Tuesday, August 31, 2010
In 1996, Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Pub. L. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996). Congress passed DOMA because of a decades-long assault on marriage, and particularly in response to a Hawaii court decision that suggested there is a right to same-sex “marriage” in the Hawaii Constitution. The legislative history reflects a congressional concern about the effect that legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Hawaii would have on other states, federal laws, the institution of marriage, traditional notions of morality, and state sovereignty. H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 at 1-18 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23.
DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 17
DOMA : The only thing standing between Order -and- Anarchy.
WHY PROPAGANDA WORKS
Peter McFarland of Marin County, Calif. is suing the county sheriff's office for tasing him in his own home while his wife pleaded with them to stop.
The deputies arrived June 29 of last year after McFarland fell outside his home while he and his wife Pearl were returning from a charity fundraiser, and he said something to the effect that if he had a gun, he'd shoot himself in the head.
It was hyperbole, McFarland told the deputies, who arrived after paramedics had already helped him inside. A rare survivor of pancreatic cancer, he considers himself lucky to be alive.
Yet the deputies insisted on taking McFarland to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation, ultimately tasing him after he demanded they leave his house. "Stop resisting!" the deputies repeatedly tell McFarland, as he whimpers and writhes in pain.
McFarland was arrested and jailed on a charge of resisting arrest, but a judge later threw out the charge.
WATCH the end of the confrontation, captured on one of the deputies' taser-mounted camera:
“In 1996, in a documentary called “The MoneyMasters”, we asked the question why is America going broke. It wasn’t clear then that we were, but it is today. Now the question is how can we get out of this mess. Foreclosures are everywhere, unemployment is skyrocketing – and this is only the beginning. America’s economy is on a long, slippery slope from here on. The bubble ride of debt has come to an end.
“What can government do? The sad answer is – under the current monetary system – nothing. It’s not going to get better until the root of the problem is understood and addressed. There isn’t enough stimulus money in the entire world to get us out of this hole.
“Why? Debt. The national debt is just like our consumer debt – it’s the interest that’s killing us.
“Though most people don’t realize it the government can’t just issue it’s own money anymore. It used to be that way. The King could just issue stuff called money. Abraham Lincoln did it to win the Civil War.
“No, today, in our crazy money system, the government has to borrow our money into existence and then pay interest on it. That’s why they call it the National Debt. All our money is created out of debt. Politicians who focus on reducing the National Debt as an answer probably don’t know what the National Debt really is. To reduce the National Debt would be to reduce our money – and there’s already too little of that.
“No, you have to go deeper. You have to get at the root of this problem or we’re never going to fix this. The solution isn’t new or radical. America used to do it. Politicians used to fight with big bankers over it. It’s all in our history – now sadly – in the distant past.
“But why can’t we just do it again? Why can’t we just issue our own money, debt free? That, my friends, is the answer. Talk about reform! That’s the only reform that will make a huge difference to everyone’s life – even worldwide.
“The solution is the secret that’s been hidden from us for just over 100 years – ever since the time when author L. Frank Baum wrote “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.”
I WONDER HOW MUCH THESE CORPORATIONS SPEND PAYING LOBBYIST FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PAYING FOR MEDICAL CARE?
By Joe Eaton and M.B. Pell | February 23, 2010
Thought you might be interested in this: Lobbyists Swarm Capitol To Influence Health Reform http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1953 The Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/
* Please enter the word you see in the image below:
When President Barack Obama meets with Congressional leadership on Thursday to jump start stalled health reform efforts, industry lobbyists will not be in the room. But if the successful 2009 lobbying effort to influence health reform legislation is any indication, special interests will be well represented.
The Health Care Lobby
The graph below breaks down the sectors lobbying on health care reform in Congress in 2009. Hover your mouse over a bar for sector information. Click and drag the slider in the bottom left corner to scroll through the sectors. Click on a bar to see how many clients a sector had in each quarter.
READ MORE HERE......
A majority of Republicans believe that President Barack Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world," according to a survey released on Monday.
That figure, buried at the very end of a newly released Newsweek public opinion poll, reflects the extent to which a shocking bit of smear and misinformation has managed to become nearly commonplace within the GOP tent.
(Read the full poll results here.)
A full 14 percent of Republicans said that it was "definitely true" that Obama sympathized with the fundamentalists and wanted to impose Islamic law across the globe. An additional 38 percent said that it was probably true -- bringing the total percentage of believers to 52 percent. Only 33 percent of Republicans said that the "allegation" (as Newsweek put it) was "probably not true." Seven percent said it was "definitely not true." The rest (eight percent) either didn't know the answer or didn't read the question.
The Newsweek findings add more kindling to the already-heated debate raging around the persistent rumors that Obama is a closeted Muslim (he's not). In an illustration of just how deeply news outlets have been drawn to the topic, the magazine devoted seven of its 24 questions to Muslim-themed topics, producing, in the process, a number of telling and newsworthy numbers.
Fifty-nine percent of Republicans, for instance, said they believed the president favored "the interests of Muslims over other groups of Americans," while only 34 percent of said he had been "generally even handed" in his approach. In contrast, nine percent of Democrats said Obama favored "the interests of Muslims over other groups of Americans" while 82 percent of Democrats said he had been even-handed.
On a more uplifting front, 16 percent of all respondents said they had a very favorable view of Muslims while 45 percent said they had a "mostly favorable" view -- the highest and second highest totals recorded for those answers in the survey's history, respectively.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
We're tracking every taxpayer dollar of bailout money to every institution.
We're tracking where taxpayer money has gone in the ongoing bailout of the financial system. Our database accounts for both the broader $700 billion bill and the separate bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Below is the list of companies to which Treasury has committed money. "Revenue to Government" shows the amount that has been paid to the Treasury Department through interest, dividends, fees or the repurchase of stock warrants. Click on each recipient for more detail on the transactions. See List Here
by Sasha Chavkin
Today, independent paymaster Kenneth Feinberg takes the reins from BP in managing damage claims from the Gulf oil spill. He has promised to make sweeping improvements in BP’s system, which has been criticized by applicants as slow, bureaucratic and lacking in transparency.
Our checklist of the fixes that Feinberg has promised describes the changes claimants can expect as Feinberg’s Gulf Coast Claims Facility opens its doors. We will be checking with applicants who are participating in our BP Claims Project  to see if these reforms are put in place.If you’re planning to file a claim with Feinberg, you can fill out this quick online form  to speak with a reporter and help us monitor the claims process. Applicants with pending claims with BP will have to refile with Feinberg’s facility in order to be considered.
Here is our checklist of the key improvements that Feinberg has promised:
One adjuster per claim
Under BP, many claimants have described being switched between multiple adjusters as their claims are processed. These switches, they say, have made it difficult to contact the right person to get an update on the status of their claims. Feinberg has promised that each claim will now be handled by a single adjuster  throughout the evaluation process. In addition, Feinberg said that he will create an electronic tracking system so applicants can check the status of their claims online.
Reduce response time for valid claims to two days for individuals, seven days for businesses
Feinberg has pledged that for valid, properly documented claims, checks will be sent out within two days to individuals and within a week to businesses. This timetable would mark a drastic acceleration of a BP process that many claimants say has left them waiting for weeks and even months for checks to arrive. "If you file an eligible claim and document it, we guarantee to process personal claims in 48 hours,” Feinberg said at an Aug. 19 meeting  with claimants in Houma, La. “If you're a business and you've been waiting for months in a black hole with BP, you will get an answer within seven days."
Eliminate the backlog of unpaid claims
As of Aug. 19, roughly 108,200 claims – or 70 percent of total claims – had not received payments of any kind. Feinberg has criticized BP for leaving too many claims unsettled , and said he would address these claims promptly upon taking control of the process. “There are too many claims sitting there unpaid,” Feinberg said at an Aug. 10 meeting in Panama City, Fla. Later that day, he pledged  that "people who have been waiting, waiting, we will process those claims immediately."
As we’ve reported, BP has deferred decisions  to Feinberg on thousands of claims whose eligibility is uncertain. These claims are not necessarily valid, and many may be denied by Feinberg. BP data  also shows that 38 percent of claimants have not sent documentation to support their requests, making it impossible for the company to evaluate the claim.
Ease the requirements for getting claims approved
Feinberg has said that his standards for both eligibility and documentation will be more generous than those applied by BP. BP’s process has been guided by the Oil Pollution Act, a 1990 federal law that holds oil companies liable for direct “removal costs and damages resulting from an incident ,” while Feinberg has pledged to go beyond the limits of state and federal law to compensate claims. "I will bend over backwards  to find eligibility within reason," Feinberg said on Aug. 10. He has also said that he will require “minimal documentation ” for claims for emergency payments that will cover up to six months of lost income.
Documents from Feinberg’s protocol for judging claims indicate that geographic location will be a key factor  in determining eligibility. The documents indicate that people and businesses adjacent to an oiled shoreline or waterway will get top priority, and that “geographic proximity, nature of industry, and dependence upon injured natural resources” will be among the factors considered in evaluating claims.
Speed the rate of money going out the door
Thursday, August 26, 2010
By Martin Luther King III
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Forty-seven years ago this weekend, on a sweltering August day often remembered simply as the March on Washington, my father delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. A memorial to him is being erected at the Tidal Basin, not far from where he shared his vision of a nation united in justice, equality and brotherhood.
This weekend Glenn Beck is to host a "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial. While it is commendable that this rally will honor the brave men and women of our armed forces, who serve our country with phenomenal dedication, it is clear from the timing and location that the rally's organizers present this event as also honoring the ideals and contributions of Martin Luther King Jr.
I would like to be clear about what those ideals are.
Vast numbers of Americans know of my father's leadership in opposing segregation. Yet too many believe that his dream was limited to achieving racial equality. Certainly he sought that objective, but his vision was about more than expanding rights for a single race. He hoped that even in the direst circumstances, we could overcome our differences and replace bitter conflicts with greater understanding, reconciliation and cooperation.
My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck's rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. He envisioned a world where all people would recognize one another as sisters and brothers in the human family. Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity.
Although he was a profoundly religious man, my father did not claim to have an exclusionary "plan" that laid out God's word for only one group or ideology. He marched side by side with members of every religious faith. Like Abraham Lincoln, my father did not claim that God was on his side; he prayed humbly that he was on God's side.
He did, however, wholeheartedly embrace the "social gospel." His spiritual and intellectual mentors included the great theologians of the social gospel Walter Rauschenbush and Howard Thurman. He said that any religion that is not concerned about the poor and disadvantaged, "the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them[,] is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." In his "Dream" speech, my father paraphrased the prophet Amos, saying, "We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
The title of the 1963 demonstration, "The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," reflected his belief that the right to sit at a lunch counter would be hollow if African Americans could not afford the meal. The need for jobs and shared economic prosperity remains as urgent and compelling as it was 47 years ago. My father's vision would include putting millions of unemployed Americans to work, rebuilding our tattered infrastructure and reforms to reduce pollution and better care for the environment.
In my efforts to help realize my father's dream, supporting justice, freedom and human rights for all people, I have conducted nonviolence workshops and outreach in communities across this country and numerous other nations. My experiences affirm the enduring truth of my father's words: that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and that "we are all bound together in a single garment of destiny."
I pray that all Americans will embrace the challenge of social justice and the unifying spirit that my father shared with his compatriots. With this commitment, we can begin to find new ways to reach out to one another, to heal our divisions, and build bridges of hope and opportunity benefiting all people. In so doing, we will not merely be seeking the dream; we will at long last be living it.
Martin Luther King III is president and chief executive of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Oh The Hypocrisy.....
I. Jackie: In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt's long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. -- New York Post, July 18, 2000
II. Marianne: Gingrich's misbehavior goes back years. Fidelity was apparently never his strong point. After marrying his high school math teacher, Jacqueline Battley, even he admits: ''In the 1970s, things happened.''
As a congressional candidate, he conducted an affair in 1977, a year before enlisting Jackie to write a letter attacking his opponent for planning to leave her family in the district: ''When elected, Newt will keep his family together,'' declared one unintentionally hilarious campaign ad. Gingrich ended his 19-year marriage shortly after his victory.
He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor's criticism of his divorce.
Soon thereafter, Gingrich married Marianne Ginther, whom he had previously met at a political fund-raiser. He called her ''the woman I love'' and ''my best friend and closest adviser'' in his first speech as House speaker, in January 1995... Yet, his relationship with Bisek, a House employee, apparently extended back to 1993 while he was talking of reforming the corrupt welfare state and promoting society's moral regeneration. Rumors of his relationship with Bisek, more than 20 years his junior, did not stop him from writing his political testament, in which he criticized sex outside of marriage, promoted traditional family life and opined that ''any male who doesn't support his children is a bum.''
In May 1999, however, Gingrich called Marianne at her mother's home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce. -- Copely News Service, August 21, 2000
III. Callista: Gingrich's most recent ex-wife says he ditched her eight months after finding out she had multiple sclerosis. Marianne Gingrich, 48, shopping a book proposal "both personal and political" about how women are treated in D.C., says the ex-speaker of the House told her on Mother's Day 1999 that he wanted a divorce, after learning she had a neurological condition that could lead to MS. In 1981, the former congressman told his other ex-wife, Jackie Battley, that he was dumping her, after she had been hospitalized with cancer. Newt, 57, will wed ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34 -- with whom he had an affair while still married to Marianne -- on Aug. 18. -- Akron Beacon Journal, July 25, 2000
This article was originally written in 2004 but it's still relevant today. The Far Right, The Tea Party -and- Their Christian Agenda.
Originally Published by the Yurica Report
“One ought not to say to those whom one wants to kill, ‘Give me your votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,’ but merely, ‘Give me your votes,’ for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.”
How Dominionism Was Spread
“Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.”
“Rule the world for God.“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.“Hide your strength.“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.”
How Machiavellianism, Communism, Secular Humanism and Neo-Conservatism Inspired a New Militant and Evil Anti-Christian Religion
“Today we live in a humanist society. They control the schools. They control public television. They control the media in general. And what we have to say is we live in a humanist society….[Because] the courts are not subject to the will of the people through elections or re-election… all the great changes in the last forty years have come through the courts. And what we must get in our mind is the government as a whole, but especially the courts, has become the vehicle to force this view on the total population, even if the total population doesn’t hold the view.”
“If you don’t revolt against tyranny and this is what I call the bottom line, is that not only do you have the privilege but [you have] the duty to revolt. When people force upon you and society that which is absolutely contrary to the Word of God, and which really is tyranny…we have a right to stand against it as a matter of principle. And this was the basis upon which the founding fathers built this country.”
“[T]he time has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting organized corporately….I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government. I think if we leave it to the other side we’re going to be lost. I would like to see every true believer involved in politics in some way shape or form.”
A Machiavellian Religion Was Born
“Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothing else, and found the occasion for it; no man was ever more able to give assurances, or affirmed things with stronger oaths, and no man observed them less; however, he always succeeded in his deceptions, as he well knew this aspect of things.”
“Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of men, and especially of princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means.” (p. 93)
“Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by every one, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances and the issue of the event; and the world consists only of the vulgar, and the few who are not vulgar are isolated when the many have a rallying point in the prince.” (p. 94)
“When those states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at liberty under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The first is to despoil them; the second is to go and live there in person; the third is to allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you. Because this government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot exist without his friendship and protection, and will do all it can to keep them. What is more, a city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way, if you wish to preserve it.” (p. 46)
“…. [I]n truth there is no sure method of holding them except by despoiling them. And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion in the name of liberty and of its ancient usages…” (p. 46)
How Can Evil Deeds Be Reconciled With Christian Beliefs?
The Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli
“The United States has to make clear to the world and above all to its own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then we must make it clear to everyone that we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to defend those interests, so that people will not cross the lines that are likely to kick off a trip wire.” (Emphasis added.)
“In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still…” (p. 91)
“Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory of a good cause.” (p. 93)
“a magnificent result,” and “is essential to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises.” (p. 95)
“All’s fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your heart’s desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!” (p. 95)
Ledeen’s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz…He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America’s manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.”
Leo Strauss the Father of Neo-Conservatism
First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled.Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.Fourthly: “Secular society…is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”Fifthly: “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”Sixthly: “In Strauss’s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.”
Strauss’s Student, Harry Jaffa on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson
“I’d say that today, for example in the Attorney General’s [Edwin Meese’s] warfare with the liberals on the Supreme Court, in his appeal to original intent, he appeals to the text of the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison said together in 1825, ‘If you want to find the principles of the Constitution of the United States, you go first to the Declaration of Independence.’”
“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.”
How Dominionism Stealthily Swept Over America
The Dominionist Plan: Today Control the USA, Tomorrow the World
What “Dominion” Means
“It is clear that God is saying, ‘I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and will subdue Satan, the unruly, and the rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.’” (p. 201.)
“God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentleman to take dominion…What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him…but He’s waiting for us to…extend His dominion…And the Lord says, ‘I’m going to let you redeem society. There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power…’”
“It always has been a conflict between the kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. When you really look at what Jesus is saying, He is saying the time is fulfilled, repent and believe, the kingdom is at hand. And He is calling for the kingdom of God to rule over the affairs of man. And so inevitably there’s going to be a conflict.” (The 700 Club 5-21-86)
“We’ve sat idly by long enough and said, ‘Well religion and politics don’t mix.’ Don’t you believe it. If we don’t have moral people in government then the only other people that can be in government are immoral. That’s the only way it goes. Either you have moral people in there or you have immoral people.”
“We can change the government, we can change the court systems, we can change the poverty problem, we can change education…We can make a difference.”
Who Rules? And Who Are to Be the Ruled?
“Obviously the drunk, the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not have the discipline to rule the earth and to correct its evils.” (p. 82)
“If we remain unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the kingdom.” (p.83)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (p. 83)
Who Lives and Who Dies? How Justice Scalia Would Expand the Death Penalty
Robertson: “We have with us today Constitutional authority, Herb Titus. Herb . . . . How about the biblical concept of war? You know there are many people who don’t think we should ever fight wars and yet we’re talking about brave men who died for freedom.” (Emphasis added)Titus: “Well I believe the scripture is very clear that if you are attacked by evil whether within the country or outside the country, that it’s the duty of the civil authorities to defend the nation and the people of the nation from evil whether it comes from an aggressor outside or an aggressor inside. We can see that in Romans 13 for example.”
“Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive. For government, a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment, for retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties they devote their energies.”
Dominionism’s Theocratic Views
“1. It obligates government to maintain just monetary policies ... [thus prohibiting] fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.“2. It provides a moral basis for elective government officials. ...“3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. ...“4. It calls for the abolishing of the prison system and establishing a system of just restitution. ...“5. A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...“6. It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the value of property. ...“7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits. ...“8. It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.”
“At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.”
The Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs
Williams: “Well, I think that the abuse and fraud in and of itself is a relatively minor problem. That is, the bigger problem is the whole concept of funding somebody’s medical care by a third party. And I might also mention here, that is, I saw in the audience many older and senior citizens. Now whose responsibility is it to take care of those people? I think it lies with their children and it also lies with themselves. That is, I think Christians should recognize that charity is good. I mean charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid. But many other programs as well….Well, people should have insurance. But I would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not have enough, well that’s a role for the church, that’s a role for the family, that’s a role for private institutions to take care of these things.”Danuta Soderman: “I thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare and Medicaid as not being a moral issue. A lot of people would think that to want to eliminate the program is rather uncompassionate—that there is something immoral about taking away something that people are relying so heavily upon, but you said that there is no moral issue here.”Williams: “I think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What is the moral basis of confiscating the property of one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong for whatever reason?’ That is, I think we Americans have to ask ourselves is there something that can justify a legalized theft? And I think that even if the person is starving in the street that act, in and of itself, doesn’t justify my taking money from somebody else.”
How to Destroy the Social Security Program
1. “We should say to all the elderly, ‘You’re going to be taken care of. The government’s going to pay you. Don’t worry about it. [You’ll] get your Social Security like you’re expecting, ‘cause you’re counting on it.”2. “There should be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect the fact that we’re healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.”3. “The last thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered and over the years build up their own money and that would in turn, through the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in American industry. They would buy plants and equipment, put people to work and it would help a tremendous boom. Imagine …$100 billion dollars a year flowing into American industry. It would be marvelous.”
Wealth is a Sign of God’s Favor, Poverty is a Sign of God’s Disfavor
“God is sovereign over the poor. He raises them up—not all of them, but some of them. ‘The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.’”
“The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee…and the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath…”
“The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies…thy carcass shall be food unto all fowls of the air…The Lord will smite thee with [boils]…and with …tumors, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment of heart [fear]; thou shalt grope at noonday; thou shalt not prosper in thy ways; and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore…thou shalt betroth a wife and another man shall lie with her; thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein, and thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof; thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face and shall not be restored to thee; they sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them. Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand. The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a nation whom thou knowest not eat up, and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed always…”