they scorn, which is generally true among men, and those who do resist when helped are in need of most help, for they are most lost, and need the kindest, calmest, most patient devotion which can be mustered.

I would like to leave you tonight with a message about my language. I put no value in the language that I use. If it inspires anyone to follow God, should they consider some of it beautiful, so be it. God has granted me my language and voice, and I give all credit to him. My words may seem outdated at times, too long at others, still other times my language may seem too simple, or too vulgar for the purpose. I speak in the tongue of those around me in everyday conversation, because it helps noone to speak differently and it makes understanding difficult at times to people of different levels of vocabulary. However, when I talk to God and myself, I use the purest language I can find. It is neither more delicate and elegant, nor more straightforward and simple than it is in my head. You can be assured that I do greatly enjoy using such flowery language, it is enjoyable and beautiful for me. I apologize if it comes off in a different way than it is intended to. 

Dear God, be with me. Reveal yourself to me in all of your creation, reveal the beauty of everything in your world to me. Let me follow you always, never straying even for a minute, to look back at the life I once lead amongst the things of this world. Let me never question your purpose in me, but rather never stop looking for things to do which glorify your name. Thank you, dear Lord, for everything you have given me. Thank you for hard-learned lessons, thank you for information which you easily revealed. Thank you for sending your Son, and thank you for your Servants who found me and told me how You had set me free. Thank you for all the blessings which your servants bestowed upon me in your name, and thank you that I may take part in your Great Commission. All praise that I have in this world to give is yours, now and forever. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Controversial Topic!

Sorry to actually disappoint, but this isn't going to be about a particular controversial topic. It will be about the controversial topic! Which is, drum roll please... ... ...

Honesty!

I know that was a little anti-climactic, and it probably is not what you had in mind. I bet you thought I'd say abortion or affirmative action, something juicy from recent news headlines. No, that's not my style. This post aims to uncover the most controversial topic, which is so controversial, even those who claim to support it use it only in moderation. 

When it comes to the media, they have been shown to be friendly to neither side. Recently, the mainstream media has become a bit more friendly to our friend, one Hon. Mr. B.H. Obama. He is, however, an anomaly, the media wants what sells advertising dollars, which in his case, happens to be praise instead of constant smear campaigning. It would hardly be argued by either side that the major news outlets are ubiased in their treatment of the different parties, however. Fox News is conservative, when compared to CNN and NBC. Fox doesn't make an effort to destroy God, the Republican Party, conservatism, and family values, so I would say that makes them easily more conservative than MSNBC, which is well known for attempting to mutilate said values/groups. CNN, however, I find to be only slightly biased to the left-wing, except for certain anchors/hosts, which is fine enough, Fox has some extremely conservative anchors (I'm talking about you, Sean Hannity. Give the other side a chance every now and then, will ya?). I believe both CNN and Fox make a concerted effort to actually report the truth. Maybe not the whole truth. But as close as it gets in the mainstream.

So, that's not what I really meant by the title of the post. I'm talking about politicians. Not one, all. And everyone who's probably ever been involved in politics and won. They are dishonest (Shocker!). I say this because your general voting public has no idea the dealings and behind-the-scenes work which even the most noble, helpful bill to ever pass a legislature went through to get there. It went through lobbyists, which is not a bad thing, they exist to inform legislators about specific issues. A legislator is a generalist, while bureaucrats and lobbyists could be described as specialists, ever if they work with several different specialties. It also went through committee, which is fine, that's a necessary step too. I'm not complaining about the steps that it went through, I'm complaining about what the legislative body thought about it. Can I get this to help my district more than the others? Can I get a net gain from this Bill? Will this help me get reelected? These are all things which the bill is subjected to. What occurs when people consider these is that they lose sight of the respective Constitution which governs their actions, which represents their social contract with the people, and is what should truly be guiding their actions unless they are in the process of changing it. So, while it might gain votes in a Democratic (read: liberal) district, it is still just as unconstitutional to pass gun control (I'm talking to you Barack, you should know better. Harvard Constitutional Law.). The same applies to abortion. Also, in Republican districts, voting against gay marriage, as well as lowering taxes are always a plus, while I consider them to be good in some cases, only with the proper coating of liberty before you pass the law (AKA eliminate state-sanctioned marriage, cut taxes AND SPENDING). The point I make is, if what the people want is not best represented by your views, you might want to sit out on politics. 

I know someone must no tell me, "but Christian, noone exactly agrees with your views! Why would you want to get involved in politics?" Good question. A majority of America is Christian. Some have no idea what that really means, but that's fine, there's still hope for them, and the message is nothing that would turn people off, it is a message of love and peace. Secondly, I do not want to stop people from doing things which do not harm others. I believe this is an extremely reasonable position, and that it is possible that even atheists could take a liking to my style of government. I see the problem with the Republican Party brand today is that it is unwilling to try and sell conservatism to urban populations, racial minorites (which is complete bull, the only reason the Democratic Party has a lock on the minority vote is that they have been told they need affirmative action and welfare, so the Republican Party is not a viable option for support), and civil libertarians. I will go there. There are plenty of people who just want to be left alone, kept free, and taxed very little. I'd say that's a majority of America. I'd also say a lot of Americans didn't vote on November 4th, and the ones that did had no workable option for liberty. Bob Barr had no chance of winning, statistically speaking. Neither did Ron Paul. What the Republican Party needs to do is what they honestly know to be right, which would be to run on staying out of people's lives, like they have always promised, lowering taxes when possible, now is not the time, when we have 11 trillion building up in debt, we have to at least keep taxes at the same level and slash spending, something Congress sucks at. This is the truly courageous position, and I would run on it. You can't cut taxes with all this unnecessary debt. If the party opened itself up to real talk about liberties and took away the ACLU's claim that they are the defenders of civil liberties, this election would be a hard fought battle, but would be totally winnable in every district, everywhere in the United States. This is what I believe, what I work towards. Well, I hope some of that made sense to you, and if not, I'd love to get specific on specific issues, which I will do later on in further blog posts. If you want to know where I am on a specific issue, email me. I promise I'll answer honestly, even if it's inconvenient, or against the Party, or detrimental to my reputation. Bring it on, the truth does not cause damage, lies and deceit do. 

So my final question to the reader is, what do you find offensive about my philosophy, about my writing, anything? I saw I've got a few people who read my posts and disagreed completely. Is freedom so disagreeable? Is God so disagreeable? Is the message of hope spread by Jesus so offensive, or is it my message that we need to help each other willingly as opposed to being forced to do so by the government? I must admit, I'm confused about how any American could disagree completely with my views, but that's the point. So comment, email me, find me and come talk to me, I want to know. Who knows, you might just change my mind, I might become a secular progressive totalitarian socialist if you are convincing enough.

The Red Pill

In the movie, The Matrix, Morpheus offers Neo a blue pill and a red pill. The blue pill would make Neo fall asleep, and he would wake up in his bed, and he wouldn't remember any of what he had seen or heard, never to be troubled again. He could live out his life, as it was before he found out that everything he knew was a lie. The red pill would signify he was ready to learn more, and he would remember all of it. Neo chose the red pill. Which would you choose, if I told you that I've figured out that your political philosophy is incompatible with faith in God?

Like most of my ideas, I'm talking to myself in third and first person terms. I mean to say that I do not venture to say that I can judge the philosophies of politics held by others. I can provide my own advice, in what I have come up with, and I can truly say that I have considered these things by the word of God and all my God-given logic. My point here in stating this is that what if our philosophies are wrong by God. Most would agree that German National Socialism is incompatible with any form of Christianity. They killed people by the millions. This is almost uncontested except for by Christian Identity sects and the Aryan Nations, neither of whom are considered Christians in almost any sense. However, if I told you I'm looking into whether or not my philosophy is compatible with living in the United States since it became liberalised during the twentieth century, you would most likely look at me as a wackjob. The point is, our government now uses our money to kill embryos (this position assumes that an embryo is a human being from conception). They use your money to jail people for using/possessing narcotics, drinking alcohol between 18-20 years of age, gambling, among other things. Is this okay? You are now paying for Congress to deliberate on whether or not you have the right to bear arms, or peacably assemble, petition, and all of the other rights you have. They are debating you rights, and have shown that historically they are more than willing to try and take your rights away, for the "general welfare," "public safety," "National security," and, most famously, "war." 

I personally find them disturbing. I wake up every day and wonder why I'm not rebelling against the government... The only thing which keeps me from going out and beginning a revolution is that I do not have any kind of following, and I'm not sure whether or not such a revolution would turn violent. I don't wish to see bloodshed for this, but I also understand the Social Contract well enough to know that this government was never meant to be permanent, or all-powerful, or unchallenged. I do no want to see brother against brother, father against son as it was back in 1861, and I pray that I do not have to see any more war in my lifetime. I do not want to have to do this, I'd prefer to work within the system, but the things that the government is doing are just shy of intolerable. I will just have to ride out a little longer with our government the way it is. The only way I justify this with myself is that the rights of others are better served if I study now, and then once I can best understand the way the system works, perhaps I can change the system of government without bloodshed. It is better that I give up what I know are my rights for now, in the short term, that I might be able to restore them to others later. I hope you, the reader, doesn't consider this as being against my principles, because my only principles are those which are taught by God. I do not feel bad for violating my own political construction for the purpose of helping others, because my involvement in politics has the exclusive goal of making people free, which is, I believe, well served by my actions.. My most basic principle of politics is to not force others to do that which they do not want to do, thus explaining my philosophical anarchism. Well, I believe that's all of my ranting for the day! Will you take the blue pill and ignore what I have said, and not reconsider your own positions, or will you take the red and consider how God would view the things which you have done, through this representative democracy which we all share resposibility for?

Dear Lord, guide me with respect to my actions in politics. If I act untrue to your will, block my way, and stop my actions from negatively affecting others. Help me to understand your will, and do not let my actions be guided by my ego, or my misunderstandings, or my own will. Take my hands, my feet, my lungs and my voice, and use them for what it is that You would have them do. Your will be done, in Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Logic behind Socialism or Social democracy

It occured to me as I was doing a reading today for my Western Civilization course. I am reading about the rise of the National Socialist Workers' Party (for those of you who didn't know that the Nazis were also socialists, please read Mein Kampf. I've never found a reason to read it through myself, but it will make itself apparent...). The obvious had escaped my notice a while, although it took me to little surprise. I was in the part which explains the ideological background of the NSDAP, which was primitive at best. It was, however, based on a more radical form of Marxism which involved controlling people as well as the means of production. As I read about the other socialist and social democratic movements which sprang up at the time, the main point of this blog post occured to me, so, finally, drum roll please... ... ...

The reason why a person becomes a socialist is that they believe that this physical body that they are living in has importance, is good, and should be sustained for as long as possible!

(In the Nazi party, they believed this about the collective State, not the individuals in it...)

I feel the need to cite my sources before I go on too much further, although the Bible is an easy book to cite, I want to do it before I forget. Actually, let me come back to that, seeing as how I have class in 45 minutes. I shall return for scriptural citation, but God says that we should not fear those who can only kill the body, but to fear those who can kill the spirit and the body. The irony in this is that many a Christian focuses on ways to consistently improve the condition of themselves and others, usually unselfishly, but unfortunately many times this comes in vain. God did say to love, and also that he would take care that those who open their hearts would hear His word, that we should not worry about who converts and who does not, for that is a decision between them and God. I cannot help but feel however, that a life of service to others and unselfish love is betrayed if it is not accompanied by the spread of the Word. Without this, men will surely remain dead, and although their bodies will be comfortable, they will never know the glory of God, which is far worse than a miserable earthly life followed by an Eternity with God!

My point is this, continue to love and to work for your fellow man, but make sure that you give credit where it is due, if you work for the Lord, communicate to those for whom you work in whose name you have done these things. Give credit to he who freed you to do such things, even when it is dangerous or unpopular. Let every child, every village, every nation understand who it is who has the power to truly save their souls, as you have saved their bodies. I also understand that it is ironic that I write this, because I am not a works-focused evangelist. I love to do works but I constantly find myself wrapped up in other things, in preparation for years and works to come. My works are works of voice and of writing, of speech and of debate, of compassion and of ministry. In this way I would like to thank those who continue to work hard to benefit the lives of others, they truly are blessed. Please, do not take these words which I have written as rebuke for those who labor for the love of others, but rather words of warning of what can go wrong when you minister through actions. I simply say this, make sure that your words align with your actions, which I know are righteous before the Lord, because he said that when you give to the least of His people, you also give to Him. I mean only to say that those people need the water which gives life far more than they need the water which sustains the body, because the body will die, with or without water, but the soul will surely perish with His living water. Hand them the bread of His body as you dispense the bread of wheat and flour. And, do all this to glorify his name, that his flock may return to him. 

This is my reason for being against socialism, in that it includes those of other faiths and of no faith being forced to do "good works" which do not glorify God's name. Christians are more than willing to give to help others, but I do not believe that the state should force this. This explains my problems with it. If there are out there Christian socialists who propose a Christian socialist voluntary state, which does not force people to do things, but rather helps them on their way to salvation by keeping their bodies fed and comfortable, all the while praising God's name in the process, that is perfectly legitimate philosophy to me. However, I know, personally, no Christian socialists, just socialists who happen to be Christian, or vice versa. This explains my problem with secular socialism. It is secular socialism with which I have many problems and complaints.

Thank you God for everything that you have given to me, and the oppurtunity to live and love amongst others of Your flock, thank you for the knowledge that I have, and I ask for as much as you wish me to have. If I speak against Your word, rebuke me, if I speak Your word truly, make my lungs hearty, Your voice clear, and Your words powerful. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.