Standing Armies

In order to move on from a controversial post, inspired by a political frustration – allow me to post on a new topic – one that is also controversial (I am who I am, okay?).

Last night, I found myself up until about 2:00am reading some of the Federalist Papers. I was struck by a comment made by Hamilton in one of the essays:

“Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy” (Federalist No. 8). 

I was reminded of past discussions and readings that I have had regarding the existence of standing armies – and how, according to some, standing armies are unconstitutional. However, I find it amusing now to think of such a statement being made, in view of Hamilton’s testimony here — here he advocates for the ADOPTION of the new Constitution, already acknowledging the Constitutionality of standing armies.

However, I can’t help but wonder what you, the reader, might have to say about the necessity of standing armies. I am aware that some libertarian leaning individuals believe standing armies to be a potential threat, as some of the Founding Fathers  felt.  What do you think about the current size of the United States military? Post in the comments below, if you are so inclined.

I tend to personally favor the existence of standing armies in today’s world, though I do see the threatening nature of them, if one has little trust in the Federal government. I think it is rather irresponsible to ignore the potential threats from the other world superpowers – China and Russian, not the mention many Middle Eastern nations. In light of current technology and global trade and interaction, I feel that it would be rather foolish NOT to have standing armies.

I would love to hear your opinion on the matter, though.

Sincerely,
~A Renegade for Christ

States’ Rights…For Murder too?

Many Americans are, no doubt, familiar with presidential candidate Ron Paul and his general beliefs. The libertarian inclinations of this man have led to his traditional arguments in favor of preserving the Constitution and upholding states’ rights. His economic policies follow the Austrian school of economics, which favor a free market devoid of government intervention. He also argued strongly in favor of supporting the rights of unborn children, and has openly opposed the Roe vs. Wade ruling and abortion in general. For many of these reasons, I have held a strong degree of respect for the man, regardless of his unpopularity among the mainstream Republican Party and his often uncouth supporters.

However, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Paul is not in favor of federal laws regarding abortion, as he considers it to be a “states’ rights” issue. I admit, this bothered me, so I decided to look a little closer at his sentiments on abortion. On his campaign website, his stance on abortion is stated specifically:

“As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life.  And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.  And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress”(http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/).

Well, if this is indeed his beliefs, than he may be a good candidate after all. Unfortunately, when asked whether he thinks minors should be provided with the morning after pill, he declared, “I think the states have the right to try to do that, the morning after pill is nothing more than the birth control pill…How are you going to take all the birth control off the market? It would be impossible. States have some rights to regulate things, they regulate alcohol and nobody complains too much about it” (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/ron-paul-states-should-decide-if-16-year-olds-can-get-morning-after-pill/).

This startled me, and began to anger me. After all, this is coming from the man who declared that, “I can assure you life begins at conception” (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/). However, he is willing to let the states provide 16 year old girls with pills that effectively –according to his own definition of life – kill a child. That is an extremely disturbing implication.

I realize that this is one particular issue, and not even a central one for the 2012 elections. However, as a Christian who is absolutely pro-life, I find this to be a very important issue to keep in mind, especially in view of the fact that we are hours away from Super Tuesday. Ron Paul had lost my support as my choice candidate a few months ago. However, in view of this new information, I am not even sure if I can continue to maintain him as my second choice in this election.

Our Founding Fathers understood the value of human Life when they wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Declaration of Independence).

and,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (Constitution, Preamble).

May we also remember the value of Life – as a God-given right to all individuals regardless of age, size, or social condition. And may we reflect on these values as we look forward to the coming election.

~A Renegade For Christ

CRP Convention

This weekend, I was fortunate enough to be attend the 2012 Convention for the California Republican Party (CRP), in San Mateo County. I was very pleased to be able to attend this event and even more pleased to be able to volunteer to help gather signatures for the STOP SB 48 campaign. While there are a great deal of things that I could certainly say about this event, I will concentrate on a few specific areas.

SB 48 and the Class Act

I believe I have referenced the STOP SB 48 campaign previously on this site. If you are not familiar with SB 48, it was a senate bill that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown, which mandates that schools discuss and emphasis the sexual orientation of individuals in history texbooks (K-12). The law goes so far as to say that one cannot “reflect adversely upon” the Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Bisexual (LGBT) community. The coalition backing the STOP SB 48 campaign disagrees strongly with this legislation, for many reasons, including:

1) Politicians at the state level are mandating this in all schools, K-12 - This is problematic because it is placing the politicians in the role of educator, rather than leaving educational requirements to local school districts to decide.

2) This is undermining parental authority by requiring the state to teach on controversial social issues without the authority of a child’s parent.

3) This bill requires that only a favorable image of the LGBT lifestyle be taught. However, no group, whether  ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual can be objectively and accurately portrayed if only positive information can be circulated about it. True history must “tell it like it is” and not insulate and protect different groups from objective representation simply because of their sexual orientation. 

The CLASS Act (Children Learning Accurate Social Sciences) is an attempt to overturn SB 48 through the California initiative process. Having followed SB 48, to a degree, since it was debated in the legislature,  I was pleased to volunteer at the CLASS Act’s table, this weekend, and gather signatures for the petition to get this initiative on the ballot.

***If you are interested in signing this petition, to get the CLASS ACT on the ballot, visit http://stopsb48.com/ ***

Inter-party Conflict

 Another interesting aspect of the CRP convention, was the inter-party conflict that was present, particularly between the supporters of the different presidential candidates. For a while, on Saturday, the main lobby become clogged with Ron Paul supporters who marched through the lobby and halls with big signs chanting things like “End the Fed!” and “Peace not War!” Before long, the supporters of Newt Gingrich had organized with their signs and were chanting their own slogans across the room to the Paul supporters. Though the clogged lobby made it difficult to gather signatures for my petition, I was impressed by the civility between the different groups. Though they had no qualms about chanting the praises of their favorite candidate, at the top of their voices, they remained generally pleasant when spoken to, in person. I feel proud to know that it is still possible to have strong disagreement, while still preserving a degree of civility. 

***

Considering the weekend as a whole, it was a remarkable experience, and one that I hope to repeat in the future. There were good and bad aspects to the weekend, to be sure, but overall I was glad to have the opportunity to meet some people who truly care about our nation, and desire to restore America to her founding principles. Today, I feel a strong sense of pride in our nation, and hope for the future. There are still individuals fighting for freedom and justice, in the world, and I am proud to call myself an America, today.

Crossing The Line

 “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – Ronald Reagan.

Last month, President Barak Obama gave his third State of the Union address. In that speech, he began by reminding us of the end of the war in Iraq, which culminated in the death of Osama Bin Laden. He also discussed problems of the economy in the areas of the auto industry, outsourcing in American businesses, unemployment, education reform, immigration, and alternative energy, among other things. He argued that everyone deserved their “fair share” in the economy and he discussed what he termed “shared responsibility” – where everyone does their part to restore the economy. He also called for “smart regulations.”

Now, President Obama may very likely be sincere, from what I see. He firmly believes that there should be further regulation, increased taxes on the rich, and that struggling corporations should receive “incentives” or bailouts to get them back on their feet. If his dedication as sincere and he portrays, then I applaud him. I also applaud his rhetoric – if only more Americans understood the art of effective public speaking. I also acknowledge that his administration was responsible, largely, for the successful mission against Bin Laden. However, as many of the news commentators observed after the address, this speech sounded more like one expected at the start of a term of office, not a speech delivered three years into a presidency. His track record to date has been poor and I find no real reason to believe that further stimulation of the economy, through government bailouts, is the right course of action. Even if this were the case, though, I would still be forced to speak against these policies, because, though the President’s policies appear inspirational and hopeful, the cost to our national principles if they were implemented would be far too high.

There is a deeper problem here than a concern over poor policy, there is a fundamental issue over expanding government and abuse of power. The office of the President of the United States does not carry with it infinite authority. The United States of America is a nation founded on Federalism. In this nation, there are various levels of government (Federal, State, and local), and three branches at each level (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial).  The powers of the federal government are outlined clearly in the U.S. Constitution. This separation of powers is essential to preserving liberty and success in America.  Unfortunately, President Obama’s statements in his speech showed a blatant disregard for the principles of liberty that our founder’s died to defend – principles that our protected by the United States Constitution.

While arguing for “fair share” is simple and seems self-apparent, there are great implications in the matter – chiefly, who decides what is fair? If the government is the answer, then I absolutely declare that I donot support this policy. For literally thousands of years, political theories have raged about the role of government – and how opportunity and freedom should be weighed against regulation. President Obama’s blind faith in the quality of government determination is frightening to me. It reminds me strongly of Plato’s “philosopher king” –where the elite and enlightened individual rules because of his superior intellect qualifies him for determining societal goods. This reasoning quickly morphs into the more contemporary socialist beliefs that are detrimental to the principles that our Founders fought to protect.

The Founding Fathers of the United States had a remarkable distrust of government – perhaps more so than any other individuals in history. While they ultimately acknowledged the need for some centralized government, they also feared that such an entity could quickly become a tyrant from the same mold as their previous oppressor –Great Britain. The solution our Founders ultimately decided upon would be known as a grand compromise –establishing a federalist form of government –with a centralized federal government with specified roles outlined in the Constitution, and a much stronger state participation in government. In fact, the Constitution declares, in the 10^th Amendment that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10^th Amendment).

So, in conclusion, though I admire President Obama’s commitment, I find myself opposed to his methodology because it contradicts the fundamental principles on which our nation was founded, and instead holds to a political philosophy that has been tried countless times – and failed just as often. He is crossing the line. Fairness and equality are not something that can be regulated by government –when they are, the very freedoms that our nation was formed to protect are violated. Fairness in economic opportunity comes at a cost – some people will succeed in business endeavors and others will fail, and this is a sad truth about capitalism –however, I truly believe that a free society that allows the market to determine what is economically “fair” is a much better determinant than government regulation. The principles of liberty, freedom and justice are deeply rooted in the moral integrity of a nation. We must hold to the principles that made America great. As Alexis de Touqville said in his book Democracy in America, “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~John Adams

I Am Second Assignment For Class

 

Suggestions

I freely admit that I am having a little trouble coming up with content to discuss here. I have gotten little to no input from readers, up to this point. For this reason, I’m opening this up to you, as a reader. What would you like to see on here? Research of political issues, coverage of the 2012 presidential race? Or would you prefer a more worldview-centered discussion?

Please leave me comments below! I really want input so I can improve this website, for your interest.

What child is this…?

Christmastime is here! Happiness and cheer! The lights, the decorations, the presents, the cookies, Santa Claus, elves, and children making out lists of the presents that they want most of all. The same old, comfortable Christmas carols float over the radio in every place of business. Fireplaces are ablaze with crackling warmth and, just maybe, snow is beginning to fall. Christmas is pleasant. It’s comfortable. But where did it all start? Why is it that despite the stress of Christmas shopping sprees, Christmastime still bears an appearance of peace and rest?

A theme of Christmas, still recognized, though largely as an afterthought these days, is the birth of a child. Carols such as, “O Little Town of Bethlehem”, “Silent Night”, and “O Holy Night” remind us that there is a deeper meaning to Christmas. Perhaps you even know the Christmas recreation of the classical tune, “Greensleeves” as it was translated into the haunting melody, “What Child is This?” Have you ever stopped to ask yourself that very question? Who was this baby, whose mere birth has been celebrated for centuries? What child is this?

To answer that question, I must take you back to 1^st Century Palestine, where this birth took place. A poor Jewish carpenter and his pregnant teenage wife found themselves spending what was both the best and worst night of their lives in a dirty stable, most likely filled with animals, in an insignificant Jewish town. They had traveled a long way to make it to this town, Bethlehem, to register for the census ordered by Rome. When they arrived they found no place to stay, save this stable. In a bit of tragic irony, this very night, the girl Mary, gave birth to her firstborn son, and laid him in an animal’s feed trough –a far cry from the modern, sterile hospital delivery room. What was it about this dismal night that could create the busy and beautiful Christmas season that we know so well today? The only visitors to the stable that night were dirty, stinking shepherds with lanolin-stained hands. What child is this?

This child was Jesus the Christ. His coming had been prophesied since before Abraham gave birth to the people of Israel. His mission was memorialized by centuries of sacrifice in the temple. He was the Promised One, the Son of God, our Salvation.

Promised One

In the book of Genesis, the creation of the world is described in detail. In the space of 6 days God spoke light, darkness, soil, foliage, animals, and even Man into existence. God made man “in his own image” (Gen 1:27). And “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Until the Fall – man sinned and from that day forward, history tells the story of sin and human depravity. God’s beautiful creation had been tainted by evil. What now?

Fast forward a few thousand years. A man name Abram is quietly living his life in a place known as Ur, when he is given a promise from the LORD. He told Abram, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). This man Abram later became known as Abraham and in the centuries that followed, the Jewish legal system was formed. Through the sacrifice of animals, a man’s sins were considered forgotten. However, for each sin committed the man would have to make sacrifice. This system wasn’t working – something would have to change. Deliverance would come through the Messiah, or in Greek, the “Christ” who would save his people from their enemies and cleanse the earth. The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would come from the line of King David and would establish his kingdom forever.

Bethlehem Birth

            Isaiah the prophet prophesied about the birth of the Messiah, “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2). Jesus’s birth fulfilled this prophesy.

King of the Jews

Jesus, the little child in the manger was a decedent of that very line. Both his mother and his “father” came from David’s line, and thus his birth fulfilled the prophesy about the Messiah, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit” (Isaiah 11:1). “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever” (Isaiah 9:7).

Son of God

However, not only was this child a decedent of David, he was also God-incarnate. Isaiah declared that, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel [which means "God with us"]” (Isaiah 7:14). “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned…For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:7).

Jesus’s birth also fulfilled these prophecies. Before his birth, “God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary… “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.  You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:30-33). Mary did not understand how this would be, since she was a virgin, however, the angel told her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Her husband, Joseph was not the father of the child, he had no earthly father. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. John takes it even further, in his gospel, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3).

This baby is Jesus

This child, the Son of God, and the Son of Man was the fulfillment of these and many more prophecies. His birth, though unnoticed at the time, changed the world. But wait, you say, if I remember the story correctly, Jesus didn’t set up a kingdom, he didn’t free the Jews, he was executed at the age of 33! You are quite right; Jesus didn’t set up an earthly kingdom, though he will one day. But through his death and resurrection he broke the hold that sin had on the world, the hold that was started when man first fell in the Garden. His sacrifice for sins was once for all. Through his death he made atonement for sin, and through his resurrection he defeated death.

This is the true story of Christmas. This is the reason for the celebration – Our king and redeemer is born! He has defeated death, he has given us new life! This Christmas season, I challenge you to remember the reason for the season, and praise your Father in heaven. God loved you enough to send his son into the world, and die a criminal’s death, so that you might live forever.

Praise the LORD and Merry Christmas!
~A Renegade for Christ