Category Archives: Conservative Politics

Hotel California

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Hotel California

Camp Fire in Paradise, CA

The recent blaze in California has been responsible for nearly 100 deaths and 1000 missing persons. The environmentalists have blamed this fire on global warming but have not taken responsibility for it themselves. We are witnessing the result of the propaganda of environmentalism that results in the destruction of the natural environment and the lives of people. We as a nation needs to abandon the left and their environ-mania. But as the song once said, you can check in any time you like but you can never leave; welcome to the hotel California.

Environmentalists have been parroting global warming for a few decades. Self-deceived, they are stunned when people do not agree with their established faith. As I have written in previous articles, we do not have global warming whose cause is manmade CO2; instead we have polar warming whose cause is nature made CO2. Unable to correctly define the problem, these environmentalists are unable to solve the problem.

Environmentalists have also decided to do nothing about wildfires. As noted in previous articles, these environ-maniacs refuse to allow people to clear the underbrush in forests and cut roads for fire trucks. This refusal permits the kindling of fires in the underbrush and prevents fires from being extinguished by firefighters. This is a tragedy that kills people, destroys property, and rapes the environment. In the past, environmentalist have said that this is just nature taking its course. That is insane given the fact that we can prevent these forest fires. Remember Smokey?

Now, the environ-maniacs are dismissing any responsibility and are projecting it onto those who disagree with their global warming beliefs. Double down the guilt that these environ-maniacs share given that they prevent the fighting of forest fires and that they miss the mark on the cause of them. It isn’t global warming, it is environ-mania.

We will continue to see the mismanagement of our natural environment when these environ-maniacs are in charge. They are drunk on their power. However, they do not use their power for the good of humanity or nature and are irresponsible with their power. They are in fact enemies of anyone who dares to disagree with them. But as Smokey once said, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Its time we stop giving these people the power they need to ignore the problems Californians are facing.

Public Morality

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

public morality

We are in an epidemic of sin. We have seen our nation degenerate into a country where lawlessness is the law and lawfulness is illegal. This dive into a spiral of death is the result of untamed sin. Society is almost out of options as our nation’s legal system is run to ruin by the judiciary where the will of the people and the Will of God are both dismissed by the higher authority of the bench. We need to remember the rule of old where morality was not publicly scorned but publicly displayed.

Daniel Webster, in a speech on July 4, 1802 said,

Ambitious men must be restrained by the public morality: when they rise up to do evil, they must find themselves standing alone. Morality rests on religion. If you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall.

We know God has given us His Will through His Word. We find in the Bible the truths of right and wrong, which echo our conscience, our God given conscience. We must recall the voice from within and present it without to those who need a reminder, a refresher, on what is right and wrong. We need to portray those who deceive, either willingly or by their own self-deception, the truth of morality and our need to follow it.

We live at a time when it is popular to be immoral. We find any number of comedians leading us to laugh about ungodly behavior. We are cheered on by them and cheer them on when they portray the disgusting as something humorous. There will be little to laugh about if we mock God in the temporal and find ourselves separated from God in the eternal.

Look at pornography (but don’t look at it). It destroys men’s concept of sex and relationships. Children and women are victims of untamed sinful activity that rape their bodies and maim their souls for life. Men who abuse women, and consider it acceptable due to consenting sex, leave a trail of broken hearts and lives behind them. How many people have been abused by heterosexual partners who then turn to alternate forms of sex like homosexuality to avoid the abuse they once suffered, only to find new forms of abuse in perverted sexual relationships!

Start with porn again as a root of abortion where the pleasure of sex (a gift from God) is perverted into the right to have sex without a responsibility to care for children. Abortion is linked to pornography, yet our society has allowed this stain on our public soul to persist. What can be done about it? Public morality can lead to the dismissal of false media like porn that promotes sin, and sex as sin, when sex is godly, Holy, and pure (God’s gift to mankind for pleasure and reproduction in marriage).

Public Morality is more than just decrying the woes of sin. It is also a praise of the values of virtue. We must live lives that show the merit of the just and virtuous. Living it in front of people is perhaps the best way to expose the lies of sin by showing a public example of moral living that produces the fruit of peace and happiness in one’s life. Temptations will come but by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, with faith in Christ Jesus, we can overcome sin and live a life of righteousness. Someone once said, ‘You can’t keep the birds from flying over your head but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.’ thoughts come and go but living a moral life is a commitment made first by faith in Christ Jesus.

The more we surrender to the fatigue of the media’s constant bombardment against righteousness and their portrayal of sin as a virtue, the more likely it will be that persecution will come our way. We cannot hide from the evil that tests our generation. We must stand against it both in how we live and what we say. Public Morality is one way in which we can help rescue our nation from the snare of sin.

The Media Doesn’t Have a Clue

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Media vs Trump

America’s Media, tabloid journalism gone professional, lost the recent election when Donald Trump became President. They wanted Hilary Clinton to be President and have been so upset that they couldn’t manipulate the outcome of the election that they persistently blame the Russians for influencing the outcome of the elections more than themselves. At the end of the day, the media is not aware of the way Trump won the election; they simply have no clue!

Trump did not campaign in a traditional manner throughout the Republican Primary. The traditional candidates bristled against him for his non-traditional manners. He repeatedly went past them to those voters in America who would not be called Republican or Democrat. Trump ran in the Primary as an independent candidate for the Republican nomination. This is the first fact of his campaign that the media doesn’t understand.

After winning the Republican nomination, Trump ran a campaign to get the Republican base to support him, after all the rhetoric was settled. Mike Pence was chosen to be his running mate to consolidate the GOP around Trump. Pence is the professional, traditional, conservative element in the Trump campaign that secured the Republican vote for the general election. Trump’s reach to the right with Pence may have also caused concern with the ‘liberal’ media but not with the American people.

At the outset, Clinton had an uphill battle against her and her husband’s political baggage. The ability she had to reach the independent voter was marred from the beginning. Trump, who campaigned for the independent voter before the general election, was already amassing new voters in the GOP for the primaries and general election. Clinton was behind from the beginning while Trump had the advantage; and Clinton never caught up. This is the big reason why she lost; and the medias doesn’t get it.

The fact of any election is that there are usually 3 candidates in a race: Republicans, Democrats, and the Media. The two major parties usually have candidates in all races down the ballot. We all understand that people typically vote for party candidates or for candidates independent of party ties. To win an election, one must get their Party’s base vote (~33%) and a majority of the independent vote (~17%) to get a majority of the vote (50%+1 vote). The Media typically represents neither of the major parties but they consistently represent the independent voter. Like Clinton, the Media didn’t realize that Trump was ahead of them during the general election in reaching out to the independent voter.

Trump won the presidential campaign because of his non-traditional reach to average Americans who have no party affiliation. And when the Media continually berates Trump for his non-traditional behavior, they are undermining their ability to influence the independent voter. In fact, they insult the independent voter of Trump with their fake news and attacks. Attacking Trump means attacking the independent voter, who is the deciding vote in any election.

It wasn’t the Russians who caused Hilary to lose the election, they lost it themselves because Trump reached out to the independent voter before they did. Democrats like the Media, are undermining themselves the more the compete against Trump. Republicans run the risk of losing elections if they dismiss themselves against him because they also need the independent voter to win elections. Although one may disagree with Trump’s manners, Republicans should agree with Making America Great Again, with lowering taxes, with common sense government. Finding something to agree with Trump on means winning the midterm elections in Washington.

It will take another election cycle for the Media to understand that this is not a populist movement, this is an American President who has reached out to the American People in terms they understand. Political correctness ends at the door of the independent voter. The more people in the Media and elsewhere try to fit Trump into a traditional box the more they find they will fail. They simply don’t have a clue!

Modern Health Care – Medicine Without Charity

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Charity Care

The profession of medicine has developed over many centuries with the growth of science and religion providing a foundation for modern medical miracles. The ancient ideas of medicine have been replaced by more empirical methods that diagnose illnesses and treat patients with practical remedies. And the idea of medicine as a charity stems from the idea of the Love (charity) of God for the benefit of one’s fellow man. With a misguided application of false charity by the government in the realm of medicine, the idea of charity in medicine is slowly being discarded in favor of big business. This has created a situation where the public health is threatened and the true ministry of medicine is all but lost.

We’ve recently seen how veteran’s health care has diminished when it comes to what is considered a treatable health problem. Given the limited resources provided by socialized medicine for veterans (government run health care), and the increasing number of veterans demanding health care without an equal increase in health care providers, the more the higher the thresholds will become before a person can be treated by doctors. It is simple math; you simply cannot do more with limited resources.

The idea of government run medicine treating people’s illnesses is as old as the progressive movement in the 1930’s. As a social gospel, the idea of charitable medicine stems from the idea of government run charities serving the public health; a proposal that is beyond constitutional boundaries. The old idea of the separation of church and state once prevented states from taxing people for charitable contributions to fund public ministries. Whereas the government was not supposed to be in the business of tax funded charities or ministries, that has turned around through the New Deal and now the government is funding national charities to aid in the business of medicine. This, however, has backfired and is not providing any real charitable support for people.

The idea of getting government out of religion in the 18th century was to help religion flourish without government intrusion. Keeping the government out of people’s religious decisions and the charitable contributions they might make helped to make people more likely to be charitable with their giving. The idea of charitable medicine being applied to the health of the poor was a Christian goal throughout the United States in the 19th century. That goal, however, has been high jacked by progressives in the 20th century who seek to fund government charities for health care at the expense of killing real charity.

The medical profession itself used to require its doctors to provide free health care to people for a period of time each year (one month per se). When Medicare and Medicaid came along in the 1960s, the free care that was provided by doctors was being paid by the government through tax payer dollars. The care provided by doctors to the poor didn’t change, only the money distributed to them; doctors were being paid for their charity. Now, medicine is big business and the idea of charity without taxation in the realm of medicine is all but lost. Medical charity has suffered at the hands of forced charity by state funding through taxation; again, a violation of the separation of church and state.

Not only has real charity gone down, but the cost of health care has gone up due to the idea of funding medicine by government charity; again, paid by taxpayers without any free will giving or freedom to not give. Now, the cost of medicine has skyrocketed. Hospitals, once funded by the government, charge more for their health care due to the fact that they are required by law to support the poor and indigent. Go to a lab at a hospital and to one at a private facility and the hospital will charge more for the same procedure to cover their charitable costs to other patients. Hospitals are not providing more charity, they are simply passing the cost onto the average consumer.

While the threshold for health care is raising for veterans across the country, it is lowering for the rest of the country. New standards are requiring people to get colonoscopies, high blood pressure medicine, and other procedures and medicines that raise the potential income of doctors, pharmacies, and the medical industry. A key business practice in marketing any product or service is to show how that product or service can be used for other needs. Providing new medical standards that lower the threshold for the level of health care one needs means more money for big business and charity is nowhere to be found.

The growth of medicine as a big business in America is directly related to the lack of real Christian charity in the ministry of medicine and the advent of a pseudo-Christian ministry of government run health care. Real charity is lost in government run medicine. Standards are lowered for those who suffer under socialized medicine, the idea of charity by medical professionals is now being funded by taxpayer dollars, and the rise of big business is creating reduced standards of health care to increase profit margins. Medical care needs to return to its foundations of providing for the needs of people regardless of the cost; for the benefit of the patient and not the stock holder. To do this, we must first get big government out of the big business of medicine so that charity through medicine can flourish again in America.

The NFL is Guilty of Piling On

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Zeek

The suspension of Ezekiel Elliot, following an alleged domestic violence case, is an example of the abuse that NFL players are being subjected to. The Rule of Law is the final arbiter of penalties in such cases but the NFL is piling on to the point of vigilantism. And in a climate of Black Lives Matter (BLM), which complains about police brutality, the actions by the NFL against its players is more of the same.

The Rule of Law is supposed to provide for justice through a court system where the victim and the accused both have rights. The Court is uniquely established in our country to provide for the due process of law to both parties in a legal case. The Court has the final jurisdiction in such cases and their decisions are not only final, their verdicts are the final word in such matters.

When a person is punished by the Court in civil or criminal cases, they are not supposed to be subjected to additional penalties, called double jeopardy. When someone pays their debt (money or time) to society, they are supposed to return to society without further retribution. Society is supposed to respect this process and not take matters into their own hands and add further punishment.

When a person or group of people decide to take matters into their own hands, they may seek justice but because they are not duly authorized or established to take on matters of law, they become vigilantes. Vigilante justice is well known in America as many people have been lynched by it. Hanging a horse thief or a Black man who just wants to vote was a common practice in our nation’s past. We consider vigilante justice to be brutish and without justice.

The NFL has rules that penalizes poor sportsmanship on the field of play. Piling on is one such penalty. When a runner has been tackled and is down, others might jump on top of him to create a pile; the intent is to punish the runner with extra weight. While this delivers a crushing blow to the runner, it also delivers a yellow flag indicating a violation of league rules. This is exactly what is being done by the NFL when they add penalties to Mr. Elliot after Court actions have already tackled him.

The business of the NFL is entertainment, not justice. Social issues are certainly highlighted by the BLM movement within the NFL as they a protest against legal abuses. The solution sought by BLM should be the rule of law and equal justice to all people despite their color. The solution to the legal issues that Mr. Elliot faces should be found in a Court of Justice, with the provision of the due process of law and not with the vigilantism of the NFL. As people complain about the disrespect of the nation’s flag during our national anthem ceremonies, perhaps it’s time to talk about the disrespect of our nation’s Rule of Law by the NFL. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic at the beginning of each game; but there is something very wrong with the NFL piling on Mr. Elliot.

One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

One Nation

The recent turmoil with the issues of race and racism has led many to challenge the established order of things and demean the foundation of our nation. Some have even called for demonstrations during the National Anthem ceremonies at various sporting events. The movement called Black Lives Matter has provided a foil whereby the continued problems of our society with respect to race can be addressed. However, this movement has not captured the heart of the problem nor has it provided solutions to the persistent problems that many people face daily.

Recall that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. led the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and was a proponent of both the Christian Gospel and the equal application of the rule of law for all people. These are two solutions that the Black Lives Matter movement misses; nonetheless, black lives do matter. If you don’t know where you are going, you won’t get there. It is more important to identify the solution than to constantly rave about the problem.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ shows us that we are all created equal and treated equal in the eyes of God. The book of Revelations sums it up clearly:

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. [Revelations 5:9 KJV]

The Christian religion is an inclusive religion that accepts everyone despite their ethnic makeup. While we identify people by color but God sees us differently. He treats us all the same without regard to differences. The Christian faith is the primary means whereby the issues of race and racism can be treated spiritually in the heart of individual people and society. Respecting people as people is the goal. When we treat people like we want to be treated, we are following the Golden Rule of God. The Christian religion was key to the success of Dr. King.

Also, Dr. King supported the rule of law as a means of protecting the black community, not harming it. The rule of law is supposed to provide for civil and criminal justice for everyone in society. It is also supposed to protect our liberties; although we have to exercise our liberties ourselves. The rule of law is also supposed to provide for our Civil Rights, which includes the right to vote; people cannot establish their own polling stations so the government has to provide for these rights. So, where the law is supposed to provide for justice, liberty, and the rights of people, it wasn’t doing so in the American South before Dr. King. That is what he wanted as a solution of the state to deal with the problems of race and racism.

The trouble that Black Lives Matter presents is one of attacking law officers when they should be advocates of the law. The rule of law is a foundation for everyone to stand on and people need to be sure they are following the orders of the police or else they may be in trouble regardless of their color. The police are there for all people and all people should support them.

I recall reading the Federalist Papers many years ago and the ideas of the authors John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton remain on my heart and my mind still today. Their wisdom led this nation, before we became a nation, to see who we are as a people and what our new government should be like. Their words also provide a foundation for unity amidst the troubles of race and racism.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. [Federalist #2, John Jay; 31 October 1787]

The country that Jay referred to was dominated by descendants of the English people, religion, law, and language. The heritage that Jay spoke of is of profound importance to us today.

The English were immigrants to North America and were accustomed to change. In fact, the population in England was heterogeneous consisting of many groups of people like the Anglos, the Normans, the Saxons, the Welch, the French, etc. The idea of a group of people descended from the same set of ancestors is really a signal of how many people groups migrated to England before coming to America. In the colonies of North America, the English immigrants were met by any number of migrants from other nations that were incorporated within the colonies. Not only did England have a history of bringing in new people to their country, the English in America carried on with the same traditions.

This cosmopolitan nature of England also led to a cosmopolitan language. With the influx of people from many countries into England came the change of the English language itself. English is a mixture of many different terms from various other languages and today we find the language still changing to meet with new concepts and ideas that often come from other countries. The mixture of language that now comprises English came from England’s ancestors.

From Jay’s essay we can still see how the foundation of our nation has led to an immigrant nation with a mixture of languages and cultures. Many people from many nations continue to seek the protection of America’s system of liberty and justice. As much as in the past, we are still today “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” America continues to build on its original foundations for the needs of all people.

So too, the rule of law was meant for the protection of the people and not the state. The history of law throughout the world has been dominated by the Roman Civil Law where the purpose of law is the protection of the state (an adversarial system). However, the English Common Law was founded upon an advocacy system for the protection of the individual. The rule of law is our defense against the excesses of crime and bad government.

The words of Dr. King and John Jay provide a foundation for solutions to today’s dilemma with race and racism. Faith in Jesus Christ and his redemption for us is the spiritual solution. And treating people like people is a personal solution; we learn this from God as he takes us just as we are. And the equal application of the rule of law is a state solution. So, while black lives do matter, Black Lives Matter misses the mark on all counts. It is time to complain more about the solution than the problem.

Pardon Me Mr. President

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Image result for trump arpaio

Former Sherriff Joe Arpaio is bad for America. His brand of politics has led to vigilantism with a badge. The use of public office without authority is a problem we all have to deal with. I welcome more pardons from the President for people who have been abused by runaway government (Scooter Libby); but, pardon me Mr. President, why Joe Arpaio?

The rule of law is perhaps the most important job of people in the government. The office of the President should be concerned when people are wrongfully prosecuted and abused by those in power but it should also be concerned about the people who abuse power while in public office. Joe Arpaio embodies the abuse of power and his position in government. He should not have been the first person to receive a pardon by President Trump.

Sherriff Arpaio is guilty of abusing his office as have others around him. Sherriff’s deputies targeted Hispanics who may have been illegal aliens in our country. I spoke directly with a Phoenix city official years ago who said that sheriff’s deputies in Maricopa County (the county that includes the city of Phoenix) were testing a program to ask for people’s birth certificates instead of just their driver’s license when they were pulled over. This apparently was not done to white people but to Hispanics suspected of being illegal aliens.

There remains a basic level of bigotry in the United States. The idea that Hispanics are by default Mexican is not true and just plain ignorant. Mexicans are Hispanics because they reside in New Spain (Hispania). Also, Hispanics in the U.S. are also not always Latino. A person who supports or is a part of the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the Latin Catholic Church or Latino. Europe was known for Latin France, Latin Portugal, and Latin Spain. So, Hispanics in the New World are often called Latinos as they were a part of the Latin Church. Calling someone Hispanic who is Mexican also betrays the heterogeneous makeup of Mexico. Not all Mexicans are Hispanics. It helps to just give people respect no matter what.

A person without a proper driver’s license may be detained for not having a valid legal identification card, often called a Photo ID. There is no need to check a person’s birth certificate. In fact, the only people who would be carrying a birth certificate would be illegal immigrants who knew they would need one; they would counterfeit them just like many driver’s licenses have been counterfeited. This was a stupid act on the part of sheriffs; acts that were done without proper legislation.

On another note, I applaud holding prisoners in tent cities without all the creature comforts of life; this is another of Mr. Arpaio’s efforts to get tough on crime. However, prisoners need to be properly fed and clothed and sheltered against adverse weather. Here again, Mr. Arpaio went beyond the rule of law and just plain common sense when he made prisoners wear pink underwear and eat green sandwiches. The punishment prisoners should receive is incarceration; sheriffs do not need to add to that punishment. Maybe Mr. Arpaio has a deeper problem with color than was first suspected.

Mr. Arpaio did not help this country with his aggressive behavior. While he may be a hero to some in our country, he has added more problems to America than he has solved. His work demonstrates what it means when someone in power abuses that power and extends themselves beyond the rule of law. The President was definitely tone deaf when he pardoned the former sheriff in light of recent racial tensions. But regardless of timing, it was a bad pardon from the standpoint that Mr. Arpaio does not represent the rule of law (immigration or otherwise); he represents what is wrong with our country. It is time for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature to consider impeaching Mr. Arpaio. People like him do not need to serve in public office ever again.

Both Sides Differ

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Charlottesville Logo

The legacy of Dr. King Jr. was to bring the rule of law to the black community. The rule of law is supposed to support people with liberty and justice. Modern movements like Black Lives Matter are not focused on the rule of law and differ from their predecessors as a result. The Cross of Jesus Christ provided the forgiveness of sin and gave light to the lives of men like Dr. King Jr. The KKK and modern white racist movements differ from the Gospel of Christ when they burn the Cross of Christ. Instead of providing the light of truth for all mankind, white racist movements differ from the real Christian message of Christ and offer darkness of the soul instead of light.

The racism that persisted in the American South after the Civil War was based upon a bigotry that was applied through the rule of law; this is the formal definition of racism. The law is supposed to protect people’s freedom and provide justice for people when violated. This was good for the white community but not for the black people under slavery and Jim Crow. Dr. King Jr. wanted to change this and he did; but that was just the beginning.

Civil rights requires the government, by law, to facilitate the vote of the American people. If the law was applied equally to everyone, regardless of color, then everyone should be allowed to vote. This was not provided for with Jim Crow laws and therefore those should have been removed; they have since been dismissed as illegal. The law applied equally to all people meant that black people should be allowed to vote. As the rule of law means at least this, it also means much more.

Black Lives Matter is correct in seeing the latent bigotry that still exists within America. What they don’t do is support the equal application of the rule of law, as Dr. King did, as a means to solve the problems facing ‘Black America.’ The rule of law is supposed to support all people in our country. Fighting law officers is contrary to the message of Dr. King and their vision of success is different.

The racism that persisted for 100 years in the South was largely quelled following the 1960s. The advocacy of racism by law remained dormant for a generation since then but is now emerging in some white minority groups within the South. A small fraction of white people are capturing the terrorist appetite and are parading it through the streets of American cities. Their actions are contrary to peaceful public demonstrations and their permit to march should never have been allowed by the rule of law.

Many white racists not only condemn black people but Jews as well. The Cross that is often burned by these racists is the symbol of one Jew, Jesus, who established the modern religion of Christianity. Jesus was not concerned about the color of people’s skin but the darkness of people’s hearts. He brought light and life to people who believed in him and forgiveness to those who trusted in his Cross. The Christian symbols used by some of these racist groups represents a message that is different from the message used by these racists.

Neither white racists or black reactionists are following the foundations they claim for their support. The solution to the problem of racism is both the rule of law and faith in Christ Jesus. Jesus opened the Gospel to all nations, it was not just for Jews. And the New Testament tells us that government should hold people accountable for their own actions, not their color.

The recent tragedy in Charlottesville, SC, highlights these problems that persist in America. These problems begin with the human heart that is darkened by sin and in need of the forgiveness of sin. This is a message taught by Christians like the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. As Christians follow the Jewish Messiah, we also advocate the rule of law for all people.

Lady Justice has a blindfold and is not supposed to look at people’s color when a judicial decision is provided. The idea of uniform justice provided by long standing principles is called ‘prae judaicum.’ But when lady justice peeks at a person’s color that would be called ‘racial prae judaicum.’ That is where we get the word ‘racial prejudice.’ Liberty and justice for all, liberty under law, is supposed to be provided without prejudice of color.

As white racist and reactionary black movements collided in South Carolina, we are witnessing movements that do not follow the principles they claim as their symbols. White racists should follow Christ and abandon racism. Black Lives Matter should promote the rule of law and respect of law enforcement officials. When these groups combined in South Carolina the result was a tragedy. That tragedy, including the loss of life, is the end of principled solutions to the ongoing problem and perceptions of racism in America.

PS

My great-grandfather, Hiram Craig Wallace, was a solider in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. He fought during the war, he surrendered at the end of the war, and he swore an oath to support the Union and rejoined the USA. I have no reason to do otherwise. I support the Union called the United States of America! God Bless the USA! It is time to remove the statues of Civil War Confederates from the grounds of government buildings. I am proud of my great-grandfather but not with these symbols of racism. There is no reason to keep these symbols that do not promote faith and justice in modern America.

The Coexist Cult

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

I was a history major with a minor in religious studies at the University of Texas at Austin. I thoroughly enjoyed my class on the Reformation of Europe as we learned it from a secular Jewish perspective. But as I began to review the curriculum more, I saw that the idea of Coexist was everywhere. I knew then that all religions are not the same; they do not have equal merit. So I decided that I was not going to pursue that major/minor further and changed my major to engineering instead (graduated in 2009). However, I still have a love for the history of ideas, which is the reason I blog.

The idea of Coexist began in Jerusalem in 2000 with a contest for artwork that would describe such an idea. The C in the artwork is the Muslim symbol for Islam, the X is presented as the Star of David that is the symbol for Judaism, and the T represents the Cross, which is the symbol for Christianity. Although the artwork is harmless in appearance it is dangerous in that the religious symbols do not refer to the same God. The attempt to combine all monotheistic religions into one betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of their differences historically and theologically.

coexist 1

Islam does not follow the God of the Bible. Their Quran (9:29) tells Muslims to, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.“

The People of the Book refers to Christians and Jews. Muslims are not supposed to coexist with them without first subjugating them to Islam. ‘Islam’ means to ‘submit’ and that is what people from other religions are supposed to do. There is no coexistence between those who’s religion requires domination and separation. I whole heartedly applaud those who do coexist without violence in Israel but this symbol tells us that the idea of coexistence can be based upon religion, which it cannot. This is a secular fallacy based upon a misunderstanding of God and those who fight ‘the People of God.’

Aspects of the Christian Bible were later perverted by the Gnostic Gospels and included into the Quran. The notion that Jesus did not die on the Cross came from the Gnostic Gospels and are included in the Quran. Jesus paid for the penalty of our sins on the Cross by his death on the Cross. This denial of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection is an insurmountable obstacle between the religions of the Christians and Muslims.

During the days of the Crusades, Christians drew the sword in the name of Jesus to defend Europe against invading Muslims armies. Later, the same sword was turned against the Jews in a dark chapter of the history of Christianity. There is no justification for the killing of thousands of Jews and modern Jews distrust Christians for the many massacres that occurred 1,000 years ago. The idea of coexistence between these three monotheistic religions is doomed to failure. Coexistence cannot depend upon religion. It must be a work of God.

From the humble beginnings of a monotheistic idea of coexistence came the introduction of a new set of anti-religious and irreligious symbols for coexistence. The nuclear peace symbol replaced the O; The E is sometimes presented as the symbol for science (e=mc2); the I is topped with a satanic pentagram; and the S is in the shape of the yin/yang. Here, we find an odd mixture of irreligious ideas coupled with religious monotheism.

coexist 2

If one were trying to insult all at once those who practice monotheistic religions, this set of symbols would do it. The group this appeals to most are those who have rejected traditional notions of God for some other form of belief. While there are aspects of religious freedom or tolerance presented here, the satanic ritual of killing cats has nothing in common with Christian, Jewish, or Muslim teachings. The symbolism, in fact, is going from bad to worse and the light of truth is dimming rapidly with it.

Now enter into the mix the idea of gay rights and equality for those who deny the morals of monotheism. The E has been modified with the idea of gay equality. The idea of gay marriage may also associated with the ‘e=’ sign.

coexist 3

The more this symbol changes the less it represents a respect for the person of God in any way. One cannot know who God is without knowing first that God is a Holy God. Morality is not a subject of debate but of obedience. Practicing sin is not practicing any relationship with God. Yes, God is Love but God is also Holy. Homosexuality is neither love nor Holy. It is an immoral lifestyle.

Our societal norms are changing rapidly. Children are being exposed to morally corrupt ideas of social equality that have nothing to do with the love or morality of God. Recently, Google held a contest in which school age students were given a chance to show off their artwork online; a noble thing to be sure. But as this idea of Coexist has devolved in less than 2 decades, we are witnessing through their eyes the deterioration of our societal norms.

coexist 4

A High School age student recently won this competition, rearranging the letters of Coexist to spell out the name of Google adding the symbols of gay and transgendered people to it. Here again, the monotheistic religions are present but snubbed as the perverted notions of the LGBT community are coupled with them. This is an example of the influence of the modern educational system on impressionable children. This is what is being taught to them today.

If you grew up in Sunday School as I did, you learned that God loves all the children of the world. That is what I was taught yesterday.

coexist 8

We even sang:

Jesus loves the little children,

All the children of the world.

Red and yellow, black and white,

All are precious in his sight,

Jesus loves the little children of the world.

This song carried the lyrics written by Clare Herbert Woolston that were inspired by a verse in the Bible.

Matthew 19:14 (NKJV)

14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

The idea of universal love came from Jesus. Yet this idea has been perverted by a modern, godless generation.

One year ago, at a college prep school (Choate, a High School for exceptional students), the idea of diversity was promoted along with the artwork of one of their students (below left). Many colored hands, including the idea of the LGBT rainbow, is depicted in this show of support for diversity. This similar to what has been presented by Christians (below right) for years showing the idea of God’s Love for all people. The colorful hands in the shape of a heart is a symbol reflecting the fact that Jesus Loves the Little Children.

The idea that ‘Jesus loves the little children’ has practical consequences for society. The Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s were supported within the Christian Church using this idea of diversity based upon the Love of God in Jesus Christ. Without the idea that we’re all created in the image of God, unity among diverse people is impossible.

coexist 9

The unity of mankind can only be based upon the fact that all mankind is created in God’s image. That is why Jesus loves all the little children of the world. We are seeing in modern society a shift from the unity of mankind, based upon a respect for God, to a rejection of God in society based upon the cult of coexistence.

The word ‘cult’ like ‘culture’ is based on the word ‘cultus’, which is Latin for ‘religion.’ At the heart of America’s culture is the Judeo-Christian ethic. The LGBT community, seeking inclusion into American society, rejects the culture of American society and refuses to include people of Biblical faith and morals into their vision of a better society.

We are even seeing the old idea of Jesus loving all the children of the world becoming a Christ-less idea of multi-culturalism. Co-opting the message of Christianity without including the person of Jesus Christ, multi-cultural ideas are slowing eroding the Love of God and replacing it with the love of man. The image below on the left is from the idea that Jesus loves the little children of the world. The image below on the right is of multi-culturalism.

coexist 10

The idea of coexistence should depend upon the human heart responding with compassion to the image of God in all of us. Yet the history of the coexist movement has led to a growing rejection of God and His moral identity. God is Love and God is Righteous. Love without righteousness (morals) is sin. The Coexist movement no longer respects the traditions of monotheistic religion, has added irreligious and non-religious symbols (including satanism), and sponsors the immoral ideas of the LGBT movement. Coexist has become a cult that refuses to coexist with a society that believes in a moral God and traditional moral values that define our culture.

The New Deal – a Violation of the Separation of Church and State

© Original content written by James R. Carlsonprogressives-lost

Remember that the Progressive Party Lost this Election Nationwide

Government run charity has an odd history. It was once practiced in the 18th century under the rule of a State Church where funding was given to the Church by State taxation. Tithing to fund American Churches was not practiced until the mid-1800s. This was after the separation of Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia (1786) led to the complete disestablishment of State Churches everywhere in the United States by 1833. Afterwards, Churches sought new income via new methods such as tithes and offerings. This allowed for the funding of more social work and eventually to social gospels that characterized much of the American Church in the early 1900s. However, as Church/State separation removed the payment of tithes and offerings to fund State run charitable activities in the 18th century, we’ve witness a renewal of such funding of State run charities by taxation. It’s called the New Deal. The social gospels were incorporated into the Progressive Movement that led to the New Deal of the mid-1900s. And the work of the New Deal is in violation of the separation of Church and State.

Following the War for American Independence and the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain politically, came another movement for America’s Independence from the State Church of England. Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration in 1776, also drafted a Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia in 1777. Following principles from luminaries of the past like Roger Williams, Jefferson’s ‘Bill’ drew the attention and support of fellow Virginian James Madison.

Madison would eventually help draft the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment to that constitution in 1791 that included the provisions for religious freedom. But in 1784, as Patrick Henry introduced as Bill that would fund the Teachers of the Christian religion with taxpayer dollars, Madison sprang into action following Jefferson’s Bill and principles and circulated his own Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. His work proved successful in January 1786 when the Commonwealth of Virginia removed control of the Church in Virginia from the Virginia Legislature.

Madison’s Memorial outlined 15 arguments against taxing people to fund religion through the government. A few are presented here:

7 Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Inquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

11 Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theater has exhibited proofs that equal and complete liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12 Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defense against the encroachments of error.

Madison was saying in essence that to support charity (11) and religious instruction (7) by government funding would cause people to be less likely to contribute to the Church (7); and forcing people to attend Church would make people less likely to do so (12).

The Baptists in Virginia echoed the sentiments of Madison and circulated his Memorial and their own Memorials saying the same thing. Baptists, like Jefferson and Madison, were familiar with Roger Williams who built the first Baptist Church in North American in his colony of Rhode Island. They each followed his basic tenants for religious freedom, which is why Jefferson quoted Williams when writing to the Baptists in Connecticut in 1802. Religious freedom meant an end to government taxation for funding the religious or charitable work of the Church through the State; a separation of Church and State. This allowed the freedom of the Church to flourish and do more than the state could do by tax or force.

However, the Church that was once funded by the State had to discover new methods of raising funds to pay for religious and charitable work. Renting or selling pews, annual subscription of members, and other methods were tried until the collecting of tithes was chosen as the best resource. Until then, the American Church had not been funded by the voluntary giving of tithes; this was just before the Civil War. Voluntary funding of the religious institutions of the Church helped pay for aid to the poor, the sick, and other needy functions that the State once provided to the Church by taxation.

While these good works are laudable, they opened the door to a new type of gospel called the Social Gospel. While the message of Jesus included aid to the poor and the sick, his message was one of salvation not social justice. Good works are good but they are not necessary for salvation. Charity is a fruit of salvation but not necessary for one’s eternal redemption.

However, social gospel movements that focused more on charity than on salvation led to Social Gospels in distinction to the salvation Gospel of Jesus Christ. These were incorporated into the political movement call Progressivism, which became the foundation for the New Deal in the 1930s. And it was from the strong-arm politics the New Deal that changed the way government has handled the issues of Welfare ever since.

Written into the U.S. Constitution is the idea of promoting the general welfare. It is first found in the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The idea of ‘general welfare’ came from the reformation. John Calvin’s Commentary on Psalm 145:14 presents his view of ‘general welfare.’

Jehovah upholding all the falling. He gives instances of the goodness and mercy of God, such as make it evident that God reigns only for the promotion of the general welfare of mankind. By the falling, and those who are bowed down, he means figuratively those who are overwhelmed by adversity, and would sink at once, were not God to extend his hand for their support. God, in short, has respect to the troubles of men, and helps such as are in distress, so that all ought not only to look upon his divine government with reverence, but willingly and cordially submit themselves to it. Another lesson taught us is, that none will be disappointed who seeks comfort from God in his affliction.

This idea of ‘general welfare’ is also found in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and is often referred to as the General Welfare clause.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Madison and Jefferson both understood General Welfare as limiting the spending powers of the government, not expanding them limitlessly. The Constitution prescribes what spending powers the Congress has and it limits those powers to the list of enumerated powers.

Congress has power to spend tax money for the General Welfare, which is spelled out in detail. This was meant to support the general needs of people and not specific needs. The work of aiding the poor and the sick was considered to be special welfare, not general welfare, and not within the powers of the government. However, the New Deal broke with this legal tradition and began a new course of legislation for our country.

The New Deal Congress had new political powers during the Great Depression. Along with the New Deal President, Franklin Roosevelt, they used these new powers in a nearly dictatorial manner. The Supreme Court, however, blocked much of their New Deal legislation as un-Constitutional. But they too would bend to the force of political power about to be used against them.

In 1936 in United States v. Butler, the Court said that Congress was in violation of the 10th Amendment and overruled the legislation for farm appropriations. Although this limited the New Deal’s efforts, this decision opened the doors for broad spending powers of Congress within the General Welfare Clause. Special welfare was still not allowed, only general welfare; but that too would soon change. Leading the cause against the New Deal legislation was Justice Roberts whose vote broke a tie between the liberals and conservatives on the Court.

However, two months after President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his court-reform bill, Justice Roberts, who opposed New Deal legislation, changed his votes to support New Deal legislation in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (March 1937). In this case, Justice Roberts stood with the liberals and broke ranks with the conservatives to support minimum wage legislation. This ended the era where the Court prevented government intrusion into private business affairs. Robert’s apparent change of heart has since been called a, “switch in time that saved nine,” when faced with Roosevelt’s court packing scheme of appointing new justices to bring the court to 15 members.

Later that same year, Roberts supported the majority in Helvering v. Davis (May 1937) that approved of Social Security stating Congress had broad powers for spending tax dollars on General Welfare and that it did not contravene the 10th Amendment. While many objected to this and other New Deal legislation on the grounds that they were supporting Special Welfare and not General Welfare, the Supreme Court no longer objected to the aggressive Acts of a New Deal President and Congress.

These rulings in the mid-1930s have opened the door to tax funded government charities that should have been left to the Church and not run by the State. These Acts have led to a combination of Church and State in violation of the principles spelled out by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in Revolutionary Virginia. As such, one may easily regard the use of tax funded government run charities as a violation of the separation of Church and State.

As predicted by Madison and others, government run religious functions cause people to grow weary of their measures and less likely to support them. The charity to the poor has grown to become an entitlement of the state to poor people who are now slaves of the welfare state. Those who rely upon the charity of the State for health care do so with little value in that care. Medicine has become less of a charity and more of a business. Many more activities that should belong to private charities have been undermined by the work of the State charities. The willingness of people to give to charities has been undermined. And the social mores of our country have gone downhill as the government led by the social gospel of the New Deal Progressives have progressively dismissed the morals of the Bible and the purpose of salvation in the Gospel, which is the forgiveness of sin.

It may be too much to ask our present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, to return to the decision in King V. Burwell (2015), in which he proclaimed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) to be a tax. It remains for the Court to decide if that tax is Constitutional according to Article 1, Section 8.

It would probably be too much to ask the Court to reverse New Deal decisions 80 years ago and return to a Constitutional prescription of government that leads to the legal health of our nation. But as we will have a new President under a new Congress perhaps they can ask for a review of the Court’s decision; perhaps we could get a ruling that overturns the entire New Deal foundation and limits General Welfare to those spending powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. This may be the last best opportunity to overturn the ‘switch in time that saved nine’, to limit the work of ‘government run charity’ for ‘special welfare’, and overturn ObamaCare. But will they do it? One can always ask.