RINO:
Republican In Name Only
Regular readers of this blog know that I believe, and hope to convince you, that it is imperative to have frameworks through which to filter ideas, speeches, laws and the general illogical proposals that come out of Liberals and RINOs. While the actual frameworks/filters are different based on the concept being considered, the methodology for use is exactly the same.
"If you find yourself believing that you have found some new, unique and world changing insight to Biblical interpretation... STOP... you are wrong. Go read what the Church Fathers thought."
"If you find yourself believing that you have found some new, unique and world changing insight to Biblical interpretation... STOP... you are wrong. Go read what the Church Fathers thought."
R. C. Sproul Jr.
Aggressively Paraphrased
The advice that R. C. gives is true for theology and for at least 2 areas beyond theology. For me, the specific areas for the use of frameworks and filters are...
While RINOs try to sound humble and statesmanlike by being "bi-partisan" and pragmatic, what they really are is ARROGANT! They have decided that they know better than:
The advice that R. C. gives is true for theology and for at least 2 areas beyond theology. For me, the specific areas for the use of frameworks and filters are...
- Economic Policy ➪ Filtered by Free Market economic theory as embodied in either the Austrian or Chicago School.
- Laws / Government Action ➪ Filtered by a framework of Original Intent and/or Strict Construction. Use the Constitution as the first and most important filter. (As a rule-of-thumb, anything from Supreme Court during the Warren Court or the Berger Court is wrong. As a hard and fast rule, anything!!!!... from the 9th Circuit is completely unconstitutional and is untethered from ALL reason and logic.)
- Biblical Interpretation ➪ I use the Westminster Confession of Faith... but if you use Spurgeon's Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) or an equally rigorous, historic and non-postmodern confession that is in agreement with these type of documents ... I believe you are on a firm foundation.
While RINOs try to sound humble and statesmanlike by being "bi-partisan" and pragmatic, what they really are is ARROGANT! They have decided that they know better than:
- the Founding Fathers,
- the long line of Noble Laureates in the Free Market tradition... and ...
- the Church Fathers.
No matter how much they are praised by the mainstream media, they are demonstrating supreme arrogance. (At least true Liberals have a completely different framework that they hold to.) The framework for RINOs is:
- I know best.
- Whatever I feel is right.
- Will the New York Times like it?
... Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) ...
... was a part of this arrogant (disguised as bi-partisan) plan. Actually, my other Senator, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is a RINO too.
The Best Guns For RINO Hunting
If you want to stop RINOs in their tracks, read policy papers from and financially support...
- The Club for Growth
- The Cato Institute
- The Heritage Foundation
- The Independent Institute...
... and read The Great Books.
3 comments:
Byron,
I love your blog, but I'm afraid I've got to be a contrarian when it comes to this particular subject. While I would certainly prefer to live under the original Constitution -- as opposed to TODAY'S Constitution, which consists of little more than the Income Tax amendment, a "Commerce Clause" run amuck, and the "penumbra" for abortion on demand -- the fact remains that the Big C is NOT the right lodestone to "filter" your beliefs. That honor would go to the Declaration of Independence. (1776 was a much better year for liberty than 1787!)
Shortly after the conspirators of 1787 wrapped up their conniving, and unveiled their "more power to the feds" Constitution, a group known as the Anti-Federalists made many specific predictions regarding how the Constitution would fail to protect American liberty.
And, while liberal judges came up with a few outrages -- Roe v Wade, frinstance -- that even the Anti-Federalists failed to predict, all of their direst predictions regarding the Big C did in fact come true.
The main intent of the Founding Plotters (who falsely called themselves "Federalists") was to create a centralized government that could "reach out and touch" individuals, especially when it came to paying taxes. It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out what a whopping big mistake that was, right?
The most important concept in the Declaration is that goverment should rest upon the "consent of the governed." So, where is this crucial issue dealt with in the Constitution? It's not! Judges hold that you "consent" to the Big C by being born in the US... which makes an utter mockery of the principle of "government by consent."
As the great Lysander Spooner concluded in his incendiary tract "No Treason," the Constitution either authorized our present tyranny, or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way, it doesn't deserve the kind of quasi-religious respect that some limited government enthusiasts accord it.
Byron,
In looking over my comment from yesterday -- which was written after a night I'd gotten virtually no sleep -- it seems to me that I may have been a little bit too harsh toward the folks who gave birth to the Constitution.
To be fair, I must concede that George Washington -- who had to almost be dragged to the ConCon -- was a very admirable and noble man. He could easily have established himself as the first in a line of hereditary kings, but he chose to remain a "commoner."
And even Alexander Hamilton -- the original "Big Government Conservative" -- would no doubt be aghast were he able to see the current state of this nation.
An argument can even be made that, had the Founders been lesser men, they would've understood the validity of the Anti-Federalist critique, and taken it to heart. But, assuming that those who followed them would be cut from the same cloth, they saw no problem in setting up a powerful central government. "We'd never take advantage of the fact that there are no limits on Congress' ability to levy taxes... and neither would anyone else," they perhaps thought.
Another factor likely involved, was that the Federalists were largely deists or Unitarians who didn't necessarily give much credence to the "fallen" nature of man. If men are fundamentally good, then why fear giving a rarified elite great power?
Anyway, as I've said before, a government actually chained by the original intent of the Founders, would be a terrific improvement over the muddled mess we're now stuck with. And, while I believe that Spooner has an argument that can't be beat, I certainly find little to fault with those who aim to restore the Constitution. I hope they succeed -- I'm voting this fall for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, in fact -- but I will always regard "constitutional restoration" as only a first step toward the road to true freedom. A good -- perhaps even necessary -- step. But still, only a first step.
I hope I didn't offend anyone with my earlier comments. I consider "Constitutionalists" to be stalwart allies in the current fight, and would never intentionally attempt to belittle them. If I accidentally did, please accept my sincerest apologies. Thanks!
Hi Byron,
I really enjoyed this post (and your others) and linked to it on my blog: http://partyofreagan.blogspot.com.
--EJ
Post a Comment