The Revolution V



Click here to go HOME  

and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of


Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...


Subject: Part V: The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections

(Wed., February 2, 2011)

(approx. 9195 words, 16 pp.)


A year ends, and a new year begins, and a new Congress...


Is the glass 90% empty or 10% full, and does it really matter?

What is...

The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections,

or, that is,...

A strategy for national consensus at last & a possible total traditional values victory

Where things stand forever... It may all hang on this Congress?


The elections for the House of Representatives in 2010 were an unprecedented statement and mandate from the people after the 2008 debacle, and it is time to stop tinkering around the edges as the 1994 Congress did in, say, merely trying to fix healthcare or banking reform. We need to start the process of restructuring government itself based on the right two questions. The 2010 elections should be seen as nothing short of a complete repudiation of the unworkable and corrupt race-based, gender-based Radicalism even at times socialism of this Administration, and of the unworkable, impractical Liberal entitlement Welfare State of nutty "positives rights" going all the way back to FDR where one is supposedly entitled to anything one needs or even wants from the government, basically for free (or as free as necessary in order to get what one wants by supposed "entitlement" or, that is, "right," no less).



The bigger question: What went wrong, and why, and how do we fix it?

The task before the House for the next two years is not simply possible investigations into questionable Constitutional practices of endless so-called "czars" (maybe they are merely staff administrators?) or un-read 2000 page midnight bills, or whatever, but rather to ask the question of "what went wrong" in the bigger picture with American government, "and why" (not just in the past 2 years, big time, but the last 50 to 60 years), "and how do we fix it"?

The Left is not really interested in these questions, of course, and they may not even want to participate seriously in any discussion of the matter, but in fact these questions are why the Tea Party men and women have been sent to the House, and it is what the vast majority of the American people want, that is, to get to the bottom of this mess and propose practical, Reasonable, workable, fair solutions that can be voted on up or down in 2012 or 2016 or whenever the time is appropriate. It is time to give House Hearings a whole new meaning, Iíd say. And ultimately after the 2008 Congress review and rewrite nothing is off the table? Or, the new House members utterly betray their voters?


Still, letís keep the discourse civil, please! Whether this is 1776 or 1861, or not!

I am convinced that no matter how nutty the Left gets (and they can get pretty nutty from FDR to Barack Obama, and pretty much everything in between) we need to maintain civil discourse, and with time we can work through our differences and develop a national consensus and strategy for the future that all can agree upon except the most hardened and committed Liberals and Radicals, who are today often in positions of great power and influence but still ultimately very small in actual numbers nonetheless.

Rationality, practicality, common sense, and basic morality will prevail over time when faulty ideological agendas are exposed for what they are whether of the Liberal to Radical (statist, all government) Left or even the Libertarian (no government) Radical Right.

And as we said when we started this now 5 part series on the election of 2010, that election was either a mere blip on the screen in Americaís 60 year downward spiral into statism, or it was possibly something unprecedented in American and even world history, and as potentially important to American and world history as 1776 and 1861. This may be the beginning of the end for the American Leviathan Welfare State (where one is supposed "entitled" to anything one needs or even wants) as well as the end of newly emerging outright un-Constitutional race-based, gender-based, socialist state with an absolute executive branch leader, if not monarch.


Liberalism and Radicalism may soon be "gone with the wind"? How sad?

What does this mean? The days of the seemingly all-powerful Liberal ruling elite minority may be as over as the days of the antebellum plantation owner of the Old South, all about to be "gone with the wind," as the expression goes. But gone for what? The citizen legislature as stipulated by the Constitution and envisioned by the Founders, no less, and generally something held dear by most Americans for almost two centuries.

When FDR had a vision in 1945 that the Federal Government could meet everyoneís wants and needs and solve every national problem real or perceived it sounded so noble and brilliant. We had all but won World War II, and we could do anything we put our minds to with the right people in charge, etc., etc. I think Roosevelt saw himself as fixing the failures of a laissez faire, unrestricted or unregulated capitalism, but in truth such a task of wise legislation was a bit more complicated and much less self-evident than he and his colleagues thought? (But substantively fixing laissez faire or unregulated capitalism is well beyond the scope of these Revolution essays.)


It started slowly and often with the best of intentions...

As best I can tell we started down the Liberal primrose path somewhat slowly and often with the best of intentions by creating all sorts of new government agencies and programs to solve all our "problems," that is, both personal as well as collective or corporate problems, and when the programs were not as successful as we had hoped they would be, they clearly (it seemed) had to be expanded and often dramatically so. And, hence, we had "the good intentions" that led to the total mess if not outright "hell" of where we are now in law, education, government, politics, the economy, religion, and so forth.

And, of course, we even had newly found or discovered problems to be solved with more government on top of the failure of old programs to be solved, and all our problems real and perceived meant we had to have a constant new array of programs and agencies to fill in the gaps that had been left by the old programs, etc., and after 40 or 50 or 60 years of this we were said to have a maze of overlapping, often ineffective agencies and programs creating an almost unimaginable bloated bureaucracy, with seemingly few if any people set up to regulate the regulators, who were, in fact, originally supposed to have limited authority and real accountability. One reputable source I read recently claims we have over "eighty" welfare Federal agencies to combat poverty, alone. Certainly that was a misprint of "eight"? Fixing this mess will not be easy?


This is quite possibly a moment of unprecedented historical importance

And to this ends of an eventual Complete Re-do on the past 50 to 60 years, we will probably need in my opinion endless leg-work and fact-finding, presumably to be done in official House hearings or in research groups burning the midnight oil in order to make practical and desirable suggestions on completely restructuring things in 2012 or 2016 or 2020 etc. This goes way beyond campaign rhetoric and is much more complicated than a "tax cut and deregulate" mantra. The boiling pot with the hapless frog needs the heat of Liberalism and Radicalism turned off immediately and to be cooled down quickly, in a Revolutionary way to save the frog, because we are not, it seems, going to have a slow evolutionary process over the next 50 or 60 years to fix things.

Clearly the Establishment is not going to welcome the new House of 2010 with open arms, and Democrats will wait for 2010 to blow over in order to recapture the House and re-elect Obama in 2012, at which time they can finish the final Radical Leftist makeover of America that Obama says he seeks driven by his crazy, irrational, destructive, Radical demons. In the next few years, presumably, one side is going to succeed in either re-establishing America on its founding political principles on the one hand, or on the other in re-making America into the brave new world of Jeremiah Wright and Saul Alinsky. Presumably it will be one or the other? This is not a difficult decision for me personally, but it is for many, and we have to respect that fact.

This is quite possibly a moment of unprecedented historical importance, actually never seen before in America or the entire history of mankind on earth and quite possibly never to be seen again? Look, we are in fact in uncharted waters. It is the Left that thinks it knows everything and has all the answers with their idiotic utopian and totalitarian ideas. We traditional values Americans are said to be at least 55 to 60% of Americans, as best I can tell, and maybe as high as 80 to 90%, depending on the poll, but we should not make the same know-it-all mistakes that the Liberal to Radical Left did over the past 50 to 60 years?


Wisdom for the truly desirable state can only come from God?

Look, Levin writes a Conservative Manifesto, Hannity writes on points of a Conservative Victory, and Gross on the current Government Insanity, and all tend to make good points as do numerous others, but what are we actually, specifically going to do in legislating if the hour should come where we can re-establish the nation on a solid, just, workable, Rational foundation for the good of all for generations to come is a bit more tricky in my opinion. Some specifics have actually been bantered about for years, of course, as, say, loser pays in tort reform or whatever, but are such things truly for the best?

And the larger questions of the general "size and scope" of "limited government" and its proper "role and function" in American life etc. are constantly debated by conservatives, but specifically what is this going to come down to? It is one thing to have the "will" for such a thing (for a truly just or moral, practical, Rational, workable Republic), it is another thing altogether to have the "wisdom" for such a thing. Such wisdom in my opinion can only come from God, and may we pray that He gives it to us in the next few years.

Further, conservatives are themselves not immune from the law of unintended consequences, something that has demolished the Left over the last 50 to 60 years, big time. Further as Edmund Burke pointed out years ago after the French Revolution, many things and institutions evolve in a society over time, which actually serve very good purposes, which are not appreciated until those institutions and ways of doing things are abolished.


Avoid the folly and hubris of the Left at all costs?

And in all of this we must never forget the Left (whether the not-Rational, even anti-Rational utopian Liberals or the outright totalitarian Radicals) actually thinks they are having brilliant insights on everything from God (denying Him or re-defining Him) to morality (it doesnít really exist) to law and real rights (it is whatever the judge says) to education (faulty ideological indoctrination) to government (knows all, does all), and such cracked pots should be treated as you would wish to be treated if you yourself had lost your mind. Most people are in good faith I think. Liberals say a lot of irrational (not-Rational) and even stupid things given their tragic mental and spiritual condition and confusion, but they are generally doing the best they can, and should be treated respectfully accordingly.

If Jimmy Carter or John Danforth writes a book on why a Liberal entitlement utopian Welfare State will solve all our political, legal, and education problems, they are sincere, bless their hearts. Or on why Christianity should be reduced to a mere spirit of compassion or unity, tolerance and oneness, they mean that as well, a nutty idea no doubt, but they are sincere. In short, the Liberal tends to be sincerely misguided and irrational (not-Rational, even anti-Rational) but their supposed higher vision of "compassion" or whatever overrides all else for them, and this supposed higher vision is for them not held by ordinary mere mortals or citizens, and hence it would seem they almost inevitably fall into an elitist mindset, which conservatives and traditional values people should never do, if at all possible.


The Radical is a clear step beyond the Liberal?

By contrast to the Liberal, the Radical is often not so much misguided but lies, outright, but still not from his perspective. It is a standard part of the Radicalís self-stated position that he actually cannot lie. Why? "Truth" is whatever serves the Radicalís attainment of power or his totalitarian State. That is why in 1984, the novel, as well as in the actual Soviet Union, "history" and "facts" were constantly being re-written. Truth can be a very slippery thing?

This is, of course, all highly postmodern, where there is no real truth or facts or history or story etc., at all, only endlessly changing opinions. And this is pretty much why the two leading humanist philosophers of the past 60 years Sartre and Rorty were definitive of postmodernism as well as leading proponents of the totalitarian Communist state, which was not to speak the "truth" (since it does not exist) but rather indoctrinate students and the populace into totalitarian "state as God" propaganda, etc. as supposed "truth," etc.

Quite simply as we have seen over and over, you lose your ability (and generally even desire) to think Rationally when you buy into spiritual or theological Liberalism or outright Radical atheism, and this translates into faulty (irrational, unworkable, amoral) ideologies and agendas that you think are "brilliantí but just happen to be self-serving. How convenient? Somebodyís fingerprints, not of this world, are all over Liberalism and Radicalism in both government and religion? I wonder whose?


Thinking clearly and getting to the bottom of things with Tea Party Patriots

In any case, we must be realists about this Revolutionary change; if we have Tea Party "what went wrong and why hearings and how to fix it," (spiritual and political) Liberals as well as outright (atheist) Radicals probably will not be able to participate too well in such discussions even if they want to, which generally they donít, because they have lost their ability to think rationally given their irrational ideological commitment (to Liberalism and Radicalism), but to be fair, they may have some good things to say or contribute on occasion.

However, as Paul says correctly in Romans 1 & 2 once you abandon a traditional notion of God, you tend to lose your ability to think Rationally about morality, good, truth, right, law, etc., even though you think you are getting smarter and smarter the more irrational and even depraved you become. It is all very tragic really, but very relevant for the new incoming House because it is widely reported that there are still many irrational, confused, and at times downright nutty Liberals and Radicals in all 3 branches of the Federal government, though thankfully, by the grace of God, such people do not any longer control the House of Representatives.

Still, in my opinion the conservative should never forget that love and compassion are two of the highest virtues anyone can have, especially any Christian, and such virtues should be factored into the good society and any theory of the state because as the Founders held the Congress is indeed to make wise laws for the General Welfare of the society, and I personally have known more than a few conservatives who were completely oblivious to this Constitutional fact and general purpose of good legislation.


The Liberal is often right ....

The Liberal is often right on the General Welfare clause in the Constitution, in my opinion. It does indeed allow for great latitude in making laws for the good of the country and regulation of society. However, in truth, most Liberal ideas are just bad, foolish, misguided ideas, and they will not and cannot work, and they can lead to the complete destruction of the society such as potentially free homes for everybody did, let alone free lunches, and candy bars, healthcare, and education etc., as "entitlements" (The homes, large and small, were not "free," of course, but virtually given to people who could never hope to pay for them.)

Also Liberals do not identify real, specific problems with real, specific solutions. The politically correct Liberal I think almost seeks general social problems that not only government should not be involved with but it cannot solve if it wanted to, no matter how much money you throw into it. For example, I am all for a "Great Society" but identifying it with a "War on Poverty" was setting yourself up for almost inevitable failure and massively expensive, ever increasingly expensive failure. Just conceptually speaking how do you "fight" a thing called "poverty," with hand-out programs, which may have some good, no doubt, but as a general fact will not end poverty generally, and may even increase it in some cases? A "war on poverty," specifically, might better be done by teaching self-reliance? Just a thought.


But the General Welfare Clause does have real limits, regardless

By contrast to possible programs to "fight poverty" or do possible hand-out "entitlements," Obamacare cannot be under the umbrella of the General Welfare clause because it is overtly un-Constitutional in forcing people to buy private insurance policies. The point here is actually very important. The place to draw the line in the sand is usually not does something pass muster on General Welfare clause, but is it a really a stupid or foolish idea, when it is actually Constitutional? Why?

The foolish, but well-intentioned Liberal thinks that clearing the test of the General Welfare clause means whatever he does after that has to be "good," whether it is actually a foolish or stupid idea or not, practically speaking! Why? Because for the Liberal if he is supposedly doing something for the General Welfare or even some given group, it must of necessity be "good" because it passes the central wrong question of Liberalism, namely, "Is something compassionate?" or implementing FDRís "Second Bill of Rights" and not the right two questions of the conservative, namely, "Will this work and should be government be doing this thing or even attempting to, etc.?" (In essence FDR fell into the all government/ no government sinkhole though it would take 65 years to play itself out to its tragic ends in 2008.)


Not a wish list but actual Rational proposals

Of course, we cannot at this time, but if we could do anything we want with the entire Federal government for the good of the country as a whole (and not simply some given group) based on the right Rational questions, what would it be? (That is, proposing a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, and these are the Reasons why.)

The truth is if we can put together an actual wise set of actual procedures if not policies and programs based on what the government can and should do, we might get 80 to 90% of the vote because the vast majority of the American people actually want practical solutions to Americaís problems and not the constant ideological bickering and power plays of interest groups on the collectivist (all-government) far Left and the individualist (no-government) Libertarian far Right.

If you really think about it, really the only people who have a true ax to grind for the now obvious to everyone failed Liberal entitlement Welfare State are the probably the 1% or so of the people who actually made it, the so-called "ruling elite" of academia, government, and the Liberal media, etc. It is their "baby" but now a 50 or 60 year old dysfunctional grown up, and of course there are the children of that "baby" maybe 10 to 20% of the population (who must be weaned now)?


To be clear in thinking about this, what is an entitlement?

To be clear in thinking about this idea of a new Rational-argument based government, what is an "entitlement" as defined by the Liberal and then Radical after FDR? An "entitlement" is not anything one gets from the government, as say Social Security. An entitlement is anything you get from the government that you have not paid for and supposedly have coming to you by virtue of being alive or being a citizen or even being on American soil these days says the Left (and even the United States Supreme Court?).

Hence, Food Stamps (now SNAP) may be a good idea, but it is not an "entitlement," but we think of them as "entitlements" because of FDRís nonsense, similarly, all you can eat "free candy bars" or "free lunches" may or may not be a good idea but should not be thought of "entitlements". Indeed, the very concept of "entitlement" needs to go altogether? Why? Strictly speaking, there are no "entitlements" from the state?

Again, by contrast, Social Security is generally not a so-called "entitlement." It is essentially a government mandated and run retirement program to have money available for seniors who did not save for themselves at their level of income, supplemented by matching employer "contributions." Hence, this is not an "entitlement." The government owes it back to you, at least the half you paid for, even though news reports say the politicians have (virtually) criminally squandered much of the money on their pet projects for years?

Is Social Security a good idea? Maybe, maybe not, but it is not an "entitlement"! Anything you have paid for is not an entitlement or so-called "positive right." A "positive right" or so-called "entitlement" is anything "the government" supposedly "owes" you (a job, housing, food, clothing, education, vacation, medical care, etc.) just by virtue of your being alive. This is a nutty unworkable, irrational, utopian, demagogic idea, and once you start down that path in theory and practice as we did after FDR only disaster will eventually follow as we saw in the 2008 crash (and in the overtly foolish policies that led up to it).


So, good, Rational theory meets actuality right here on earth!

This is where conservative theoretical talk actually meets real law making. Conservatives frequently speak of "limited government" and even reducing "the size and scope" of government, and correctly so in my opinion, but in truth we must first determine what the "role and function" of government or the state is in a good society, and this is pretty much a philosophical as well as practical exercise and beyond the scope of these particular Revolution essays, such as they are. Still, having said that we need to start thinking in a whole new way about government from this day forward?

Government does not exist to fulfill your every want and need and to control every aspect of your life, and these are the utterly ridiculous and even outrageous ideas and even assumptions of the Liberal and Radical that have, praise God, run their course in all history! I can hardly believe it myself, but this does seem to be the main message of the 2010 elections? (Government is simply trying to do too much, and irresponsibly as well as foolishly so at that? And it is often wrongly thought there is a government solution to every problem, etc., etc.)

This means in the future every politician will run for office based on the question of who can best implement a traditional values agenda, and not which candidate, if any, holds to a traditional values agenda as opposed to a Liberal or Radical one as today. And when one comes up with a new program or a new law, one must also come up with good reasons for it, and not simply is it ideologically or politically correct or benefiting some interest groupís unreasonable, illegitimate or supposed "entitlement" ends. Is this complicated? I do not think so.


99% of the American people may eventually get on board?

So, we must develop a practical, workable concept of good government and actual implementation because in the end a falling tide lowers all boats as we have seen in the last few years, and even the possibly recalcitrant 10 to 20% of the population (children of Leviathan) will have as much to lose as everyone else in the long run if we do not make dramatic changes now based on the right questions of what can and should the government be doing, and is it good for the nation as a whole or is it a reasonable request by a given group, and will it work, etc.?

And anyone who is not on board for those type questions, in my mind is frankly un-American, though the ruling 1% Liberal to Radical elite (in education, law, government, religion, etc.) will presumably never be on board for asking the right Rational questions. That is, "King George" and his "court" will never get on board for the Declaration based on Right Reason nor anything else that threatens their ruling elite status and authority? The truth is however the reign of Christ on earth is really no more than the reign of Logos Rationality for 1000 years. Small fact? And such a Rational state (that is, practical and moral one) is entirely possible in a Christian society with or without 1 or 2% holdouts or even 5 or 10% holdouts. Though what such a Rational government will ultimately entail specifically, which will follow the slain un-Reasonable, unworkable, utopian and even at times totalitarian Leviathan, who is to say at this time...


So, is this it... this is "the end of the age"? So, it would seem...

So, this is it? This is "the end" of the age? Clearly? How did we get here? We have had for more than 3000 years evolving theories of government on earth based on the underlying religion of the people. Terrible religions create terrible governments, as we saw for example in World War II. Imperial Japan and Nazis Germany had clearly, literally, demonic religions, and these created the axis powers of two evil empires, clearly. Hence, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were clearly spiritually deceived and then had nutty and certainly non-Rational theories of government. Or the Soviet Union was based on atheism, which then created the atheist totalitarian state, as "God,' no less.. In short, atheism is just yet another foolish darkness of religion (more than deception of religion as Liberalism) which creates a very faulty political "ideology." Not complicated, and inevitable with no higher law, is it not?

However, the fact is the Liberal (Protestant, Catholic or Jewish person) though well-intentioned and certainly not as evil (as the above examples) is no less spiritually deceived by demons because Liberalism has well-intentioned but nutty and irrational and unworkable and even self-serving theories of government based upon faulty, demonic, spiritual deception of Liberal Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, which think they are doing fine but which Christ will spew out of his mouth when he returns, etc. By contrast, the Radical or atheist has no God generally, and he is obviously spiritually deceived in outright darkness and is irrational and foolish and has generally not even well-intentioned theories with his outright totalitarian state as "God," controlling everything everyone says or does. (This is the final beast state in Revelation of course, which even does in false religion.)

But, regardless, the theological Liberal (whether Protestant or Catholic) has another Gospel and another false, demonic, amoral Jesus and even another God the Father as does Reform Judaism, with no real Sinai nor real, literal covenants with Abraham, etc. And as Protestants, Catholics and Jews (in demonic religious deception) went Liberal theologically, they then went Liberal politically into the amoral, non-Rational, utopian Welfare State to supply everyoneís needs and wants in "love" and "compassion," etc. Not complicated, really? And here we are?


Liberal Protestantism is not Bible Christianity...

Liberal Protestantism is not Bible Christianity, nor is it seeking to be, nor claiming to be, (indeed that is its whole point), and Vatican II Catholicism is not only not Bible Christianity, it is not even historical Roman Catholicism, clearly, which was also not Bible Christianity, nor seeking to be, nor claiming to be. And Reform Judaism may or may not be a fine thing, but it is neither historical nor Biblical Judaism, nor is it seeking to be, nor claiming to be. And who has ever heard of a theological Liberal (whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) who is also a conservative or traditional values person politically? Nobody because such people do not exist, generally speaking?

And neither does a traditional Bible theist generally buy into the irrational, utopian Liberal entitlement Welfare State. It just does not happen to speak of? Why? Bad religion, generally does not and cannot mix with good government (kind of an oil and water situation?), and even vice versa? Good religion and theories of God, morality, truth, good, right, etc. generally do not and cannot generate bad theories of government? And when we all lose our ability to think Rationally as a group, we enter into often not only irrational but often surreal (so-called "politically correct") discussions which we have increasingly witnessed in law, politics, education, government, and even religion since the 1960s, at least. (For example, supposedly, the only people fit to serve on the Supreme Court are those who do not respect the Constitution? Go figure? Absurd, surreal, or what?)


On "religion" and "government" more generally...

But this clear connection between (good and bad) religion and (good and bad) government is seen not just with Liberalism and the World War II disasters (of Japan and Germany) as well as the outright atheism of the old Soviet Union, but throughout the history of the West. In the Roman Empire the emperorís word was law, and in the West we had virtual absolute monarchs as well as an absolute Church. Of course, in theory if not in practice the absolute monarch of the Middle Ages was under God and/ or the Church, and hence not technically absolute as the Old Testament king was not or at least he was not supposed to be, but rather under the Old Testament Law, and hence God.

In any case, after the Reformation, we tended to dispense with both the practical (if not always technical) absolute monarch whose word was law as well as the absolute Church over us to get us to God and whose word was supposedly Law and equal to Scripture. With the Reformation we moved into the book of the Revelation process of becoming both "kings" (and queens) as well as "priests." Priests in direct access to God in Christian salvation, and kings in representative government and specifically as Bible Christians in government based on Reason, or "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God." I would say implicitly so in Great Britain, and overtly so with the United States of America in 1776. And so here we are, or at least were until we increasingly threw this out from the late 19th century onward (to tie these 5 essays together).


Each decade throughout the 20th century...

Here we are.... Each decade throughout the 20th century Bible Christians as well as Roman Catholics (and Judaism) went more and more theologically Liberal, with each passing decade being worse than the one that preceded it, and law went increasingly legal positivistic having bailed out explicitly on the so-called "higher law" or, that is, "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God." And as the churches (and synagogues) increasingly bailed out on the God of the Bible, the state of course became more and more an irrational, impractical, amoral, utopian, Liberal Welfare State, that slid into an actual Radicalism of Alinsky in 2008 to solve the crisis of the crash.

And in the society more generally each passing decade in the 20th century saw greater and greater moral cultural decline, and worldliness, since there was supposedly no morality nor afterlife to be concerned about, and, hence, we had the sexual revolution, homosexuality, abortion, unimaginable but more than that unprecedented corruption on Wall Street and in corporate America, and of course with all of this we had intellectual decline in education that would have been unimaginable just a few generations ago, and as education and law got worse and worse with each passing decade we went outright into a closed-minded, politically correct, postmodernism and political Radicalism, until we hit rock bottom in all areas in 2008, and of course in the two unreal, even surreal years that followed, ending abruptly in the 2010 elections.

Can we put religion, the country, the culture, law, education, and even government back together Rationally and morally speaking? Maybe, maybe not. But the name of the game as well as the cause of all our problems, is now clear to virtually everyone in good faith or not blindly following a Liberal to Radical agenda in both religion and politics, is it not?


There may a terrible Judgment of God, but we should persevere regardless...

It is my personal opinion that the horrendous Judgment of God is probably about to fall upon us for our many, many sins and for 10s of millions of aborted babies. It is entirely possible God is going to want "pay back" for those lost lives, if they are indeed human lives, as most conservatives claim.  I, as Jefferson, fear for the nation and Godís Judgment, as he did when he looked at the institution of slavery in his day, and our situation today would appear to be far worse? And we know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah for its homosexuality as well as for its "pride, fullness of food and abundance of idleness" and for its not "strengthening the hand of the poor and needy," and they were "haughty" in all their sin, all of which are more or less plain old-fashioned carnally-minded worldliness of the lost man and of Romans 1 & 2 and Second Timothy 3?

However, if the horrendous Judgment of God does come, we should not let that break our focus on good, Rational, practical, wise, moral government, and in fact, if you think about it, an horrendous Judgment of God may actually catapult the whole process of good, Rational, practical, wise, moral government forward by re-establishing traditional notions of God and righteousness and repentance in religion, the loss of which has caused almost all of our ever increasing problems over the last 100 plus years in all areas of life and society, and not just in government. So, again, allís well that ends well, even with a possibly pending Great Tribulation...

Bottom-line? Liberal religion is an actual, literal demonic deception (whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) and you have to be not only irrational but spiritually blind as a post not to be able to see it, but here we are? Still, millions of Americans simply cannot see it, or so they say? But, millions more Americans can see it, so the end of the age is in sight? Why? We now know what we are shooting for: Good, Rational, moral, practical government where we will all be kings and queens, and even born-again, Spirit-filled priests! Cool, no?



The end is near, or is it in fact this beginning that will be talked about for... forever...

What is really going on here with the 2008 Congress and the 2010 Congress? When Liberal entitlement Welfare State came crashing down in 2008 the question became do we go further Left into Radicalism to solve our problems of the failed Liberal entitlement Welfare State where the state supposedly owes you anything and everything you need or want, or do we not? We as a nation chose to do the first in 2008, but now after the obvious Big Radical Screw-up of Obama and the 2008 Congress, we as a nation repudiated Radicalism in 2010. Now the question is do we go back and ask where and why things went so wrong with a very well-intentioned but ultimately misguided and irrational Liberalism after FDR?

We need to rediscover our roots and sense of purpose as a nation in our founding principles. You might say by the grace of God, a Big Radical Screw-up is a terrible thing to waste (for the literal Kingdom of God come on earth), and we cannot and should not for the good of our nation now and for generations to come miss this opportunity to restore our nation and set ourselves on a new course for many years to come. Indeed, if we do this well and right, this nation and the nations of the world for centuries into the future could see this, quite possibly, as the turn around moment, quite literally, in actual political reality for mankind on earth. And, in my opinion, this would be no small accomplishment for the United States House of Representatives elected in 2010. No small accomplishment at all.


The meaning of the 2010 elections, and what I personally missed in all of this...

What I personally missed in all of this is how this could all actually work out, literally, in all history, that is, until well after the 2010 elections. I have thought and taught for many years that both the reign of Christ in Revelation and the Messianic Era in Isaiah were one and the same, and they were nothing more than the reign of a literal divine Logos Rationality of Heraclitus and Justin Martyr. Few if any believing Christians nor Jews hold to this view of course. Believing Christians are waiting for Jesus to come back in the clouds (and knock people over the head with a rod of iron, etc.) and believing Jews specifically are simply looking for a new King David military hero. I think both views are wrong, and showing this is no big deal, but that, in fact, is not the hard part in understanding all history.

For at least 20 years Iíd say I have seen the reign of the Logos is the reign of the Christian Christ or of the Jewish Messiah. Again, no big deal. But it was not until the 2008 elections followed by the 2010 elections that I personally was able to answer the question of how do we get there, to the Kingdom Era, from here, where we are clearly not in the Kingdom Era at this time?

This transition (from here to there) seemed impossible to me in practice and almost even in theory. However, by the grace and Sovereignty of God, and with the clear failure of irrational, unworkable, amoral Liberalism and Radicalism in both religion and government, God Himself has made Rationality the issue today in all history both for all religion and for all government. I had no power to make Logos Reason the issue, and neither did you, if you are reading this. I wanted the Logos to be the issue for both religion and government (as Justin Martyr did), but I had no power to make it so, but God did and He did. That is the true significance of the 2010 elections.


The backlash was what?

The backlash was what? "Obama and the 2008 Congress (driven or deceived by their irrational, amoral demons) were outrageous, corrupt, irrational, unworkable, amoral, and just plain nutty or screwy," though the Liberals and Radicals could not see it, but now virtually everybody can, and hence the end of the age is clearly at hand, or at least quite conceivably or practically, but it only happened because God allowed both Liberalism and Radicalism to run their course or, that is, play themselves out to their end, to their absurd, unjust, un-Constitutional and even at times outright totalitarian end or conclusion. There is a message here!

"All things work together for good for those who love God for those called according to His purpose..." And this is true not just for us as individuals as we usually think of it, but for all mankind on earth for all history. And, so here we are on the brink of the Kingdom Era, potentially. Who would have thought it just a few weeks ago?

I think this playing out of the failure of both religious and political Liberalism and Radicalism is actually Godís MO. He allowed the triumph of the old Soviet Union to happen in order to show the failure and undesirability of the Marxist totalitarian state, obvious now to all but Leftist American intellectuals, as many have pointed out. And God allowed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to succeed to show the reality of true spiritual darkness and evil, and so on, and so forth.



The Kingdom come on earth? Not yet, but we can now see it clearly from here...

When all the nations of earth, and not just potentially America in our lifetimes, are founded on the right 2 questions, that will be the reign of Logos Rationality over all the nations, and "the kingdoms of this world will have (indeed) become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ," and Satan will no longer "deceive the nations" of this world with mere tyranny or ideological nonsense such as Liberalism and Radicalism, nor more importantly with false religions in spirit and truth, whether corrupted Christianity or corrupted Judaism or outright false religions. So, this means we are so close to setting up the actual Kingdom of God on earth that it can hardly be put into words and to binding Satan for a thousand years to "deceive the nations no more," by his using false religions to generate bad, unworkable, undesirable false political ideologies.

And just a few short weeks ago, who would have even imagined these two things of Rational religion and government as actual realities on earth, quite possibly in our lifetimes, but certainly in the next 50 to 100 years almost inevitably, if not much, much sooner, one must assume it would seem, all by the Sovereign grace of God. Bible Christians (and all the world eventually?) are all going to be kings and queens, as well as priests, just as the Bible and Revelation say! And the original promise made to Abraham to be the father of many just and righteous nations is fulfilled! Definitely pretty cool, Iíd say.

Who would have thunk it? Just a few short weeks ago, who would have thunk it? Not me. Not even the kid saw this one coming, believe it or not, but the "day and hour," no one knew, no one, Jesus said, no one but the Father. But it sure as hell looks like "the day" and "hour" are here upon us now, does it not? Or at least "the day"! We may have to wait a little longer for "the hour"? And now we all know it, though nobody did just a few weeks ago? I am not sure anyone completely understands the Father, not even the Son. Origen was right, yet again? People say this was the only real mistake Origen ever made. I donít think it was any real mistake at all.


When will the Kingdom come on earth, and how will we know?

However, the Kingdom Era is clearly not here, yet, of course, but again we can now see it from here. It will come presumably this generation or the next or in 3 or 4 generations from now, does it matter? Wesley thought he could see it from the late 18th century, but he was wrong. He did not factor in the Liberal demise of mainline Protestantism nor the rise of a militant foolish atheism, both of which Spurgeon warned about and wrote on in the 19th century, and which happened in the 20th century, big time.

Still with the re-establishment of Bible Christianity and its spread worldwide as the one true religion, Rationally speaking, and with Rational government based on wise thinking (morally and practically), the literal Kingdom Era will be here both in religion where "each knows the Lord from the least to the greatest" and "knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as waters cover the sea" and in government where the nations or "kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ" as Rational, Logos-based government. And, in fact, the whole process may in fact be speeded up not slowed down by a Great Tribulation and even World War II type physical battle against outright evil empires should they decide to try to conquer the whole world by force yet again.

So, what do we do now? I guess "sit at the Fatherís right hand until He makes our enemies our footstool."  That "enemy" would be specifically a literal Satan and his hordes, would it not be? And when is the literal Kingdom time come on earth, and how will we know? The answer is we will know when Satan is bound because people will stop believing utter irrational nonsense (such as Liberalism and Radicalism) in both religion and in politics, law, education, and government. Not really very complicated, when you get right down to it?



"So, youíve done it. The Kingdom come on earth!"

"So, youíve done it. The Kingdom come on earth!"

Maybe, it is not "done" yet, of course, but only a matter of time I would think. But, in truth, I have not actually done a whole lot. I have just put the pieces together into a larger picture of all history, and once you see it, it makes complete sense, but until you see it, you do not see it. In truth, I got almost all my ideas from other people. It was C. S. Lewis in Screwtape Proposes a Toast, that really got me to thinking about all of this. That is where he connects up truly bad political theory being energized if not inspired by demons, and not simply self-advantage which can be simply of the flesh, obviously.

And Lewis spent as I recall probably half of Mere Christianity talking about politics, but in that case he did not connect Christianity in the realm of the spirit (and being born again with a new heart to God and with the indwelling Person and Wisdom of the Spirit) to politics as such, only to the moral, which of course Aristotle, Socrates, and Cicero had done. So Lewis did not really add a Kingdom dimension to his political theory in Mere Christianity, in my opinion, but he did connect politics and government somewhat to the realm of the spirit, and hence to a literal demonic deception and darkness, and he did this outright for the individual but not the state in The Screwtape Letters, that is, until he did demonic deception in political theory to a degree in Screwtape Proposes a Toast. And it was after that the pieces began to fall into place for me fairly quickly.


How the pieces fell together...

"So, how did the rest of the pieces fall together for you?"

Well, clearly the Nazis were energized by demons, if anybody ever was! That was not complicated. Further, the Nazis were actually into the occult, a generally unknown fact, which is overtly demonic. But the Nazis and the old Soviet Union are easy to hook up to a possible literal Satan because they are so obviously evil and a darkness, but in fact it is not at all immediately obvious how the Nazis and old Soviet Union relate to (a possible demonic deception of) Liberalism, to say the least. It was time to get out the old trusty Bible!

In fact, the Bible calls both false Judaism and false Christianity demonic, but more demonic deceptions, than embracing demonic evil and darkness outright. And then after that I found FDRís well-intentioned but totally utopian, down right nutty Second Bill of Rights, which he said were not only true but self-evident to him. But those supposed "rights" or "entitlements" are not true nor are they self-evident, unless you are spiritually deceived (in spirit), not simply mentally deficient (in truth).

And, of course, Carter and Danforth (following the gift from God, outrageous Fosdick) take their new re-defined, non-Gospel Christianity of amoral, irrational, unity, tolerance, oneness, and compassion, and say themselves that if we apply it to law, education and government, it will solve all our problems! And that was the icing on the cake for me. And of course the New Testament calls this other Jesus and other Gospel, a literal demonic deception and "doctrines of demons," as well, and of course this religious, spiritual deception then produces a political ideology deception or at least highly undesirable and unworkable, amoral political theory that you think is "brilliant," etc.


Other major pieces...

Other major pieces... The Radical Alinsky (Obamaís mentor along with the self-proclaimed black liberation theology (racial Marxist) Jeremiah Wright) actually identifies his Radicalism, himself, with following Lucifer, no less. What a kicker that was! Saved me a lot of time and work, just as Carter and Danforth had done for me with their spiritual and political "Christian" Liberalism. (Spiritually deceived, Liberal Fosdick, Carter's and Danforth's predecessor, had not had a self-proclaimed faulty political dimension, to my knowledge.)

And, in law... Though he actually argues against Judicial Review, incorrectly in my opinion, Robert Borkís The Tempting of America was crucial in my understanding of our current jurisprudence mess and how it relates to Liberalism both religiously and politically and now legally. Clearly neither Christianity nor the moral law can "live" to mean virtually anything you want, as the Liberal holds. Truly ridiculous, as Cicero says. It was William Blackstone, who argues for both the Special Revelation of the Bible as well as the Natural Revelation of Cicero, and how they interface. This had a profound impact on me

And in education, as such, Allan Bloomís The Closing of the American Mind was not only educational but entertaining! And he opened the question of what do we teach if not politically correct superficial nonsense, a question for which he had no answer, and I decided to provide one, and hence the video series on the history of philosophy was born, more or less anyway, and so on, to the present day.

The point is clear: little of my analysis is original, and in the end everything hinges on the truth and spiritual reality of the Gospel and of the Christian cosmology (from the Creation to the Final Judgment) proven by Christís bodily Resurrection, as Paul says correctly on Marsí Hill.  In this regard Jesus did all the work, did he not, dying on the Cross for us. Christians like me today just sit around and literally defeat an actual Satanic force (of darkness and deception) by typing on a keyboard, anybody can to that with two fingers, no less, or even one, if you had to.


All good things come from the Father, do they not?

In truth, everything for mankind on earth all ultimately hinges on the truth and reality of the Gospel, of course, that is where the real issue ultimately is, and in reality the real spiritual power and spiritual insight, as well. As Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the (spiritual) power of God unto salvation (for everyone who believes)," and Jesus says the Gospel turns us from darkness to light, that is, from misunderstanding to understanding and even, eventually, to "all Truth" by the indwelling holy Spirit.

And, further, Jesus is said to rule 1000 years not with Libertarian no-government license but with a "rod of iron" no less, meaning under the rule of Just law, clearly, and we as the saints share his throne and defeat the totalitarian absolute "state as God" beast, and then set up the Kingdom where Satan deceives the nations no more with faulty, highly undesirable political ideologies, generated out of faulty spiritual and religious deception and darkness.

And it is Augustine who speaks of the City of Man, not as demonic deception, so much as a mere balance of human interests at best, which he says is a justice of sorts, no doubt, but not really the true thing of God, but more a bargain among thieves, I think you could say. And we certainly want more than that out of life and government, do we not? We want the City of God, in spirit and in truth, in religion and in government, and indeed all areas of life, no? It should be very obvious that I have little or nothing original to say, though I do have a certain gift from God to put all the pieces together, I must say, but that too is not really of me but "a gift" because all good things come from the Father, do they not?


"Still, youíve done it..."

"Still, youíve done it. Youíve broken the back of Satanís false religious-doctrinal and political-ideological hold over the nations..."

So, it would seem, for what it is worth...

"So, what are you going to do now?"

Make more history of philosophy videos, I suppose. I really enjoy doing those, and maybe write a few more philosophical essays. After that I donít know, maybe even settle down if I can find anybody who can put up with me. Iím very wrapped up in my work, and truth be told, I am not a very considerate person all in all, and I keep odd hours, and few women can deal with any of these things, understandably, I would say. And I am even thinking about writing a couple of books.

"About what?"

Philosophy, of course, same old, same old.


"But you have done a great service to mankind!"

"But you have done a great service to mankind!"


"Yes, donít you see when you bail out on God or traditional notions of God, you tend to develop really weird, irrational, unworkable, amoral political theories that you think are Ďbrilliant,í and that explains the last 50 to 60 years of American history, indeed in many ways the entire story of all falsely founded government throughout all history! And this is all somehow connected with a literal demonic deception and darkness. Indeed, when you reject the idea and reality of God (traditionally understood), you open yourself up to the lies of the Devil, or, that is to say, really stupid, foolish, irrational, amoral ideas that you think are Ďbrilliant,í though interestingly usually very self-serving whether as an (all government) Liberal and Radical or a (no government for good) Libertarian."

So, it would seem, but the real question is the actual truth and spiritual reality of the Gospel, or, that is, new spiritual life in Christ, is it not? And Iím not sure I have adequately addressed that question. So, all my work may be for naught?

"No! Everybody knows the Gospel is true!"

Do they really? Maybe, maybe not. It does not seem to me they do, but the actual political Kingdom Era is in sight, I would say, one way or another, by the Sovereignty and Grace of God our Father in heaven, hallowed be His name, His Kingdom come, His will be done on earth as it is in heaven... You see Ďthe Kingdom of Godí is actually Ďwherever the Spirit of God reignsí not really very complicated, when you get right down to it? And this is not just for the Church as Augustine clearly understood, but ultimately for all mankind on earth... in the now in sight Kingdom Era, or so it would seem... and this is the possible ultimate meaning of the 2010 elections... and this question is how this 5 part Revolution series started, and now ends.