Wednesday, June 30, 2010

I Was Wrong, Thomas Is Right

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument as my friend James White has said on many occasions. Well, I must confess, I have been inconsistent in my understanding of the Constitution.

For years I have struggled with the First Amendment's Establishment clause. It has seemed to me that it only applied to the Federal Government. Yet for years, I have argued that the Second Amendment applies to both states and localities as well as the Federal Government. Why? Because it seemed obvious to me that without the fundamental right to bear arms, governments and other organizations could easily overthrow liberty.

Yet it is precisely here that I have struggled with my understanding. For my most Liberal friends would point out to me my blatant inconsistency. Of course, I would point out their inconsistency as well, only in reverse.

The recent High Court's decision has been getting the most ridiculous media coverage. Every story is entitled, "Supreme Court extends gun rights to states", or something to that effect. In this Washington Times Story, you would think that the Majority had no arguments against the minority. That just by fiat, they reinterpreted the Constitution. As the article states,

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he could "find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

"Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the states to the federal government,"
This statement coming from the Court's Left sounds conservative! Yet they would never apply this standard to their own political um...I mean decisions that support Modern Liberalism.

Yet the Majority did actually defend the notion that the Second Amendment applies to States is not new, but you would have no idea from the article that Thomas shows our inconsistencies. For instance the article ends with a statement about Justice Thomas,

Justice Thomas penned another concurring opinion that supported a fresh interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause.
That's it! Yet Thomas has written an opinion that should shame us all for our inconsistent thinking. It sure would be nice if these articles would link to the Court's decision. It is telling to me that they don't. You would also think they would be taking on Thomas since he starts his opinion by stating,

I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment “fully applicable to the States.” Ante, at 1. I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is morefaithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history.
A more "straightforward path" simply means that he is going to argue that history bears out his position clearly. He states a few pages later,

As was evident to many throughout our Nation’s early history, slavery, and the measures designed to protect it, were irreconcilable with the principles of equality, government by consent, and inalienable rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and em-bedded in our constitutional structure.
What principles?

Chief among those cases is United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876). There, the Court held that members of a white militia who had brutally murdered as many as 165 black Louisianians congregating outside a courthousehad not deprived the victims of their privileges as American citizens to peaceably assemble or to keep and bear arms. Ibid.; see L. Keith, The Colfax Massacre 109 (2008). According to the Court, the right to peaceably assemble codified in the First Amendment was not a privilege of United States citizenship because “[t]he right . . . existed long before the adoption of the Constitution.” 92 U. S., at 551 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was not a privilege of United States citizenship because it was not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Id., at 553. In other words, the reason the Framers codified the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment—its nature as an inalienable right that pre-existed the Constitution’s adoption—was the very reason citizens could not enforce it against States through the Fourteenth.

That circular reasoning effectively has been the Court’slast word on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.1
Circular indeed! I was wrong. I would never argue that the Freedom of the Press or Free Speech did not apply to States. So why then why apply it to the Second Amendment? I mean really? Thomas has written a very persuasive argument. Slaves in the South faced some of the most horrific and brutal assaults on their lives. It is precisely the fact that in order to maintain slavery, the fundamental right to bear arms must not be granted to blacks. How else could families be so easily broken up and children to never be seen again by their parents? Simply deny them Liberty by denying them the tools to uphold Liberty!

So in conclusion,I have learned some great history thanks to Justice Thomas. No longer will I hold to the inconsistent views that I have held in the past. You want religious freedom? You want Liberty? Buy a gun and keep it loaded!

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Islam Begins Its Sharia Law in the States

I have said for many years now that Liberalism can not withstand Islam. I certainly hope that the Political Left at some point gets over their hatred for Christianity and realizes the only ones that have the ability to stand between them and Sharia Law, are the ones they accuse of things happening under their noses. Watch these videos.

You may also watch a FoxNews interview on the RB Blog here.

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Libertarianism Leads Where?

This recent article by Christian Libertarian, William Grigg, has many idealistic points I can readily agree with. However, there are presuppositional claims that I can't see as being either Biblical or defensible, or just plain realistic. Here is a paragraph I think many Christians and non-Christians can agree with.
As Augustine pointed out, the key difference between a state and any other criminal gang is not the "renouncing of aggression" but rather the "attainment of impunity." Like the behemoth in Washington that lavishly underwrites it, nurtures its worst and most corrupt instincts, and shields its rulers from accountability, the Israeli government is a criminal band that acts with utter impunity -- not to protect its citizens, but to defend and enhance the state's power and the material advantages of those allied to it.
There is no doubt that for the Christian, governments are often nothing more than a modern Beast as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Even in the movie the God Father, one conversation explains that governments and the mob are just two versions of the same thing.

However, this concluding statement caught my attention.
All of this is necessary, we are incessantly told, in order to ensure the survival of the Jewish State. But self-defense is an individual right. No state, Jewish or otherwise, has the "right" to exist, and all of them -- the Israeli state emphatically included -- prosper at the expense of those they supposedly protect.
This seems more of the same argument that the Political Left offers when responding to 9/11. If the American government would cease to exist, the world would like us. Of course that would be true in one sense. If there were no American government to stop Hitler and Japan, they would have liked us as well.

So in a idealistic sense, I wish Grigg's position of government were true. I wish we lived in a world that was a true theocracy (where men are like angels, who are governed directly by God without government). I wish Islam we not on the march. I wish foreign dictators and Marxists and the like did not exist.

Perhaps I should put it this way. What would the world look like if Americans were thorough going Libertarians? Perhaps 9/11 would not have happened. But then would not Europe basically be Islamic today? How does a truly Libertarian (apparently isolationist) U.S. government defeat tyranny throughout the world or restrain its advances? We have already had two world wars that should dispel that idea.

Perhaps Grigg's thinking is that the church would be far more "successful" in a world dominated by evil men. Personally, I enjoy free speech and being able to call men to Christ in a world of liberty and where governments are instituted to secure the liberty to freely do so. Yet I agree with Grigg. That seems to be an oxymoron.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Jesus Wants You To Have Health Care

Apparently, according to CNS News, Nency Pelosi is guided by the "Word". According to this story,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."
Now what this means is anyone's guess. Perhaps Jesus wants universal health care? The story goes to explain,
My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.
What is really interesting is her comment about why she is concerned about the Word.
He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.
This really strikes of irony. When Christian Conservative politicians speak this way, the political Left gets worried that a theocracy is about to be born. The ridicule can often be overwhelming.

Nevertheless, it is a good thing when public servants understand that they must give an account for their actions. However, sometimes people are misled as to a proper understanding of the Faith once for all delivered unto the Saints. Nancy Pelosi is definitely one of those people. Therefore, the church of Rome should practice church discipline with her. The story goes on to say that "Pope Benedict XVI met privately with Speaker Pelosi in February 2009".

Now what came of this meeting?
His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.
Apparently, the Pope told her about her responsibility as a legislator. How did she take this? As we all know, her actions say that Rome can stick it in their ear.

With a serious note, she needs to be excommunicated for the salvation of her soul. How will she truly understand that she is committing heinous acts before a thrice holy God if the RC church gives lip service to their Prolife stance? How can she really look forward to a Final Day [when He returns] with concern for the unborn when in her thinking she has done well in these passing days due to the fact that Rome was not willing to warn her of her error?

Rome has yet to fulfill her duty by excommunicating her. Another reason not to take Rome seriously on the Prolife issue. Then again, how many Protestant churches would have done what the "word" says? I guess most churches would all agree that Jesus wants health care for men. Unless you are a "fetus".