Whistler 
Member since Aug 20, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Why did House Republicans refuse to vote on the Violence Against Women Act?

George Grant, Phyllis Schlafly, and Michele Bachmann are Christian Reconstructionists. Grant and Schlafly endorsed Michele Bachmannn in her run for the presidency. George Grant wrote: “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice…It is dominion we are after. World conquest.”

It looks to me like candidates who signed Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum PAC questionnaire, and/or those who signed her RNC Life PAC questionnaire - for 2010, 2012 or earlier elections - were to become the means to some of Christian Reconstructionists' ends - dominion in the US over civil structures, and every other aspect of life and "godliness."

Here was the plan, as stated by Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, the man who is now the Tea Party economist, and who is adjunct scholar at the Friedrich Von Mises Institute - of Austrian economics (founded by Ron Paul): "So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach (Prometheus Books, 1993)

7 of 7 people like this.
Posted by Whistler on January 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Re: “Why did House Republicans refuse to vote on the Violence Against Women Act?

At The American Bar Association site on the Violence Against Women Act is this: "VAWA focuses on nine specific areas of intervention: enhancing judicial and law enforcement tools to combat violence against women (Title I); improving services for victims (Title II); services, protection, and justice for young victims of violence (Title III); strengthening America’s families by preventing violence (Title IV); strengthening the healthcare system’s response (Title V); housing opportunities and safety for battered women and children (Title VI); providing economic security for victims (Title VII); protection of battered and trafficked immigrants (Title VIII); and safety for Indian women (Title IX). For copies of the original Violence Against Women Act and its subsequent reauthorizations, click here (a link)."

Eagle Forum PAC, and RNC for Life PAC (see 2010 web sites) - both founded by the patriarchal and vigorously (rabidly?) anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly (see Wikipedia) - a dominionist Christian Reconstructionist - had endorsed "many" of the House members of the 112th Congress. Several of the questions from Eagle Forum's lengthy 2010 Congressional Candidate Questionnaire and the 2010 RNC Life Questionnaire are pertinent to the Violence Against Women Act:

Will you vote to defund the Legal Services Corporation?"
Will you vote to defund the Violence Against Women Act, widely known as “feminist pork”?
Will you vote against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens?
Will you vote against any Federal law that preempts state or local efforts to enforce federal immigration law within their own borders?
Will you oppose the United Nations Convention (Treaty) on the Rights of the Child?
Do you oppose the judge-invented notion that abortion is a constitutional right? (Plus 11 more LIFE questions which stem from the unconditionally pro-life stance - NO federal funding for abortions, even for "rape;" incest; or genetic or other abnormalities of the fetus.)
Will you oppose any effort to revive the Equal Rights Amendment and any legislation that implies that the ERA, which expired in 1982, is still viable?
Will you oppose federal hate crimes laws?

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Whistler on January 16, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Re: “Bachmann: Tea Party represents 90% of Americans

Dale, I like your point of view. As has been said before, "If we do not hang together then we assuredly will be hanged separately," or deported, or imprisoned, or disappeared and tortured for continuing to speak out loudly. That is what theocracies ultimately do to rabble rousers, in the name of God, once a single religion acquires "all" of the political power.

It is unlikely that particularly partisan Democrats and particularly partisan Republicans will hold hands and sing kumbaya together once they recognize that theocracy is on the horizon. But they "can" hold hands and "work" together while holding their noses. This is "that" important.

Posted by Whistler on August 21, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Re: “Bachmann: Tea Party represents 90% of Americans

Clarkie,

Here is what I posted: "Americans do want our government to stop spending more than we take in. However, intransigent Dominionists in the Tea Party who want to continue cutting taxes on the rich, and to continue destroying the middle class in order to make the middle class politically powerless, DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY of intelligent Americans.

"The cult of Dominionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of 'Biblical Law.' Cutting taxes on the wealthy also cuts taxes on the already filthy rich 'theocratic' elite.

My words were those of an "American" woman who was exercising her First Amendment right of free speech to make the point that, while 90 percent of Americans may agree with what the Tea Party says it stands for, relatively few intelligent Americans would be willing to exchange the Constitution for being ruled by filthy-rich Pharisees (theocratic elites). Extremist theocrats, "Dominionists," - who, hopefully, are a minority in the Tea Party, want to do away with the protections the US Constitution gives to all Americans despite their religious faith or lack thereof.

Have I misunderstood what you wrote? Do you actually prefer (1) that the taxes of the wealthy be cut still more, (2) that the taxes of the middle class be raised; (3) that the Constitution be abolished and replaced by a government run by wealthy religious leaders comparable to the wealthy religious leaders - Pharisees - of Jesus day?

Isaiah 33: "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us."
I agree - even as I feel certain that you will agree with the following:

King James, New Testament: Matt. 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law

Clarkie, for 25 years I have been writing to US congressmen and Presidents on "both" side of the aisle - usually to encourage them. When I disagreed with them, I told them so in my letters; but even then I treated them with respect. Here is another thought for your day:

Isaiah 32 (King James Version):
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry; and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl are evil; he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Hopefully I have succeeded in conveying to you where I am coming from. I'm a "liberal."

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Whistler on August 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Re: “Bachmann: Tea Party represents 90% of Americans

Americans do want our government to stop spending more than we take in. However, intransigent Dominionists in the Tea Party who want to continue cutting taxes on the rich, and to continue destroying the middle class in order to make the middle class politically powerless, DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY of intelligent Americans.

The cult of Dominionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Cutting taxes on the wealthy also cuts taxes on the already filthy rich "theocratic" elite.

Posted by Whistler on August 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2015, Charleston City Paper   RSS