Since we’re no longer operating under the U.S. Constitution as written and amended, I think it would be helpful for us to all understand the de facto “constitution” within which our federal government now operates.
All legislative power resides with the Congress, as long as that benefits Democrats. If it benefits Democrats for Congress to abdicate legislative power, or if it benefits Democrats to take additional powers beyond legislation, then the Congress can and will do so. In the event that Republicans control either or both chambers of Congress, all legislative powers will be voluntarily forfeited by bedwetting Republican leadership.
All executive power resides with the Executive Branch. If it benefits Democrats for the Executive Branch to either abdicate executive powers, or if benefits Democrats for the Executive Branch to take on legislative or judicial powers, then the Executive Branch can and will do so. In the event that a Republican wins the presidency, he will be portrayed as stupid and/or evil by Democrats and the media, which will justify ignoring and/or vilifying everything he or she says or does.
All judicial power resides with the mainstream media, excluding the “crazies” over at Fox News.
Because judicial power has been taken from the Supreme Court and given to the mainstream media, the Supreme Court can and will take legislative power when it benefits Democrats, especially when Democrats cannot push their agenda through Constitutionally prescribed means.
Every restraint in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as this “de facto constitution,” will be applied to Republicans, whereas if and when it benefits Democrats, then the peasantry outside of the D.C. political elite and the New York media elite must be reminded that the Founders were old, rich, white, slave-owning racists and that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that can be ignored whenever it benefits Democrats to do so.
“Postmodernists” have no moral foundation from which to criticize the church shooting in South Carolina, and this is another reason why postmodernism should die on the philosophical trash heap where it belongs.
If “all truth is relative,” and each person can determine which truth best suits him/her, then a psychotic racist who believes that black people are raping white women everywhere and “taking over our country” has every right to believe that – according to the postmodern perspective. Furthermore, following postmodernism to its logical conclusion, if you believe it is right and just and good to walk into a church and murder people because they have a certain skin color, then postmodernism says you have the right to “self-determination.” Who am I to say otherwise?
Thank God our just system is not yet fully postmodern.
But……………….. if there is such a thing as absolute truth, then we can make absolute truth claims such as:
It is wrong to go into a church and kill people.
It is wrong to kill people for having a certain skin color.
Etc., etc., etc.
If you are dumb enough to believe such nonsense as “you have your ‘truth’ and I have mine,” then you must hold the corollary position that the psychotic racist can have his “truth,” too. The reality is that all postmodernists are selective postmodernists. “Truths” they don’t like are relative, while “truths” they like are absolute.
“Truths” that keep you from stealing from your neighbor are bad, but “truths” that keep your neighbor from stealing from you are good.
People do not accept postmodernism because it is true, they accept postmodernism because it is a way to self-justify their sins. But there is only one true justification for sins, and it ain’t found in postmodernism.
It’s found only in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I’m several chapters into “Clinton Cash,” and I think its most valuable asset is the author’s standard to which he measured Hillary Clinton’s actions in the book:
Her own words.
Hillary expressed concern about allowing foreign governments to purchase assets that are strategic to our national security, then changed course after huge donations were made to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches) by investors who would benefit when Hillary signed off on deals that gave Russia control over substantial portions of U.S. and global uranium output.
Hillary, and her husband, have been staunch supporters of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Bill Clinton was embarrassed when India violated the NPT. Years later, then-Senator Hillary Clinton spoke about the need to bring India into compliance with the NPT. However, after millions of Indian and Indo-American dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches), Hillary helped India to have their (yellow) cake and eat it to – aka retain nuclear weapon status while U.S. sanctions were lifted.
Hillary spoke out on the need to bring about reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and even co-authored a bill during her Senate tenure that gave the Secretary of State authority to demand human rights reforms in exchange for taxpayer aid dollars the DRC would receive. But rather than enforce the law she helped pass when she later became Secretary of State, Hillary gave the DRC a waiver so that it would not have to meet transparency and accountability requirements tied to U.S. aid dollars – after, you guessed it, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches).
“Clinton Cash” is a very significant book, and probably the most significant book for the 2016 presidential elections, because it shows how badly Hillary Clinton fails a standard of integrity. The integrity standard she fails is not mine or yours, but the standard set by her very own words.
When she professes to care about human rights, the poor and needy, etc., she should have to answer for the waivers she gave to the DRC and Ethiopia, so that they could continue to receive U.S. taxpayer money in spite of their horrendous human rights record, with zero transparency or accountability.
When she professes to care about equal pay for women, she should have to answer for paying women less than she paid men in her own offices.
When she talks about national security, she should have to answer for her actions which allowed Russia to gain control of U.S. uranium and allowed India to violate the NPT without consequence.
And she should have to give an account for her position changes on each of these issues, which just so happened to coincide with money flowing into the Clinton Foundation and into the Clintons’ personal accounts.
These are all reasons why you should read “Clinton Cash,” and they are reasons why Hillary should not be president of these United States.
- "The Dawkins Letters"
- "The God Delusion"
- 2 Samuel 20
- 2008 Presidential election
- Acts 17:24-31
- Anglican Church
- Anthony Flew
- Australian Christian music
- Ayn Rand
- Charles Darwin
- child of God
- Christ crucified
- Chuck Norris
- Church History
- David Robertson
- Desiring God
- Doers of the Word
- Dr. Jim Hamilton
- expository preaching
- Gene Robinson
- glory of God
- I Was There
- Intelligent Design
- James Hamilton
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- John Piper
- justification by faith
- King David
- Lee Strobel
- Mark Driscoll
- Mars Hill Church
- Mike Huckabee
- Nathan Tasker
- preach the Word
- Psalm 1
- Richard Dawkins
- roe v. wade
- seminary professor
- Sermon on Mars Hill
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- the apostle Paul
- the Bible
- The Case for Faith
- The Law of the Lord
- the rebellion of Sheba
- The Resurrection
- the Word of God
- William Tyndale