Foodforthethinkers's Blog

By Doug Newman

(I originally wrote this on November 18, 1999. I am recycling it now with just a few tweaks as Congress is debating the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Internet Protocol Act.)
———————————————————————–

For several years, the American Library Association has celebrated Banned Books Week as a condemnation of censorship. Although we have fun with the subject, such books as Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, and even the Bible have, at various times and places, been banned due to their perceived “offensive” content. Will there someday be a “Banned Web Sites Week?” I cannot help thinking this in the aftermath of my experience with a “filtered” internet service.

I will not mention the name of this ISP. The salesman who signed me up is a decent Christian man. When I discontinued the service, the technical staff was most polite while helping me purge the blocking software from my computer. I am all about promoting decency on the internet and in every aspect of society. I have considerable fears, however, about the implications of state control of the internet.

Ostensibly, this ISP’s filtering policy was directed at pornographic sites and those promoting hate and violence. I signed up to help someone who was in my leads group at the time. However, after signing up with the service I realized that their blocking criteria were far more comprehensive, and included “politically active” sites. They had a “report a site” link on their home page, where anyone who objected to a certain site could report that site for blocking consideration.

I do not know what this company’s official protocol was for blocking web sites. It seemed as if all it took was for someone to get dissed, e-mail the home office, and — bammo! — the offending site was blocked. Oh sure, you could have a site unblocked, but it was rather cumbersome. I tremble to think of the implications if the federal government were in a similar business.

Considering that so many Christians get their information from the mainstream media and from Christian leaders who have sold out to the secular state, I cannot help thinking that the whole blocking process was very arbitrary. Anyone with an understanding of our Constitution knows that the following sites are quite innocuous in nature. However, they were among the blocked sites.

• The Separation of School and State Alliance Rather than fighting over such things as school prayer, condoms, dress codes and evolution/creation, this organization seeks to separate school and state altogether, thereby making these issues non-political.
• Irwin Schiff’s home page Author and talk show host Irwin Schiff has had a standing offer for years to pay $5000 to anyone who can cite the specific statute requiring us to pay income tax. He has never had to pay the $5000.
• John Birch Society For many years I, too, ridiculed them. However, thirty-@^$# years of living have convinced me that these guys are on to something.
• The Drug Policy Alliance A lot of Christians would rather let people suffer excruciating pain, or even die, than cast off their smelly little orthodoxies about the totally godless and unconstitutional war on drugs, and allow people legal access to remedies which may actually help them.
• The Ludwig von Mises Institute A wonderful free-market think tank at Auburn University. I guess some folks are still fighting World War I.

And the blocked link, which finally prompted me to cancel the service:

• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership On what grounds did they block this? Please do not tell me that JPFO is a supremacist group. More likely, this site was blocked out of abject ignorance of events in Germany from 1933-45.

Www.eff.org - Fighting the good fight since 1990.

I have long maintained that control freaks in the government, media, education, and other institutions hate three things: guns, cash, and cars. All three confer autonomy on the individual. Guns enable us to defend ourselves against those who would do violence against us, including governments. Cash transactions cannot be tracked by those who would monitor every aspect of our lives. Cars enable us to travel where we want when we want without having to ask permission. Control freaks just cannot stand the fact that not everyone lives their life in a bovine, politically correct fashion.

Let me add a fourth item to the hate list: the internet. The power of the major broadcast entities (ABC, CBS, NBC, the major newspapers, etc.) has been declining for years. First, competition came from cable TV. Then came talk radio, a medium to which you can talk back. Now, with the internet, anyone of modest financial means can broadcast their views worldwide. This drives control freaks nuts. And not only liberal control freaks.

Coming soon to a "Christian Nation" near you? Could be.

Conservatives have long believed that government is necessary to preserve morality and decency. Contemporary mainstream conservatives seem united only in their disdain for the Clinton administration. They have few if any convictions when it comes to anything else, especially thwarting the growth of the state. Not only did they learn nothing from alcohol prohibition, as evidenced by their jihad against drugs, they are willing to acquiesce in all manner of restrictions on our freedoms. They prefer that the political game be played between the 40-yard lines.

Their party, the Republicans, supports “reasonable” gun control. Republicans valiantly opposed KlintonKare when they were a congressional minority, but support increased federal involvement in health care now that they are a majority. Since Republicans have had majorities in the House and Senate, the growth of government has continued unabated. Mainstream – i.e., non-principled – conservatives rarely ask whether or not the state should be involved in a certain issue. They just support only about 98 percent as much state involvement as do liberals.

Liberals are at least semi-honest in their beliefs about the role of government. Perhaps this is why they frustrate me less than conservatives. Conservatives claim not to follow trends, yet they are just as susceptible as liberals to the reigning political philosophy of our time, which might be summarized as: If it sounds good, the government should do it!

Government efforts at everything from ending poverty to stopping people from gambling away their houses have their roots here. It does not matter whether or not these efforts bear fruit. They sound so good. Shoring up our nation’s morals sounds like a good thing. (And it is, as long as it is done by the private sector.) If web censorship is what it takes, then so be it. Our moral superiors will lecture us that, “It is the price we must pay.”

The filtered web service which I cancelled was not involved in censorship. It could not have been. Only the government can ultimately shut down a web site. All the service was saying was that they would not transmit certain material. This is just as acceptable as someone forbidding cigarette smoking in their house, refusing to rent to couples living together out of wedlock, or a radio station refusing to broadcast Howard Stern.

No program is imposed by government on society at large, but by individuals or private entities in their own sphere of influence. People are free to smoke, fornicate, or listen to Stern’s scatological blather elsewhere. Likewise, I had the option to change web providers, and I exercised it.

With a censored internet, you might still have the option to change providers, but your freedom to view what you wanted to view would be limited by force of law. And just as many victimless activities are illegal now, many web sites (such as those linked to above) would be verboten. Why? Because some pressure group somewhere got hot and bothered and proceeded to influence the right people to ban those pages.

For the 88,000th time: be careful what you ask for!

If one company can block certain web sites because certain clients do not like them, what would the government do if it had similar power? The Constitution is under daily assault by people who have sworn an oath to support and defend it. What are the ramifications for our Constitution if sites dedicated to the literal meaning of it are banned because of the fleeting passions of this or that interest group? Whatever they are, they are not good.

Either our Constitution means what it says, or it does not. “Interpreted” versions of it, whether from the ACLU or the Christian Coalition, trivialize its meaning. The internet is the greatest thing yet for firm believers in the Constitution to come together and to re-introduce others to this awesome document. Let us not succumb to the passions of the moment. Let us vigorously resist attempts to censor the internet.

———————————————————————–
If you would like to posted this elsewhere – who knows why? – please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! – dn
———————————————————————–

WHY WE MUST STOP SOPA – CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ARTICLE!!!

Take a few minutes and notify your elected things by going here and here.

For more information on the Stop Online Privacy Act on the Protect Internet Protocol Act.

—————————————————————————
And while the presenter here may be a bit abrasive, his points are powerful.

By Doug Newman

The screaming meemies in the War Party have their undies in a bunch over the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

So?

Israel has over 100 nuclear warheads.

The U.S. has thousands of nuclear warheads.

Just one of our Ohio-class submarines can carry 192 nuclear warheads.

192 Irans in one metal tube.

Ahmedinejad is a lot of bad things. However, he is not stupid. What do you think the U.S. or Israel would do if he were to attack either of us?

I will let this be a rhetorical question.

And besides, if he were to nuke Israel, the fallout would kill a lot of his Muslim siblings in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc.

Does he want that?

I don’t think so.

Hence, Iran doesn’t scare me.
————————————————————–
Wikipedia: List of Countries by military expenditure 2010.

Iran is 25th on this list, just behind Singapore. It spent about $7 billion on its military in 2010, or just over 1% of what the U.S. spent.

One more time, Iran doesn’t scare me.
————————————————————–

Enough said?

————————————————————–

Military Power in Perspective by Mark D. Fee.

Again, Iran doesn’t scare me.
————————————————————–
If you would like to post this elsewhere – who knows why? – please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! – dfn

By Doug Newman

I am no prophet, but I have been telling people for some time that the establishment will not let Ron Paul win this election and they will resort to whatever means necessary to stop him. Too many people have too much of a financial stake in the status quo of the paper money/welfare/warfare/police state.

It is not even January yet and:

1) The Virginia state legislature is being pressured to rewrite the rules to get n00t on the ballot even though he did not have enough signatures.
2) Perry wants federal judges to intervene in Virginia to get on the ballot after he did not get enough signatures on the first go round. (Perry, remember, wrote a book on the 10th Amendment.)
3) Iowa GOP has announced that it will count caucus ballots at an “undisclosed location.”

I am getting physically sick over this.

I am not the only person who thinks the dumbos may very well have another candidate waiting in the wings for the right time to step forward.

It is going to be ugly … in a very big and blatant and in-your-face sort of way.

Thank you to Alexander Law for this.

To everyone in Ron Paul Nation: I am very thankful to have you in my life. And if you truly understand the Ron Paul R3VOLution, you know that it is not his revolution, but it is yours and mine.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. – II Timothy 1:7, KJV

Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
– Joshua 1:9, KJV
—————————————————————————–
If you would like to post this elsewhere – who knows why? – please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! – dfn

By Doug Newman
You can email Newt Gingrich here.
—————————————————————-
Mr. Speaker,

I write in reference to the following remark of yours from last week’s debate in Iowa.

“I am the longest-serving teacher in the senior military, 23 years teaching one- and two-star generals and admirals the art of war.”

I am a retired Naval Reservist. I have family members who are veterans. I have had numerous personal friends who are, among other things, combat veterans, Navy SEALS and service academy graduates. Anybody who has ever served in the military knows that “the art of war” is something that is only taught by senior military people, i.e. those who have actually worn the uniform, earned their way through the ranks and gotten the dirt under their fingernails.

n00t knows nothing about being on either side of this conversation.

What do you know about 13 weeks at Parris Island?

What do you know about Beast Barracks at West Point?

What do you know about Hell Week at Navy SEAL School?

Not one damn thing!

Have you ever had bullets whizzing by your head?

Have you ever had bombs going off all around you?

Have you ever heard something go KABOOM, turned around and placed your hand in a pool of goo that 30 seconds before was your best friend’s face?

I think the answer to these questions would be an emphatic NO!

For all you Newtniks out there: this BUDS instructor qualifies as a military teacher. Chickenhawk n00t does not. Any questions?

In the 1960s while you were prancing around the groves of academe and taking advantage of three draft deferments, less privileged kids from places like the Ninth Ward of New Orleans and the Eastern Prairie of Colorado were fighting and bleeding and dying in places like Hue and the Mekong Delta.

Now you aspire to become Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Of all the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines you want to send to war, do you know any of their names? Will you attend any of their funerals?

I think not.

You have done as much to earn the designation of “longest-serving teacher in the senior military” as Kim Jong-Un did to become a four-star general at the age of 25.

I will give John Kerry this and this only: he put himself in harm’s way for four and a half months in Vietnam.

RON PAUL 2012!

Douglas F. Newman
Aurora, CO
Storekeeper First Class
US Naval Reserve, Retired
———————————————————————-
If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! – dfn

By Doug Newman
____________________________
Here is Dick Morris’ email address.
____________________________

Mr. Morris,

I write in response to the following comment you made on the Sean Hannity show the other afternoon:

 “No true patriot could be for Ron Paul.”

Who is a “true patriot”? Is it someone who has never served in the military, yet unquestioningly supports every act of war committed by his country, no matter what? What about someone who has risked his life in war and, as a result of first-hand experience, started asking responsible questions about these wars and supporting anti-war candidates?

Ron Paul gets more contributions from active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines than all other candidates combined. These people formed their opinions about war with bullets whizzing by their heads, bombs going off all around them and people dying before their very eyes.

How did you form your opinions about war? In the late 1960s when you were at Columbia, less educated and privileged kids from places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and Yuma were fighting and bleeding and dying in places like Khe Sanh and Hamburger Hill.

I will give John Kerry this and this only: he put himself in harm’s way for four-and-one-half months in Vietnam. What did Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, Romney or Limbaugh do? And what did you do in the big war? Yeah YOU, RAMBO!

Whenever I hear a politician or media hack endlessly promoting war, my very first question is this: what did they ever do in the military? If the answer is “nothing”, then I don’t give a DAMN what they have to say about anything. Period.

RON PAUL 2012!

Douglas F. Newman
Storekeeper First Class
U.S. Naval Reserve, Retired
________________________________________________
Email Dick Morris at this address.
_______________________________________________
If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! -dfn

By Doug Newman

Please follow me on Facebook.
And if you would like to post this elsewhere, please just link to this URL, as I frequently updated my articles.

(WARNING: GRAPHIC, BUT NOT GRATUITOUS, IMAGES. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN WAR!)

Denver talk host David Sirota wrote a very fine essay this week on Ron Paul’s appeal among voters aged 18 to 29. Contrary to common belief, this popularity is not simply a matter of their wanting to burn hippie lettuce.* Rather, Sirota says, it is that they have a principled stance against America’s endless wars.

I want to approach this question from a different angle: how one’s life experience often   profoundly influences one’s worldview. There are three major cultural reasons for Ron Paul’s appeal to younger voters.

1)      They are on the internet more intensively than anyone else. Indeed, if you are 18, you may very well not remember life without the internet.

When I was 18, in 1979, we got our news from the three major networks, newspapers and news magazines. No we were not in the Soviet Union where the flow of information was controlled by TASS, Pravda and Izvestia. However, our news options were relatively quite limited. Cable TV hadn’t gained a footing yet. The Fairness Doctrine governed radio, so talk radio was a non-factor.

Along came the internet in the 1995-96 time frame. Now, anyone anywhere of even modest financial means could broadcast their message worldwide. Our news and information options suddenly became infinite. This is the world in which the majority of the group Sirota describes has come of age. This is how they get their information. And it absolutely tortures control freaks!

2)      They know they have gotten a raw economic deal.

On the front end of things, more people than ever are questioning the value of a traditional college education. In 1965, tuition at Yale and Princeton was $1950 per year. In 2011, it is roughly $40,000. In-state tuition at Black Hills State University is now $7400. Higher education may very well constitute another bubble waiting to burst.

Not only has college become way more expensive – largely due to federal involvement – but jobs for new graduates are scarcer than ever. And the total amount of outstanding student loan debt has surpassed that of outstanding credit card debt.

On the back end, most young adults know that they will never see a dime of Social Security or Medicare. Current unfunded liabilities of the federal government stand at over $116 trillion. If you can’t comprehend that number, don’t worry. Neither can many astrophysicists.

It is this generation that will foot the bill for the financial damage that the current political and paper-money financial establishments hath wrought.

3)      They are of military age.

Sirota goes into great detail about their thoughts on war and foreign policy. Let me drill down here. Might these thoughts just stem from the fact that, more than anyone, they, their friends and classmates have spilled their blood in endless wars that are being sold to them by politicians and media hacks who have never served a day in the military?

It is easy to talk about “war”, “country”, “flag” and “patriotism”. It is quite another to pay for these things in the coin of your own blood.

It is quite another to have before-and-after photos like those of Marine Sergeant Tyler Ziegel of Metamora, Illinois.

Or to have before-and-after photos like those of Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard of New Portland, Maine.

Or to go off to war young, healthy, energetic and idealistic and to come home like this.

I resent it when people purport to speak for me. Hence, I almost never want to speak for someone else. However, it is one thing to wage war, finance war, and promote war and to get all weepy-eyed whenever you hear Lee Greenwood sing and to gawk at Fox News as if it were the Playboy Channel. It is quite another to experience war firsthand or to know someone who has.

Is it any surprise that Ron Paul receives more campaign contributions from active duty military than all other presidential candidates combined? He is the only candidate who realizes that war is not just a video game, but a true life-and-death experience. He is the only candidate who will not use you or your kids as meat on the hoof for endless wars based on endless lies.

Is it any surprise that Ron Paul is so popular among young voters? I repeat my thesis: one’s life experiences have profound effects on one’s worldview. Ron Paul’s message and philosophy have enormous practical appeal to those who are coming into adulthood at this point in American history.
_____________________________________________________________
* Ron Paul supports your Ninth Amendment right to burn hippie lettuce. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, supports interrupting your life if you are caught ingesting things he doesn’t want you to ingest. Governments have done infinitely more to destroy civilization than plants and their extracts ever have.

When you let people do whatever they want, you run the risk of Woodstock. When you let governments do whatever they want, you run the risk of Auschwitz. Any questions?
_____________________________________________________________
If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to this URL. Thanks! – dfn
______________________________________________________________

By Doug Newman

This is not about which side you take regarding Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Denver or Occupy Big Belch, Arkansas. Some things ought to frighten you more.

I saw this picture the other day of police dressed in full combat gear dispersing the crowd at Occupy Chapel Hill, home of the University of North Carolina.

Such grotesquely excessive displays of power by police have become commonplace in America over the last two decades. The police – along with the FBI, IRS, DEA, DHS, TSA, BATF, etc. – are becoming exactly the kind of occupying army that is so characteristic of places like Guatemala and that the Founders warned us about. I hate to say this, but I seriously believe that a lot of people are just jonesing for some sort of Kent State-type of tragedy at an Occupy rally* if for no other reason to prove a sick and totally twisted political point about the righteousness of their chosen side.

Who cares if innocent people have to die? Ya can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, ya know.

We have degenerated so far from the America of 1958, when the police could be counted on “To Serve and Protect.” This picture won a Pulitzer for photography.

Contrast this with the picture that won the Pulitzer for the year 2000.

It takes a village...

The picture from Chapel Hill appeals to a lot of Americans. Is there a Cairo in our not too distant future? Early this year, a police van roared right through a group of protestors in the streets of Cairo, Egypt. Several people were killed. (WARNING: GRAPHIC FOOTAGE STARTS AT ABOUT THE 0:45 MARK.)

When I saw this, I said something to this effect: If this happened in America, lots of people would justify the killing. (I said other words too.) This should scare you way more than either the Occupiers or the police.

The Occupiers occupy a few square blocks – or, in many cases, a few square acres – of their respective cities. The cops are part of a larger army that occupies from Maine to Hawaii.

The biggest threat to our liberty in America comes neither from the caves of Afghanistan or from Washington, D.C. It comes rather from the millions of Americans who will rationalize tyranny when it is inflicted on others. They fail to realize is that when they casually disregard the rights of others, they put their own liberty at grave risk.
——————————————————————
* Thanks to Steven Yates for providing me this link. It goes into much further detail on this matter than I have time for.
——————————————————————
If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to the following URL. Thanks!

By Doug Newman

(If you are not a sports degenerate like I am, please bear with me for a few paragraphs.)

It is such a shocking and tragic story in so many ways that no one knows where to begin. Just over a week ago, Joe Paterno was the most revered figure in contemporary American sports. He led the Penn State Nittany Lions football team to a Division I record 409 victories, two national championships and six undefeated seasons. Moreover, he had been a paragon of integrity and honor in the hideously corrupt world of college sports. In his 46 years at the helm, there had been no recruiting violations, his players graduated at a very high rate and he did extensive work to enhance the academic stature of the university.

For Paterno, winning was neither everything nor the only thing. Perhaps the best portrayal of the Joe we thought we knew is this article from 1986 when Sports Illustrated named him “Sportsman of the Year.”

I had suspected for years that Paterno’s legendary career wouldn’t end well. Most likely, I thought it would come in the form of an ultimatum from his physician that he was just no longer physically equal to the demands of his job. (Paterno will be 85 in December.)

Nittany cryin'.

And then the dam broke: Paterno had looked the other way for years while long time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had – according to a grand jury indictment – sexually assaulted eight young boys. Several more accusers have come forth since. We will probably never know how many boys were molested, i.e. had their lives he destroyed.

Yes, Paterno notified his bosses at Penn State, thus complying with state law. Merely complying with the law, however, is a very weak moral standard. Just because the law permits something – abortion, pornography, membership in the KKK – doesn’t make it morally right.

Paterno was the leader of a boys’ club that never notified the authorities of Sandusky’s alleged hideous crimes. And when this was revealed, the whole empire imploded. Has anyone in any endeavor ever gone from hero to zero as fast as Paterno?

(Please read Bill Anderson’s piece on the need for due process in this case. Let us never forget that the rules of due process apply regardless of the severity of the accusation or the weight of public opinion against the defendant.)

Barroid, Roidger, A-roid, etc. voluntarily consumed steroids. And, while no one loves dogs more than I do, Michael Vick’s crimes were against dogs, not human beings. Penn State will go down as the worst sports scandal ever. Or at least thus far. If you can conceive of something more monumental, what are you ingesting? I want some.

It will probably get worse before it gets better. First, there is the case of the missing prosecutor. Then, I was directed to this link by an author whom I respect highly and who does not recklessly traffic in rumors. He does his homework. God, I hope it isn’t true.

This brings me to a larger cultural and political issue: The personal lives of public figures matter. And the more public the person, the more their personal life matters. Why? Because the more public they are, the more powerful they are over you and me.

For two years – 1998 and 1999 – we heard no end from the political and religious Right about Bill Clinton’s lying under oath about his extramarital dalliances with Monica, as well as his other “bimbo eruptions.” They rightfully contended that since he could not keep his marriage vows – the most solemn vows one ever makes – how could he be trusted to remain faithful to his oath of office?

Rush Limbaugh – who built an empire lampooning the foibles of Bill Clinton – was fond of asking: “If character doesn’t matter, why isn’t Ted Kennedy president?” (Limbaugh was also a militant drug warrior until it was revealed that he himself – America’s Truth Detector – had quite the Jones.)

These same people who could not shut up about Bill Clinton’s whoremongering sing quite a different tune when it comes to the whoremongering of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. They engage in the same situational ethics they condemn when practiced by the Left. Being a man about town is just not as big a deal when one is on the Right.

Two of a kind.

In 2008, a caller to the Hannity show rationalized John McCain’s cheating on his first wife thusly: He was not far removed from being a POW.

If the Hanoi Hilton jacked with McCain’s sense of morality that badly, he shouldn’t be a dog catcher in the Canal Zone, let alone a senator or president.

In a little less than a year, the American people will vote to either re-elect or to replace Obama. Whoever wins will inherit Soviet-style absolute power. This is not an exaggeration. It was bad enough when the president could merely tax us into the pavement, micromanage our lives with endless incomprehensible laws and regulations, imprison us for possessing a plant that grows wild in every county and have his blue-shirted flunkies sexually assault us as a condition of travel.

Obama has taken things to the next level. He started a war in Libya by executive order and ordered the killing an American citizen – Anwar Al-Awlaki – on a mere accusation with no due process, evidence, witnesses, judge, jury or right to counsel.

If this is not absolute Soviet-style power, what is it? What can’t the president now do?

The only candidate in the field who has a problem with this – Ron Paul – has been married to the same woman for 54 years. His worst vice is chocolate chip cookies.

And why does the Right do everything they can to bury his very existence? Because they are just as desperate for a political savior as those on the Left. And while they talk differently and appeal to a different fan base, they are just as enamored with absolute power. They want a Great Leader to worship and adore. They have a perilous desire to put unlimited trust in a man who could not even keep his own marital vows. And when you bring this up to them, they respond with the lamest of rationalizations.

The left-wing cult of Obama does not surprise me one bit after eight years of the Religious Right almost adding Dubya to the Holy Trinity. No human being should have as much power as American presidents now have. The Bible tells us that one day a political leader will truly be deified – Revelation 13:3.

Joe Paterno, for all his success as a coach and contributions to Penn State as a whole, was profoundly flawed. We – that includes me – put entirely too much faith in him. While his influence was great, his actual power was relatively limited.

Joe Paterno on Wednesday, November 9, oversees practice one last time. How could so many wonderful years end so tragically? And this is the least of the injustices.

The framers of the Constitution strictly limited the powers of the president. He has six authorized powers, only one of which he can exercise directly on you or me: the power to pardon.

The Constitution, while imperfect, was written by men with a profound understanding of human nature.  However, it is not a self-enforcing document. If the moral constitution of the American people is sufficiently weak, they will inevitably place unlimited trust and power in a political leader. And they will do so while ignoring the relevant details of their personal conduct.

In the end, they will be far more disappointed in their Dear Leader than so many of us now are in Joe Paterno.

Placing unlimited faith in flawed human beings is a recipe for unlimited disaster. This is just one of many lessons to be learned from the firestorm that now rages in what was known for decades as Happy Valley.
________________________________________________________

If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to this URL.

________________________________________________________

By Doug Newman

Someone I like and respect made the following comment on Facebook the other evening:

“I’m fairly silent about religion. Why? Because I’m not interested in taking the … liberties and lives, of drug dealers and pornographers. And, I’m not interested in making war on people who didn’t first make war on me. I’m not interested in religions that enlist me to start violent fights.”

It is very sad that the common perception of Christians and Christianity has come to this. Several years ago, I heard a preacher say that “you are the only sermon many people will ever hear.” He was talking about the examples Christians set with our daily lives.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace – Isaiah 9:6. He said “Blessed are the peacemakers” – Matthew 5:9. (No, He is not a pacifist as He preaches self-defense – Luke 11:21, 22 and 22:36.)

He is not a God of power, conquest, aggression and war. He only initiates force one time, when He kicks the moneychangers out of the Temple – Matthew 21:12, 13. Even then, this is not a show of worldly power over Rome, much less the rest of the world.

His “kingdom is not of this world” – John 18:36. Whereas the state exerts power from the top down and from the outside in, Jesus’ Power is exerted from the bottom up and from the inside out – Hebrews 4:12, 13. The King of the Universe came into the world as a helpless baby and washed the feet of the apostles – John 13:5. (I challenge you to contact your town councilperson and ask them to wash your feet.)

She was just re-elected with 72 percent of the vote. Tomorrow, after the gym, I will stop by her house and ask her to wash my feet.

Jesus will not force His way into anyone’s life. He enters by invitation only – Revelation 3:20. How, then, did so many people who profess to follow Jesus become such aggressive promoters of taking the liberties and lives of others, both at home and abroad? True followers of Christ do not do this.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” – Hosea 4:6

The answer is simple: they do not read the Bible like they used to. Hence, they are devoid of any biblical discernment or worldview – II Timothy 4:3-4. They become easy prey for the likes of James Dobson, John Hagee, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. So many churches have devolved into political tools for those who would have you think Christianity was a tool for social micromanagement at home and endless war abroad.

Note the cross on her wrist. Could anything be more grotesque and blasphemous?

But aren’t we fighting all these wars as a blessing to Israel? Would Jesus promote the killing of innocents in the name of a political state? Indeed, He gives us a timetable for when “his angels … shall gather together his elect from the four winds”. This comes after the Tribulation – Matthew 24:29-31. As I have devoted most of my intellectual energy this week to the scandals at Penn State, I confess I may have missed something. However, I don’t think the Tribulation has happened quite yet.

The world in Jesus time was probably much like ours: full of evil people, evil religions and evil rulers. However, He never initiates force in response to this. Nor does He ever instruct His followers to do so. Instead of being rulers, He would have us influence the world by being servants – Matthew 20:25-28 – and evangelists – Matthew 28:18-20.

So many who claim to follow Christ have drunk the Kool-Aid of force and violence. The tragic result is that so many secular people have a false view of Christianity as a religion of tyranny and war. This is why we must look to the Gospels for the words and deeds of Christ rather than to the example set by so many who claim to follow Him.
——————————————————————————–
If you would like to post this elsewhere, please email me and include a link to this URL.