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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, March 19, 2007
Bush makes pledge to "the people of Mexico."
The following is a portion of President Bush's comments during the welcoming ceremony upon his arrival in Mexico. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-1.html
"The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
There are several points that require comment (as far as I know there has been no response by Conservatives):
1. "The United States respects the rule of law. But ..." Apparently, the rule of law is okay so long as it doesn't get in the way of doing something illegal, e.g. entering the United States illegally, or failing to enforce existing immigration "laws." Why does the president even mention "the rule of law" unless he is acknowledging that US Immigration laws are being violated by people from Mexico.
2. "in the debate on migration..." There is no "debate on migration," there is only failure by the "people" of Mexico to respect the sovreign borders of its neighbor and the unwillingness of the government of the United States to protect and defend its borders against illegal crossing and to deal with those who cross illegally.
3. "I remind my fellow citizens..." This is both irrelevant and insulting. The president is in a foreign country lecturing us on the virtues of people who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders. I'm sure that pedophiles have many endearing qualities. THAT'S NOT THE POINT, Mr. President.
4. "my pledge to ... the people of Mexico." The President of The United States is not responsible for or to the people of Mexico. He is not responsible for their welfare, their prosperity, or enabling them to fulfill their dreams of living in the United States. He is responsible to his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," this means enforcing its laws.
There are no ifs, ands or "buts" about it, Mr. President.
"The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
There are several points that require comment (as far as I know there has been no response by Conservatives):
1. "The United States respects the rule of law. But ..." Apparently, the rule of law is okay so long as it doesn't get in the way of doing something illegal, e.g. entering the United States illegally, or failing to enforce existing immigration "laws." Why does the president even mention "the rule of law" unless he is acknowledging that US Immigration laws are being violated by people from Mexico.
2. "in the debate on migration..." There is no "debate on migration," there is only failure by the "people" of Mexico to respect the sovreign borders of its neighbor and the unwillingness of the government of the United States to protect and defend its borders against illegal crossing and to deal with those who cross illegally.
3. "I remind my fellow citizens..." This is both irrelevant and insulting. The president is in a foreign country lecturing us on the virtues of people who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders. I'm sure that pedophiles have many endearing qualities. THAT'S NOT THE POINT, Mr. President.
4. "my pledge to ... the people of Mexico." The President of The United States is not responsible for or to the people of Mexico. He is not responsible for their welfare, their prosperity, or enabling them to fulfill their dreams of living in the United States. He is responsible to his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," this means enforcing its laws.
There are no ifs, ands or "buts" about it, Mr. President.
On State Interference
(This is the final paragraph from an essay by William G. Sumner (I have divided it for easier reading).
"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.
Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?
I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.
The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.
For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.
I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.
The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interference? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for whenever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."
State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.
"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.
Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?
I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.
The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.
For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.
I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.
The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interference? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for whenever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."
State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Yes, Virginia, someone DID oppose the war ON Iraq
In researching who else might have opposed the war on Iraq, I was surprised to see that Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the following prescient observations in his speech opposing the Senate's Use of Force Resolution.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.
There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.
There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.
The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.
In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.
The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.
Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.
This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.
So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.
There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.
There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.
The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.
In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.
The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.
Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.
This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.
So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.
Hugh Hewitt says I can't oppose Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/02/17/a_mormon_in_the_white_house
Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.
Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).
Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.
Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.
Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).
So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.
Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.
Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.
Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).
Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.
Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.
Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).
So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.
Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union
Anyone who is a true friend of liberty must be disturbed by the substance of the president's address last night. Most of his comments reflect an assent to Socialism in virtually every area of our political life.
While he would describe himself as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, his words prove that his interpretation of the powers and duties of the federal government are just as "dynamic" as the most ardent liberal.
"Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. "
Notice, not guided by the Constitution, but by "our own convictions." We must each "stay faithful" not to the Constitution, but to these convictions. This means that the Muslim, intent on the reconstruction of America according to Shira law must stay faithful to his convictions. It also means that pro-abortionists must stay faithful to their convictions.
Of course, the Constitution provides no warrant for "extending the nation's prosperity" as a function of government, except that government should not interfer with or restrict the liberty of individuals and groups to engage in commerce. The idea that the government should determine the direction of economic activity is Marxist, not American. The Soviet Union followed this modle of "command economy" with disastrous results. Such policies result in shortages, inferior products and political bondage.
To "guard America against all evil," is at once presumptuous and blasphemous and displays, once again, that whatever brand of Christianity the president may subscribe to, it is not grounded in biblical theology. Only the gospel can "deliver" men from evil.
"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight."
In order for the government to "make life better," it must first determine what a "better life" looks like. This makes priests of government officials. Those "Americans" who have a different idea about what makes life "better" must, of course, be dealt with. This is not merely political rhetoric, it is a declaration of war on personal freedom and responsibility.
There is too much in the address to deal with extensively. However, it would be instructive to know how all those who were so recently alarmed over attempts to restrict their "freedom of expression," will use their freedom to respond to this address.
Will Dr. Dobson take the president to task for taking such liberties with the Constitution? Will other "pro family" groups recognize that there are no "parental rights" in a government that assumes powers to itself as it sees fit?
President Lincoln correctly observed that no foreign power could ever defeat our freedom, but that domestic enemies are always at work to destroy liberty.
The real threat to our liberty is not Al Queda, Iran or any other foreign power. The real threat to our liberty is those who seek to "make life better," and they are seated in the offices of our Executive, Legislative and Judicial institutions.
While he would describe himself as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, his words prove that his interpretation of the powers and duties of the federal government are just as "dynamic" as the most ardent liberal.
"Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. "
Notice, not guided by the Constitution, but by "our own convictions." We must each "stay faithful" not to the Constitution, but to these convictions. This means that the Muslim, intent on the reconstruction of America according to Shira law must stay faithful to his convictions. It also means that pro-abortionists must stay faithful to their convictions.
Of course, the Constitution provides no warrant for "extending the nation's prosperity" as a function of government, except that government should not interfer with or restrict the liberty of individuals and groups to engage in commerce. The idea that the government should determine the direction of economic activity is Marxist, not American. The Soviet Union followed this modle of "command economy" with disastrous results. Such policies result in shortages, inferior products and political bondage.
To "guard America against all evil," is at once presumptuous and blasphemous and displays, once again, that whatever brand of Christianity the president may subscribe to, it is not grounded in biblical theology. Only the gospel can "deliver" men from evil.
"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight."
In order for the government to "make life better," it must first determine what a "better life" looks like. This makes priests of government officials. Those "Americans" who have a different idea about what makes life "better" must, of course, be dealt with. This is not merely political rhetoric, it is a declaration of war on personal freedom and responsibility.
There is too much in the address to deal with extensively. However, it would be instructive to know how all those who were so recently alarmed over attempts to restrict their "freedom of expression," will use their freedom to respond to this address.
Will Dr. Dobson take the president to task for taking such liberties with the Constitution? Will other "pro family" groups recognize that there are no "parental rights" in a government that assumes powers to itself as it sees fit?
President Lincoln correctly observed that no foreign power could ever defeat our freedom, but that domestic enemies are always at work to destroy liberty.
The real threat to our liberty is not Al Queda, Iran or any other foreign power. The real threat to our liberty is those who seek to "make life better," and they are seated in the offices of our Executive, Legislative and Judicial institutions.
Friday, January 19, 2007
What is this bleating of sheep?
Victory for Grassroots Lobbying--Bennett Amendment Passes Senate
E-mail January 19, 2007 from >From the HSLDA E-lert Service...
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Bennett amendment by a vote of 55-43. American citizens will remain free to organize and contact their congressional representatives without being forced to comply with federal regulation and oversight.
The Bennett amendment removed section 220, the grassroots lobbying provision, from S. 1. Section 220 would have redefined lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Entities that engaged in grassroots lobbying would have had to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress, or face serious consequences.
The Bennett amendment would not have passed without the calls and support of you and millions of other concerned citizens. The senators who supported the amendment were very thankful for your calls and credited them with this victory. (Edited by Theophilus)
----------------------------------------
There is nothing to celebrate here.
Once again, Christians have demonstrated that they can be led like sheep based on misrepresentation of fact (remember Teri Schaivo?). How many bothered to read SB 1 to see if they were being told the truth (remember the Bereans?)
The only "victory" here is for groups whose existence depends on them being able to raise large sums of money through the exploitation of crises.
Actual language from the dreaded Section 220:
"`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'."
So, is HSLDA acknowledging that it is a "lobbying firm?" How about FoF and AFA? If so, who is the "client" by whom they have been "retained" and how much are they being "paid" to influence the "general public?"
Isaiah Chapter 59
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
E-mail January 19, 2007 from >From the HSLDA E-lert Service...
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Bennett amendment by a vote of 55-43. American citizens will remain free to organize and contact their congressional representatives without being forced to comply with federal regulation and oversight.
The Bennett amendment removed section 220, the grassroots lobbying provision, from S. 1. Section 220 would have redefined lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Entities that engaged in grassroots lobbying would have had to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress, or face serious consequences.
The Bennett amendment would not have passed without the calls and support of you and millions of other concerned citizens. The senators who supported the amendment were very thankful for your calls and credited them with this victory. (Edited by Theophilus)
----------------------------------------
There is nothing to celebrate here.
Once again, Christians have demonstrated that they can be led like sheep based on misrepresentation of fact (remember Teri Schaivo?). How many bothered to read SB 1 to see if they were being told the truth (remember the Bereans?)
The only "victory" here is for groups whose existence depends on them being able to raise large sums of money through the exploitation of crises.
Actual language from the dreaded Section 220:
"`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'."
So, is HSLDA acknowledging that it is a "lobbying firm?" How about FoF and AFA? If so, who is the "client" by whom they have been "retained" and how much are they being "paid" to influence the "general public?"
Isaiah Chapter 59
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)