Politics

•

A "different norm"

In the Uighur Province of China, the communist government is running "reeducation camps", committing genocide against the population, including the Muslim minority in that province.

I'm leading off with this, so that you can keep it in mind as you read.

President Biden says,

"..I am not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uighurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan...Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,”

New York Post

Yes, folks, our president sees the systematic rape, torture, and genocide as merely "different norms" and he does not intend to speak out against these heinous actions.

I am back to "how do we DO good and yet pray curses?"

For he did not remember to show kindness,
    but pursued the poor and needy
    and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.

from Psalm 109

Systematic torture and rape

Women are raped in these reeducation camps, not only by guards, but the men in the surrounding areas who pay the guards for the priviledge of raping young girls.

Tursunay Ziawudun, who fled Xinjiang after her release and is now in the US, said women were removed from the cells "every night" and raped by one or more masked Chinese men. She said she was tortured and later gang-raped on three occasions, each time by two or three men.

So, gang rape is simply a "different norm" so it's okay...according to President Biden.

People who do these things and politicians who publicly refuse to speak against these abuses of image bearers of God...are enemies of God.

Let curses come upon him!

He loved to curse; let curses come upon him!
    He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him!

from Psalm 109

1,000,000 Uilghurs from the region have been "removed" and some reports say 3,000,000.

He clothed himself with cursing as his coat;
may it soak into his body like water,
like oil into his bones!
May it be like a garment that he wraps around him,
like a belt that he puts on every day!

From Psalm 109

May curses soak into his body like water

"The woman took me to the room next to where the other girl had been taken in. They had an electric stick, I didn't know what it was, and it was pushed inside my genital tract, torturing me with an electric shock."

There were "four kinds of electric shock", Sedik said - "the chair, the glove, the helmet, and anal rape with a stick".

O Lord, God of vengeance,
    O God of vengeance, shine forth!
Rise up, O judge of the earth;
    repay to the proud what they deserve!

The rest of the Imprecation Series is here.

•

Side note: Today would have been my dad's 86th birthday and he's been in heaven a bit over four years, but many times I just want to pick up the phone and hear his voice.

Now...

Christian Reading Habits

Reading Out of Love For Others - Tim Challies - Good thoughts and as I'm thinking about books for the Reading Challenge, I'm thinking about this also.

Politics (The Corruption of President Biden)

Labor Pick Paid Biden-Linked Firm Tens of Thousands Prior to Nomination This is a bit confusing, but there's an end to that ball of string.

The Culture Wars

Biden's Culture War Aggression

"TLDR version": If Biden wanted "unity", he wouldn't have turned the "on a scale of 1 - 10" dial up to 12 on "the culture war" (that's in quotes because that's the term that Sullivan used)"

And another from the Heritage Foundation

Boys who identify as girls must be allowed to compete in the girls' athletic competitions, men who identify as women must be allowed in women-only spaces, healthcare plans must pay for gender-transition procedures, and doctors and hospitals must perform them.

Sounds unifying, right?

In reality, it spells the end of girls' and women's sports as we know them. And, of course, no child should be told the lie that they're "trapped in the wrong body", and adults should not pump them full of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones.

What’s the real evidence for 2020 Election Fraud?

There are seven points, and this conclusion

This isn’t an exhaustive survey of fraud evidence in the 2020 presidential race. For example I didn’t even include affidavits from witnesses seeing fraud in Wisconsin or Nevada. Nor did I even go through the Navaro Report or many of the claims listed on HeresTheEvidence.com.

But what I’ve seen is more than enough to convince me that Biden will not be a legitimately elected president when sworn in this Wednesday.

NOTE:  I disagree with the statement that President Trump would have won...but I do believe that there were enough irregularities to raise an alarm and all irregularities should be investigated (whether or not it would have changed the outcome) in order to have fair and honest elections in the future.

And...Policy Changes

Biden Appears To Signal Shift On Israel After Claiming In Speech That He Would ‘Repair Our Alliances’

“The change in title marks a significant shift in policy toward Israel,” The Washington Free Beacon reported. “The United States has for decades declined to take a policy position on the West Bank and Gaza territories, maintaining the Israelis and the Palestinians must decide in negotiations how the areas will be split up for a future Palestinian state. By including Gaza and the West Bank in the ambassador’s portfolio, the Biden administration appears to be determining that neither area is part of Israel—a move that is certain to rile Israeli leaders,” the outlet continued. “The incoming administration’s move also signals that it will elevate the next ambassador’s role to include conducting direct diplomacy with Palestinian leaders, including in the Gaza Strip, where the Hamas terror group maintains control. This is the only ambassador tasked with conducting diplomacy in a region controlled by a U.S.-designated terror group.”

‘Incredibly Troubling,’ ‘Deeply Disturbed’: Canadian Lawmakers React To Biden Energy Policy

This is a gut punch for the Canadian and Alberta economies. Sadly, it is an insult directed at the United States' most important ally and trading partner," Kenny told a news conference, according to Reuters.

•

Here's the link to the post by Politichicks.

We (Phil and I) have been talking about changes in the future and thought that these changes were a few years away, but COVID-19 radically changed the time frame.

Key Phrase: The Great Reset

The promise is that this reset will bring us to a place that will "correct the world's economic ails" in a sustainable way.

from the website: The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.

In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

there are three main components:

  • "fairer outcomes" - NOT equal opportunities...equal outcomes.
  • Equality and sustainability - using "green" urban infrastructure, social and governance metrics.
  • harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the "public good" *especially by addressing health and social challenges.

The main Great Reset "microsite"

Tony Marsh (politichicks) says the time frame has narrowed to 24 months.

The details of this Great Reset are vague but the direction is clear.

  • massive government intervention
  • wealth taxes (punish success)
  • Green New Deal programs
  • all (yes, ALL) aspects of our societies must be revamped
  • redistribution of wealth from the world's most successful economy to...everybody else.
  • "rebalancing economies"

They don't call it "socialism" but the definition fits. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

twentyfour months.

•
Here's a little civics lesson.

I'm hearing a lot of suggestions that The United States drop the Electoral College and move to a direct democracy.  So I started reading up.

(I'll put the "moral of the story" right up front:  CHILL OUT.  This is a design feature, not a glitch.)

The Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority and set up a Three-Branch Republic. They designed a delicate system of Checks and Balances to insure that the government they set up would not allow this.

We know about "checks and balances" (if we paid attention in Civics Class)- we have three branches of government (Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial.) The three branches are supposed to put a check on each other*.  If one branch goes off the rails, the other branches are supposed to step in and stop them.  The three branches are also supposed to provide balance - roughly equal amounts of power to govern should not allow either party (in a two-party system) to control the country

I didn't realize (or it just didn't click) that all three branches of government are selected through different processes.

  • the Legislative Branch is selected by direct ballot (although originally, the State Legislatures voted on Senators)
  • the Executive Branch is chosen by the Electoral College
  • The Judicial Branch is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate

The Legislative Branch is selected through direct ballot

- each person in a state has one vote (in an ideal world, not accounting for fraud) to elect Representatives and Senators to represent their state.  Even within this branch, the two houses are different.

The Senate has two Senators from each state, allowing the *states* to have equal standing - the most populous states would have no more power than the least populous states.  Vermont knew that New York would have New Yorkers' interest in mind when voting.  In the Senate, those from the less populous states are protected from the tyranny of the more populated states.

In the House of Representatives, the number of Representatives from each state is based on the population of that state.  New York had way more Representatives than Vermont, so those from the more populated states are protected from the tyranny of the less populated states.

This is also "checks and balances" - it is also brilliant.  Each state is represented in two chamber - in one, the less populous states are "over-represented" and in the other, the more populous states are "over-represented."

The Judicial Branch is chosen by the President...

And confirmed by the Senate.  Supreme Court appointments (as well as some others) are for life (although justices can and do retire.)  A president cannot just appoint any old person - the appointment must get past the Senate.  Unfortunately, this process has been hijacked a couple of times, and as things get more fractured, will continue to be.

In my lifetime, there has been only one time that one party has held the White House for more than two terms.  This means that each party will be able to appoint justices during their hold on the White House, so that an *overwhelming* left/right split is less likely.

Granted, in the *impartial* standard was *impartial* adherence to the Constitution, none of this would be an issue - but it isn't the standard, and it is an issue.

The fact that both other Branches are involved in the appointment of Justices is another example of "checks and balances."

The Administrative Branch is chosen by Electoral College

The voters don't elect the president (like they elect Senators and Representatives.)  Each state has Electors, based on the population of the state and the voters elect Electors.  Many states have laws that insist that all Electors throw their ballots to the Presidential Candidate who won the majority of the ballots in the state, and two (Maine and Nebraska) split their Electors - 2 Electoral Votes go to the majority winner, and the remainder are split according to Congressional districts.  So Electoral Ballots can be split between Candidates.

Without this system of Checks and Balances, the most populous states would *CONSISTENTLY* be able to control the least populous states.

With a smaller country, a direct election might work.  But the United States is so vast and diverse, the Electoral College serves as checks and balances between the States.

It's brilliant.

*check - definition #2 - stop or slow down the progress of (something undesirable.).

 

 

•

And on a dumber note, a leftist tries to post a few "gotcha questions" for conservatives.

1. As opponents of “big government,” why do you fervently support an unending stream of government-sponsored wars, vast government military spending, the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens, government interference with abortion rights and family planning, government restrictions on marriage, and the linkage of church and state?

Answers (in order)

A) unending stream of government-sponsored wars,

We don't.  We support the unending obligation of the federal government to protect our people, land, liberty.  Those who support "unjust wars" should be questioned as to why they consider themselves "conservative."

B) vast government military spending

We don't.  Members of Congress excepted, most conservatives I know want to see government waste of all types curbed, including military spending.  If money was used wisely, less would be spent.

C) the power of local police to shoot and kill unarmed citizens

Hat tip to Ferguson and the rest of the "unarmed" thugs.

This question makes it sound as if local police are wandering around shooting random citizens (lie.)

I believe that (like every other human being) local police officers than the right to defend themselves if they believe their lives or the lives of others are in danger.  Outside of that, police who are involved in shootings should be investigated and taken to court, should a grand jury (or other official group) think it appropriate.  Oh wait.  That happened and the leftists still are not happy.

D)government interference with abortion rights and family planning

By "abortion rights" you mean the right to kill an innocent unborn.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

a police officer defending themselves against a thug trying to wrestle their weapon away = bad.  Murdering an unborn child before they have a chance to take their first breath = good.

The second lie becomes visible in recent politics.

Conservatives do NOT wish to interfere with adults practicing family planning.

Conservatives DO wish to interfere with the government forcing businesses to act against their deeply held religious beliefs.

E) government restrictions on marriage

Since the government began requiring citizens to get the state's permission to marry, there have been restrictions, whether that be incestual relationships, polygamous relationships, etc.

It's interesting to note that in many  of the states where the courts (government entities) have overthrown the only definition of marriage that we've ever had, it has been the citizens who have voted for constitutional amendments defining "marriage"

So, in reality, we have the majority of citizens voting for the traditional definition of marriage, and the state, petitioned by the minority, telling us "we can't do that."

F) the linkage of church and state?\

the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Let's see.  Has Congress tried to establish a state religion?  No?

And actually, the "free exercise thereof" is being violated - BY THE LEFTISTS!

To even ask that section is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the left.

That's only the first question and my head hurts from the "Alinskyism"

 

 

 

•

Russel Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles"

 First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

check.  Call that order "God" and the moral truths the Decalogue.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.

Check.

I feel the loss of "tradition" costs us dearly, in terms of connecting with those who have gone before.  In church, I miss the hymns, the transcendence.

In reading "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt, we learn that conservatives and liberals all have five moral foundations, we just vary how much emphasis we put on different pillars.

this second point is right in line.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Check (see above)

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.

Check.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality.

Check.  BUT - I don't see these differences as a "caste system" where you cannot escape your order or class.  The possibility of success is a great motivator.  If there is no difference in anybody, why work to move up?

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

This reminds me of "Matrix" - remember the first one that didn't go so well?  Perhaps more on this later.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all

Check

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily

Forced volunteerism isn't volunteerism at all - it's slavery.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

This totally puts the lie to the leftist accusation of conservatives wanting to roll back ALL regulations on companies.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

The challenge that presents itself lies in how to reconcile.

 

•

Last Friday, Michigan became a "gay marriage" state, by the decision of a federal judge, overturning a vote of the people.  Even though the governor has requested a stay until it can be sorted out in SCOTUS, at least one country clerk has "gender neutral" marriage licenses ready to go today.

I want to be clear.

I am going to be a BRIDE.

I am NOT "applicant A"

I am NOT "party B"

I am NOT "thing one" or "thing two"

1 - A license, by definition, says that the state is giving me permission to do that which is otherwise illegal.  If I must have a license in order to marry, then marriage is illegal, unless the state gives me permission to enter into a marriage.

2 - the state, by way of being the one who gives permission to marry (as opposed to God giving permission) now has the authority to define marriage (as opposed to God defining marriage.)

3 - what the state is giving "us" (citizens) permission to do is no longer "marriage" (according to Scripture.)

When is it time for Christians to opt out of a corrupt system?

Do Christians need the state's permission to enter into a covenant before God, their family,  and their church community?

I don't want a "gender neutral" marriage certificate.

 

•

First question:

As we look to the next election cycle, the "war on women" narrative is still in high gear.  So is the war on marriage.  How do we choose who "our" candidate will be?

Who does the MSM (main stream media) want the GOP to run?

Response:

DO NOT RUN HIM.

Consider Chris Christie.  For a moment, he rubbed shoulders with all the right people, the right people liked him...the media seemed to like it.

But (my opinion) is that they turned on him too soon.

Oh, it would have happened eventually, but it would have been more effective for the liberal party if the media had waited until the GOP had set their path.