Tag Archives: 2010 elections

Earmarks: An Efficient and Economical Form of Corruption

By Jerry McDaniel

Congress is scheduled to return to Washington on Monday for its 2010 “lame duck” session. It is shaping up to be one of the most watched sessions in recent memory as everyone will be waiting to see whether Congress “got the message” sent by the voters on November 2. Next to the health care bill and tax increases, the practice of earmarks is likely to be one of the more contentious items on the agenda.

Earmarks have for decades been the safest, most economical and efficient form of the political art of corruption practiced in Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike will attempt to defend earmarks based on the relative low costs when compared with the overall budget. That is a good argument if we ignore the purpose of earmarks and do not measure it against the “gold standard” for Congressional actions, the Constitution.

Earmarks are the most efficient way for incumbents to “buy” the votes of their constituents without running afoul of election laws. One of the anomalies of American politics is the contradiction between the low approval level of Congress and the percentage of incumbents returned to Congress in election after election. Voters have been conditioned to judge their elected officials on their ability to “bring home the bacon”. When talking to voters, one of the most frequently given reasons why they like their own Congressman or Senator while disliking Congress as a whole is the perception they have of what their representatives have done for the state or community. That perception is primarily based on earmarks slipped into appropriation bills.

Next to the practice of allowing lobbyists to craft specifications for items purchased by the federal government that favor their own production capabilities at the expense of their competitors, earmarks are one of best methods for acquiring large campaign contributions. Contractors that supply the goods and services paid for by earmarks are always the primary beneficiaries of government largess. Earmarks for projects that utilize union labor give the politicians the most “bang for the buck”. In return, unions provide millions of man-hours to their political benefactors at election time for “get out the vote” drives, in addition to the millions in direct and indirect campaign contributions.

Last but not least, earmarks provide an efficient method for wealth redistribution among states and communities as elected officials compete for their slice of the pie. Doing away with earmarks would upset a system painstakingly built up over the years by the political parties for protecting the jobs of their incumbents. That may mean that politicians, in order to continue to enjoy salaries and perks unmatched anywhere in the world, would have to resort to actually keeping their oath of office and being faithful to their constituents and the Constitution.

New Guards For Our Liberty

By Jerry McDaniel

“…When a long train of abuses and usurpations [by government], pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
~ Declaration of Independence

In this quote from the Declaration of Independence, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson did not use the word “if” but “when”. The founding fathers were well versed in world history, government philosophy and the laws of nature that govern the affairs of man. One of the inviolable laws of nature is that all governments devised by man eventually end in despotism. (See video) America has survived longer than most free nations, primarily because it was established as a republic and not a democracy. Democracies seldom last for more than a few generations before they are destroyed from within. James Madison expressed the dangers of a democracy in Federalist No. 10,

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

The Founders did not delude themselves into believing they had established a plan of government that would last forever. Perhaps Benjamin Franklin was speaking the mind of the whole assembly when he said on the last day of the Philadelphia Convention,

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

The former colonies had thrown off the yoke of English despotism and were seeking to provide “new guards” for their future security. The guards they provided are found in the Constitution. That same Constitution is still the best and only security for the liberties we have enjoyed since it was first implemented in1789. In the recent election America stepped back from the brink of disaster when millions of patriots went to the polls and set a new course for our future. Ideally it will not be a “new” course but a return to the course established by the founders over two hundred years ago.

In many ways, the November 2, 2010 elections are like the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Just as those battles marked the beginning of the first revolution, November 2 marked the beginning of a new revolution, hopefully with similar results but without the bloodshed. It will not be easy to get our country back on the road laid out by the Founders. It will take many years, perhaps generations to once again bring the government back within the boundaries established for it by the Constitution without major societal upheavals. Nevertheless, that is what we must do if we are to survive as a free nation.

Hopefully we have learned the lessons of the past two years of the Obama administration and what can happen when citizens become complacent and fail to hold their officials accountable when they refuse to abide by their oaths of office. Washington is not going to relinquish its power willingly. There will be unbelievable pressure on the American people to compromise with the forces of socialism “for the good of the country”. Conservative patriots will be demonized and labeled as extremist, radicals, obstructionists, idealists, impractical and a host of other epithets in an attempt to undermine our efforts.

If we are to succeed in preserving our liberties for future generation we must not compromise on violations of our principles or the Constitution. We must start immediately with an attitude of zero tolerance for any new legislation or policy not justified by the Constitution. This requires that each of us become familiar with and understand the Constitution and our founding principles. At the very least, we must understand those parts of the Constitution dealing with government powers, taxation, legislative limits, and the limits imposed by the Constitution on the three branches of government. There are innumerable resources on the internet for learning about the Constitution. It is our responsibility to avail ourselves of these resources and pass on what we learn to others. A free society cannot exist unless its citizens value freedom above all else and understand what is required in order to stay free.

NO COMPROMISE WITH TYRANNY!

By Jerry McDaniel

Tuesday was a good day for America as it took its first small steps back to sanity. Nationwide, the Republican Party, thanks to the patriot movement, had a good day, taking control of the House of Representatives, and increasing its seats in the Senate. At the same time Republicans increased the number of Republican Governors and their membership in state legislatures. The final numbers are not in yet, but it looks as if the Republicans will gain close to sixty-five seats in the House of Representatives, the largest gain since 1932. They will not have a majority in the Senate, but they will have enough to filibuster any attempts on the part of the Democrats to push through toxic legislation designed to further wreck our economy and destroy our liberty.

A side benefit of Republican gains is that the House Democrats who weathered the storm this time and the Senate Democrats who will be up for reelection in 2012 and 2014 will not be as willing to go over the cliff for their party as they have been in past years. Party discipline will be much easier to maintain for the Republicans and much harder for the Democrats.

However, we need to keep in mind that the results of Tuesday’s election only represent the first faltering steps along the long road to take back our government. We still have a nation held tightly in the grip of two political parties designed to get and hold power, not to serve the best interests of the American people. The Republican Party may have gained control of the House, and its power in the Senate may be on a near par with the Democrats, but the State Parties and the national Republican establishment have failed the people miserably in major ways over the past two election cycle.

In their attempts to gain a strategic advantage they manipulate the primary system to reward faithfulness to the party rather than faithfulness to the office and the people it serves. When candidates are chosen with the welfare of the party in mind and not the welfare of the nation it is seldom that we get the best candidate. The Republican Party’s failure in this election is particularly evident in Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, Illinois, California, and Washington State.

In each of these states, the Republican establishment is attempting to blame the grassroots demand for reform and constitutional government for its own shortcomings. In each state, with the possible exception of Illinois, the people made their choices known in the primaries. Had the Republican Party thrown their support wholeheartedly behind the people’s candidate in each race they would have in all likelihood, regained the Senate and increased their numbers in the House even more. Instead, they disparaged the people’s candidate and undermined them at every opportunity. And now they have the audacity to blame the “Tea Party Movement” when the truth is that without the “Tea Party Movement” they probably would not have performed as well as they did.

In Delaware they did everything they could to destroy Christine O’Donnell, In Alaska they allowed their losing candidate to maintain her committee assignments and gave tacit approval to her write in campaign. They likewise refused to support fully the people’s candidates in California and Nevada, questioning the candidates’ ability to win and their qualifications for the office they sought. In Illinois, they scheduled a primary in February. Seeking to help party incumbents, they shortened the primary season and forced a vote before voters had the opportunity to get to know the most conservative candidates, who for the most part, did not have widespread name recognition. The result is that voters in the November election were left to try and determine which party offered the lesser evil. Now Illinois has a Senator who does not have the confidence of a major part of the electorate and will probably side with the opposition on major issues.

We are also beginning to hear calls from some Republican leaders in Congress for bipartisanship. We are told we have to work with the President and the Democrats if we wish to get anything done. It is quite possible that the best thing for the country would be total gridlock in Congress until we have had time to sort things out and determine the right course of action in the future.  We are also reminded that politics is the “art of compromise”. The implication is that we should overlook the fact that in order to compromise on any proposal, we first have to accept the underlying premise on which it is based.

We cannot compromise on a tax hike, for example, until we first accept the premise that a tax increase is necessary and affordable, and that one can be designed that will not damage the economy and further erode our standard of living. We cannot compromise on health care without first accepting the premise that it is the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care for its people. We cannot accept increased energy taxes to curb climate change until we first accept the premise that energy use is a primary cause of climate change.

We could go on with a long list of premises underlying the Obama agenda, but it should be obvious that all the premises of progressivism (American socialism) have been proven repeatedly to be false. If we are to save our republic and the liberty it affords, the unspoken and spoken motto of the new Congress must be, NO COMPROMISE on the part of Republicans. At the first sign of compromise, we have to make it clear to our representatives that if they follow through on any that compromises our liberty and further weakens our Constitution, they will be challenged in the 2012 primaries and that we will work diligently to defeat them at the polls.

Last Ditch Effort by Democrats to Steal Election

By Jerry McDaniel

As we go into the final days before the November 2 election, the Democrat Party is facing the most devastating defeat since John Adams and the Federalist Party in 1800. Democrats find themselves in an awkward and untenable position; they cannot tout their record or their policies in order to win the support of wavering voters. In desperation they are turning to two tactics that have been perfected during the last few election cycles, and that have proven effective in the past. The two most effective tools in the Democrat toolbox are voter suppression and outright voter fraud.

Many states, including Illinois, have illegally delayed the mailing of absentee ballots to soldiers serving overseas making it difficult for the ballots to be returned in time for the election deadline in November. Minutes ago, WLS radio in Chicago announced that a federal judge ruled today that an extension would not be allowed for the return of absentee military ballots. Since military ballots are expected to be overwhelmingly Republican, by disenfranchising as many members of the Military as possible, Democrats can improve their chances significantly.

Another tactic for suppressing the Republican vote is negative advertising. The objective of negative ads is not to change the mind of voters and win their votes. Most voters have already decided who they will vote for by this point in the election cycle, and negative ads will not change that. The value of negative advertising is to undermine the credibility of the opponent and discourage their supporters to the point that they will choose to stay home on election day. Negative ads do not win votes for the advertiser, it suppresses the turnout for the opponent. The closer to election day, the more outrageous and untruthful ads candidates can run as opponent’s opportunities to answer negative ads with the truth diminish and the clock winds down.

The infrastructure for massive voter fraud has already been laid with the overwhelming support of Democrats, Republicans, progressives and conservatives alike. Early voting, voting by mail, electronic voting machines, absentee ballots, and motor voter registration all provide fertile ground for voter fraud and will not go unused in this election. The opportunities afforded by the extended time between casting the vote and counting the vote to alter, lose, and invalidate ballots is simply too great a temptation for political hacks to resist when attempting to avoid a defeat of the magnitude likely for Democrats in this election.

In the Fox News interview of Michelle Malkin below, she documents some of the more egregious acts of voter fraud taking place in a number of states throughout the country.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The MSM is doing their part to discourage Republican voters and suppress turnout with daily articles indicating the narrowing of margins in key races, particularly those with candidates supported by tea parties. It is critical that we ignore last minute polling data and discount stories of gloom published in the national popular press.  If we are to be successful on November 2 in taking back control of Congress and starting to turn back the tide of socialism, it is important that every patriot votes. Do not allow the Democrat Party to discourage you to the point that you do not vote.

Health Care: Repeal or Amend?

By Jerry McDaniel

The current national discussion of Obamacare gives us an easy to understand object lesson as to just how the progressives (American Socialists) have taken over our government in a hundred year bloodless revolution. According to an AP/GfK poll released Friday, only 37 percent of Americans want the “Affordable Care Act” that Obama signed into law last March repealed outright. This is an astonishing number because it means that 67 percent of Americans have bought into the premise that the federal government has the authority and should regulate, to some extent, America’s health care.

Vladimir Lenin considered universal health care to be the lynchpin of communism, not because he was concerned about the health of the people — he was responsible for the death of millions — but, because it provided the surest means of guaranteeing citizens’ dependence on the state. Food and medicine are two main essentials of life. When the government is able to control access to these essentials, citizens become dependent on, and thus slaves to the state.

Obamacare, when fully implemented, will make all citizens dependent on the state for their health care; meanwhile, eligibility for food stamps has been quitely expanded to the point where 42 million Americans are now receiving food assistance through the federal government. (States are only responsible for half the cost of administering food stamp programs. The food stamps themselves are funded entirely by the federal government).

Millions more Americans are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their livelihood, through direct grants, tax incentives or employment by companies that depend on government contracts for major parts of their revenue. Government largess is like a potent drug in the economic system of any nation, destroying individual initiative and liberty.

Once the population becomes addicted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cleanse it from the system. We only have to look to the news from Europe today to see the turmoil caused by withdrawal from an addiction to socialism. To understand the dynamics of socialist addiction, consider the difficulty of reforming the popular social programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicare and Welfare in our own country. Imagine what is likely to happen when it eventually becomes necessary to dismantle them completely.

It is the addictive characteristic of socialism that accounts for its steady progress in America since the late eighteen hundreds. Government controlled health care is the last step in the long journey to socialism started during the final years of the nineteenth century, and becoming firmly entrenched during the twentieth century. It has been the dream of American progressives since the inception of the progressive movement.

The idea of universal health care began in Germany in 1883 with a compulsory “sickness insurance” for workers. It soon spread to Austria, Hungary, Norway, England, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By 1912 virtually all of Europe had some form of “state mandated” health care. This drain on European economies was one of the factors that allowed America to become the economic superpower of the world during the twentieth century.

The seeds of universal health care were planted in America during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt (1801-1809), through a proposal by the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL). In 1917 AALL, backed by the AMA proposed a plan for compulsory health insurance; the advent of World War I caused it to be put on hold, however. The effort was revived in the mid-twenties by the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care.

Franklin Roosevelt toyed with the idea of including health insurance in the Social Security Bill of 1935, but it was not included for fear it would destroy the chances of the Social Security Bill being passed. The Roosevelt administration again attempted health care legislation with the National Health Act (Wagner Bill) of 1939. It was defeated by a conservative legislature elected in 1938 and World War II prevented its further progress.

Another attempt at national compulsory health insurance was attempted in 1943 with the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bills. In 1945, Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman again proposed a plan for national health care. It died in committee. In 1958 Congressman Aime Forand (D-RI) introduced a bill to cover hospital costs for senior citizens on Social Security. His bill did not make it through Congress but the proposal became a part of the Great Society legislation signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as Medicare, parts A and B and Medicaid. We are all familiar with the ill-fated efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton for universal health care after they took office in 1993.

Barack Obama has accomplished in a little over a year what no other progressive President has been able to accomplish in over a century of trying. We can expect that progressives will go to any length to salvage as much of the health care bill as possible. However, it must not be allowed to stand. It must be repealed in its entirety, not modified, reformed or altered to rid it of some of its more egregious parts. Like a cancer, it must be exorcised completely, otherwise it will Metastasize and eventually kill the patient.

The greatest danger to our individual liberty and our economic survival is the danger of a compromise on Obamacare, as the AP/GfK poll shows. Already we are hearing talk of amending the bill rather than repealing it, and that comes from the Republican side of the aisle. Twenty states have filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory insurance section of the bill. The theory is that if the courts determine that part of the bill to be unconstitutional the whole plan will unravel. However, that theory does not stand up in the light of history. In fact, that part of the bill could be nothing more than a “Trojan Horse” meant to establish the constitutionality of government regulation of health care.

If only compulsory insurance is found to be unconstitutional, then by inference, the balance of the bill will be considered constitutional by default, thereby inhibiting any further court challenges. The government will attempt to argue in court that the “commerce clause” empowers government to regulate health care and, by extension, compulsory health insurance mandated by the government. This is an extreme corruption of the commerce clause based on a 1942 Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn that “any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce” may be regulated by Congress. Because of the precedent established by this case there can be little confidence in how the courts will rule, and for that reason the bill must be repealed completely.

It should be obvious to any thinking person, literate in the English language, that the delivery of health care does not and cannot constitute interstate commerce. Health care delivery requires the face to face interaction between the provider and the patient. A physician in Chicago cannot diagnose and treat a person in Milwaukee, for example. Insurance does not fall under interstate commerce because it is not a product but a contract. The sanctity of a contract is emphasized in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution by forbidding states from passing any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”.

Obama will certainly veto any attempts by Congress to repeal the health care bill, and repeal may not be possible before 2013 when the next Congress is seated without Obama in the White House. However, the amount of effort put forth by the Republican Congress over the next two years for repeal is the best possible indicator of who should be reelected in 2012. Any Republican Congressman or Senator who fails to support and vote for repeal in the next Congress should not be sent back to Washington in 2013.

Click here for a thorough explanation of the “commerce clause”.

Time For Term Limits?

By Jerry McDaniel

For years, I have been against statutory or Constitution term limits for members of Congress, based on the belief that Citizens should have their choice of who will represent them in Congress and that they are entitled to the consequences of their choices. Another concern has been that the country would lose the services of good representatives when their time expired and less effective ones were likely to replace them.

The Founding Fathers wrestled with this question during the Philadelphia Convention without coming to a consensus. Those for term limits arguing that representatives should truly represent the interests of the people and that long-term service in Congress would cause them to lose touch with their constituents and become unfamiliar with the wishes and needs of the people they represented.

Those against term limits put forth many of the arguments concerning choice and the loss of effective representatives mentioned above. Unable to decide they finally “punted” the decision ahead for future generations to decide. These concerns are still valid, however, many things changed during the twentieth century to make the idea of term limits more agreeable. In fact during the twentieth century Congress departed so far from the Constitution and our founding principles that the only way to regain control of government may be through term limits.

One of the more important twentieth century changes was in political terminology. The most frequently used label for the American form of government during the early part of the nineteenth century was “republican”, referring to a government made up of representatives, chosen directly or indirectly, by the people and bound by a standard of law. The most frequently used label in the twentieth century was “democratic” referring to a government made up of representatives chosen directly by the people and bound only by the “will of the people”. The difference between a republican form of government and a democratic form of government appear small at first, but that difference is extremely important.

Another important change that occurred during the twentieth century was the makeup of the electorate. In the founding era, the voting franchise was limited to stakeholders with “skin in the game”, so to speak. Fearing an electorate made up of the uninformed and disinterested “masses” (democracy), the privilege of voting was restricted to land owners or equivalent, generally resulting in one vote per family. Today the franchise is universally available to all adults over eighteen years of age, due to a number of twentieth century Constitutional Amendments. There are no eligibility requirements that would limit voting to those most likely to understand the issues or be familiar with the candidates for whom they were voting. Ballots are printed in multiple languages so that it is not even necessary to speak English, a fundamental necessity for understanding the issues and the candidates’ positions on those issues.

Still another big factor of the twentieth century that led to the out of control, lawless government we have today was the rise in power of the two major political parties. The concept of citizen legislators who served for a few years and then returned to private life where they had to live with the laws they had created gave way to the career politician with many of them holding on to power for most of their adult lives. The result is, as the Founders predicted, a government made up of career politicians and bureaucrats far removed from the everyday problems, dealt with on a daily basis by the average citizen.

Few of today’s politicians know, understand or respect the Constitution. Law schools no longer teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach case law about it, substituting the past opinions of judges and courts for the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Therefore, it is necessary for politicians to ignore its demands in order to expand and hold onto power. Modern political parties exist wholly for the purpose of accumulating and wielding power. The lawyer/politicians who make up the bulk of our congressional membership think of themselves as advocates for the Party rather than advocates of the people.

On any controversial issue, the truth is always slanted to benefit the party, never to benefit the nation or the people, and certainly never as objective truth. The most important asset to any aspiring politician is party loyalty and the most valuable asset for party leadership is the ability to demand and enforce party discipline. The result is a government run exclusively by the Party leadership for the sole benefit of the Party and without the restraints of Constitutional limits. These Party characteristics are bipartisan. It makes little difference which Party is in power other than the severity of the damage done to the Constitution and the nation.

In order to return the federal government to one limited by the Constitution it will be necessary to break the power of the two political parties. One way of doing that would be to break up the perpetuity of congressional power through term limits.

During the debate concerning the length of service for Senators at the New York state Ratifying Convention, June 24, 1788, George Livingston made the following motion,

“That no person shall be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years, and that it shall be in the power of the legislatures of the several states to recall their Senators, or either of them, and to elect others in their stead, to serve for the remainder of the time for which such Senator or Senators, so recalled, were appointed.” (This was before the Seventeenth Amendment and Senators were chosen by state legislatures.)

The following day, Melancton Smith in arguing on behalf of the motion said,

“…as the clause (in Article II) now stands, there is no doubt that the Senators will hold their office perpetually; and in this situation, they must of necessity lose their dependence and attachment to the people. It is certainly inconsistent with the established principles of republicanism, that the Senate should be a fixed and unchangeable body of men. There should be then some constitutional provision against this evil. A rotation I consider as the best possible mode of affecting a remedy…”

Livingston and Smith lost the debate in 1788, and their fears eventually came to fruition in both the House and the Senate. The time has now come for us to rethink the issue of term limits, as it may be the only tool the American people have for taking back their government from the Political Parties now controlling it.

God and November 2

By Jerry McDaniel

As the November elections approach, many of our most devout Christians are sitting on the sidelines rather than actively taking part, believing that religion and politics do not mix. There are a number of reasons why this view is so prevalent among Christian Churches and Christians in general. Most important, perhaps is the fact that the New Testament and the ministry of Jesus are apolitical. Another important reason why Churches and Christians are not as involved in politics as they perhaps should be is the politically correct, although historically incorrect, theory of the separation of church and state.

Jesus did not come to earth as a political leader. He did not come to establish an earthly kingdom. Neither was his purpose to lead a rebellion against the Roman Empire. Jesus came to proclaim the gospel of salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. Politics, as we know it today, did not exist at the time of Christ. Political differences were settled with the sword, not at the ballot box.

At the time of Jesus’ birth the Angels proclaimed “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!” (Luke 2:14) and so it was. While the Prince of Peace walked the earth, the earth was at peace. There were no wars anywhere among the civilized nations while Jesus was on earth. The Caesar Octavian had eliminated Mark Anthony and Cleopatra, his last important political rivals in 31 BC at the Battle of Actium. When Jesus was a teenager, Octavian, then known as Caesar Augustus died, and his adopted son Tiberius assumed power, heralding the end of the Empire as a republic and the beginning of the Roman Principate.

During the three years of Christ’s ministry, the entire known world was under Caesar Tiberius as the supreme ruler. During that time and for many years afterward, the citizens of Rome still enjoyed the relative liberty of the Roman Republic. Due to the variety of religions and cultures in the Roman Empire, there was a high degree of tolerance practiced toward the many religions and cults. The Jewish religion was one of those protected by Rome. Their protection was justified by Roman authorities by classifying synagogues as “colleges”. The wide spread tolerance of religion by the Roman government and the unity of the Roman Empire was instrumental in the spread of the gospel throughout the civilized world during the early church age. There was no reason for Christ or the early Churches to involve themselves in the politics of the day.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from these facts that Christians should not participate in politics. The New Testament covers a period of less than a hundred years, the ministry of Christ only three. For the reasons mentioned above the early Christians had little motivation to become involved in politics. For political guidance we have to go to the Old Testament which covers a period of about 3500 years from Creation to Malachi. The lessons we learn from the Old Testament in its totality, concerning governance, are that God macro manages the affairs of nations according to His will and, for the most part, leaves the micro managing of day to day politics up to the people and their leaders.

Moses records in Deuteronomy 17:14, 15; “When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose:”

The next five verses contain a brief “constitution” for the King to follow. He is not to enrich himself; he is not to have multiple wives; he is to consult the “constitution” daily, he is not to lead the people astray, and he is not to exalt himself above the people.

This prophecy came to pass some three hundred years later during the life of Samuel the Prophet and is recorded in I Samuel 8:4-7.

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

In the following verses, Samuel warns the people of the consequences and dangers of having a King rule over them, but the people persisted and God, through the Prophet Samuel, gives Israel Saul as their first King. For the next thousand years or so Israel and later Judea existed as Kingdoms. Whenever they lapsed into idolatry or otherwise rebelled against God’s commandments God’s wrath was poured out in judgment. After warnings by the prophets and calls to repentance, the people suffered the consequences of their apostasies when they failed to heed the warnings. Eventually they lost their sovereignty and at the time of Christ, fifteen hundred years later, they were under the domination of the Roman Empire.

The danger we face today is not from socialism or Islam, but from the danger that God will withhold his blessings from us as a nation or that He will judge us by allowing us to be conquered from within through statism and socialism ending in tyranny. Why should He not? America was established under the providence of God and blessed above all other nations of history as an exceptional nation, envied and sought out by all the peoples of the world. Over the past hundred years we have departed from the principles on which we were founded.

Our leaders no longer make any attempt at following our Constitution; we pride ourselves on tolerating the sins of Baal, human sacrifice (abortion) and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. We entertain ourselves daily on violence and lasciviousness through our entertainment media. We no longer demand morality and virtue from our elected officials. We not only tolerate corruption we even admire, to an extent, officials who traffic in corruption. The list is too long to mention them all, but some examples are, ex-governor Blagojevich, Mayor Richard Daley, Congressman Charles Rangel, and ex-President Bill Clinton, just to name a few.

Like Israel, we have turned aside from following the precepts of God and to idolatry, worshiping at the alter of environmentalism and the god Gaia, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. We bow at the alter of statism, and seek the blessings of socialism rather than the blessings of God. If I may quote Thomas Jefferson out of context, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever..; The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a context.”

Jesus said, we are “the light of the world” and “the salt of the earth, if the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted”. When we consider these words of Jesus and apply them to today we might conclude that it is only the presence of God’s people in America that stays His hand of judgment. If the churches and Christians do not cry out against the sins of America, who will?  If we sit idly by and passively watch as our country progresses deeper into socialism and corruption without lifting our voice, we become accomplices to tyranny. These are the thoughts that should guide our decision on November 2, not whether or not our party can win an election.

Reprinted from Christian Patriots