SUNDAY BEFORE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

A SUNDAY THOUGHT

This Sabbath day a lot of people across our Country are fasting and praying for the outcome of Tuesday’s Presidential election.  This event is not specific to a single faith, and many are involved.  I personally have signed up with a group that includes well over 85,000 people from all walks of life across our entire Country.

I think we have all seen these past few months how corrupt our government has become, and the depth of it is staggering.  The corruption seems to be complete, and includes the Executive branch, Congress, the State department, and the Justice department.

Our Country is truly a shining city on a hill and so blessed by God, but our Constitution is in peril, along with our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.  If our light fades, where will the oppressed turn for help?  And where will free people call home?

 A lot of us have prayed earnestly for guidance in making our personal decisions.  So, with this spirit in mind, I offer the following suggestion;

If you are fasting and/or praying this day, please set aside the candidate you are voting for.  You see, there are good and honorable people voting for all candidates, and their reasons are many and varied.

I suggest we pray not for a specific person, but for the preservation of our Constitution and the freedoms granted therein.  And I suggest we pray for the candidate who will best preserve them.

The father of us all, our Heavenly Father, or God if you prefer, knows the hearts and intents of His children, and He alone knows who is most capable of restoring our nation.

POLITICS, MILLENNIALS, AND A SLEEPING GIANT

After watching this election cycle, and the world at large, I have several thoughts.  Most of these surround millennials and their view of the world.  And perhaps the next older generation as well.

With the beginning of the demolition of the Berlin wall in the summer of 1990, most free people thought communism had finally been defeated.  And it seemed so, for a while.

In the last few years however, like a sleeping giant communism seems to be awakening.  Many people do not realize that Russia’s current leader, Putin is an old KGB agent.  One of the responsibilities of the KGB during the 70’s was to provide security for, and guard the leadership of the communist party.  And now the man who knew the atrocities of this time, is their leader.

What does this have to do with today?  First, I don’t think this very dangerous part of our history is known or remembered to a great extent.  If so, I believe people would completely disavow the democratic party and their insatiability for State control.  I remember reading a magazine in the mid-80’s that noted since WWII the population of our country had grown 150% while the government had grown about 900%.  Why is this?  The founding fathers were terrified of a large central government.  And by the Constitution, it’s powers are supposed to be limited.

I doubt this is taught sufficiently in school anymore, because if it had been, something happened on January 14th, 2014 that should have terrified the nation.

President Obama, frustrated with his inability to get Congress to go along with his socialist programs, gave up on the rule of law.  He gave up on the enumerated powers of the Constitution, He gave up on over 250 years of history, and uttered these words,

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need.  I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.  And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…”

This is not how a president of a free nation speaks.  This is the speech of a dictator, or a king.

Aristotle stated there were 3 principle types of governments that existed prior to the great American experiment in freedom, or self-government.  These were a monarchy, aristocracy, and a polity.

A monarchy has a single ruler such as a king.  An aristocracy is based on birth and privilege, and a polity was kind of a loose democracy without any controls.  The first two of these systems concentrated all power in a single individual, or a small ruling class.  And the third deteriorated into mob rule due to a lack of controls.

Today in the world, we have Communism, Monarchy’s, Marxism, and Socialism.  Without going into detail, these forms of government use what is known as command and control economies.  They have differences, but they are slight.

And now to the millennials.  A lot of them tend to be democratic in nature as liberalism seems to be the mantra in most of our universities.  In fact, many of the professors in universities today were the hippies of the 60s!  It is a "feel good" philosophy!

The more government programs we have, the less freedoms we have.  You see, the government does not have an income.  It can only give something to person “A,” if it takes from person “B.”  And the younger generations seem to think this is all good.

Where does this deterioration end?  If we do not stop and change course now, we will lose what is left of our Constitution and slowly slide into a third world society with ruthless dictators at our helm.  We are headed there now with President Obama’s statement quoted earlier.

Like the frog in the boiling pot, these changes are happening slowly, so we don’t notice them.  So, let’s jump ahead by going back in time to see how command and control economies worked after WWII.  And then see if this is the type of society you want to live in!  Following are a few examples of what freedom deteriorates into;

“The existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable.  One or the other must triumph in the end.  And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable.”

V.I. Lenin, “Report of the central committee at the 8th party congress."  1919.

The history of the world, including now, is unending war between freedom and slavery.

**********

“Our collaboration with capitalism during the war which has recently ended, by no means signifies that we shall prolong our alliance with it in the future.  On the contrary, the capitalistic forces constitute our natural enemy despite the fact that they helped us to defeat their most dangerous representative.  It may happen that we shall again decide to make use of their aid, but always with the sole aim of accelerating their final ruin.”

Marshall Tito, Continental News Sevice Nov. 8, 1946.

We cannot trust communist societies even though we may work with them.

**********

“If the situation is ripe for a popular uprising, in view of the fact that the revolution in social relationships has already taken place, and if we have prepared for it, we can order an uprising.”

V.I. Lenin, Selected works, Vol. III p. 298.

Black lives matter?  Riots in Ferguson? Civil uprisings?  We have found out these have been funded by less than honorable sources.

**********


Speaking of the Bible, “A collection of fantastic legends without any scientific support.”
Russian dictionary under Christian Economics, Vol III, No. 7. March 27, 1951.
 
Hillary Clinton saying the Catholics have to give up their beliefs?  Obama forcing Christian doctors to do things that violate their beliefs through Obamacare?
**********

The Book of Revelation speaks of a great war in Heaven.  The issue was over agency and how we were to be saved.  Isaiah and Luke speak of this.

ANYTHING that lends to God given freedoms is righteous.  ANYTHING that would remove or shackle these freedoms is evil.

The drive of Satan (communism, command and control economies, whatever you want to call it) is to force all to be equally good and all the same.  The drive of God is to give us the freedoms we need to become like him.  A great war was fought in Heaven over this.  Is the fight for freedom any less important now?

2016 ELECTION FINAL THOUGHTS

Final thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election from a conservative standpoint.

I believe Donald Trump is the best choice for President this year as Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed anywhere near the oval office, or have her hand in anything that has to do with the Supreme Court.  It is universally agreed by conservatives that Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt, dishonest, and dangerous politicians our Country has ever seen.  The fact that she could even be the Democrats nominee shows how far the morals and ethics in our Country have fallen.

 Donald Trump, while not a poster child of virtue himself, has stated he will appoint conservative justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia who truly understand our Heavenly inspired Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.  He has also adopted a very conservative platform.

There are many reasons to not like Mr. Trump.  However, I would submit to you that most (not all) of his sins are in the past, and from a Christian perspective this must take this into consideration.

Due to Mr. Trumps faults, many individuals are looking for an alternative vote which is easily understandable.  Sadly however, the statistical probabilities of anything coming from this are non-existent.  It has been tried before by Perot, Anderson, and earlier in the form of the Bull Moose party.  I personally wish we had a viable third party to choose from, however my wishes do not drive the realities of our elections.

The reason for this tome is not to banter about the qualities (or lack thereof) of each candidate, but to show how important the Supreme Court is.  And as stated and alluded to above, with Hillary or a third party there is zero chance the Supreme Court will remain Constitutional in its thinking and judgements.

This is important because it is generational.  If the Court goes liberal in 2017, it will most likely stay that way for the next 24 years or longer given the age and disposition of the judges.  In other words, if one decides to elect a candidate that cannot positively affect the Court, this decision will affect our children’s future.  Following are some examples of what I mean:

 

·         In 1962 Engal v. Vitale, prayer in public school became unconstitutional. What happened?  It had been OK for 200+ years prior to this dating back to before our Country founded.

·         In 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp, Bible reading in school was determined to be unconstitutional.  What happened?

·         In 1980 Stone v. Graham, the 10 Commandment could no longer be posted in school.  Again, what happened?

·         In 1970 State Board of Educ. v. Board of Educ. of Netcong voluntary prayer and bible reading was no longer allowed.  What happened?  Over 200 years of stare decisis, or the legal doctrine of precedent was abandoned.

·         In 1984 Wallace v. Jaffree, a minute of silence in lieu of prayer was no longer acceptable.  What happened?

 

I could go on and on, but these are enough.  Our Constitution is slowly being stripped from the original intent and wording of our founding fathers.  As a nation, we are slowly turning away from the God inspired precepts our Country was founded on.

On Thursday June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin stood, and addressed prayer at the Constitutional Convention.  In his aged voice he proclaimed, “I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men.”

This kind of thinking by Statesmen such as Benjamin Franklin gave rise to our Country, and departing from it will be our downfall.

So in conclusion, all of the candidates have positive ideas to add to the discussion.  Conversely, all have negatives.  But in the long run, and for this election cycle, saving the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Constitution seems to me the paramount issue.  And only one candidate has a chance of doing this.  Donald Trump.

"HOW WILL IT BE WHEN NONE MORE SAITH 'I SAW'?"

I entitled my last post, "A Christian Religion?"  It is a comparison of differing interpretations of Biblical scripture.  In my last sentence I noted prophets existed anciently, and alluded to the fact that it would be nice if they existed today to clear up some of the many conflicting passages contained in the Bible.

This article is a summary of one written by Hugh Nibley, with the same title.  Although some syntax will be mine, I take no credit for any of the material presented other than the last few paragraphs.  This material can be found in a book called, "The World And The Prophets," first published in 1954.

As an effort to understand the mood of the Church after the passing of the Apostles, the poet Browning wrote, "A Death in the Desert."  He describes the passing of John, the last of the witnesses.  This passing left the Christians with an overpowering sense of loss - without a real prophet they are no better than other men;... without an eyewitness, there could be no final certainty.

The first few lines of the poem read:

Still, when they scatter, there is left on earth
No one alive who knew (consider this!)
-Saw with his eyes and handled with his hands
That which was from the first, the Word of Life.
How will it be when none more saith "I saw"?

Speaking of heavenly things, Justin Martyr wrote to the Greeks;

"Neither by nature nor by any human skill, is it possible for men to know such high and holy things; but only by a gift that descends from above upon holy men from time to time."  "Such is the nature of the prophetic gift."  Notice that man cannot claim this gift,  but it is given only by God when it pleases Him.

Some 150 years after Christ, the early Christians felt that without this gift of direct revelation from heaven,... they would be no better than the heathen- well meaning, but bankrupt.  Justin went on to show how this gift passed from the Jews to the Christians, and was the boast and glory of the Church.

Some eighty years later, Origen used the same argument, however by this time there were now only "traces" of the gift remaining.  For Origen, the possession of prophets and wonders is what proved a divine church.

But must the church always have living prophets in its midst?  The answer is clear enough in these few passages.  The true church must and will always have living prophets.  But that is unwelcome news to the world!

A dead prophet the world dearly desires and warmly cherishes; he is a priceless tradition, a spiritual heritage, a beautiful memory.  But woe to a living prophet!  He shall be greeted with stones and catcalls even by pious people.  Remember, the men who put the Apostles to death thought they were doing God a favor!  (Luke 11:47-48)  We adorn the tombs of the prophets, but would kill them if they were alive!

John the Baptist paved the way for Christ.  Few believed or followed him.  Jesus Christ came to redeem men and save their souls.  Few believed or followed him.

Many people believe that had they lived in the time of Christ, they would have followed Him, but  how would they know who he was?  If he came today, or sent a prophet, how would we respond?  Matthew refers to this in 13:55.  Remember, He was to His contemporaries just the carpenter's son!

Neither man nor God has really changed much in the past two millennia.  Jesus said he would come again.  If He remains true to form, He will send a prophet to pave the way as he did in the meridian of time.  How many will believe?  How many will recognize a prophet?  Has this already happened?

In the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith claimed God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.  As with John, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles, Joseph Smith was vilified, persecuted, and murdered for his beliefs.  Was he a false prophet?  Was he a true prophet?  Given the enormity of his claim, it is probably worth taking a serious look!

A CHRISTIAN RELIGION?

Tonight's thoughts deal with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons.

Many Christians do not feel that Mormonism is a Christian religion.  There are two primary reasons for this.  First, they feel that Mormons don't interpret in the Bible the "right way."  And secondly, the Mormons believe in continuing revelation from God which is considered by many to be blasphemous.

I find these mainstream beliefs very interesting!  Starting with the second, Christians believe that after Christ died, the heavens were closed and God quit speaking to his Children.  This belief by the way, is not in the Bible, nor was it taught by the apostles.

Imagine if you will, we on Earth, God's children, telling Him when He can and when He cannot speak to us.  Imagine God in all His omnipotence being told what he can and cannot do by His son's and daughter's!  Imagine a young child telling his/her parents to "be quiet," and "I will tell you when you can speak!"  I struggle with this theological reasoning!

Now to the matter of interpreting the Bible the "right" way:  My intention is not to try and prove anything, but invite thought.  So following is a typical Christian belief contrasted with the Mormon belief, and than a few appropriate questions and comments.

Mainstream Christians believe God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being.  John 10:30 is used as a supporting scripture for this which states, "I and my Father are one."  There are others, but this gives us a good idea.  Mormon's on the other hand, believe they are separate and distinct individuals, but one in purpose.

If the typical Christian belief is true, why does God, a singular being, state, "Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:29), which is plural?  In Acts 7:55 Stephen looked into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  Again, plural beings.  And lastly when Jesus was baptized as recorded in Matthew 3:17, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."  Clearly two persons here.  And like the aforementioned belief, these are but a few examples.

So you see the dilemma.  We have some scriptures stating God and Christ are the same being, and some scriptures stating they are separate.  Which is it?  Using logic, which do we believe literally and which are not to be believed, or have a different meaning assigned?  And more importantly, who gets to make this choice?

I believe the answer to this (which is the Mormon belief) lies within the great intercessory prayer in the 17th chapter of John.  These verses by the way, also seem to indicate God and Jesus are not the same individual as Christ is praying to God, rather than himself.

In the 21st verse, Christ indicates how the Father and He are one by stating, "That they all may be one (the people); as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."

Does this not suggest that Jesus and the Father are separate beings, yet one in purpose?  Accepting this allows the other contradictory verses to all be correct rather than forcing a situation where one has to choose which scriptures to believe and which to ignore!

I would maintain that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follows the bible more literally and more completely than any other religion, with the bible itself supporting this.  But like most things theological, the Holy Spirit must be relied upon to discern truth.

As the bible states the being of God two different ways, I don't see how mainstream Christianity can assume the Mormon church is wrong and they are right.  You see, the only thing they  have to go on are guesses as to which scriptures are to be taken literally and which are not.

Since the bible contradicts itself on many points, it makes one wish someone with a pure knowledge could tell us the truth.  Anciently, someone with this ability was known as a prophet.  Hmmm.

THOUGHTS ON THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Let me start right off by stating this post is not to endorse any candidate or discuss my personal beliefs!  My intent is to offer some observations as to the state of our Country right now, and how we came to be in this position.

I have seen news articles that indicate up to 60% of our Country has not been happy with the Republican or Democrat nominee this time around.  That is a phenomenal amount, and bears some reflection.

The Constitution does not mention political parties.  They are just something that evolved rather quickly as our government is "of the people, by the people, for the people" (Gettysburg Address).  It was a simple thing for like minded individuals to get together and form parties.

One of the shortcomings of this however, is there have really been only two viable parties, democrats and republicans, which severely limits the playing field.

The Federalist party started in the 1790's and believed in a strong federal government.  The Democrat-Republican party started in the early 1800's and believed in a smaller federal footprint. 

The Democrat-Republican party became the Democrat party we have today, and believes in a strong federal government, and strong federal control among a host of other beliefs.  The Federalist party died around 1816, and the Republican party we know today started in 1854.  Its core belief is a limited federal government and local control.  Mind you, these two descriptions are horribly simplified for the sake of keeping this writing to a reasonable length!

Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics wrote in 2013, "For as long as the United States has maintained its two-party system of government, reformers have dreamed of upending the status quo."  He continues, "From Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party of 1912 to Ross Perot's 1992 independent run for the White House, a smattering of real contenders in the last century pieced together personality-driven campaigns that threatened to change everything."

Unfortunately, those candidates fell short, and this has never changed.  It is a catch-22 situation.  Mr. Conroy believes a lot of people like third parties, but don't believe they can win, so end up voting Republican or Democrat.  It may be a simplistic answer, but explains very well their lack of success.

So here is a quick review of where we stand:

1) Democrats:  They will always get a certain number of electorates based on their big government and progressive agendas.  I will not go any further than this as I promised no personal beliefs!

2) Republicans:  The leadership has lost their conservative roots after being given the Senate, House, and a majority of the governorships.  They have completely turned their backs on those who elected them.

3) Because the Republican leadership disenfranchised their own base, Trump, who has never been a conservative or a Republican to my knowledge ran on the Republican ticket and beat all of their best!  I believe this happened because the Republicans, as well as the entire country, is completely fed up with career politicians.  I get that!

In summary:
For the Democrats, their party has been fairly consistent in their pursuit of an ever expanding and larger government.

For the Republicans:  Their party has fallen apart.  I believe there are still a majority of conservatives in the Country, but since the leadership is no longer conservative, there are two questions that must be answered.

1)  If Trump wins, will he govern conservatively?  Only time will tell.  If he does, perhaps the Republican party can be finally fix itself from within and rebuild.

1)  If Trump does not govern conservatively, can a third party realistically become a major player for the conservatives to endorse?

Whatever happens, I believe this will be the most pivotal election in our Nation's history.  I sure hope we get it right!  As my wife said, "Our politics is a reflection of who we are as a people."

OUR LOST CONSTITUTION: SENATOR MIKE LEE

I have just finished reading a book by Senator Mike Lee.  It is called, “Our Lost Constitution,” and was written in 2015.  It is an excellent book, so I would like to give a brief synopsis of just two chapters, as well as recommend the entire book!

The book is about the federal government our founders envisioned and set up.  They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for this new system of self government.  What have we done to it since then?  

 

There is a link to this book in the left side bar.

EARTH AGE

When something is not known, and is wished to be known, scientific reason may be applied to ideas or theories to determine what is fact and what is fantasy.  This is referred to as the scientific method.

There are several descriptions of the “scientific method.”  We will use one on physics.ucr.edu as it is laid out simply:

1)  Observe some aspect of the universe.
2)  Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3)  Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4)  Test these predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5)  Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Essentially, when all questionable aspects of a theory can be resolved or removed, the theory may then be presented as fact.

GUNS AND A GREATER THREAT

There is a large cry in much our government today to dis-arm law abiding citizens.  This stems from criminals who use guns to commit unlawful acts.  It seems an absurd cry however, because as soon as someone uses a gun illegally, governmental leaders want to solve the problem by taking away the guns of those who did nothing illegal!  This is a huge disconnect in my mind!

So what is the greater threat?  Someone who uses a gun inappropriately, or a tyrannical government?  The founders of our Country understood tyranny was the greater threat.  Both the Federalists and anti-Federalists understood the connection between liberty and arms, having had first hand experience with the countries they came from.

CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS

Is the Constitution flawed?  I don't believe so, but have you ever noticed there is no penalty within its text for not following it?

For instance, at the time of this writing, the President (executive branch) seems to be doing whatever he wants regardless of any balance of powers enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

The Judicial Branch of our government is supposed to be a watchdog over the Constitution and control the power of the other branches of government.  The Justices however do not seem to be fulfilling this role very well as they give every appearance of legislating from the bench!

ABORTION: A MINIMAL STATEMENT

I would like to outline a couple of facts regarding abortion, then end with a comment and question.

First, abortion will always be regulated by the government in some form or another as it is a medical procedure, and the practice of medicine is regulated.

Secondly, given the high priority of States rights the founders envisioned, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court should not have ruled on abortion based on the powers given them.  I believe they overstepped their bounds, and should have known this.  Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so by edict of the 10th amendment, the regulatory power for this lies with each individual State.  Here is the text:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

AMERICA: STAGGERING PROBLEMS & SIMPLE SOLUTIONS

To give you a brief glimpse of my thought processes, I have written a short book.  It contains my solutions to some of the problems America is facing.  I believe the solutions are surprisingly simple, no matter how complex they seem to be, or how much the politicians argue over them!  To this end, I have limited each chapter to just a few pages at most.  Following is the link:

https://www.amazon.com/AMERICA-Staggering-Problems-Simple-Solutions-ebook/dp/B01IL2W1DW/ref=sr_1_1?s=fiona-hardware&ie=UTF8&qid=1468871474&sr=8-1&keywords=america%3A+staggering+problems+%26+simple+solutions

STARTING OVER

I started this blog around 2014, but didn't do much with it.  It contained mostly my political thoughts.  I have erased all these as they were all directional as to my way of thinking and my personal opinions. 

I want to take this in a new direction, and make it more of an educational forum.  I believe that most people, if given all the facts of a situation or problem will make an educated, well thought out decision.  Notice I did not say they would agree with me, but that their opinions would be based on facts and careful thought as opposed to raw emotion.