Stop supporting evil in high places
The following is an article published in the American Spectator in 2005, but the ideas it contains have largely been ignored since then, as “Christian” groups continue to use the language of the Left to support unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and to confer respect to lazy, ignorant, ambitious and/or evil politicians who do not deserve your respect. We should have learned our lesson since Roe v Wade but have learned nothing, instead following the lead of the ungodly in churches and Christian organizations that claim to be helping but side with the enemy.
John Haskins, whose web site The Underground Journal, I highly recommend, is a warrior who has never been known to compromise with the Left. He and colleague Gregg Jackson pointed out some time ago that same-sex marriage has never in fact been legal anywhere because the Supreme Court judges of states whose courts supported it do not have the support of the Constitution in so doing and therefore do not deserve your respect and the legitimization you confer to their decisions. These officials are nothing but usurpers, their deeds are unlawful and as long as you honor them with your respect, you are an accessory to their crime. Haskins believes that “pro-family” and “Christian” groups make matters much worse when they plead cases from the standpoint that these leftist judges are legitimate and their decisions are legally binding. The mantra is “we must avoid a constitutional crisis at all costs,” but the crisis is already here and was caused by the judges themselves. So what this translates to is: “we must avoid resolving the constitutional crisis.” A constitutional challenge is precisely what these lawless judges need to keep them in check, but everyone just follows the lead of the pseudo-conservatives and “moderates.” The result so far is a Marxist “president” who cannot prove he meets the qualifications to be president – thanks to a spineless Supreme Court that will not honor any challenges, no matter how reasonable and well-founded they are, and thanks to a populace that has been indoctrinated by schools, universities and media into accepting the unacceptable.
I have always argued that public officials have no right under the Constitution generally to change natural language and specifically to tamper with the definition of the word “marriage” as it has existed for millennia in all world cultures – not just Christian ones. In natural languages as they have evolved everywhere, independently of each other over the years, the equivalents for the English word “marriage” have always referred to a union between a man and a woman. Although in some Muslim countries and in the Mormon community, there has been a provision for men marrying more than one woman, in no traditional community has there ever been a provision for marriage between same-sex partners, which has universally been regarded as an absurd notion. It still is absurd and always will be, but the International Left has decided to carve out a new “victim” group, ie, homosexuals, and has invented the notion of “gay marriage” to prop up this group in return for their loyalty. Why the expenditure of so much effort for such a tiny group?
There are several reasons, including the fact that traditional man-woman marriage is an obstacle to the Left’s agenda of controlling children’s minds from cradle to adulthood and beyond, but the main reason is to undermine Christianity, which has traditionally stood in the way of the Left. The ultimate goal is to charge anyone who opposes same-sex unions with a “hate” crime. This effectively criminalizes certain parts of the Bible, opening to door to further-reaching “hate” crimes, for example, banning the mention of hell by preachers.
It wasn’t until Evangelical groups began promoting the diabolical idea of partnering with government that the Left was able to overcome the religous obstacles to their goals, as witnessed by the fact that close to 30% of young evangelicals voted for Obama last election. In addition, 54% of Catholics also voted for Obama. Without the “Christian” vote, the current rapid erosion of the free market and nationalization of banks and business (both communist policies) would not have happened. The Obama debacle has taken on new significance since the latest WND report that Obama is now filling White House posts with Muslims, some of whom are terrorist sympathizers and supporters.
What can you do? Roundly reject the language of the Left: For instance, don’t ever say or write the words “gay marriage,” “choice” when referring to the murder of the unborn, or “strike down” when referring to laws opposed by the Supreme Courts of states or the US Supreme Court. And do not allow your friends or family to use the newspeak of the Left. These soulless people can usurp power only if we lend them credibility. We have been doing that for too long. Listen: When was the last time your pastor said homosexual marriage and homosexuality are sinful? When has he spoken of a hell to which the lost are destined?
If you can’t remember, then you are probably supporting evil in the form of offerings and tithes. Time to leave. Time to say no. Time to fight or lose everything you love and everything you have always wanted for your children.
No More Striking Down Constitutions
Why are even conservatives afraid to call things by their name?
By John Haskins
Published 11/8/2005 12:05:11 AM
Conservatives contemplating George Bush’s judicial legacy — and his bizarre vision of Harriet Miers among the nine highest potentates in the democratic world — should expect no counter-revolution. True, he promised constitutionalist judges. But talking constitutionalism (like talking Christianity) is easy.
Our governing elite punishes unvarnished clarity about our Constitution. Intellectual honesty, for lawyers, schoolteachers, psychologists, professors and actors, is costly. Most lie low or join the enforcers. Surely even Roberts, Scalia, and Alito see the gap between them and the Founding Fathers, for whom precedent was impotent against the Constitution.
Absurd though it is, only “constitutional” conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal “mainstream” savors precedents they’ve shot down — or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent. But the obvious is hard to see, especially as monumental, abstract questions are addressed in isolation from thoughts of personal advancement. The realm of the mind and methodology that do this are not the pragmatic part that wins court cases, campaigns, and useful friendships. The former withers when neglected for the latter. Even “all star” conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.