The Tragedy of Anthony Weiner

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of this entire episode is the failure of both Weiner and the public to learn anything.

Weiner’s downfall, indeed the downfall of numerous people in public life demonstrates the truth of the proverb, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Watching his tirades in Congress shows a consistently arrogant, self-righteous man. This is not to single him out for criticism; pride is a common fault of human nature – many of us struggle with it on a regular basis.

However, his original denial, subsequent confession and resignation indicate that he has learned nothing from the incident. There is no humility, no apparent contrition, and no remorse except for being caught.

The language of his resignation confirms this; “I am announcing my resignation…” One does not “announce” a resignation necessitated by moral failure; one issues a statement. Citing his efforts to represent those “without a voice,” and vowing to continue his efforts by other means is not the expression of true shame and remorse. These are the words of a proud, defiant person still trying to exalt himself.

Public apologies are only appropriate for public transgressions. His repeated public apologies to his wife, as part of his confession and this announcement, are inappropriate and only show his insensitivity to her humiliation.

What the public will fail to learn by portraying this as a political issue is that such moral failings are not “mistakes,” but sin against God. Again, Weiner is not alone in this reality. When David acknowledged his sin with Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband, his failure was not defined by his public actions, but by his rebellion against God’s law: “Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned.” Ps 51. He recognized that his sin could not be atoned for by religious observance, or “public” displays but only by a changed heart.

So it is with Anthony Weiner, and so it is with all of us.

The "Christian-right" should not be silent on this, nor should it try to make political capital. It should identify the true issues, i.e. sin and repentance, and remind everyone, Christian and non-Christian, that we all “fall short of the glory of God” in both word and deed. That Jesus Christ is the only “treatment” for our condition and that a regenerate mind is the only way to change a sinful heart.

Harry Reid Identity Confirmed

Reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fell and was injured have raised a number of questions sending administration officials scurrying to do damage control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/harry-reid-dislocates-shoulder_n_857414.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec3_lnk3|60438

Reid’s identity was confirmed using both DNA and facial recognition by seals which happened to be in the area after escaping from Sea World.

Photos of the injured Reid were taken, but the White House has announced they will not be released due to the fact that Reid’s appearance is even more gruesome than usual.

Attempts to have Reid buried at sea were frustrated when he refused to walk the plank on the presidential yacht anchored in the Potomac.

President O’Bama announced that Reid was armed and attempted to use his wife to break his fall.

Clarification: The White House announced that Reid was NOT armed but HARMED at the time of the fall and that his wife actually pushed him down; a simple mistake in reporting.

Further, the president retracted his earlier statement that Reid was “drunk as a skunk” when he fell down the steps at Pomeroy’s Wine Bar. The president said he was referring to a game of "horse" the two had played earlier in the day and that Reid's "dunk really stunk."

More details will be available as they get their story straight.

Arizona's Law

This should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes the obvious is not so obvious.

We are a nation of States - the United States of America.

It is impossible for anyone to immigrate to the United States, legally or illegally, without immigrating to one of the states, i.e. one must be IN one of the states to be IN the United States.

The Constitution gives presumptive authority to the federal government to regulate immigration, but it does not give the federal government authority to regulate immigration in such a way that a particular state is harmed or benefited by such regulation, e.g. all immigrants with college degrees must live in Utah while all high school drop-outs must reside in Nevada.

Since the federal government has defaulted on it's responsbiility to control the southern border so that the states adjacent to that border receive the bulk of illegal immigrants, and bear the financial and crimminal burden of such unregulated immigration, the federal government is operating, de facto, to the harm of those states.

It is therefore, legitimate for the states suffering such harm to take action to relieve themselves from the burden incurred as a direct result of the federal government's failure to enforce federal laws. This does not give them authority to enact new immigration laws, but it does give them authority to enforce existing federal laws.

One would certainly not argue that if the federal government failed to repel an actual armed invasion by a foreign nation that the state/s suffering from such an invasion would be prohibited from acting to protect themselves (their citizen's lives and property) and repel the invastion.

You say Potato and I say Happy-fruit

The debasement of language as a prerequisite to cultural and moral decline

It started in the Garden when the serpent told Eve that God didn’t really mean what he said about eating the forbidden fruit. It has continued throughout human history when sinful men desired to throw off the shackles of restraint and justify their conduct. In order for previously condemned conduct to become legitimate, the terminology must first be changed.

No despot in his right mind would describe his conduct in ordinary language. From Lenin to Mao, murder, theft and oppression have always been portrayed as being necessary for the greater good. So, conquest is redefined as “liberation;” unprovoked assault is justified as “pre-emptive” self-defense.

Advocates of cultural reconstruction also find it necessary to alter the common vocabulary in order to justify their plans. Thus, every kind of inappropriate behavior is defined as “disease,” or “addiction.” A married man who commits adultery at every opportunity is said to have a sexual addiction. Fornication is reduced to “pre-marital sex;” un-wed mothers (already a compromised term) are re-categorized as “single-parents,” an innocuous term that includes widows and unmarried adoptive parents.

A major victory for cultural and moral relativism occurred when advocates of homosexual behavior succeeded in re-branding their conduct; sodomites became “gays.” Such conduct was no longer viewed as an offense against nature and God, it was merely a lifestyle choice or, more significantly, a genetic predisposition. After all, who could object to a lifestyle described as “gay.”

The final assault in the homosexual offensive is the inclusion of sodomite and lesbian relationships under the umbrella of “marriage.” The key to their ultimate victory, as in the previous assault, rests in a redefinition of terms – a perversion of language.

To speak of “same-sex marriage” is to speak nonsense unless the plain, historic meaning of marriage is first destroyed. Aided by their willing accomplices in the main-stream media, homosexuals have been largely successful in this effort. When Rosie O'Donnell came to San Francisco to marry her "partner," she introduced her new spouse as her "wife" (Rosie and Keli have since divorced and Rosie has announced plans to move-in with a new "girl friend"). Does that mean that Rosie is the husband, or that a sodomite couple is composed of two "husbands?"

Various efforts to affirm the historic, linguistic and legal definition of marriage, such as California’s Proposition 8, are changed into “anti” same-sex marriage statutes and thus, inherently immoral. In the campaign for Proposition 8, opponents actually described the law as “wrong.” Advocates were just mean-spirited, selfish reactionaries who wanted to deny homosexuals the same "right" to marry that straights have.

Of course, it does not matter how much language is redefined, sodomites and lesbians cannot marry (except as Michael Medved points out, sodomites can marry lesbians). It will simply mean the further destruction of our culture where words can mean anything and, therefore, nothing.

Not my father's bible hero.

I don’t know what movie Drew Zahn (World Net Daily) saw, but it wasn’t the same one I saw last night. Eli is not a bible hero – he is a man on a mission which happens to involve delivering a book to an unknown destination. The story has more to do with Waterworld than a biblical epic.

I don’t recall the word “bible” being used at all – it was always “the book.” It could have been any book – this is confirmed at the end of the movie when “the book” is placed on a shelf with other “books” including the Koran.

There is no real scripture in this movie. There is no grace, no atonement, and salvation is the generic kind of doing more good than bad. It is humanism that is preached, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is prayer, but it is prayer to an unidentified deity, not offered in Jesus’ name. The book is never actually read, although Eli says he reads it and there are a couple of scenes where he has the book open. He quotes a couple of Old Testament verses, and paraphrases Jesus’ words in the Golden Rule.

The “faith” that is portrayed is faith for the sake of faith. When his young female companion asks him why he believes that he will succeed in his mission to deliver the book (after they have killed and mutilated a dozen or so bad guys), he says something like “sometimes you just have to believe.” This is the gospel of Quai Chang Cane, not the apostle Paul. Like all stories of this genre, the moralizing is tolerated for the moments when the hero kicks the snot out of the bad guys.

At the end of the movie, Eli’s chick disciple heads back home, armed with his shot-gun and killing knife, apparently to continue his "kill or convert" evangelism. It is unclear whether or not she has a bible – she certainly doesn’t have “the book.”

So, viewers will be disappointed if they’re expecting any serious bible theology, certainly no Christian theology. It is an interesting movie. The cinematography and special effects are noteworthy. The film is not black-and-white, but neither is it normal color. It is almost sepia, which adds to the bleak, barren environment.

The message of the movie is not, as Zahn proclaims, about the victory of the word of God, it is the victory of mankind to remake itself, even after a world changing calamity.

Wise as serpants, harmless as doves.

I do not like popular political labels; they are neither meaningful nor useful.

Most "conservatives" (even so-called 'Christian conservatives') are merely light liberals, i.e. they do not reject basic statist principles, just their application.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not really liberal at all, i.e. advocates of liberty. They are statists; they believe in advancing their vision of society by an ever increasing use of coercive government power.

So, conservatives (at least the social brand) oppose the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, not because it was a usurpation of power by the federal court, but because of the nature of the decision, i.e. abortion is a right. They work for and hope for a reversal of the decision, but do not fundamentally object to the mechanism by which the decision was made.

In fact, Catholic pro-lifers must acknowledge that their church's official political views are decidedly statist, e.g. endorses redistribution of wealth by government coercion.

Conservatives, those who understand that liberty is indivisible, must acknowledge that a reversal of Roe v. Wade which does not repudiate the jurisprudential activism under which the decision was made will be just as illegitimate as the original ruling.

Our First Post-modern President, or Why Obama Can't Lie.

Because Christians and Christian institutions, both ecclesiastical and academic, largely abandoned intellect for emotion in the 20th century, and embraced a social/political view of salvation, Christians in the 21st century are unprepared to understand and articulate a meaningful response to the world-view which dominates post-modern culture and politics.

Christians cannot engage in meaningful dialog with or provide a distinctly biblical counterpoint to the standards upon which modern society is founded and by which it operates. Lacking an understanding of the inherent and inescapable antithesis that exists between biblical truth and all other systems, Christians seek common ground with unbelievers upon which all may operate.

Because this is a cultural and not just a personal condition, Christian political action based on "reclaiming the culture" by placing the right people in key positions of power and influence is pointless and bound to fail, especially and specifically when "the right" people are viewed as those who hold specific views on hot political issues, e.g. abortion, while denying a comprehensive, integrated Christian worldview that applies biblical law to all issues. So, the right person can oppose abortion while supporting economic justice/theft through oppressive taxation. The right person can support political intrigue because he opposes euthanasia. So, Christian leaders refrain from speaking against an unjust war because their president supports Israel.

This post-modern dilemma is, perhaps, nowhere more clearly drawn than in matters of political speech and nowhere more clearly illustrated than in our current president.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the embodiment of the radical socialist ideas of the sixties, where lying was justified in order to advance social/political/economic justice, Barack Hussein Obama is the incarnation of the post-modern idea that truth statements, as matters of fact are meaningless.

When the post-modern man makes statements that are in direct opposition to a state of affairs, he is not lying; he is speaking the truth. Truth is not measured by reference to some external standard, but is defined by whatever the speaker means at that moment - the truth does not correspond to a fact or set of facts; it is an existential experience. To argue for “original intent” or “limited government” is pointless when such terms, do not and cannot have specific content in a post-modern world.


So, when he says that he did not hear the incendiary, racists remarks made by his pastor during the 20 years he attended the church, he is not lying (or obfuscating) because his statement does not point to any situation that existed in the past, but to the truth that he is creating now by his act of speaking. When engaging in actions that are manifestly contrary to his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," he is not thereby violating his oath - his oath is validated by the truth that his words create.

For Obama, as for all post-modern men (read all unregenerate), there can be no lying because there is no objective reference point for truth. Lying implies intent to deceive by deviating from what is known to be true. Where truth is not known (cannot be known) there can be no intent and, therefore, no lying.

Christians do not understand this because they do not believe that the bible, God's revealed word, is the only source of truth. They believe that truth can be abstracted from experience; that someone can know and speak the truth in certain areas while denying the One who claimed to be truth.

Obama, for all his public professions, is not a Christian. Not because he does not oppose abortion, but because he, like all infidels since Eve, believes that he, not Christ, is "the way, the truth and the life." Obama, like all unbelievers affirms that he, not Christ, is the Messiah. In that he, like all unbelievers, is the anti-Christ.

Obama does not believe in racial justice; he does not believe in helping the poor; he does not believe in universal healthcare. Obama, like all post-modern man believes only in one thing - himself. When he speaks, he speaks the truth because he speaks of himself.

Until and unless Christians understand this reality and adjust their thoughts, words and actions to it, they will continue to be ineffectual and unfaithful witnesses to their Lord and, therefore, fail to change their culture.