Honor The King

UPDATED: 09:00 EDT/ GMT -4  on Monday, June 13, 2011

In conversation amongst Bible believers and at the same time contemplating current events and outrageous behavior by government (I know, I know; when does that not happen?), it seems inevitable that the Scriptural admonition to obey the rulers appointed over us comes into play.

Not that I have any illusions that folks so inclined to study only that which they want to, and believe that which they want to, are going to be swayed by anything I have to say on the matter, I've stewed over this issue in my mind and prayed about it for a couple of weeks now, wanting to be sure that I wasn't letting my own desire cloud my judgment regarding this matter.

I will continue to think on it long and hard and always be open to deeper truth about it, but right now, I'm ready to hold court.

There are several verses in the Bible regarding obedience to authority, but the one that gets misused and abused the most by Christians is Paul's admonition to the congregation in Rome; specifically in chapter thirteen.  Yet they take his words and not only do they isolate them from all the rest of the text of Scripture but they isolate the first part from the rest of the context in which Paul places it.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, an those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. . . ."  Romans 13:1-5 (NASB)

I say this verse gets misused and abused because, going back to Bill Clinton, when the sitting president was doing things that were blatantly wrong, unlawful, and in direct violation of the Constitution and I expressed my disgust over such actions, I was admonished with the verse above.  When I have said that I have nothing but utter contempt for the president, be he Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush or the current golfer using the People's House, I have had Christians react as if I was doing something I should repent of and be ashamed for doing.  Truly wishing to do the right thing and honor the ultimate authority, the Creator of the universe, I've prayed for wisdom in this regard.  Following my own admonitions to take the entire Bible as my counsel, I will lay out the case in my defense.

God repeatedly warned His people that they should not want a king. He expressly warned them in 1 Samuel chapter 8 that requesting a king would result in lots of bad stuff.  The irony was that the people were asking for a king "like the other nations" because the sons of the priest Eli were corrupt.  But rather than pray to Adonai for deliverance, they choose to jump from the frying pan into the fire by asking for someone who would have greater, consolidated power over them to oppress them even more.  Go figure.  The bottom line is that those who ask for a human king are rejecting God.  What I have learned from this that when I talk to those who express concern over showing respect and deference to human rulers, I often find a corresponding lack of respect and concern for God's Word.  Perhaps I can delve more deeply into examples of that later, but the short of it is that I see many examples of Christians who will disobey God's direct commandments because they can use the cover of obeying man-made law.

God had rules for the king that He appointed.  When that king got out of line, God sent a prophet to give correction.  This scenario is repeated enough throughout the Bible that I shouldn't need to cite examples.  The text of Romans 13 quoted above has been abused for centuries, outside of the theocratic/monarchy of Israel, and is known as "divine right of kings" justifying monarchies in doing any damnable and horrific thing they wanted to do. Yet, if you read what Paul writes in whole and in context, the assumption is that our obedience is in the mundane, benign and beneficial aspects.  The instruction of Romans 13 is not to obey everything and in all circumstances.  Once again, in taking the whole counsel of the Bible, I can cite Peter in Acts, after having been commanded by the Sanhedrin to never preach about Yeshua/Jesus again, that the Apostles must obey God rather than men.  Yet here was a body of rulers who had the ostensible authority of God Himself.  And let's not forget that Yeshua Himself had told the disciples that those religious leaders sat in Moses' seat and had the authority to declare halakhah (the right way to do things).


In other words, we are called to obey when the rulers are ruling in the right way and demanding good behavior, but when the rulers are demanding that we directly disobey God, we have no choice but to rebel.
What I find very interesting in my own case is that I have not rebelled against any authority of the president of the United States.  I have merely expressed my contempt for the president and many members of congress showing flagrant disregard for the Law and the Constitution, appointing others who do the same and proceeding to destroy the United States of America.

Somehow this erroneous thinking has crept into the minds of Americans that we have a government system that is something like a monarchy or oligarchy.  This is wrong.  The founding fathers debated, argued and reasoned out that nothing good could possibly come from two forms of government: democracy and oligarchy.

Let me pause here to say that I am using oligarchy very broadly.  Elected representatives come and go, but the idea is that a group of people are ruling us and not representing us or following the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  The whole purpose of creating a Constitution was to put chains on government.  To protect the individual as a sovereign entity, able to follow the dictates of his own conscience to follow God.  And do not make the mistake of leaving off the very important words "to follow God."  John Adams put it best when he said that the Constitution was designed for the governance of a religious and moral people and that it was wholly inadequate for any other.  Check the sidebar for my page on other essential quotes.

On the flip side of the coin, our founders totally detested the idea of democracy.  Yes, I said that correctly.  Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.  The proof of what I write is in the history, debates, writings, minutes of the meetings of Congress, the federalist and anti-federalist papers.  The founders loathed the idea of democracy.  It was a pleasure to find that idea expressed in the movie, "The Patriot" by Mel Gibson:

"Tell me, sir, why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?  A legislature can trample a man's rights just as easily as a king can."

But I digress.  The founding fathers did not want a king and they didn't want an oligarchy, and to try to prevent that from happening, they created a Constitution that was purposely designed to make it very hard and cumbersome to pass laws or do anything to rule over the people.  In fact, the founders created our form of government with the express idea that we DON'T HAVE RULERS.  We are supposed to have elected public servants who are supposed to understand that the power to administer only those things that are necessary to an orderly society, borrow their power from the sovereign people.  When you see members of Congress, or the Executive branch, or even the Supreme Court as rulers, you have fallen into a dangerous trap.  You have gotten stuck on stupid.  You deserve to be told what to do by people who think there are 57 States, vote on 2,000 page bills that create dictatorial power for bureaucrats, and send lewd and obscene pictures of themselves over the internet.  You need a first lady to be your nanny and tell you what to eat.



As another example of how evil it can be to carry the passage from Romans 13 to absurd extreme; what if you were living in Germany under Adolf Hitler after he acquired all the dictatorial control of the country?  Would you have quoted Romans 13 to Dietrich Boenhoffer or Corrie Ten Boom?  Would you have cooperated in revealing the hiding places of Jews or gone out to help round them up?

As a Christian in today's United States, would you work in an abortion mill?  It's the law of the land, right?  Five out of nine justices on the Supreme Court in 1973 said that the right to kill a baby in the womb was something that existed in the Constitution.  Right there.  In invisible ink.  Between the lines of other black marks. Somewhere.  It's there, just trust us.  We went to law school.

If you were a Christian during the civil rights movement in the sixties, how would you have felt if someone quoted Romans 13 to you in an effort to make you sit down and shut up while black people were being persecuted and denied their rights to equal treatment under the law?

It would be bad enough for so-called believers in God to try to correct me with Scriptures such as Romans 13 if we lived in an actual monarchy when the king or queen was doing things that were blatantly against God's law,  or even against plain decency and common morality.  But it truly makes me sick when they use Romans 13 as if it even remotely applies to an administration or congress or even the Supreme court that is openly and flagrantly violating the ultimate and supreme law of the land, and expects me to show respect for it.

I don't think so, Sparky.

The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.  So I will continue to express the reasons why the president and many members of congress are fully deserving of contempt and derision for violating their oaths of office; for entering into their positions with the full intention of violating that oath and doing the things they do in order to "transform" this society.

You people who like to quote Romans 13 need to go look at the exchange between Paul and the high priest in the Temple in Acts 23. Ananias unrighteously orders that Paul be struck. When Paul calls him on his evil act, Ananias appeals to his own position of Kohen Gadol.  But Paul, in so many words, corrects that error by pointing out that the man's unlawful use of his power rendered his position meaningless.  I don't need to engage in any deep midrashic thought to understand the lesson there for myself as a believer.  It means that God does not condemn me for expressing contempt for those who abuse their position or authority.

Paul wrote that passage above because this radical new idea of freedom in Messiah was already being abused by some people as an excuse to not follow any law or earthly authority.  Such thinking needed to be corrected.

If we are never supposed to criticize anyone in authority, you need to explain to me why Yeshua said what He said to the Pharisees and Sadduccees.  I'm going to give you the same advice that Messiah gave to those same religious leaders:  "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment."

Palin Derangement Syndrome

I think I've managed to stay away from talking about Sarah Palin fairly well, but it's not easy to avoid her when the press keeps her in the spotlight.  I think there are a few of us observers who find some chuckles in the irony that the media who would laugh derisively at anyone who would consider voting for the Wasilla Wonder, just can't stop chasing her around with a microphone and video camera, hoping she'll say something that will make her look like a stupid beauty queen and prove once and for all that her 80% approval rating in Alaska was nothing more than a complete fluke.

I'm posting my own comment below to someone who commented on Morgan Freeberg's blog: House of Eratosthenes.  "bpenni" as he calls him/herself quoted some typical left-wing "journalist" talking about how Sarah just can't win, and her approval ratings are so low.  Of course, we are only ever given the results of the polls, not the questions, how they selected the respondents, or anything that might make us suspicious of how the same media that is notoriously "in-the-tank" for the current occupant of the People's House, came to their conclusions.

My comment is on the post "Stockholm Syndrome".

Yes, bpenni, that’s right. We enlightened types in the press, (especially the press, since that’s where the truly enlightened media types go to share our wisdom with the unwashed masses without ever having to interact with them) will tell you who is simply unacceptable to run as a conservative for election.

Don’t you pay any attention to the fact that McCain was dead in the water until he asked Palin to join his ticket. Forget that the politically savvy people who actually look at things like records were finally energized when Palin, with an “eye-popping” popularity among real constituents who experienced her success in Alaska, were thinking, “Maybe we’ll get lucky and McCain will die his first year in office.” Okay, sorry, maybe only a tiny, tiny group of people thought that.  I'm sure that McCain’s a nice enough guy, he just has some serious problems with keeping his oath to support and defend the Constitution.  He has a really hard time understanding what the purpose of the First Amendment is all about, or the value of protecting U.S. borders.

Forget that Palin can draw a crowd of all kinds of people, and turns out to be right when the idiot lefties merely think she’s wrong.  (Party like it's 1773)   They can't help it if they led people to believe that she said things that she never did.  ( "I can see Russia from my house."  "I didn't know Africa was a continent.")

In reality, the lefties are scared to death that Palin is going to pull her own unique version of what Ronald Reagan did in 1980.  Earning the nomination in the GOP and wresting it away from the establishment hacks.  They are afraid that she will get  enough of the real conservatives and the common folk will see through the smear tactics of the Krauthammers and the Roves and all the other “loyal opposition” RINOs and decide they want Palin in spite of the propaganda.

I have a very, very simple way to know if I’m going in the right (correct) direction in politics. If the lefties are practically screaming that I shouldn’t move in a particular direction, then it must be a good, or at least safe, direction. If they are complimenting me on moving in a level-headed, intelligent, non-partisan, non-controversial direction, then I must be walking into quicksand or an ambush.

Of course, they won’t over play their hand. They’ll gently talk about Romney or Pawlenty or someone who is stereotypical white, male, reasonably handsome, talks in a debate like he’s doing show-and-tell at an elementary school, and they’ll deride his “conservative” views just enough to convince people who only pay attention to broadcast sound bytes long enough to form the erroneous opinion that he’s a real conservative and not just a political hack.

They won’t ask HIM the same questions that they ask Sarah until after the nomination process has insured that he is going to be the next RINO that they have chosen to lose to their anointed one, BHO.

There are still enough of the top echelons of the leftist fourth estate who remember Ronald Reagan. Now with Ahnold, and Jesse Ventura in the history books, they know that there are enough crazy people out there in fly over country who might just be willing to ignore their anointed wisdom from the hallowed halls of the Old Media. By God, they are not going to let that happen again. We are going to crush this Palin, even if it takes flying monkeys.

But it’s all good. I have a secondary fantasy, since I had the pleasure of listening to Herman Cain when he filled in for Neal Boortz and when he had his own talk radio show for over a year or two in Atlanta. I would love for Sarah to keep driving the press nuts with this tour and then, if she decides she isn’t going to run, endorse Herman Cain. I’m kind of salivating at the idea of how the media is going to blow a gasket over the race issue.

You stick to your guns, bpenni. The media is counting on folks like you to help them get a GOP nominee like McCain again. I’m not going to sweat it. I’ve made my plans. I’m ready for whichever direction this next election takes us.

Secular Prophetess

If you don't know about Ayn Rand, she escaped the Soviet Union in the 1950s or so, I think.  She grew up experiencing communism in all its horror.  She wrote several novels.  If you want something very short and to the point, read Anthem.  But her big masterpiece is Atlas Shrugged.  I know most people who need to be confronted with the truth contained in that fictional setting are not likely to pick up a 1,000 page tome.

Thank goodness, some folks have finally made the movie, well, the first movie.  Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.  The parallels to what is going on today in real life with what Rand wrote in that novel are amazing.  I don't know if real, die-hard lefties will comprehend how destructive their ideas are by watching this movie, but maybe some of the self-described moderates will get something out of it.  If this movie, and those that follow are faithful to the message of the book, it should be very entertaining and educational.  I'm glad to see from the trailer below that they aren't relying on any well known stars, which might detract from the message.

Rand's big drawback was her atheism.  Her belief in humanism was a bit over the top. But that does not take away from her spot-on description of how the ideals of the left inevitably lead to enslavement of humanity.  She basically took Orwell's Animal Farm and gave it a fully fleshed out venue in the real world.  If you can, take the time to read the book.  I hope the movie causes people to want to do that.

Jared Loughner

I put his name right up there in the title to shamelessly draw attention to my own blog.  Why not?  Everybody else is.

Fact is, I'm disgusted.  I don't know which blog I saw that did this and I don't want to give them any publicity but they jumped on the story the minute it broke and then followed with a chain of ten "UPDATE" lines correcting previous information.

I expect to see breathless hysterics from people on the left.  You moonbats out in Pima County, Arizona now have all the proof you need that the most irresponsible, politicized person you could find now occupies the office of Sheriff.  He has proven it out of his own mouth.  But isn't that what you voted for? Of course, you didn't think about the full implications of what that means.  Being a leftist drone means never having to think deeply about anything.

A rational mind would want the person in charge of law enforcement to be calm and logical.  Somebody who doesn't "rush to judgment" when it comes to investigating crime.  Doesn't matter if he leans right or left.  I want someone who first says, "Let's look at the facts."  "What evidence do we have?"

Clarence Dupnik immediately began blaming the shooter's actions on "Right-wing rhetoric," before looking at Loughner's You-Tube postings or Facebook account to see what kinds of things he seemed motivated by.  You people in Tuscon really want somebody that incompetent running criminal investigations?  It would be bad enough regarding innocent people being punished for things they didn't do, but just think about the criminals who would be able to get away with murder by simply misdirecting the attention of a political hack  with the attention span of a 12 year old.

This is a tragedy, and I don't mean to make little of the pain and suffering of the people involved.  But I didn't create the problem of Sheriff Dupnik's incredible incompetence, I'm just pointing it out.  I'm pointing out that Dupnik and people like him see this shooting as an opportunity to rile up the leftist drones who need no more analysis of the situation than the fact that an evil gun was used, and the main victim was a leftist democrat congresswoman.  End of thought process.  The rhetoric of the left will continue to spew endlessly, mind you, but there will be no further reasoned thought on the matter.

I've had people I work with and other friends say disparaging things about listening to talk radio.  But such people let their emotions get the better of them and any rational thinking about the subject matter seems to shut down before they can get any benefit from the information.  Countless times I've heard people refer to Rush Limbaugh as a racist, but when I ask for what he has specifically said that makes him a racist, all I get is silence or "Everybody knows . . . " only to find out that "everybody" is somebody else who has never listened to him but heard it from somebody else.  I once challenged a black co-worker to listen to Rush for a couple of weeks and then tell me specifically what he said that could be considered racist, or anything that he said was a lie or just a twisting of the truth.  He promised me he would.  After the two weeks I asked him what he thought.

"Any racist statements?"
"Not that I heard."
"What about disparaging poor people."
"Well, really just the lazy people, and I know plenty like that."
"Does he seem like he hates anybody?"
"Not really.  He's actually kind of funny."
"Maybe you need to keep listening for a while and see if you can catch him on something."
"I might do that."

That's just a small sample of that conversation and many others, and after a while, my co-worker admitted that he just didn't want to spend any more time listening to Rush because he had other interests, but the point was made.

I can easily have patience with people who are willing to take the time to listen, and by listen, I don't mean be a bystander while somebody talks.  I've experienced enough of that.  I've been in a room with several people and heard a teacher explain something that required more than a few sentences, and then listen to a person in the same room ask a question that proved that they hadn't really listened to the teacher at all.  I don't have a lot of patience for people like that.  I have even less patience for people who open up their mouths and prove that they don't know what they're talking about while at the same time speaking as if they do.

If there is one thing I've seen consistently on the left, it is the amazing amount of projection.  It's okay for them to engage in some of the most vile "hate" speech and they had better get a pass for it.  But if "right-wingers" do or say anything that can somehow be subtly tied to a concept of "hate" or seem threatening, then they should be reigned in, or shut down to make it safe for leftist tyranny, for the good of the country, for the sake of peace.

Because of the wonderful world of the internet, we don't have to make unsubstantiated charges with regard to who is doing what.  All of the news outlets have plenty of money and resources to monitor and record anything being said by Rush or Glenn Beck or whoever.  If the mainstream media could catch any of the conservative talking heads saying anything that could be used to inflame the public into demanding they be shut down, they would have broadcast it by now.

On the other side, we have the public record as recorded by folks like Michelle Malkin who provides us with clear and convincing evidence of leftist rage and violence at this site. I dare you to go check it out.

No Reverence For Men

Leftists continue to amaze me with their penchant for projection and utter lack of self awareness.  This is most evident when it comes to glorifying men. It is really disgusting when it comes to them glorifying themselves as individuals.  Robert C. Byrd being a great example of this. That man makes me embarrassed to admit that my parents came from the State of West Virginia. When it comes to praising the people that they consider heroes, the sky is the limit.  The reverse side of that coin is that they accuse conservatives of putting our heroes on pedestals beyond reproach.  Are there people within our ranks who do that sort of thing?  Of course, but they are a small minority.

I was prompted to write about this today because of the flap over the reading of the Constitution on the House floor.  From Ezra Klein to Joy Behar, the left has no shortage of folks that love to shower scorn and derision on those of us who see the Constitution as one of the finest documents ever written.  Of course we see it as an ironclad contract designed to protect the people by putting chains on government.

The left sees the Constitution as an archaic bit of history written by patriarchal slaveholders who couldn't possibly have anything to benefit society today were they alive now, and so that stupid old document is nothing more than a hinderance to the progressive ideas of "Hope and Change."

Because they don't actually read the Constitution, leftists like Bill Press make idiotic statements about what the document says about the right to privacy while on the Joy Behar show.  I think he found it next to the part about the right to abortion.  I forgot which article it appears in, so you will have to go look it up yourself.  And because they don't read the document or the Federalist Papers or the Congressional records of the time, they don't comprehend the idea that we conservatives hold the ideals and principles of the document in high esteem, while understanding that the men who contributed to it all had serious flaws.

Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant man and a darn good scientist, but his hedonistic lifestyle would have made me blush.  Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves is nothing to be proud of, but more than that I am ashamed of Jefferson championing the French Revolution as if it was on the same moral level as our own.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Thank goodness Jefferson fought valiantly against Hamilton when it came to the idea of a central bank.  John Adams had much to commend about him.  He held honesty and truth in high regard to the point of defending British troops on a charge of murder even though it was incredibly unpopular to do so, and he also was in favor of self rule by the colonies. But Adams was also very outspoken and not much for tact.  He also fought hard for the idea that the titles of the President smack of Royalty.  That hardly made any sense.  George Washington's own handling of the Whiskey Rebellion tells me that he was no saint.

Were they great men?  Yes.  Were they perfect? No.  It is in their demonstrable failings that they proved the necessity of a Constitution that denied the ability of any one man, or even a group of men from wielding too much power.  We are supposed to be a nation governed by a contract of law, not by people who feel some sort of anointing to tell us how to live for our own good.

We have traveled so far from the original intent of the Constitution that it is no wonder this country is so messed up and that so few citizens really know anything about the Constitution.

Here is a list of myths that a lot of Americans believe which are directly contrary to what the Constitution says or allows:

1. If the economy suffers or improves, it is because of the policies of the president.
2. The Senate is one half of the Congress that represents the people.
3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.
4. The Constitution determines what rights the people and the States have.
5. Every citizen in the United States has a right to vote in presidential elections.
6. If there are enough votes in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto, a bill should become law.
7. Prior to the war between the States, the Constitution considered negroes or slaves to only be three-fifths of a person.
8. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution automatically makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof.
9. Anyone arrested on U.S. soil, regardless of national origin is subject to all rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution.
10. The United States of America was founded as one country to free us from the British.

Anyone want to answer why the above statements are provably false?

Wikileaks Fiasco

It's been interesting to sit back and listen and read about this latest brouhaha over Wikileaks.  I was waiting to see if somebody really well known and respected would step up and say what I've been thinking.  Some have hinted at it, but not said it as plainly as I would like.

You've all been scammed.

I can understand the ignorance of lots of people who have no experience with military intelligence or protocol, or just basic security in most private companies.  But, seriously folks, any of you who have even a modicum of experience around "sensitive" information know that the idea that some low ranking guy like (now) private Manning had the ability to access the kind of information he did without it being intended for him to get hold of it by the powers above, you are really, really gullible.

Any of you who have family members or friends who have been in positions where secrets must be kept both in government agencies and private places know that I speak the truth.

The problem is that the implications of what I'm saying is just too difficult for a lot of people to take.  It's the idea that the people in control would do something to cause the masses to have no qualms about them seizing more control, "for our own good."  "For national security."  "For the children."  Take your pick.

Nobody in power seemed to care all that much when Wikileaks started doing it's business back in 2006.  Why is that?

Why are people on the left talking about Julian Assange as if he's some hero for publishing what he did, but the New York Times Slimes, was outraged about the leaked emails that proved that the biggest proponents of  the "Global Warming" hoax were hiding data and conspiring to protect the hoax?

How funny that two different women that were strangers to Assange just happened to be in place to make sure that Assange could be taken into custody on the most suspicious of circumstances, having nothing to do with the Wikileaks information.

When more and more of your freedom to communicate and discover information is clamped down on, you can sit back and sigh and think to yourself, "Well, if that's what it takes to make us SAFE, I guess that's how it needs to be."  Just like the people in line at the airport, waiting to get groped and have their rights violated,  who think to themselves, "If this is what it takes to keep from getting blown up, I'm all for it."

We are no longer the land of the FREE, and the home of the BRAVE.

You can either begin to think out of the box and understand the depth and breadth of the propaganda, and see it in the light of real history, or you can keep reacting the way the powers that be wish you to.  If you choose the latter, the day will soon be upon you, when you will be in a place you never imagined possible and asking yourself why you didn't see it coming.