Unconditional Surrender To The State
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:10:42
Sender: RightNow-request@MailList.Net Subject: [RightNow] CovSyn, 3/23/98
The Covenant Syndicate March 23, 1998, vol. 2, no. 97
Check out the weekly CAPO Journal at: http://capo.org/kmsc/journal.htm (Back Issues posted at: http://capo.org/opeds/opeds.html ) We are also web-posted at: http://www.usajournal.com/
In this Issue: Unconditional Surrender to the State Patrick S. Poole (email@example.com ) We're Sorry James Hirsen (firstname.lastname@example.org ) Sermon Shocks Sensibilities; Restores to Senses David W. Hall (email@example.com ) Teens and Dirty Pictures Dave Racer (DracerJr@aol.com ) The Late, Great USA Jon Dougherty (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Unconditional Surrender to the State
Patrick S. Poole (email@example.com )
The current growth of powers by our government is unparalleled in our country's history. At no other time has the populace of this country so willingly acceded to the tyrannical and blatantly unconstitutional activities of most government agencies and institutions. And now much of the Religious Right continues its program of complete capitulation of authority to the State by forwarding another slimmed-down version of the Communications Decency Act. The usual suspects in the Christian political community are lining up to expend their efforts and money to see this token legislation passed, which the Supreme Court has rightly struck down once before.
The existing laws against child pornography are praiseworthy, and I believe that government has a vested interest in prosecuting those who would victimize, abuse and murder children. However, this law is not designed for that purpose. This law has been crafted to replace the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children see on the Internet. This position follows in the footsteps of the State's replacement of the parent as the primary educator of a child -- a role that parents, the church and local communities were oh so willing to be relieved of.
Federal mandates aimed at restricting access to adult-oriented Web sites cleared the Senate Commerce Committee hurdle last week. The new Communications Decency Act (S. 1482), in a remarkable act of re-genesis after being struck down last year by the Supreme Court, was re-introduced by Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), which makes it a federal felony to send indecent material to minors over the Net. After clearing a major committee hurdle, the bill now goes before the full Senate for a vote.
The new CDA bill tries to remedy the objections of the high court, which struck down the old version found that the restrictions went far beyond protecting children and unconstitutionally infringed upon all Net users' free-speech rights. Under the old CDA, anyone using words in electronic communications that could have been construed to be "obscene" would have been subject to a 2-year prison sentence. Most online teenage magazines, chat rooms and Usenet groups would have fallen under this category.
Sen. Coats' revisions have been designed to target only commercial activity on the Net, excluding the infamous chat rooms and Usenet groups. The bill, using a "harmful to minors" legal standard, would require commercial distributors of adult material to make those images accessible only with a credit card or access number. However, the new version of CDA suffers from some of the same flaws:
1) This bill erodes the power and responsibilities of the family by replacing parents with government as the chief defender of children in what they read and watch.
2) The Internet has made foreign Web sites as accessible as US sites. This legislation would do nothing to protect children from sites originating from other countries -- frequently the worse purveyors of Web smut. Expanding federal government power over speech without any substantive protection in return.
3) The bill would impose a national "indecency standard" on every city and state. This would set a precedent for the federal government to impose new regulations on free speech.
4) The legislation would apply to all "commercial" transactions on the Web, which would stifle emerging electronic commerce and reach a far broader range of speech than intended. While the bill is described as targeting only purveyors of sexually explicit speech, it in fact reaches to any entity that publishes, for "commercial distribution," material found to violate the statute. "Commercial distribution" is not defined, but could well include a newspapers online Web site where access is available by subscription, where commercial advertising is associated with the offending speech, or where a non-profit organization solicits financial contributions together with the speech.
For these reasons, a wide range of conservative and liberal organizations are opposing the new version of CDA. By allowing the federal government to slip their nose into the Net tent, in the future it will be more difficult to resist attempts by government agencies to control speech on the emerging idea marketplace of the Internet. Current calls for regulation of "hate speech" seem to indicate the extent that political ideas contrary to a "politically correct" version may be censored if government regulators are successful in creating a "Federal Internet Commission" under the guise of legislation to "protect the children."
This garbage has always been with us. The true problem is the apathy on the part of parents to invest in the tools (most of which are free, by the way) to monitor what their children is viewing online, and what sites the children are visiting. However, this approach invests greater and broader powers to the State because people and families refuse to govern themselves.
The Religious Right is getting this public policy approach down: first, some societal institution begins to break down (insert your favorite noun -- individual, family, church, community, schools, marriages, et. al.); second, this breakdown begins to have negative ramifications; third, some scapegoat or straw man is blamed; lastly, the Religious Right calls for the government to assume the necessary powers to counteract the breakdown and repair the societal breach.
The problem is, however, that the State has neither the tools of persuasion, nor are the governmental institutions immune from that same societal breakdown.
Last year's "cause de capitulation" were the plethora of covenant marriage laws that were floated around the state capitals. Because the church has been completely ineffective in remedying the sorry condition of marriage in our culture, they wanted the State to intervene by creating a new classification of marriage license, a "covenant marriage" that would carry stronger sanctions for those who would try to put asunder their wedding vows.
Several problems have arisen with these measures. Most notable is that very few couples getting marriage licenses in these states are opting for the stronger versions. It seems that pagan America is uninterested in the church's remedy. But the true root of the problem in our culture is that churches have failed to preach against the sin that is epidemic in modern marriages, and the church has bought the world's pop-psychology version of how things are supposed to work.
In no instance has the State ever been able to repair a breech created by a cultural breakdown. But the Christian community is more than willing to turn the problem over to them to assuage their impotence and their guilt. Just like the churches should be preaching about how husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and how thou shall not commit adultery -- but don't -- so now they are willing to line up behind the new CDA effort because they have not raised their children in the fear of the Lord, nor are they willing to charge parents first with their God-given responsibility to monitor what their children are exposed to.
Those who would continue to entrust the State with more power to relieve themselves of their own responsibilities -- as parents, as citizens, as church members -- are feeding Leviathan. Like an alcoholic who is unwilling to admit their condition, so those who claim to be our greatest defenders of liberty, with all of their grandstanding and bandwagons, may actually be a threat to our freedoms.
We're Sorry James Hirsen (firstname.lastname@example.org )
From: The Baby-Boom Generation To: Everybody Else Re: An Overdue Apology
We're sorry that because we were raised in an era of prosperity we took it all for granted. We belittled discipline, laughed at delayed gratification and scoffed at the work ethic.
We're sorry that we rejected the schools of our day. Now our kids can't read unless we send them to private schools.
We're sorry that our misplaced desire to expand our minds made drugs look so attractive.
We're sorry that we needed to "get in touch with ourselves." Now we are a bunch of blubbering, daytime-television watching crybabies, constantly looking for the next self-improvement fad to come along.
We're sorry that in caring about our foreign neighbors we made our borders unprotected, our aliens illegal and our education bilingual.
We're sorry for wanting to be more open and accepting. It made us turn our backs on our nation's heritage in the name of tolerance.
We're sorry that because we didn't want to be selfish like we thought our parents were, we supported a welfare system that imprisoned the poor by pretending to be daddy.
We're sorry we viewed sex as free love. We didn't see the skyrocketing divorce rates and record breaking teenage pregnancies that were sure to come.
We're sorry for mocking religion. We thought it was too unsophisticated. Now our kids can't say grace in school, see the Ten Commandments on the wall or put on a pageant at Christmas time.
We're sorry that we wanted to liberate society from the old-fashioned rules that our parents' generation embraced. We were sure that there was no right or wrong. Now we have increased dishonesty, corruption and crime at the highest levels of our land.
We're sorry that our generation protested a war we didn't like. We didn't realize our peacenik mentality would turn our military into a pizza delivery service.
We're sorry for wanting to get rid of prejudice. We believed in the brotherhood of man. We never thought our government would discriminate instead.
We're sorry that in wanting to treat women fairly, we tore moms away from their homes and their kids.
We're sorry that although we fancied ourselves as being free of the trappings of fashion and vanity, we have now become a self-obsessed, tummy-tucked, liposucked, petty people who refuse to grow up or grow old.
Most of all, we're sorry for all of the good intentions that went awry.
Our penance will be spending the rest of our days convincing you that we were wrong.
Sermon Shocks Sensibilities; Restores to Senses David W. Hall (email@example.com )
Sometimes it takes a nonpartisan voice to shake us from lethargic thinking. I found such a voice in Simeon Howard. On May 31, 1780--in the day when leaders and people understood the "establishment" principle more correctly than we do today--the Rev. Simeon Howard, Pastor of Boston's West Church, addressed the Massachusetts House of Representatives. What he did is shocking!
Preaching before the "honourable Council and the honourable House of Representatives, Howard chose to discuss the character necessary for governors by expounding Exodus 18:21: "But select capable men from all the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain--and appoint them as officials . . ." His ideas were as compelling as they are relevant.
Howard thought that the phrase "capable men" implied at least that public leaders would be "men that will hazard their lives in defense of the public." Non self-serving leadership was called for. They were also to be leaders whose bodies or minds had not been broken by "the effeminating pleasures of luxury, intemperance, or dissipation."
Public leaders were also to fear God. If not, when pressured by various interests, they might too easily compromise if devoid of a sense of the eternal. Howard asked, "But suppose him in a situation where he apprehends that temporal infamy and misery will be the certain consequence of his practicing virtue . . . can we expect that he will adhere to his duty? Will he sacrifice everything dear in this life in the cause of virtue, when he has no expectation of any reward for it beyond the grave? Will he deny himself a present gratification, without any prospect of being repaid either here or hereafter? Will he expose himself to reproach, poverty, and death, for the sake of doing good to mankind, without any regard to God as the rewarder of virtue or punisher of vice?" Howard did not expect such, realizing that the eternal sits in judgment of the temporal.
Beating Billy Graham to the punch by over 200 years, Howard observed that leaders were exposed to "more frequent opportunities of committing injuries, and may do it with less fear of present punishment; and therefore stand in need of every possible restraint to keep them from abusing their power by deviating into the paths of vice." However, he did not recommend the lenience favored of late.
Last week, Texas Representative Tom DeLay called on our president to level with the American people. DeLay asked him to be honest, for his office required it. Two centuries earlier, Howard preached that honesty was a prequisite for office-holders.
Howard and DeLay claim that elected officials implicitly bind themselves when they accept office "faithfully to discharge the duties of it-and a man of truth will pay a sacred regard to this engagement. He will not content himself with receiving the honors and emoluments of his office while he neglects the duties of it."
Howard asserted: "A man of truth will not undertake an office for which he thinks himself incapable, because this would be promising to do what he is conscious he is incapable of doing; . . . Having solemnly engaged to use his power for the public good, he will never employ it in encouraging and supporting . . . measures to promote his own selfish and private views."
Howard expected "men of truth" to avoid deceit, insincerity, dissimulation and Machiavellian craftiness, and to avoid pleasure and self-interest.
An office is a public trust, and anyone who does not hold it as such, argued Howard, disqualified himself. In contrast, when a public official procured pleasure or advantage for himself, it would invariably "weaken and disgrace the government . . . by sapping the foundation of public credit, producing uneasy jealousies, disaffection, divisions, and contempt of authority among the people, and leading them by example to the practice of the same insincerity, falsehood, and dishonesty towards one another . . ."
Howard preached that, "A man governed by this appetite will be guilty of any enormity for the sake of gratifying it. . . . The indulgence of this vice debases the mind, and renders it incapable of anything generous and noble; . . . destroys the principles of benevolence, friendship, and patriotism, and gives a tincture of selfishness to all its sentiments . . . it blinds and perverts the judgment, and disposes it to confound truth and falsehood, right and wrong. A civil ruler, under the direction of this principle, will oppress and defraud his subjects whenever he has it in his power;"
Howard warned: "The people's appointing their own rulers will be no security for their good government and happiness if they pay no regard to the character of the men they appoint. A dunce or a knave, a profligate or an avaricious worldliness, will not make a good magistrate because he is elected by the people."
Maybe we need more sermons like that. It shocked me into my senses.
Teens and Dirty Pictures Dave Racer (DracerJr@aol.com )
We bought a home computer just before Christmas 1997. How my children developed a knack for computer internet trekking so quickly I do not understand.
Like other parents, I wondered if our computer would threaten my children's sense of decency and modesty; if it would challenge their commitment to chastity.
When I was growing up, a dirty picture was a woman in a bikini. A 1990s Sports Illustrated "Swimsuit Edition" is pornographic by 1950's standards. We did not have to cope with full frontal nudity in magazines or on movie screens nor sexual acts performed live on computer screens.
While the 1950's teenager might have hidden behind the garage with a stolen Playboy, today's teen simply dials up a net address in the seclusion of the family's computer center or in a library kiosk.
Internet service providers have devised screening programs to protect teens from obscenity, but as with all attempts to treat symptoms, this does nothing to cure root problems. It is not the availability of dirty pictures that is the problem; it is the inability to abide by the Holy Spirit's guidance and avoid that which poisons one's spirit.
One day I was reviewing the web site contacts of one of my teens. He had received unwanted e-mail begging him to "Sample 30 Luscious Babes" or some other such nonsense. He was curious and went on the net to see the sample.
The good that resulted from his net navigations was the productive long discussion we had about moral purity. It was then I began to consider his dilemma.
Today's teens, more than at any time in our history, are forced to develop very mature convictions about purity at a far earlier age than previous generations. There is nothing, other than banning their computer access, that will keep a determined teen from finding filth on the net, save a pure conscience. Nothing.
Without strong moral conviction that effects all thoughts, actions, and emotions, our teens will be lost to the smut-purveyors and American society will pay the price. We will look forward to a spiraling increase in sexual activity, its resultant disease and unwanted pregnancies, more abortions and increasing impotency. As discouraging as current divorce statistics may be, a new generation of hyper-sexualized young men, dissatisfied in spousal sexual relations, bodes ill for the future of the institution of marriage.
There has never been a time when teens needed clearer and higher moral convictions than today. They must decide to reject the destructive impact of pornography and then discipline themselves to avoid its contact. This is a tall order and American society must help.
Unfortunately, modern sex educators, making their presentations in a "morally neutral" environment and train young people how to wear condoms, too often believe that teens are incapable of abstinence; that they are no better than animals at controlling their urges. This is the wrong kind of help.
In church youth groups and homes, we must be ready for discussions about these moral conflicts. We are going to have to accept the sad and sordid truth that the mores of yesterday, save for the Holy Scriptures, are long past. We are going to have to be candid about our own struggles. And we are going to have to pray hard that at an early age, God's Spirit will inhabit the spirit of our children.
Of course we need to be careful about that to which we expose our youth, and we will personally have to be consistent in policing our own sexual curiosity, but it is relatively futile for us to hope that blocking access to smut will solve this problem, nor will the heavy hand of government applying its secular standards of decency.
The Late, Great USA Jon Dougherty (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Just when I begin to feel a little better about the way things are going in America, along comes a story that completely destroys my faith again. This time, I have Pat Buchanan to blame -- though he's not directly responsible. He was merely the messenger; it was his message I didn't like.
Pat wrote a column March 7th in which he chronicled recent world appearances by US sports teams. He wrote about little Tara Lipinsky, the 15-year-old who won the Gold medal in Women's Figure Skating competition in Japan recently, and how that was an inspiring event. He wrote about the US Wrestling Team's victories in, of all places, Iran, and how team members were "treated like kings" by their Iranian hosts. Then he wrote about the US World Cup Soccer Team's defeat at the hands of the Mexican National Team in Los Angeles in February; it was the ugliness of that ordeal that depressed me and makes me wonder if anybody in Washington, DC, even realizes what goes on in the rest of this country or, for that matter, even cares anymore.
Pat discussed how badly the US Soccer team was treated on their own soil. While the other US competitors were treated grandly in other countries, one of our amateur sports teams was treated like the enemy, right here at home.
In the Los Angeles Colliseum, most of the 91 thousand-plus fans at last month's World Cup match were Mexican descendants or sympathizers who booed loudly during the playing of our National Anthem, then hurled fruit, rocks and garbage on the US Soccer Team throughout the entire 2-hour match. In one instance, Hispanics desecrated other fans who were shouting, `USA! USA!' when they tried to unfurl a large US flag. Absolutely pathetic.
Where do these people think they are?
For years Pat and some others of us `horrible right-wing nationalists' have been warning Americans about what is happening to this country because of stupid immigration policies foisted on everyone by idiots and socialists in Washington. It's becoming more obvious that federal lawmakers have decided this country should be offered up on a first come, first served basis.
We've also been warning readers about what will happen if this uncontrolled, unmitigated and cavalier attitude towards unlimited immigration were to continue, and lo and behold, it has finally begun in earnest. Now, who cares about it?
California voters cared about illegal immigration. In fact, they cared so much about it that they risked the scorn of the Leftist Washington establishment by passing Proposition 187 which did nothing to circumvent the federal government's primary role in deciding immigration policies, but instead merely said that California taxpayers were not going to fund special welfare and other services for people who did not belong in this country. There are, and always have been, proper procedures for becoming a US citizen, but apparently Washington doesn't think it has to apply those standards unless they choose to do so because it's politically expedient for them.
However, despite this rudimentary attempt to save some $3 billion a year in California tax revenues, a federal judge ruled yesterday that Prop 187 was "unconstitutional from top to bottom" and sentenced California taxpayers to a lifetime of providing benefits the state cannot afford to people who don't deserve them. How arrogant and how stupid can a federal appointee be? You can bet that judge does not live anywhere near a neighborhood that has rampant ethnic Hispanic violence demonstrated in an open resentment towards all things American. If he did, you can bet again that he most certainly would have ruled differently.
You understand that I'm not talking about abstract presidential sexcapades, I'm not talking about the merits of reforming the tax code, and I'm not talking about the issue of political ideology; every single lawmaker in Congress is responsible for this explosion of anti-Americanism in our own country, brought on by careless and imprudent immigration policies virtually all of them helped write and pass into law. Yet, none of them are ready and willing to confess to their duplicity, even as real American-born and bred citizens are pelted, assaulted, and intimidated in their own back yards. Is this crazy or what?
If immigration has been breached at all in Congress over the past five years, it has been in the form of mass naturalizations for the benefit of the Democratic party and Bill.
Now, the country of Mexico has passed a law which grants Mexicans living in the US dual citizenship. The result? Mexicans living here can now vote for pro-Mexican candidates and policies in both countries. How's that for a sweet deal?
When somebody even brings up the issue of illegal immigration, they are immediately drowned out by a chorus of voices coming from globalists in both parties who scream worse obscenities at the people who dare upset the PC gods than do Hispanic mobs at American ball teams in LA. Using the mainstream press as a bully pulpit, lawmakers and presidents alike have leveled insidious charges of isolationism, racism, and -- if you can believe this -- even anti-Americanism at people who are sick and tired of being made to feel like they're living in a foreign land. Americans should be thankful to people like Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis who have had the insight to see where all of this uncontrolled immigration is leading.
What we have not had is an honest debate over the merits of allowing millions of people who obviously don't care much for American into this country. Where are the standards for citizenship? Where are the cries of outrage from Congress?
We are witnessing the epilogue of the late, great USA. The federal government has virtually succeeded in establishing all the parameters necessary for overseeing the final decline of the United States of America for reasons I can only imagine. Honestly, if people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Henry Hyde, and Richard Gephardt are not co-conspirators in helping to create a seamless world government where there are no more national borders and the globe is ruled by a small financial/industrial elite, then I'd like for somebody to explain to me why they are allowing -- even helping -- these kinds of stupid policies to be enacted? Anyone who really cared about the sovereignty, safety and sanctity of this great nation would never agree to such things as open borders and open hostilities towards their countrymen by people who do not belong here.
The Covenant Syndicate is presently distributed as a free service to media outlets and select electronic distribution lists. If you enjoy this, feel free to recommend these to your local newspaper for inclusion.
For permission to reprint, contact David Hall at: email@example.com
P. S. Our columnists are also available for radio/TV interviews or comment. Please contact them directly at their email address for your programs; or for more information, contact David Hall at: firstname.lastname@example.org David W. Hall CovSyn The Kuyper Institute 190 Manhattan Ave. Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Fax = (423)483-5581 email@example.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html . New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
"... a network of net workers..."
Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated on 04/24/10 09:03 PM