By In Politics, Pro-Life

The Eugenicists were Thinking Beyond the Election

Two Republicans who opposed aborting children who were conceived by rape lost their elections on November 6. What stands out about them is that they were completely different in tone and conviction than Mitt Romney. I’m not talking about the stupid statements they made. I’m talking about simply articulating an issue (against homicide) and sticking to it. In order to hear about Mitt Romney and abortion, I had to listen to Democrat campaigners, Planned Parenthood defenders, and the disgusting Thomas Friedman all scream about how radical and extremist Mitt Romney was.

But it was all nonsense.When Romney campaigned on abortion, he campaigned that he was in favor of it in certain cases. When Obama attacked Romney for wanting to cut off public funds to Planned Parenthood, Romney refused to acknowledge that he heard the accusation. He didn’t say one word about the spending. In return for Obama’s claim that Bush was never so “extreme,” he didn’t point out that Obama had objected to Bush as a big spender.

No one who want it to cease to be legal to dismember babies in the United States could be inspired by Romney. They could fear Obama and they could see how proborts used him as a source of fear to get the troops out, but Romney said very little. Given his strongly probortion background, this didn’t inspire confidence.

In general, what was notable about the election is that Obama campaigned for the Pansexual Left and Romney, no matter how provoked, campaigned for the Managerial Center. The only other notable thing about the campaign was in foreign policy. They had the same one. Yet by rhetoric both parties treated Obama as a “dove” and Romney as a “hawk.” It was all a transparent charade.

I didn’t understand what was happening. I thought all that rhetoric about how Romney was a threat to “reproductive freedom” was a strategy to get people to vote for Obama. Now I realize that it all served another interest entirely.

But now the play is obvious: we ran a Northeastern Liberal against Obama and Obama won. So now the media has to claim this was a verdict against the Religious Right.

Originally posted at: The Eungenicists were Thinking Beyond the Election | “once more, with feeling”.<>разработка ов на заказразместить бесплатную рекламу на телевидение

Read more

By In Politics

The Next 4 Years Under Obama

What do we do?


This is critical. The GOP Establishment is going to claim that Todd Akin is the reason Romney was defeated. We have to point out that Obama shifted into a Pansexual Leftist campaign, and Romney refused to fight on the other side. The only mention of abortion I remember coming out of his campaign was an ad assuring voters he did believe that kids conceived by rape could be legally killed.

Homosexual Marriage

Fight continues. I expect Romney to blame the Religious Right for making too much of this issue.

Drone Homicides

Obama now owns these for another four years. That gives Christians who are awake time to show how readily the use of drones is appropriate to a commander-in-chief who thinks babies should be killed if they survive abortions.


If it can be done overseas, then it can be done here. Obama has explicitly emphasized this point, and owned it. We need to make sure the reasoning sticks. The objective should be a Republican President in 2016 who repudiates totalitarian, coercive social engineering on every continent, not just on North America.

Financing Terrorists to Induce Regime Change

Obama has effectively armed and financed Al Qaeda or similar groups in Libya and Syria. If Romney had won the Presidency, he would have owned this policy. But with Obama as the leader, we have a chance, again, to show how much more appropriate it is for a Marxist to export violent revolution and chaos rather than a professed “conservative.”

National Security State/TSA Groping Regime

Again, Obama now owns all of this. Let’s use him to get conservatism back on track with real civil rights.

Drug War

We have four years to oppose prohibition and SWAT Teams, which are now Democrat property.

Economic Policy/Corruptocracy

We need to get people to realize how much Obama followed Bush’s playbook on the economy and Wall Street.


I wish God had granted us the Senate. But if we can really expose and investigate “Fast and Furious” and Benghazigate, we can hopefully paralyze the president.

This is off the top of my head. What else should we do? Please make some suggestions or corrections to my ideas in the comments.<>гугл адвордсопределения позиции а

Read more

By In Politics

What Would Machen Say About Drone “Warfare”?

I don’t know the answer to my question. But below are some things that J. Gresham Machen, the “father” of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the defender of Christianity against theological Liberalism, said about his own generation’s wars.

Here is my source from which I am posting excerpts:

In reviewing a book in 1915 by a noted pro-English author, Machen remarked that the book was “a glorification of imperialism.” The author “glorified war” and ridiculed “efforts at the production of mutual respect and confidence among equal nations.

Machen was not interested in the world being “made safe for democracy”:

The alliance of Great Britain with Russia and Japan seems to me still an unholy thing – an unscrupulous effort to crush the life out of a progressive commercial rival. Gradually a coalition had to be gotten together against Germany, and the purpose of it was only too plain. An alleged war in the interest of democracy the chief result of which will be to place a splendid people at the mercy of Russia does not appeal to me.

This talk about British democracy arouses my ire as much as anything. Great Britain seems to me the least democratic of all the civilized nations of the world – with a land-system that makes great masses of the people practically serfs, and a miserable social system that is more tyrannical in the really important, emotional side of life than all the political oppression that ever was practiced. And then if there is such a thing as British democracy it has no place for any rival on the face of the earth. The British attitude towards Germany’s just effort at a place in ocean trade seems to me one of the great underlying causes of the war.

He reserved his harshest words for imperialism:

Imperialism, to my mind, is satanic, whether it is German or English.

I am opposed to all imperial ambitions, wherever they may be cherished and with whatever veneer of benevolent assimilation they may be disguised.

A few months after the war began, Machen wrote that “the enormous lists of casualties” impressed him, “as nothing else has, with the destructiveness of the war.”

Machen on conscription:

Even temporary conscription goes against the grain with me, unless it is resorted to to repel actual invasion, but my fundamental objection is directed against compulsory service in time of peace.

The country seems to be rushing into two things to which I am more strongly opposed than anything else in the world – a permanent alliance with Great Britain, which will inevitably mean a continuance of the present vassalage, and a permanent policy of compulsory military service with all the brutal interference of the state in individual and family life which that entails, and which has caused the misery of Germany and France.

Excerpt from a letter to his Congressmen:

After a residence in Europe I came to cherish America all the more as a refuge from the servitude of conscription. That servitude prevails whether the enforced service be required by a vote of the majority or by an absolute government. Compulsory military service does not merely bring a danger of militarism; it is militarism. To adopt it in this country would mean that no matter how this war results we are conquered already; the hope of peace and a better day would no longer be present to sustain us in the present struggle, but there would be only the miserable prospect of the continuance of the evils of war even into peace times.

In short Americanism is in danger – American liberty and the whole American ideal of life. Is it to be abandoned without consideration, under the unnatural stress of an emergency with which the proposed change in policy has absolutely noting to do? Just when other nations are hoping that the present war will result in the diminution of armaments and the broadening of liberty, is America to be the first to take a radical step in exactly the opposite direction? I am not arguing against preparedness. I believe, in particular, that we should have a much more adequate navy. What I am arguing against is compulsion, which I believe to be brutal and un-American in itself, and productive of a host of subsidiary evils.

On having to put up with the war ethos at his school:

Princeton is a hot-bed of patriotic enthusiasm and military ardor, which makes me feel like a man without a country.

Also from the same essay on Machen:

In an address delivered in 1919 that was published in the Presbyterian called “The Church in the War,” Machen lamented that men are perfectly ready to admit Jesus into the noble company of those who have sacrificed themselves in a righteous cause. But such condescension is as far removed as possible from the Christian attitude. People used to say, “There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin.” They say so no longer. On the contrary, any man, if only he goes bravely over the top, is now regarded as plenty good enough to pay the price of sin. Obviously this modern attitude is possible only because men have lost sight of the majesty of Jesus’ person. It is because they regard him as a being altogether like themselves that they can compare their sacrifice with his. It never seems to dawn upon them that this was no sinful man, but the Lord of glory who died on Calvary. If it did dawn upon them, they would gladly confess, as men used to confess, that one drop of the precious blood of Jesus is worth more, as a ground for the hope of the world, than all the rivers of blood which have flowed upon the battlefields of France.

Worth pondering.<>как работать с яндекс директ

Read more

By In Politics

What does Jesus think of drone attacks?

Let us imagine I have a repair guy come over to fix my furnace. It turns out he is moonlighting as  a terrorist. Homeland Security has recently identified him as a terrorist. They have just figured out the vehicle he drives and the license number. Because drones are perfectly fine to use in the war on terror. Homeland Security has one over St. Louis looking for him.

The drone spots the van outside our house and sees the man entering our home. So the drone pilot pulls the trigger and fires a hellfire missile at the house.  The missile blows up the house, kills the target, kills my wife Jennifer, and makes my younger daughter’s face look like this little girl’s face:


Another pic:


Let’s  imagine that our situation is something like that of the real-live drone victim pictured above. Say that a charity was formed in the US that created a fund for plastic surgery so that my daughter’s face is at least capable of growth.

So questions:

Am I wrong to characterize what happened to my wife as homicide?

Does the fact that the target was pinpointed so my neighbors didn’t get destroyed mean that I should think of drones as good?

Am I supposed to be grateful to America because my daughter was given medical care? Should I boast in America because other countries don’t allow drone victims to receive medical care?

When my three older children, after burying their mother and learning to look at their sister in the face without flinching, apostatize (God forbid), sell their souls to the devil, and do something big and violent to something federal, will it be right to report this as evidence that Congress needs to increase the appropriations budget for drones because, Al Qaeda or Luciferianism or whatever, is growing?

If America faced a problem with homegrown terrorists recruiting other people, would this drone policy result in decreasing the number of terrorists or increasing their recruitment numbers?

Let’s put a tin-foil hat spin on this, just for fun:

Would such a drone policy be the best way to keep Americans safe or would it be for the benefit of Homeland Security who needs enemies to increase their power and budget? And what about the possibility that at some point in the future there will be a state in the union that might be tempted to leave the nation or do something else the Feds don’t like? A sudden increase in terrorism could do a number of things to stop it, and provide a cover story.

OK final question: If while I’m holding the body of my dead wife in the wreckage of our home, I pray God’s judgment on the murderers who killed her, would God hear my prayer? Or would he tell me to stop slandering the good people in Homeland Security who are only doing their best to protect the nation from terrorists?<>поисковик гуглраскрутить недорого

Read more

By In Politics

Must you obey the Christian who tells you whom to vote for?

When you agree that a candidate is the most evil choice of the options that you have, you need to not vote for that candidate. I don’t think it is ethical to strategize a “false flag” strategy where you try to promote the worst candidate in the hope of inspiring an awakening. God may do such things. But God is able to make such calculations, and he has the right to do so. We are told that it is perverse to deduce from God’s providence, “Let us do evil that good may come.”

So when you are warned off from a candidate as the worst evil, I think you need to hear him or her and follow that counsel.

But there are also Christians who will tell you it is wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don’t see how that can possibly hold up. If you think only one of two candidates has a reasonable chance of winning, and the one will be much worse than the other, you are free as a Christian to vote for the lesser evil.

To put it another way, no one can claim you are obligated to vote for the candidate you think would make the best ruler, regardless of whether or not he has any chance of winning.

If you choose the lesser of two evils, because you are sure that only one of those two has any chance of getting elected, then you are doing the best you can with the circumstances God gave you.

You’re free to vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t let any “perfectionist” tell you otherwise.

Lately, however, I’ve notice a lot of Christians who think they have the right to demand of other Christians that they vote for the lesser evil. We have an obligation to defeat the greater evil by means of the lesser evil, we are told.

I don’t think this can possibly be right. I think it is an unsupportable attack on Christian liberty. And, for what its worth, the more such Christians push their “lesser evil,” the more he stinks to those who are being pushed upon.l

No one can tell you to put a sign in your yard for a candidate for a political office.

If you’re a Christian, your obligation to do good to all men does not mean that your lack of dedication to doing all you could possibly do to get the best possible candidate elected can be counted against you as sin. It isn’t sin. You’re free. Your lawn is your lawn and it is no one’s business if you choose to keep it signless.

You’re not morally obligated to send money to the best candidate’s campaign. No one can tell you that you are responsible for the next four years of bad Supreme Court appointments if you don’t donate to them. No one has a right to berate you or morally bully you out of your money.

You don’t have to hand out political flyers. You are not obligated to go door to door to get the vote out.

You are free to decide how much time, energy, or money you will or will not contribute to the candidate you prefer. No one is your judge in this matter.

Likewise, you are not obligated to vote for a candidate who you despise because he is better than the alternative and is the only candidate able to beat that alternative. The way that history changes is that people get fed up with their usual options and simply stop behaving as they once did. If this were not true then we would still be stuck with the same original two political parties. But that is not what has happened. Eventually, people simply stopped responding to one political party and it died to be replaced by another.

Shifts don’t only depend on the next election. There can be multi-cycle trends that build up before they are felt. If the number of registered voters shinks, or if the number of them who participate in voting for one of the two major presidential candidates shrinks, that communicates to both parties that there is a resource that is not being used that might help them win the next election.

If you want to vote for someone who won’t win because you think he is a far superior candidate, your vote may have no positive impact in that election cycle. But history is probably going to last longer than the election cycle. You may be positioning him for a stronger showing in the next cycle. It is up to you.

How do you calculate when it is worth it? Since you don’t know the future, you really aren’t calculating anything. But you vote how you want. You vote for the candidate you want to vote for. You can limit your alternatives to the two most likely candidates to win, or you can simply vote for the candidate you like the most. You are free to vote how you want.

Likewise, you are free not to vote at all. There is no law that obligates you to vote, and the Bible only tells Christians that their civic obligation is to submit to the governing authorities. The fictional claim that we have the power “to choose our rulers” is a socialist fallacy. You are not a collective hive mind; you are a person. In a society of many tens of millions of voters, nothing you do can determine the outcome of the election.

I could go back in time and change all the votes for the President that I have ever made to the other candidate. Do you know what that would change? Absolutely nothing. The question of voting is not like actions where you actually do tangible good in the world. You will wake up in the same world on November 7 regardless of who you vote for on November 6.

If you are obligated to contribute to the outcome of an election, then donating money, actively campaigning, and even putting a sign in your yard would probably have much more impact than your one vote. If you are not obligated to do the former things, then you are not obligated to do the latter.

Should our country make it legally mandatory to vote? If such a law were put in place, then the differences between the two major political parties would become much less than they are. As the system works now, a party can’t simply assume that all it needs to do is run a candidate marginally better than the other guy. The candidate is not just running against the other guy. He is running against the option of not voting at all. If you want to win an election, you can’t pretend that everyone is forced to show up at the voting booth and then, at that point, will make a decision about how to make the best of a bad situation. People don’t like to be in bad situations. They especially don’t like to have to drive and stand in line and wait for them. So you have to try to run a campaign that actually wins people over.

So the point here is that you are free. You vote for who you like most according to Christian values. These can involve a choice among the two most likely options, a choice between all the candidates for the one you like the most, or a choice to not participate because nothing seems worth the effort.

In all of this is a lot of guesswork. You don’t know the future. You don’t know how events will turn out. Your decision has a lot more to do with the imagination and with how you feel than with some kind of calculation you are capable of making.

You do know that your vote won’t change who gets into office and that God controls the hearts of your rulers.

So you’re free.

 <>расклейка объявленийреклама и продвижение услуг

Read more

By In Politics


ImageSo, in the debate tonight, Obama said he thinks we need nation-building at home.

If God is just that is what we will be given.

I hear reports that DHS is experimenting with using drone over the United States.

American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial and killed by the President without one as well. They can be denied permission to fly and more denials are in the pipeline.

Nation-building at home. We get what we inflict on others.<>продвижение а самомусписок ниш для бизнеса

Read more