August 30, 2015 Leave a comment
In the great experiment that is the governance of the American people, as much has gone wrong as has gone right. That is a very unfortunate fact since almost all that has gone wrong was not wrong in the minds of those who pulled the strings to make things happen, -things that were huge unrecognized mistakes.
The list of such mistakes that bore national consequences in widespread suffering and vast numbers of deaths and injuries in unnecessary wars is frightfully numerous; mistake after mistake after mistake and all resulting in painful outcomes, all because of human ignorance and an arrogance which prevented those in power from recognizing and comprehending the magnitude of their ignorance and misplaced ambition until it was too late and a bitter harvest had been reaped, although it was often reaped by those whose lives we turned upside down.
In their minds they were simply doing “the right thing for the right reasons” and it didn’t matter that they had to break or ignore the rules in order to achieve their ideological goals because the ends justify the means. “To make an omelet you have to break some eggs.” [The entire Vietnam War and the Great Socialist Society were omelets made of eggs that should never have been broken.]
Such an attitude is always perfectly fine with plutocrats and autocrats because that is their basic approach to what is acceptably legitimate as a means to cause the change that they believe is preferable to the traditional and original status quo in America’s social, legal, and political worlds. [along with the side benefit of enriching their bank accounts with contributions from war-mongers who profit from it.]
“Change!” they want and change they will get,… by hook or by crook. That is their approach to governance because they are innately sons of power. Those who wield power wish to do so under one important condition: -that of having greater power than their brethren. Having only equal power in effect neutralizes power so their goal is always to achieve greater power so that they can wield it over others.
The main two co-elements of the exercise of power are: restraint, and compulsion. Either the government needs to be restrained by the compulsion of the public’s desire to throw people out of office and change the political balance of power, or the People need to be restrained by the compulsion of all that passes as “law” and is backed by the martial power of the State.
The dance between the citizenry and the government determines who is the male and who is the female, -or who commands the lead and who accepts the role of being the follower. Both dancers cannot be the lead so an equilibrium must be established with one having power over the other.
“The real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead they have two related goals. -to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of the common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives. ” Thomas Sowell
“We’re seeing more people than ever reaching their hands up in hopelessness and helplessness, begging the nanny state to regulate their every need. Devoid of thought or reason, our society is destined to be dominated by mental cripples, forever dependent on government.” Kara Barnett Chippi ?
Consent & Certitude of Truthfulness
from: Truth in a post-Christian West; Jerry Newcombe wonders how lying can be condemned anymore.
[Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/truth-in-a-post-christian-west/ ]
“George Washington imparted a masterfully written speech in his Farewell Address in 1796. In it he famously noted:“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, [those of] religion and morality are indispensable supports”, adding that we can’t expect morality to continue if we undermine religion.
He also said, “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, -for reputation, -for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
“The founders understood that belief in a God who sees all things and who will one day hold us accountable made a huge difference. That’s why in our day truth is breaking down – even among some professing Christians. But let God be true and every man a liar. This isn’t just an American problem. It is a problem in the post-Christian West.”
There is a notable lack of respect for honesty and truth, and, without the influence of conscience, there is no fear of speaking or writing or swearing to lies and half-truths. The people routinely lie to the government and government officials routinely lie to the people. Most of the National Security Administration operation is one gigantic Black Program lie against the privacy of the American people and the rule of constitutional law as engraved in the 4th Amendment.
It was written to ban the very sort of invasive privacy violations that are the meat & potatoes of the NSA. The author of the Patriot Act was stunned to learn of how enormously it had been used to expand unconstitutional surveillance not allowed by the act. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “the arc of history shows the tendency of government power to expand and liberty to shrink.”
Only the God of Judeo-Christian scripture requires the virtues of honesty and truthfulness from his “children”, having made the human race (patterned after his own nature) as an autonomous creation having Free Will and the right to exercise it, and thus being responsible for how it is exercised.
How responsible are men for their actions? When the founding fathers asked themselves that philosophical religious question they were confronted by the authority of the scripture:
“He who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:7-8
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men… …for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine…” It is a book that shuts out from heaven all wicked and unrighteous persons, particularly those who love and make lies…. Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:10
Revelation 21:27 Nothing impure will ever enter it [heavenly Jerusalem], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 22:15 Outside are the “dogs”,… and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
GOD’S WORD® Translation Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters, and all who lie in what they say and what they do. (16. “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”…)
George Weigel, an insightful Catholic writer, said in the L.A. Times in 2006:
“If the West’s high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism – in which there is ‘your truth’ and ‘my truth’ but nothing such as ‘the truth’ – the West will be unable to defend itself. Why?
Because the West won’t be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending.”
“A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of Civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.”
Moral truth and moral relativity can also be framed in an analogy of the structure of the earth. The super-hot molten core of the earth, comprised of pure metal, is like the most universally accept and embraced moral values. They have the most weight of all values.
Farther out from that core is material that is lesser and lesser metallic and more earthen, -less pure and weighty. That represents moral values that are more relative, while the atmosphere above the surface is the most ethereal of all values and the least “solid”. Even religion does not have a position on such issues of the ether so they are a purely individual human / social matter and not a matter of established nor universal moral values. The question is; “is honesty such an issue?”
Ananias and Sapphira
Acts 5. Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold! -the feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. ~~~
Besides fear of telling lies, there is its companion: shame. Reverence for the truth cannot exist without a sense of Honor because without honor there is no sense of dishonor for violating one’s obligation to speak, write, or swear to the truth.
Without a sense of dishonor and shame, lying becomes a very important and useful tool to achieve the “admirable good intentions” that the fascist, socialist, communist, secular humanist or Islamist seeks. “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.”
“I heard a great voice of much people in Heaven, saying “Hallelujah! Salvation and Glory and Honor and Power unto the Lord our God: for True & Righteous are His judgements…” Rev. 19:1-2
“And I saw the heavens opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful & True, and in righteousness he doeth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns.
And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called “The Word of God”. And He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written: KING of KINGS, and LORD of LORDS. Rev. 19:11-13,16Plus: Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, -the Beginning and the End, -the First and the Last. Rev. 22:12-13
Plus, you cannot be compelled to expose your own dishonesty because the 5th amendment forbids forcing one to testify against oneself. So one can just ignore the rules ’cause they’re not your friend, or simply proffer the lie “I can’t recall”, and no voice of conscience is going to condemn one when it doesn’t even exist.
How about an atheist secular humanist? An atheist socialist? An atheist Democrat? The answer remains “no”. Nothing that they say or swear to can be trusted because there is no basis on which to trust them since there is no influence which makes truthfulness an important priority inside them.
Imagine a scenario in which an atheism-embracing communist government finds itself having to adjudicate a charge by one of its high-ranking members that another even higher member raped her and beat her. They would have to have an inquiry for the sake of maintaining a sense of lawfulness. Without a sense that justice is a fundamental element of human and social rights, no society would view its government as legitimate.
So the questions that arises are:
“Do they put the parties under oath when they question them?”
“If they require them to swear to tell the truth, to whom are they swearing?”
“In their godless universe, what is their motivation to never lie to authorities “under oath”?
“Lies are a fundamental tool of communism so how could reverence for the truth even exist?”
“With that being true in a criminal trial, why would it be any different in a civil trial?”
“How could any court testimony be assumed to be truthful when there is no moral sense that lying is reprehensible and morally condemnable?”
“So why even go through the pretense of swearing since no one would have a Holy Scripture authored by a Holy God from which to acquire any sense of fear or shame or dishonor for telling lies?”
The obvious answer is that the entire basis and presumption under-girding any justice system is a moral sensibility ingrained in the populous and adhered to when they testify before God and Government. Lacking such a religion-based sensibility no one can have any assurance that any testimony given in court, or anywhere else, is honest and truthful. That is horrible for seeking justice against one who has wronged you, regardless of one’s own morality. Lies are the most extreme enemy of justice because it is totally dependent on honestly by witnesses and forensic professionals when they testify.
But where is there any evidence in America today that lying under oath is treated as the extreme social sin that it is? No where. The liars who testified against the police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, who were found to be liars, but whose testimony has resulted in millions of dollars of damage to private businesses, and lives, and murders of police officers, have been charged with nothing!
They were responsible for all of that harm and yet their deliberate criminal lies go unpunished. What does that say about the attitude of law enforcement regarding its own rules and laws regarding truthfulness under oath?
What does that say about the credibility of testimony under oath? What does that say about the credibility of sworn testimony? What does say about respect for honestly? What does that say about the respectability of our criminal justice system when the very basis of its proper and just function is not defended?
It says that in today’s corrupt age the system and society have moved far off of the reservation on which the Justice system was built. Society has not been acculturated to revere honestly to any broad extent so honestly as a moral value, and truthfulness that springs from moral values cannot be assumed to be present and active in society nor at trial.
The Luciferian-Gruberian pretense of honest belief and confidence in government officials’ veracity would then meet its Waterloo. The pretense that we must all simply accept as valid anything said by anyone in government is an utterly false and empty pretense. And the context is contrived being as it is limited to the little playground of US politics only. The Obama acolytes adopt the pretend attitude of faith in the honor system when they themselves have no honor and do not even believe their own falsehoods.
They obligate others to accept “on faith” the veracity of people who have a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST. How so? If a man, or a President, is accused of murder, what certitude do sane people ascribe to the alibi offered by his girlfriend, or wife, or mother, or twin sister? They are not impartial parties and so their witness statements cannot be accepted as unbiased because they are biased.
Obama, in collusion with the head of the Hawaiian Dept of Health, Loretta Fuddy, conspired to fabricate a birth certificate to smooth over the suspicions of those aware that:
-he was too good to be true,
-he was not a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution,
-his short-form Certification of Live Birth which was an easily-countered “abstract” [not a True Copy], supplied no certitude whatsoever, -displayed no certifying human signature nor Health Dept official embossed seal, and was not verified as legitimate by any Hawaiian official speaking openly and on the record (much less under oath) and …
-the suspicion that Obama was probably a fraud regarding honor and honesty.
The conflict of interest shared by the Obama supporters in the highly liberal Democrat Hawaiian government renders anything they claimed untrustworthy, and like judges and justices of the Supreme Court, they are morally obligated to recuse themselves from pontificating on an issue of such immeasurable importance as the legitimacy of the citizenship of their own home-grown socialist hero; the President of the United States and leader of their amoral, statist, Gruberian party.
All of them are (were) highly conflicted and thus not a dependable source for crucial facts regarding the birth and citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, who remains an unconstitutional President as a statutory, former “provisional” citizen, and not “a natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires. ~~~~~~~~