I recently had a discussion with a friend about what patriotism would mean for someone like me, particularly after noting my disgust with Romney’s messianic claim that “this nation is the hope of the Earth.” As anyone who follows me on Facebook or knows me personally will know, I frequently pass along and comment on information very critical of the United States government, particularly with regards to foreign relations, civil liberties, and economics.

The question this friend raised was, even if I agree with you, where if anywhere then is there a place for patriotism?

My initial responses were a little scattered. It’s something I’ve thought about quite a bit, but never known quite how to come to terms with. At first I cataloged a list of America’s sins that often go unnamed and unaccounted for, as evidence that perhaps patriotism is misplaced. But then when lightly rebuffed by my friend I realize that that didn’t really answer the question.

So I talked some about how patriotism has shifted in the course of history especially with the advent of modernism from love of a culture and a people to loyalty to a system of power and coercion.

I also talked about how love of a smaller body of people that one truly felt connected to, like a city seemed to come more naturally to me, and how we don’t owe unconditional love to a nation-state as such (or if we do only inasmuch as we want to see them restored, using the examples of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn).

But I wasn’t really satisfied with my answer, and as I began to talk about the conversation with my wife I realized why.

I think that my frequent and vociferous criticisms of the U.S. government are in fact themselves born out of patriotism. Patriotism has everything to do with love of neighbor, and love of those who you share the camaraderie of citizenship with. To be a patriotic American is to love and have concern for your fellow Americans. That is precisely the reason that I am so vocal about the actions of the United States government.

I believe that our Constitution, as the enshrinement of the rule of law for the nation matters; not that it is perfect or sacred, but it is what we have and it is the final rule of law for this nation. And so when I see it trampled, my concern for my fellow man is piqued. When I see the United States government engaged in undeclared and illegal wars, when I see them invading countries on false pretenses, causing the deaths of half a million children in Iraq via sanctions, destroying the economy and thus starving millions of Iranians, killing innocent civilians, men, women and children in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere via drone bombs operated by men with joysticks in California or Missouri, my love of country and countrymen compels me to cry out against such injustice and brutality so that others will not willingly soak their hands in the blood of a corrupt government. I love my country enough to recoil at the thought of her engaging in such evil.

It is because I love my country and my countrymen that I speak out against their disenfranchisement and loss of civil liberties through things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the President’s kill list which allows for the assassination of American citizens without trial or due process.

It is because I do love my country and thus my neighbors, whether across the street, across the state, or across the nation that I speak out against police brutality, the so-called war on drugs, the use of para-military and SWAT teams on non-violent civilians, the disarmament of the citizenry, warrantless wiretaps, the domestic use of drones and cameras, etc.

I could go on and on, but that would be to belabor the point, which is that it is precisely my love of country, defined as the people that make up this nation, that impels me to care about the destruction of liberty, the betrayal of the rule of law, the trampling of the Constitution and the principles (however imperfect) upon which the founders of our country intended to establish this nation.

To be clear, I am not some sort of golden-age perfectionist. I am not calling for the repristination of a formerly ideal America. I understand that this country was founded with institutional sin embedded in the form of legal chattel slavery among other things.

My argument, like that of the civil rights leaders is that one can be a patriot while decrying in the starkest terms the actions of one’s government. One can be a patriot while being ashamed of the evil one’s government perpetrates. Patriotism is defined as the love of one’s country. I love the United States. In fact I love it enough to be honest, and to say that we are sinking into a moral quagmire. I love it enough to decry corruption, collusion and evil on both sides of the dominant political aisle. I love it enough to rail against injustice and evil for the sake of my fellow countrymen who consciously or unconsciously suffer from the debasement of their culture, government and civilization. I do not apologize for speaking the most harsh and direct truths about our moral failures, our injustices, our evils… but that does not mean I do not love the country. Jeremiah loved the Israel he lambasted. I love my country and my countrymen, and I hope that by being willing to speak prophetically to her I am showing the kind of tough love that is necessary amidst such moral turpitude.

Finally, above all I love Christ and his Church which knows no borders, which means that my patriotism can never sink into mere nationalism. I will always love the Church first, and subjugate my love of country to my love of Christ and His Church. So, as I said in my comments in the initial Facebook thread that prompted this post, there may be a time to not love one’s country if it comes to a choice between love of country and love of God. Similarly there may be times to take sides with other nations if one’s country is engaged in unjust actions against them. But that is another subject, and would require a great deal more unpacking.

For now I will say, that perhaps the proposed distinction between critique of government and patriotism is simply a false distinction. I critique the government of the country I love, for the sake of the people of that country.

<>seo значение слова

Read more

As an abstainer from the two party system (at least as relates to the upcoming presidential election) one of the arguments I frequently hear is that I am expecting too much from a president. I frequently hear that I’m a perfectionist, that politics just is what it is, and that you can’t expect too much from it.  A political race is always about choosing the lesser of two evils, not about changing the world, or perfecting the system of governance.

So when I was bothered by the kinds of shenanigans that went on at the RNC, and the way the rules were changed over the vote of the delegates, and the way certain delegates were unseated, or kept from voting I was told to relax. It’s politics. This is just the way it is. It may not be right, but you can’t expect much.

And when I object to just holding my nose and pulling the lever for Romney and lament the fact that there isn’t a candidate that I feel comfortable voting for I’m told that it’s not about voting for an ideal candidate, but looking at the options in front of us and putting my modicum of support toward the better of the two options.

Relax, I’m told. This isn’t about solving everything. It’s just politics. It’s a pragmatic choice for what will be slightly better. Change is incremental at best. We work with what we have. We can’t be perfectionists. We just do the best we can with what we have and trust that Jesus is in charge and that ultimately politics isn’t the end-all-be-all of the Christian hope.

So far okay, perhaps.

But then the other shoe drops.

I look at all of the above and think, ‘okay, fair enough. Maybe I’m putting too many of my marbles into political aspirations. But I’m still not comfortable giving consent to either candidate for various reasons, so I just won’t vote, or I’ll vote third party or maybe write in a candidate. After all, our hope isn’t in the political process but in Jesus’ sovereign kingship over all the earth, right. I can’t expect too much from politics, so I don’t have to fret too much over how I vote, I’ll just vote my conscience.’

But then the tables turn. Suddenly my vote is imperative, and my decision very important. Suddenly it becomes incredibly important that we get Obama out, and my non-vote or non-Romney vote is a very big deal. Suddenly I’m helping Obama advance towards another term wherein weeping and gnashing of teeth will be the order of the day. At this point I am called a perfectionist as before, but now my perfectionism is not mere naivete, but tantamount to support for cataclysmic destruction. Now I am not told to calm down and not expect so much, but to expect hellfire and brimstone if I don’t just hold my nose and vote for that lesser of two evils.

So my question is, which is it? Is it the case that my voting isn’t really that big a deal and that I should just vote for the lesser of two evils because pragmatically it may make the situation a little better, even if there are things about him that we all agree are pretty awful. Or is it that not voting for said lesser of two evils and voting (or not) according to my conscience is tacit support for the apocalypse?

I am obviously being somewhat hyperbolic here, but the point stands. If wanting to vote for someone one believes to actually be a good candidate and that one can honestly give the consent of the governed to, regardless of party affiliation or likelihood of winning, is simply expecting too much of the process and taking it a bit too seriously, then how can doing the same also be not taking the process seriously enough and not recognizing that one is tacitly empowering tremendous evil and shirking one’s responsibility to save us from going over the ubiquitous cliff?

 <>заказать копирайтингстудия раскрутки  ов

Read more

President Barack Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday for his repeated attack over the size of the Navy, which he has said proves the president doesn’t prioritize national defense.

“You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama said during the presidential debate. “We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

It is understandable why the President doesn’t like bayonets, he prefers the big guns. The Nobel Peace prize laureate has preferred to use drones in his barrage of unconstitutional wars. What good are bayonets and horses to a man who cowardly launches drones against third world countries, like the 254 drones against Pakistan. When the debate came down to how we will protect our military, the President said, “Neigh.” He continues to demonstrate his ineptitude as commander-in-chief.

Steve Macias” alt=”” src=”http://kuyperiancommentary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bayonet-copy.jpg?w=300″ height=”244″ width=”300″ />
This blog has been brought to you by the letter B. B for Bayonets.

Steve Macias Prolife Leader” alt=”” src=”http://kuyperiancommentary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steveorange.jpg?w=150″ height=”100″ width=”150″ />Steve is executive director of Cherish California’s Children and founder of the St. Anselm Leadership Institute. Steve and his Wife, Sarah, live in California’s gold country and are members of Church of the King Sacramento. Link to Steve’s blog, follow Steve on Twitter @SteveMacias<>цена на разработку араскрутка а 1с

Read more

In tonight’s third-party debate the four candidates had the chance to articulate their positions. There were six major questions with some interaction among the candidates. Larry King moderated the debate and brought the celebrity factor into the discussion, which may serve to gain some attraction.

It was a good start. I hope this continues in the years ahead. It is a necessary process. The two-party monopoly is a disturbingly disgraceful system. It destroys the ability of the people to speak. The voice of third party candidates might be an incentive for the 2/3 of Americans who do not vote. If we want the people to be involved, then we need more voices in the discussion. Simply echoing and re-echoing the same talking points and framing and re-framing your positions to fit the political climate of the day cannot be healthy when the issues are of such significance.

Issues largely ignored in the “one party debate” were discussed at some length tonight. It was refreshing and hopeful. Again, it was a good start.<>текстыпродвижение а по трафику

Read more

The nature of last night’s debate was an example of the political naivete of a nation. Most pundits opine about rhetorical zingers, while the hawks try to appear less hawkish to score a few points. Foreign Policy has now been diminished to a few cute lines, and some random references to Mali. And: we love Israel…we really, really love Israel!<>games freepr страницы

Read more

Readers of the Kuyperian Commentary would do well to mark Michael Sheuer’s website: Non-Intervention.com. Sheuer’s recent article, Pity Poor America: Obama, Romney, and Foreing Policy concludes with a strong warning:

–Perhaps most of all, we can begin to accept the fact that we Americans have an enormous amount of work to do to here at home to curtail the federal government’s power — especially that of the president in the area of war-making; to stop building debt; to inculcate civic responsibility in our children instead of an absurdly bloated sense of “rights”; to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; and to accept that the road to America’s survival, prosperity, and peace is lit by the Founders’ belief that our republicanism is a model for others to imitate if they so choose, not a tool with which U.S. politicians are to militarily remake the world in their — not really America’s — arrogant and condescending image.

<>контент для а купитьключевые запросы google

Read more

By Uri Brito

Pat Buchanan’s often brilliant insights is something to consider on Monday night’s debate on foreign policy. Lost in Biden’s interruptions and unnecessary laughter were his powerfully non-bellicose observations:

“The last thing we need now is another war.”

“Are you (Ryan) … going to go to war?”

“We will not let them (the Iranians) acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he’s (Ryan) talking about going to war.”

“War should always be the absolute last resort.”

“He (Ryan) voted to put two wars on a credit card.”

“We’ve been in this war (Afghanistan) for over a decade. … We are leaving in 2014, period.”

Buchanan argues that usually the peace-party wins. And this is what Obama ought to do with Romney on Monday. The well-known author and opponent of America’s wars in the last two decades, Buchanan argues that the president needs to pose specific questions to Romney. The following are examples of such questions:

“Governor, President Obama has said Iran will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. You have said Iran will not be allowed to have a ‘nuclear weapons capability.’ What is the difference? Doesn’t Iran already have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon? What will you do about it?”

“Governor, Paul Ryan said in his debate Iran ‘is racing toward a nuclear weapon.” But 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. What is your evidence that Iran is ‘racing toward a nuclear weapon?'”

“Governor, you have said of America and Israel, ‘The world must never see daylight between our two nations.’ Does that mean if Israel attacks Iran, you would take us to war on Israel’s side?”

“Governor, at VMI you said, ‘In Syria, I will work … to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.’ Would you give surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels?”

“Governor, Japan and China are at sword’s point over the Senkaku Islands. If war breaks out, are we obligated by our alliance with Japan to come to her defense?”

Buchanan argues that the American people are “sick over the 6,500 dead and 40,000 wounded, fed up with the $2 trillion in costs, and disillusioned with the results that a decade of sacrifice has produced in Baghdad and Kabul.” If Romney vociferously sides with Neo-Conservatives on Monday he might join John McCain as another victim of the Obama machine.

The reality, of course, as Bob Woodward writes in his book Obama’s War, is that Obama is equally a part of the war-party machine. His counselors would feel equally comfortable in a Romney cabinet. The Nobel Peace Prize winner is just as hawkish as the next Republican. But playing the peace-card can be strategic to Obama. With two weeks to go, somehow I think Obama is going to pull that card out on Monday.

<> что такое контекстная реклама

Read more

As the presidential election approaches us, evangelical Christians are rallying behind the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, as the conservative alternative to President Obama. Frequently, I’m told that Romney is better than Obama because he is against redistribution of wealth. Romney has recently criticized Obama for his redistributive policies and when conservatives call Obama a socialist, redistribution of wealth is generally what they have in mind. The two obvious assumptions at play here are 1) that redistribution of wealth is immoral and 2) that conservatives are staunchly opposed to it. But are these assumptions correct? The answer is yes and no, in that order.

Redistribution of wealth is a form of taxation whereby John Smith’s money is taken from him and then given to Jane Doe for a service that the government provides. He must pay the tax even if he never uses the service provided. Mr. Smith is forced to give his money while receiving nothing in return, violating the basics of economic trade. Put simply, this is theft. The principle of private property is clear throughout Scripture. The eighth commandment itself, “thou shall not steal,” presupposes private ownership. If there is no private ownership, there can be no such thing as theft. Redistributive taxation takes your property by threat of force and gives it to someone else, all in the name of charity. (Ironic, isn’t it? Charity is by definition a voluntary act. To force charity is to deny it.) Redistributing wealth is immoral, regardless of what service the government is providing. Christian conservatives – myself included – are correct in condemning the Obama administration and all groups that seek to preserve or extend redistributive taxation.

But as it turns out, Christian conservatives support redistribution of wealth just as much as anyone else. An overwhelming amount of evangelicals all over the country are perfectly fine with disability and unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, public schools, foreign aid, and more. In many cases it is “conservative” Republican politicians who help enact these programs in the first place. And guess who was bragging about how much he wanted to improve Medicare, Social Security and public education during the first 2012 presidential debate? Surprise, surprise! It was Mitt Romney.

These programs are redistributive in the exact same way that government-run healthcare is. John Smith is forced to fund them with his tax dollars even if he refuses to use them. For example, if he never goes to public school, if he never sends his kids to public school, and if he never teaches in public school, he is still forced to pay for other people to attend and teach in public schools. This wouldn’t be a problem if each citizen was given a choice to fund these programs or not. Each citizen could choose which programs they want to use and fund them appropriately. No one would be forced to pay for something they do not want. But this scenario is pure fiction. If the government could not force redistribution of wealth it would be no different than a private agency, thereby defeating the entire purpose of these programs.

Conservatives condemn redistribution of wealth on one hand, but support and defend it on the other. We oppose it rightly when it is advocated by liberals, but turn a blind eye to it when it’s something we want to take advantage of. The inconsistency must stop. An inconsistent person has no credibility. The Republican Party – my party – will continue down the path of irrelevance as long as we refuse to acknowledge the planks in our own eyes. If we want to remain faithful to Jesus Christ and uphold his standards of private property, it must be applied across the board.

This article is not a condemnation of those who are dependent upon redistributive programs. People do the best they can with what is available to them. Many people in this country need charity where the Church has been absent. Ultimately, this is why socialistic policies are becoming the norm in America. When the Church becomes dormant in her duties, counterfeits always arise. Instead of pointing fingers, we should seek first the kingdom of God in our daily lives. We should be encouraging local churches to implement a presence of charity in their communities; to provide affordable schooling to low-income families; to help congregants find employment and assist in managing their finances if need be. We should work towards “opting out” of redistributive programs. Our purpose is to proclaim the lordship of Christ over every area of the political map and to live our lives in terms of that proclamation. Only then can we begin to end the welfare state. It starts with us – and our hypocrisy isn’t helping.<>mobile rpg games onlineреклама в инете

Read more