By R. Josiah Magnuson
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matt. 22:37-40)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (I Cor. 13:13)
The greatest thing is not a series of doctrines, or a civil contract, or the idea of freedom. It is not even the principle of Biblical supremacy. On the other hand, the greatest thing is certainly not ecumenical unity and harmony or the absence of any strict doctrines. The greatest thing is love for God the Creator.
Something which will come from a devotion to God is a love and compassion for those around us.
The truth is, freedom, God's Law, and any other principle which we may hold to, cannot be crushed into anyone. Trying to force freedom is oxymoronic. We must first, love those around us and second, lead by example in supporting lawful objects. It is only by that passive direction that people will be won to Christian ideas.
It has been said that if leadership could be described the simplest possible way, it would be one word: OTHERS. "Others" means everyone we meet and see. Serving and loving those around us is the way leadership must work.
People should not have to agree with us in order for us to encourage them. Nor should we have to figure out what theological system they belong to in order to think how to influence them. Real influence is generally accomplished in a passing moment. People simply see something in you and decide that they want to imitate that quality.
Of course, there is not much point in leading if you have no principles. This is why loving God is even more important than loving others. We must always stand for God's Word. That is the ultimate purpose of the YCLA. However, influencing someone for truth is impossible until you become a leader for that person. As we have pointed out, leadership is fundamentally about loving others.
Any way one looks at it, the greatest need is for a spirit of LOVE. Christmas is a good time to get started; but let's keep shining for Christ long after that!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
What Is a Biblical Worldview?
By R. Josiah Magnuson
We as Americans today are in the midst of a worldviews war - a war between two philosophies of what the nature of life is and how things really work. One side supports freedom, values, and God's Word, and the other side does not.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Founding Fathers of America held the Biblical worldview.
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism (an example of the Evolutionary worldview), which, he stated, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. The Biblical worldview, in short, is one of absolute reliance on God and His instructions. The Biblical worldview is that of Sola Scriptura (The Scriptures alone). Let us take a brief look at the tenets of this belief system.
The basic premise of the Biblical worldview is that God is the Creator, and is supreme over all things. Since God created our universe, He knows everything about it and its workings. It thus follows that His Word must be supreme, and true in all matters. Finally, because the Bible contains (true) promises that it would be preserved through history, it must have been!
Government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government does not have an inherent sovereignty over its citizens. It can do nothing which would overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.
Science is the way we learn about the world. It is not a method for discovering origins, but a tool which enables us to serve God with knowledge and efficiency.
Work is good and necessary. The free enterprise system is the normal system which has existed throughout civilization, and is the way which God intended commerce to be.
Education of children should be accomplished by parents, either directly or indirectly. The State has no place in determining the societal future of any person.
Religion is not something to be stacked up and stored in the church, but something to be integrated into every facet of our lives. Our "rely"gion in God must continue everywhere.
Those who hold the Biblical worldview believe in proclaiming God's Truth, exemplifying morality, justice, and appreciation for others, and encouraging others to do the same. Finally, they treasure God's commands as contained in His Word, and live with Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives.
Let us each live today with the Biblical worldview. Here's how to get started!
We as Americans today are in the midst of a worldviews war - a war between two philosophies of what the nature of life is and how things really work. One side supports freedom, values, and God's Word, and the other side does not.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Founding Fathers of America held the Biblical worldview.
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism (an example of the Evolutionary worldview), which, he stated, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. The Biblical worldview, in short, is one of absolute reliance on God and His instructions. The Biblical worldview is that of Sola Scriptura (The Scriptures alone). Let us take a brief look at the tenets of this belief system.
The basic premise of the Biblical worldview is that God is the Creator, and is supreme over all things. Since God created our universe, He knows everything about it and its workings. It thus follows that His Word must be supreme, and true in all matters. Finally, because the Bible contains (true) promises that it would be preserved through history, it must have been!
Government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government does not have an inherent sovereignty over its citizens. It can do nothing which would overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.
Science is the way we learn about the world. It is not a method for discovering origins, but a tool which enables us to serve God with knowledge and efficiency.
Work is good and necessary. The free enterprise system is the normal system which has existed throughout civilization, and is the way which God intended commerce to be.
Education of children should be accomplished by parents, either directly or indirectly. The State has no place in determining the societal future of any person.
Religion is not something to be stacked up and stored in the church, but something to be integrated into every facet of our lives. Our "rely"gion in God must continue everywhere.
Those who hold the Biblical worldview believe in proclaiming God's Truth, exemplifying morality, justice, and appreciation for others, and encouraging others to do the same. Finally, they treasure God's commands as contained in His Word, and live with Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives.
Let us each live today with the Biblical worldview. Here's how to get started!
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Real Meaning of Freedom
“…Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
*Politics and the English Language, 1946.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Our Constitution is Signed
The signing of our Constitution went superbly.
The meeting began at about 12:35 on Saturday, September 8, 2007. The President, Mr. R. Josiah Magnuson, and Vice-President, Mr. David Michael Aguilar, arrived to shouts, cheers, and a majestic violin/electric organ version of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."
After a prayer of thanks and a short welcome, the group began by singing "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." Mr. Magnuson then gave out a series of useful door prizes.
Mr. Aguilar read Proverbs 3:1-10, regarding proper trust in God and His commands.
After the Scripture reading, Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Aguilar unveiled the new YCLA Shield of Arms on a two-foot by four-foot white wood background, which had been covered in a blue plastic cloth. The Shield itself, representing Faith, consists of a white cross on a blue field with a white five-pointed star in the top-left corner. Two olive branches with four olives each are displayed on the two sides, and a yellow crown of Christ is at the top with a large diamond in the center. The initials for the group are found at the bottom.
After another song, Miss Rahab Hackett read Isaiah 58:6-14. This scripture passage speaks of God's appreciation for works of good in society, keeping His Law, delighting in Him, and so forth. These are all-important to being a "repairer of the breach, a restorer of paths to dwell in."
The Constitution was signed by each member, with the President signing following the challenging theme song, "He Who Would Valiant Be."
In the President's address he stressed three objectives as key to the YCLA's mission: 1. Demolishing Deceit, 2. Attacking Apathy, and 3. Dispelling Disunity. The point was made in each case that the best way to lead is by example. The YCLA will, more than anything, act as a beacon of truth, liberty, and order for others. The reason this day is important is because it marks the beginning of a new standard of Biblical worldview implementation.
After picture-taking and cleanup, the group went downstairs for pizza and refreshments. For pictures of the event, please click here.
Also, to view the new Constitution, please visit this location. Thanks!
The meeting began at about 12:35 on Saturday, September 8, 2007. The President, Mr. R. Josiah Magnuson, and Vice-President, Mr. David Michael Aguilar, arrived to shouts, cheers, and a majestic violin/electric organ version of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."
After a prayer of thanks and a short welcome, the group began by singing "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." Mr. Magnuson then gave out a series of useful door prizes.
Mr. Aguilar read Proverbs 3:1-10, regarding proper trust in God and His commands.
After the Scripture reading, Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Aguilar unveiled the new YCLA Shield of Arms on a two-foot by four-foot white wood background, which had been covered in a blue plastic cloth. The Shield itself, representing Faith, consists of a white cross on a blue field with a white five-pointed star in the top-left corner. Two olive branches with four olives each are displayed on the two sides, and a yellow crown of Christ is at the top with a large diamond in the center. The initials for the group are found at the bottom.
After another song, Miss Rahab Hackett read Isaiah 58:6-14. This scripture passage speaks of God's appreciation for works of good in society, keeping His Law, delighting in Him, and so forth. These are all-important to being a "repairer of the breach, a restorer of paths to dwell in."
The Constitution was signed by each member, with the President signing following the challenging theme song, "He Who Would Valiant Be."
In the President's address he stressed three objectives as key to the YCLA's mission: 1. Demolishing Deceit, 2. Attacking Apathy, and 3. Dispelling Disunity. The point was made in each case that the best way to lead is by example. The YCLA will, more than anything, act as a beacon of truth, liberty, and order for others. The reason this day is important is because it marks the beginning of a new standard of Biblical worldview implementation.
After picture-taking and cleanup, the group went downstairs for pizza and refreshments. For pictures of the event, please click here.
Also, to view the new Constitution, please visit this location. Thanks!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Section 3: Vision
3.1 We the Founders of the YCLA wish for a network of young people, as large as possible, but organized according to location and ability. This network or its chapters will be able to meet, talk, and think together, and then mobilize for short-term productions and plans.
3.2 The YCLA should continue to exist and self-propagate after we have left the organization, growing in size and influence. This Constitution, as appropriately amended, shall be the supreme Law for the YCLA always.
3.3 We desire that the Council be used ultimately as a tool to bring together leaders in other organizations, as described in Section 2.5.
3.4 In the process of development, the officers and members of the YCLA shall follow the direction of God for all decisions. They shall endeavor to maintain a rational and sober mind at the meetings. Finally, they shall regard the end of all their ideas before any be put into practice.
For more information, please e-mail the President at rjmpilgrim@aol.com. Thanks!
3.2 The YCLA should continue to exist and self-propagate after we have left the organization, growing in size and influence. This Constitution, as appropriately amended, shall be the supreme Law for the YCLA always.
3.3 We desire that the Council be used ultimately as a tool to bring together leaders in other organizations, as described in Section 2.5.
3.4 In the process of development, the officers and members of the YCLA shall follow the direction of God for all decisions. They shall endeavor to maintain a rational and sober mind at the meetings. Finally, they shall regard the end of all their ideas before any be put into practice.
For more information, please e-mail the President at rjmpilgrim@aol.com. Thanks!
Thursday, July 5, 2007
A Change of Direction?
An e-mail to Cory Burnell
"Hi Cory! Thanks for your leadership and energy for the worldviews revolution effort.
I was wondering what is going on lately with Christian Exodus and the South Carolina Liberty Alliance - maybe you could subscribe me to some kind of e-mail list or newsletter on this subject.
My address is *************************
Most of the reaction so far to the idea of an SCLA or Liberty In Law Coalition has been positive, but with an atmosphere of "ah yes that again." So to me it seems that it is not so much an organization which is lacking as it is an idea - the idea that liberty is created by God's Law - which I attempted to review in my last e-mail to you.
If you don't mind, I will be working more on a different direction, including an alliance of young people for constitutional leadership. My SC Liberty Alliance website will thus be transferred to a website for this new concept.
Please inform me of your thoughts...
Thanks!
-R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com"
"Hi Cory! Thanks for your leadership and energy for the worldviews revolution effort.
I was wondering what is going on lately with Christian Exodus and the South Carolina Liberty Alliance - maybe you could subscribe me to some kind of e-mail list or newsletter on this subject.
My address is *************************
Most of the reaction so far to the idea of an SCLA or Liberty In Law Coalition has been positive, but with an atmosphere of "ah yes that again." So to me it seems that it is not so much an organization which is lacking as it is an idea - the idea that liberty is created by God's Law - which I attempted to review in my last e-mail to you.
If you don't mind, I will be working more on a different direction, including an alliance of young people for constitutional leadership. My SC Liberty Alliance website will thus be transferred to a website for this new concept.
Please inform me of your thoughts...
Thanks!
-R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com"
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Intrinsic Connection of God to Freedom
There are some who believe that "religion" such as that discussed on this website has no place in a pro-freedom movement. However, belief systems (whether religious or not) determine the fundamental axioms by which societies will be run. Thus, a brief look at the political implications of these belief systems reveals the impossibility of true freedom from a non-supernatural (naturalistic) basis.
The Declaration of Independence states that everyone has unalienable rights given to them by the Creator, God, and that governments exist to protect these rights. Good government is thus only possible when the Creatorship of God is recognized and acknowledged.
Take, for instance, the demise of Athens, the French Revolution, or the dictatorships of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung. Each came about when the Creatorship of a supernatural Supreme Being was rejected, and each was marked by chaos, tyranny, and in most cases, genocide.
It is clear that a free country is a country under absolutes. Absolutes are unchanging principles or Laws. They contain the "unalienable rights" which can never be taken away.
There is only one source which could make absolutes and rights for all mankind. It is mankind's Creator. That is why free countries have always recognized the existence of God. On the other hand, if no absolutes (rights) exist, no limitations can be put on government. There could be no such thing as tyranny, because there would be no right or wrong. Thus, countries which are not under God’s absolutes can never be free, but are governed arbitrarily and lawlessly. Relativism and naturalism can only produce despotism.
Even in America, proponents of Evolution are already teaching a new idea of a “living” Constitution which evolves with the people, and a new system of “rights” which can be created or destroyed at the whim of the State! Instead of unalienable rights, citizens are being granted ever-changable government privileges.
Thomas Jefferson once asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” Truly, an ignoring of the supernatural can only be a dismissal of our republic in favor of a dictatorship, and thus, to oppose this danger is not only Christian, but American.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
(this article posted several other places as well)
The Declaration of Independence states that everyone has unalienable rights given to them by the Creator, God, and that governments exist to protect these rights. Good government is thus only possible when the Creatorship of God is recognized and acknowledged.
Take, for instance, the demise of Athens, the French Revolution, or the dictatorships of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung. Each came about when the Creatorship of a supernatural Supreme Being was rejected, and each was marked by chaos, tyranny, and in most cases, genocide.
It is clear that a free country is a country under absolutes. Absolutes are unchanging principles or Laws. They contain the "unalienable rights" which can never be taken away.
There is only one source which could make absolutes and rights for all mankind. It is mankind's Creator. That is why free countries have always recognized the existence of God. On the other hand, if no absolutes (rights) exist, no limitations can be put on government. There could be no such thing as tyranny, because there would be no right or wrong. Thus, countries which are not under God’s absolutes can never be free, but are governed arbitrarily and lawlessly. Relativism and naturalism can only produce despotism.
Even in America, proponents of Evolution are already teaching a new idea of a “living” Constitution which evolves with the people, and a new system of “rights” which can be created or destroyed at the whim of the State! Instead of unalienable rights, citizens are being granted ever-changable government privileges.
Thomas Jefferson once asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” Truly, an ignoring of the supernatural can only be a dismissal of our republic in favor of a dictatorship, and thus, to oppose this danger is not only Christian, but American.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
(this article posted several other places as well)
Feature Column: Amnesty Stinks By Any Name
By Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070522.html
One of Shakespeare's most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet asks Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Accordingly, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name they want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!
Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is being debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and senate leaders hopeful of quick passage. If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the United States "probationary" citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on the path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting U.S. citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to better protect America's borders.
However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government's idea of border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the fact that the United States already has copious laws against illegal immigration, including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good have these laws done? Very little.
No one with any sense of objective truth believes that the Bush administration is serious about border enforcement. No one. Therefore, how can anyone believe that more promises of border enforcement will accomplish any more than with existing laws? The plain truth is, President George W. Bush, Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al., are simply hell-bent to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens, and this bill will give them the power to do it.
Do I need to convince readers that any kind of amnesty will put America on the fast track to ruin? The United States simply cannot absorb upwards of 60 million, mostly unskilled, non-English-speaking, migrants in the next few years. It just is not possible. Already, America is reaping the consequences of unbridled illegal immigration. Americans are being squeezed out of work by illegal immigrants who will work at significantly reduced wages. Of course our unemployment is low: Americans are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet.
Add to the strain of the loss of good paying jobs the strain of an ever-growing financial burden to taxpayers. For example, Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector recently released a new study entitled, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer." In the report, Rector notes that two-thirds of the millions of illegal aliens in this country fall into the category of "low-skill" households. Contrast that with just 10% of native-born Americans falling into that category.
Writing for National Review Online, Byron York states, "Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household--the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits.... Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes.... In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes..."According to World Net Daily, "If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the [current] total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion." It doesn't take a mathematical genius to calculate that with an added 60 million mostly unskilled immigrants moving into the country, the financial cost would be more than taxpayers could possibly pay for.
Consider also the toll upon America's safety and security. Already, law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge of Latin American "ultra-violent" gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 U.S. states. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, "When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America."
Retired lawman Jim Kouri recently wrote, "According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens."
As I have previously noted in this column, illegal aliens already murder at least 12 Americans every day. Think of the potential violence that another 60 million aliens will bring. Not to mention the threat of potential terrorism.
America's law enforcement communities are keenly aware of the probability that international terrorists have already infiltrated the United States due to our lack of border control. For example, William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), recently said, "MS-13 and other illegal immigrant gangs are bringing in the illegals, drugs, heavy weapons, and possibly terrorists. The biggest threat from their members is contained in the multiple intelligence reports provided to Congress indicating that Al-Qaeda and MS-13 are now working together to smuggle terrorist operatives and materials into the U.S."
In light of all of the above, how in the world can President Bush and senate leaders proceed with plans to explode the growth of unskilled immigrants into the United States? Perhaps the answer lies within the details of the bill. According to World Net Daily, "The controversial 'Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,' which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.
"The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005--an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.
"'It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration,' the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m."
Aw! There is the underlying reason President Bush is willing to incur the wrath of his conservative constituents: he is determined to implement the SPP and pave the way for the emerging North American Union before he leaves office. The amnesty bill being pushed through the Senate this week is absolutely essential to this end.
As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" Bush, Kennedy, McCain and Company are playing word games with us. They know this is amnesty. You know this is amnesty. And millions of illegal aliens know this is amnesty. If it walks like amnesty, talks like amnesty, looks like amnesty, and smells like amnesty, it's amnesty! Now, the question is, Will the American people sit back and let it happen?
Dear Reader, this might be our last chance to stop the push for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. If you have never voiced your protest to your civil leaders, I urge you to do so now! Here are two links for information on how you can make your voice heard in Washington, D.C. Don't delay! We must act TODAY!
Tell the Senate, No Amnesty for Illegals here: http://www.grassfire.org/19042/offer.asp
Call the D.C. switchboard here: http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/05-18-07.html
This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070522.html
One of Shakespeare's most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet asks Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Accordingly, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name they want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!
Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is being debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and senate leaders hopeful of quick passage. If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the United States "probationary" citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on the path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting U.S. citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to better protect America's borders.
However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government's idea of border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the fact that the United States already has copious laws against illegal immigration, including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good have these laws done? Very little.
No one with any sense of objective truth believes that the Bush administration is serious about border enforcement. No one. Therefore, how can anyone believe that more promises of border enforcement will accomplish any more than with existing laws? The plain truth is, President George W. Bush, Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al., are simply hell-bent to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens, and this bill will give them the power to do it.
Do I need to convince readers that any kind of amnesty will put America on the fast track to ruin? The United States simply cannot absorb upwards of 60 million, mostly unskilled, non-English-speaking, migrants in the next few years. It just is not possible. Already, America is reaping the consequences of unbridled illegal immigration. Americans are being squeezed out of work by illegal immigrants who will work at significantly reduced wages. Of course our unemployment is low: Americans are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet.
Add to the strain of the loss of good paying jobs the strain of an ever-growing financial burden to taxpayers. For example, Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector recently released a new study entitled, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer." In the report, Rector notes that two-thirds of the millions of illegal aliens in this country fall into the category of "low-skill" households. Contrast that with just 10% of native-born Americans falling into that category.
Writing for National Review Online, Byron York states, "Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household--the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits.... Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes.... In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes..."According to World Net Daily, "If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the [current] total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion." It doesn't take a mathematical genius to calculate that with an added 60 million mostly unskilled immigrants moving into the country, the financial cost would be more than taxpayers could possibly pay for.
Consider also the toll upon America's safety and security. Already, law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge of Latin American "ultra-violent" gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 U.S. states. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, "When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America."
Retired lawman Jim Kouri recently wrote, "According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens."
As I have previously noted in this column, illegal aliens already murder at least 12 Americans every day. Think of the potential violence that another 60 million aliens will bring. Not to mention the threat of potential terrorism.
America's law enforcement communities are keenly aware of the probability that international terrorists have already infiltrated the United States due to our lack of border control. For example, William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), recently said, "MS-13 and other illegal immigrant gangs are bringing in the illegals, drugs, heavy weapons, and possibly terrorists. The biggest threat from their members is contained in the multiple intelligence reports provided to Congress indicating that Al-Qaeda and MS-13 are now working together to smuggle terrorist operatives and materials into the U.S."
In light of all of the above, how in the world can President Bush and senate leaders proceed with plans to explode the growth of unskilled immigrants into the United States? Perhaps the answer lies within the details of the bill. According to World Net Daily, "The controversial 'Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,' which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.
"The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005--an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.
"'It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration,' the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m."
Aw! There is the underlying reason President Bush is willing to incur the wrath of his conservative constituents: he is determined to implement the SPP and pave the way for the emerging North American Union before he leaves office. The amnesty bill being pushed through the Senate this week is absolutely essential to this end.
As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" Bush, Kennedy, McCain and Company are playing word games with us. They know this is amnesty. You know this is amnesty. And millions of illegal aliens know this is amnesty. If it walks like amnesty, talks like amnesty, looks like amnesty, and smells like amnesty, it's amnesty! Now, the question is, Will the American people sit back and let it happen?
Dear Reader, this might be our last chance to stop the push for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. If you have never voiced your protest to your civil leaders, I urge you to do so now! Here are two links for information on how you can make your voice heard in Washington, D.C. Don't delay! We must act TODAY!
Tell the Senate, No Amnesty for Illegals here: http://www.grassfire.org/19042/offer.asp
Call the D.C. switchboard here: http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/05-18-07.html
Where is LIL?
We have been involved with so many other projects lately that the Liberty In Law stuff has not been progressing as fast as it should. However, it is not forgotten. We still by all means wish to mobilize the pro-freedom groups to support Law and God's Creatorship!
An interesting thing is that this mobilization is beginning to happen even without much concerted effort. Everyone knows that teamwork and coordination are key in battles such as we face. And when I merely mention the idea of Liberty In Law (or even sometimes just the phrase) a lightbulb seems to go on in people's heads. "Why yes... that's what we were fighting for all along!"
So LIL and Worldviews Revolution are not so much an organization as they are sound-bytes which allow everything to "click." It is working out grand. But what I describe is hardly the beginning! Just imagine what God will be doing with this stuff in a few years time!
Thank you Lord! From Josiah
An interesting thing is that this mobilization is beginning to happen even without much concerted effort. Everyone knows that teamwork and coordination are key in battles such as we face. And when I merely mention the idea of Liberty In Law (or even sometimes just the phrase) a lightbulb seems to go on in people's heads. "Why yes... that's what we were fighting for all along!"
So LIL and Worldviews Revolution are not so much an organization as they are sound-bytes which allow everything to "click." It is working out grand. But what I describe is hardly the beginning! Just imagine what God will be doing with this stuff in a few years time!
Thank you Lord! From Josiah
Friday, March 23, 2007
Feature Column: The Democracy Problem
By R. Josiah Magnuson
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” Why not democracy?
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, Section II declared the climactic goal of Communist revolution to be “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy.”
The Founding Fathers generally expressed distain for democracy. Benjamin Rush, for example, referred to democracy as “mob rule.” James Madison declared that “democracies have ever been found inconsistent with personal security or the rights of property.”
Yet many Christian conservatives believe that the solution to the decline of morality in this nation is promotion of democracy!
Just what is democracy? It is the reign of the omnipotent Majority. It is government by changing public policy and demagoguery. It is actually THE RULE OF RELATIVISM, and as such, becomes merely popular dictatorship!
A republic, on the other hand, is a government created by the people (or someone truly acting in the interest of the people) for the protection of their rights. The word republic has of course been defined in various ways. However, it is apparent in true republics that although the opinion of the majority is respected, individual rights are supreme. For instance, the Founding Fathers often referred to republics as "the rule of laws and not men."
Rights are, by nature, enduring and absolute. Therefore, they must be granted by a source from outside man; that is, man’s Creator, God. Such rights are indeed implicit to His Law: the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, and various other parts of the Bible.
A republic is therefore THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CREATOR. It is separation of powers, checks and balances, and perhaps most importantly, limited government. In a republic, no dictator or even Majority class can change the individual's unalienable rights as given in God's absolute Law!
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The people are inherently independent of all but moral law.” This fact is recognized in republics, but the converse is true in democracies. In democracies, the people are “freed” from God, only to be chained to the arbitrary whims of those in power (majority).
Clearly, “republic” and “democracy” are not simply two forms of free government. They are the difference between a liberty in law and a liberty from law.
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” Why not democracy?
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, Section II declared the climactic goal of Communist revolution to be “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy.”
The Founding Fathers generally expressed distain for democracy. Benjamin Rush, for example, referred to democracy as “mob rule.” James Madison declared that “democracies have ever been found inconsistent with personal security or the rights of property.”
Yet many Christian conservatives believe that the solution to the decline of morality in this nation is promotion of democracy!
Just what is democracy? It is the reign of the omnipotent Majority. It is government by changing public policy and demagoguery. It is actually THE RULE OF RELATIVISM, and as such, becomes merely popular dictatorship!
A republic, on the other hand, is a government created by the people (or someone truly acting in the interest of the people) for the protection of their rights. The word republic has of course been defined in various ways. However, it is apparent in true republics that although the opinion of the majority is respected, individual rights are supreme. For instance, the Founding Fathers often referred to republics as "the rule of laws and not men."
Rights are, by nature, enduring and absolute. Therefore, they must be granted by a source from outside man; that is, man’s Creator, God. Such rights are indeed implicit to His Law: the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, and various other parts of the Bible.
A republic is therefore THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CREATOR. It is separation of powers, checks and balances, and perhaps most importantly, limited government. In a republic, no dictator or even Majority class can change the individual's unalienable rights as given in God's absolute Law!
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The people are inherently independent of all but moral law.” This fact is recognized in republics, but the converse is true in democracies. In democracies, the people are “freed” from God, only to be chained to the arbitrary whims of those in power (majority).
Clearly, “republic” and “democracy” are not simply two forms of free government. They are the difference between a liberty in law and a liberty from law.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Feature Column: America the Beautiful
By Chief Justice Roy Moore
America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride; I'm glad they'll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.
From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love and a need to always pray.
So many worldly preachers tell lies about our Rock,
Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.
We've kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown,
When earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.
We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb.
You think that God's not angry, that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God, from whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way,
Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins
,He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful, if you don't then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.
America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride; I'm glad they'll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.
From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love and a need to always pray.
So many worldly preachers tell lies about our Rock,
Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.
We've kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown,
When earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.
We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb.
You think that God's not angry, that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God, from whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way,
Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins
,He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful, if you don't then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Feature Column: "Designed Liberty"
By R. Josiah Magnuson
We as Americans today are in the midst of a worldviews war - a war between two philosophies of what the nature of life is and how things really work. One battle in this war is the struggle over how freedom can best be created and maintained.
The Declaration of Independence tells us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism, which, he agreed, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. In the Christian worldview, these absolutes are exemplified in the Ten Commandments. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” is the right to life, “Thou shalt not steal” is the right to property and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is the right to a fair trial. Everyone possesses these rights, and these rights are unalienable. They are the moral Law of God.
Societies based on the Christianity as the Bible directs (i.e. based on the Biblical absolutes and unalienable rights) have historically been free, republican organisms. This is because government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government is not inherently supreme over its citizens, as it must not overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.Christ affirmed this idea when he declared, "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.(Mark 12:17, etc.)" Under the Biblical model, there are some things which positively cannot belong to Caesar.
On the other hand, Evolution teaches that there are no absolutes. Instead, it declares the universe to be one of change and chance, continuously morphing all its inhabitants and their ideals to match the need of the “fittest” race to survive and dominate. Even the idea of fitness eventually becomes ethereal, for Evolution has no prior intention of what fitness should be. “Fitness” is whatever is convenient to the perceived master race.
No individual rights can exist under Evolution. The right to life is contradicted, because Evolution is "each creature for itself." Killing is actually encouraged, because one must destroy rivals if one is to survive. The right to liberty is contradicted, because if enslaving others gives one an Evolutionary advantage, what is to oppose it? The right to property is virtually contradicted, since stealing would arguably give one more resources and energy in the battle for livelihood. The right to a fair trial disappears, as there is no need for justice in a world which knows only randomness and whim.
In short, government as viewed from the Evolutionary perspective creates itself, makes its own rules, and can only exist to dominate. If the State sees fit to grant or loan limited liberty to its weak, scrawny, less-evolved subjects, it is only to make them fall at its feet in gratitude. The State thus empowers itself further. This almighty “fit” State exists not to protect, but to subdue.
The only freedom which the worldview of Evolution grants is a twisted, distorted freedom. It is a freedom for Stalin to drive a sledgehammer into Trotsky’s head. It is a freedom for Hitler to force millions into death camps. It is a freedom for Mao to torture and kill anyone who would even dare to have his hairdo.
Evolutionary naturalism and the relative morality it produces are nothing to be defended. Rather, they should be opposed by anyone appreciating the American heritage of liberty and lawful, composed government.
We as Americans today are in the midst of a worldviews war - a war between two philosophies of what the nature of life is and how things really work. One battle in this war is the struggle over how freedom can best be created and maintained.
The Declaration of Independence tells us, “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Karx Marx in contrast believed in Communism, which, he agreed, "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality."
Another way to express "unalienable rights" or "eternal truths" is absolutes. In the Christian worldview, these absolutes are exemplified in the Ten Commandments. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” is the right to life, “Thou shalt not steal” is the right to property and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is the right to a fair trial. Everyone possesses these rights, and these rights are unalienable. They are the moral Law of God.
Societies based on the Christianity as the Bible directs (i.e. based on the Biblical absolutes and unalienable rights) have historically been free, republican organisms. This is because government under the Biblical model exists only to protect one from harm. Government is not inherently supreme over its citizens, as it must not overreach God's moral boundaries which apply to everyone.Christ affirmed this idea when he declared, "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.(Mark 12:17, etc.)" Under the Biblical model, there are some things which positively cannot belong to Caesar.
On the other hand, Evolution teaches that there are no absolutes. Instead, it declares the universe to be one of change and chance, continuously morphing all its inhabitants and their ideals to match the need of the “fittest” race to survive and dominate. Even the idea of fitness eventually becomes ethereal, for Evolution has no prior intention of what fitness should be. “Fitness” is whatever is convenient to the perceived master race.
No individual rights can exist under Evolution. The right to life is contradicted, because Evolution is "each creature for itself." Killing is actually encouraged, because one must destroy rivals if one is to survive. The right to liberty is contradicted, because if enslaving others gives one an Evolutionary advantage, what is to oppose it? The right to property is virtually contradicted, since stealing would arguably give one more resources and energy in the battle for livelihood. The right to a fair trial disappears, as there is no need for justice in a world which knows only randomness and whim.
In short, government as viewed from the Evolutionary perspective creates itself, makes its own rules, and can only exist to dominate. If the State sees fit to grant or loan limited liberty to its weak, scrawny, less-evolved subjects, it is only to make them fall at its feet in gratitude. The State thus empowers itself further. This almighty “fit” State exists not to protect, but to subdue.
The only freedom which the worldview of Evolution grants is a twisted, distorted freedom. It is a freedom for Stalin to drive a sledgehammer into Trotsky’s head. It is a freedom for Hitler to force millions into death camps. It is a freedom for Mao to torture and kill anyone who would even dare to have his hairdo.
Evolutionary naturalism and the relative morality it produces are nothing to be defended. Rather, they should be opposed by anyone appreciating the American heritage of liberty and lawful, composed government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
