Who Is Responsible For The Terror Attack In Boston?

Image1Almost before the dust and smoke cleared away from yesterday’s terror attack at the Boston Marathon, the socialist left began their own attack on conservatives. Several leftist journalists began speculating that the attack was the responsibility of conservatives on the right. Charles P. Pierce wrote in Esquire magazine warned his readers to avoid jumping to conclusions and to avoid blaming the attack on “foreign terrorism.” He then went on to remind his readers that the bombing coincided with Patriot’s Day, and the then connected it all to Timothy McVeigh – the Oklahoma City bomber. He apparently struck a chord with his socialist liberal readers, as one commenter wrote, “I’ll bet good money it’s a right-wing nutjob. Today is April 15, Boston Harbor was where the original Tea Party took place and the on-going gun-safety legislation makes it [the Tea Party] the mostly likely culprit.”

Peter Bergen, a “National Security Analyst” with CNN, speculated that the bomb used could have been made with “conventional explosives, … that might be another kind of right-wing extremism.” Al Sharpton’s radio producer Nida Khan offered her speculation in a Tweet in which she wrote, “We don’t know anything yet of course, but it is tax day & my first thought was all these anti-gov groups, but who knows.” And Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times also took to Twitter in order to connect the attack to the GOP. He wrote, “explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.”

ABC News consultant Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent who claims to be an expert in Criminal Investigations, offered his speculations on the “ABC Monday” program. Garrett explained that it was possible that a domestic right-wing extremist could have carried out the attack. He based his speculation on the date of the attack, saying that other domestic extremist events had occurred during the date range of April 15-20, including the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. It should also be noted that Garrett himself has admitted that he has not had one single “conversation with the FBI or anybody else about investigating terrorism.”

MSNBC “reporter” Chris Matthews also offered his speculation within just hours of the attack. Matthews said, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right.” And even president Obama, according to his former advisor David Axelrod, speculated the attack may been carried out because it was “tax day” (a day often cited as a day of rebellion by anti-government groups).

With all of the “speculative possibilities” being tossed around by the socialist left like Frisbees at a beach party, I have to wonder why they are automatically pointing the finger at conservatives as being responsible.

“Speculative Possibilities” are just that – speculation, and in the case of the above examples they are speculation based not on any evidence (circumstantial or otherwise), but solely on the bigoted bias of those who are making these statements. They are, or should be aware, that their words carry weight due to their status as public figures. Although they (for the most part?) qualify their speculations with poorly worded caveats after the fact, they have made their statement, and their followers, especially those who tend to more weak-minded, will parrot those speculations, often referring to them as fully evidenced fact. These socialist liberal talking heads will have sent their message out to the masses: “It was conservatives who blew up the Boston Marathon.”

This, of course, again begs the question of why? Why would they intentionally ignore any vestige of journalistic ethics or morals, and lay the blame for this obvious terror attack at the feet of conservatives? Why would they be so willing to spread such a rumor without any evidence whatsoever to support it? It is my opinion that they sincerely hope this attack can be linked somehow to a conservative or right-wing individual or group. In fact, I believe they want this so badly, so passionately, that they will spin this attack in any way they can to support their perverted desire. For if it can be linked in any way to a conservative or right-wing individual or group, the socialist left will use it to further vilify and slander those on the right. They will use this attack to press for further erosion of our legal rights – just as they used the Sandy Hook Massacre to justify their attack on the Second Amendment.

In closing, I would like to point out that as of this moment, there have been no suspects named or indicated in this terrible attack. That being said, however, there have been news reports today (and yesterday) that an unnamed Saudi national has been detained (voluntarily and not arrested) is being questioned. His residence has been searched and items have been removed. It is entirely possible that he will be cleared of any involvement.

In addition, an al-Qaeda propagandist suggested last year that al-Qaeda members and affiliates currently in the United States should target a sporting event for a terrorist attack, as a way to punish America for its interference in the Middle East. He wrote “This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas, annual social events, large international exhibitions, crowded market-places, skyscrapers, crowded buildings … etc. It is possible for ordinary Resistance fighters among the Muslims residing in America and the allied Western countries to target them, in order to participate in the jihad and the Resistance, and to stretch out a helping hand to the mujahidun.”

And, there have been unconfirmed reports of known muslim jihadists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan being arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, and there have also been reports that in its online forum, al-Qaeda is being credited with carrying out yesterdays terror attack as a response to a U.S. military airstrike last week that killed several Taliban leaders.

At no time, however, have any conservative or right-wing individuals or groups claimed responsibility, or been arrested, or questioned, or implicated by any reputable law enforcement agency or spokesperson – in spite of the socialist left’s attempts to spin the attack in that direction.

Sources:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/roommate_calls_saudi_national_quiet_vKFFJMC0WCaQmAofxNDHmO
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE93F06T20130416
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-obama-thinks-boston-bombings-could-be-related-tax-day_717924.html
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/16/muslim_brotherhood_conspiracy_boston
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/al-qaeda-propagandist-called-attacks-sports-events
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/arrests-in-pakistan-afghanistan-in-boston-marathon-probe/
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-normally-domestic-terrorists-tend-be-far-right
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosions-already-being-blamed-on-the-right/
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/former-fbi-agent-brad-garrett-aka-dr-death/

About these ads


Categories: Barack Obama, Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, Ethics, Extremism, Homeland Security, Islam, Liberal Media, Liberal Politics as Usual, Liberals, News media, Patriots, Socialism, TEA Party, Terrorism, Truth vs. Lies, War on Terror

Tags: , ,

82 replies

  1. “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.” — Proverbs 26:17

    “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” — Galatians 6:7.

    I, OF COURSE, have no idea who did the bombing in Boston. But, I do know this: For generations, our country has been the bully of the world, waging unGodly/unConstitutional wars, torturing/murdering people, treating many foreigners in many countries as if they are our hired help, as if they are our slaves. Thus, millions of people around the world and here at home hate us — and they SHOULD hate us for the aforementioned ways we have behaved.

    And this bullying behavior is, to put it mildly, a far cry from our original founding (early 1600s) when John Winthrop, on the deck of the “Arbella,” delivered his sermon “A Model Of Christian Charity” the gist of which is that they had come here to worship God, mind our own business, and shine the light of Christ throughout the world.

    In this sermon, Winthrop said that the “only way” — the ONLY way — for us to avoid shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, was to follow the counsel of Micah: To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. This, Winthrop said, would knit us together in our work as one man. This would make us that “City upon a hill,’ with all the eyes of all people on us. But, Winthrop warned:

    “If we shall deal Falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world, we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways and all professors for God’s sake; we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into Curses upon us until we be consumed out of the good land whether we are going…. we are Commanded this day to love the Lord our God and to love one another, to walk in His ways and to keep His Commandments and His Ordinances, and His Laws and the Articles of our Covenant with Him that we may live and be multiplied, and the Lord our God may bless us, in the land we go to Possess.”

    We have, alas, failed in this duty, forgotten God and, thus, our country is turning into Hell as God predicts for ALL countries that forget Him (Psalm 9:17).

    But, all is not lost forever. There is hope. There is a way back to the true American dream, a way back that will heal our land. And God tells us what this way back is in II Chronicles 7:14. Note, please, that He is speaking to HIS people, the Church,Christians:

    “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

    Amen!

    John Lofton, Recovering Republican
    Editor, JohnLofton.com
    Also: Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Active Facebook Wall
    JLof@aol.com

    • A reply, please, if I might, “thomaspaine2nd.” First what you post then my comment:

      Are Christians to be held responsible by God for their country’s actions, especially if they have no say in how their country is run or the decisions their country makes? I would have to say no, and yet this seems to be a common theme in the beliefs of many Christians. As hard as I try, however, I can find no Biblical basis for it.

      

COMMENT: Sad to say, I believe most who tell pollsters they are “Christians” are, in fact, mindless, militaristic, warmongers who have supported our unGodly/unConstitutional wars. Thus, such “Christians” most definitely are responsible for such wars.



      Galations 6:7 says, “… whatsoever a man soweth,m that shall he also reap.” A “man soweth,” not a country soweth. Proverbs 26:17 says, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him,…” again talks about the individual, not the country.

      COMMENT: Uninteresting semantic hair-splitting. Countries are made up of individuals. Thus, the verses apply.

      

If we are to assume that the individual (whether Christian or not) is to be held personally responsible for the actions of his or her government, then you should be held personally responsible for our government’s lack of response in Benghazi and the resulting deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others who died there. I should be held personally responsible for ObamaCare, even though I had no input into its creation, even though I did not vote for Obama, even though I have long spoken out (and continue to do so) against ObamaCare. And, following this same logic, Mary, the mother of Jesus, should have been held personally responsible for the death of Christ on the cross because it was ordered by the government of her country, and insisted upon by the leading religious elders of her country. I am sure you see the problem with holding the individual responsible for the actions of their country.

      COMMENT: You need to read John Owen’s sermon “National Sins, National Judgement.” It will help you understand the issue. And no person is to be held responsible for the actions of governments they did not vote for. I did not vote for Obama (or anybody). Mary did not vote for those who crucified Christ. Thus, we are not responsible for those actions you seem to want to attribute to us — even though my posts says nothing about ALL people being responsible for the actions of their national government.

      I will grant you that our country does have a habit of meddling in the affairs of other countries, often with very negative results. However, is that not the way of mankind? Do not many countries, if not all of them, do the same thing? I

      COMMENT: Irrelevant. Numerous wrongs do not make those wrongs right.

      I would not say our country has been the bully of the world, nor would I imply that for generations our country has been torturing and murdering people, nor “treating many foreigners in many countries as if they are our hired help.”

      COMMENT: Then you are not familiar in an detail with what we have been doing for generations.

      Although this could be said of many other countries, especially those islamic countries in the Middle East who have been conquering and enslaving other countries for thousands of years and continue to do so to this day.
      

COMMENT: Again, an irrelevant argument.

      I believe the real reasons there are those in other countries who hate us (and I do not believe there are as many as the left would have us believe) are many. Jealousy (such as third world countries who do not have the resources – including freedom – America has), religious bigotry (such as islam), anti-capitalism ideologies (such as socialism, communism and others), and other similar reasons.

      COMMENT: I stand by the reasons I cited.

      To say that countries hate us because of our meddling in their affairs (such as Ron Paul has repeatedly stated) is nothing more than nonsense. 



      COMMENT: As I say, you seem unfamiliar with any details of what’s been going on for decades. For example, you think our CIA overthrowing the government of Iran in the 1950s has nothing to do with Iran’s enmity toward us? You think our total support for Israel only in that area has nothing to do with Arab hatred for us? 

In the 9/11 Commission Report,” in a section titled “The Foundation Of The New Terrorism,” the question is asked: “How did Bin Ladin — with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans – win thousands of followers and some degree of approval for millions more?” Answer: “He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.” Bin Ladin’s charges, this “Report” says, “found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.

Of course our sticking our nose into fights none of our business has created hatred for us around the world in many areas. It’s political physics: Action, re-action.



      Proponents of this theory continually claim this is the reason we were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, in spite of Osama bin-Laden himself stating, on more than one occasion, “I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.” We were attacked because their religious beliefs instructed them to do so. No other reason.

      COMMENT: Nonsense. The religious beliefs of Islam have told Muslims for more than 1500 years to attack Christians. So, why did they come here big time in 2001? A November, 2004, report issued by the prestigious Defense Science Board (DSB) —a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense — tells us. Citing several polls showing widespread animosity against the U.S. in the Muslim world, the report says, “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

      The report adds, re: this hostility to America: “Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities….

      “If there is one overarching goal [these hostile Muslims] share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the ‘apostate’ regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive….

      “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits [in public opinion polls] in some Arab societies….

      “Yet the world of Islam — by overwhelming majorities… at this time — see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical, and American actions as deeply threatening. In other words, they do not hate us for our values, but because of our policies” (all emphases mine.)

      You say these countries Should hate us for the way we have treated them. Should they hate us because of billions (or trillions) of dollars we have given them in foreign aid? Should they hate us for tons of food we have given them? Should they hate us for the industrial and technological advancements we have given them? Should they hate us for the educational opportunities, humanitarian aid, social improvements and medical care we have given them? Should they hate us because they have come to us and asked and begged for our help and assistance when they have been overrun by their enemies and are being oppressed and abused and murdered – and we have gone to their aid?

      COMMENT: Obviously all of this unGodly, unConstitutional aid has done nothing to bribe these countries to stop hating us.

      And aren’t these forms of aid that I have mentioned (as well as others) actually a form of “Christian charity”? They ask and we give. They come to us with their open hands extended and we give. They appear on our doorstep with empty bellies and open mouths and we feed them. They are hurt and we heal them. If this is not “Christian charity” then I do not know what is.

      COMMENT: Handouts from the Federal GOVERNMENT are not “Christian charity” which comes from PRIVATE Christian individuals, organizations.

      If you want to say that our country has turned its back on God, I will agree, at least up to a point. But I will also say that although our country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, we have never had a theocratic government. Nor would I want one.

      COMMENT: There are no “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.” Those are two separate and VERY different religions, one for Christ, one against Christ. And all “theocracy” means is Godly rule which we had for about three generations, roughly 1620-1730 or so.

      My relationship with Christ is between God and me, and it should not be legislated by any government. Legislating morality is this the responsibility of the Holy Spirit, not man, and for any man (or government) to do so is tantamount to blasphemy because that man (or government) is setting himself (itself) up as equal to God. (and we all know what happened to the last individual who tried that!)

      

COMMENT: All governments, all legislation are based on some kind of “morality.” That is inescapable. Thus, the only question: Which morality? Whose morality? And the role of civil government is to administer and apply God’s Law, period (Romans 13). It is NOT to give health, education or welfare to anyone.

      

I will even go so far to say that many who call themselves “Christians” in this country, are likely not. Far too many of them attempt to change the meaning of God’s Word to fit what they already believe, when the reverse should be true. This has been a trend amongst “Christians” for the past several decades. Several years ago a bumper sticker became popular amongst Christians. It read: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” And that became almost a rallying cry among the “Christians” that I speak of. In reality, it is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard, and whenever I heard a “Christian” say it, my response has always been, “What makes you think your beliefs have anything to do with it? The saying should be: God said it, that settles it! Because in the long run, what you believe has nothing to do with it.”

      COMMENT: You seem, from your post, not all that familiar with what God has settled.

      • Mr. Lofton, here are my comments on your comments. For reference, I have placed your comments in brackets.

        [COMMENT: Sad to say, I believe most who tell pollsters they are “Christians” are, in fact, mindless, militaristic, warmongers who have supported our unGodly/unConstitutional wars. Thus, such “Christians” most definitely are responsible for such wars.]



        I would argue that it is very likely that these people are not Christian, or, if they are, they have strayed from the teaching of God.And, if they are supporting any action that is against God, then yes, they are as responsible as those who are engaging in that action – regardless of what that action is. War or other.

        [COMMENT: Uninteresting semantic hair-splitting. Countries are made up of individuals. Thus, the verses apply.]

        Your comment here seems to be contrary to both your comment above, and your comment below.

        [COMMENT: You need to read John Owen’s sermon “National Sins, National Judgement.” It will help you understand the issue. And no person is to be held responsible for the actions of governments they did not vote for. I did not vote for Obama (or anybody). Mary did not vote for those who crucified Christ. Thus, we are not responsible for those actions you seem to want to attribute to us — even though my posts says nothing about ALL people being responsible for the actions of their national government.]

        John Owen makes a valid point in his sermon, but only up to a point. The text he chose to make his point refers to Israel, the chosen people of God. As such, they were expected, as a whole, to follow God. When they did not, they were disciplined. When they did, they received God’s blessings. I agree with this 100%. However, as said, the text refers to God’s chosen people. Is America God’s chosen land? Are American’s God’s chosen people? It seems a bit presumptuous to think so since God has never indicated that we are. While it is true that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and ethics (more on that later), this does not mean that everyone was required to be a Christian. The Founding Fathers simply recognized the benefit of living a godly life. The First Amendment, however, which the Founders did incorporate into the Constitution, prevents any American government, including the Founders, from imposing a state run religion. And that includes Christianity.

        In addition, I am not trying to attribute responsibility to all citizens for the actions of their government. And, while you did not directly say that all citizens were responsible, you did imply it, and rather strongly I felt. Thus my comment. I was trying to point out that not all citizens could be held responsible for the actions of their government. Do you agree or not?

        [COMMENT: Irrelevant. Numerous wrongs do not make those wrongs right.]

        I am not implying that numerous wrongs make those wrongs right. I am attempting to point out that the making of those wrongs is something that many, if not all, countries engage in. It is not just the United States, and it is known as sin which is the natural state of all mankind. Do not expect something different unless the individuals in that country (ours or others) become Christians.

        [COMMENT: Then you are not familiar in an detail with what we have been doing for generations.]

        You made a generalized comment, without detail. I commented only on your comment. If you would care to provide specific details then I could comment on them. Otherwise, your generalization seems to imply that America is, and has been, more like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia for generations, with little or no good coming from our country.

        [COMMENT: Again, an irrelevant argument.]

        See my comment (#4) above.

        My previous response to your comments: “I believe the real reasons there are those in other countries who hate us (and I do not believe there are as many as the left would have us believe) are many. Jealousy (such as third world countries who do not have the resources – including freedom – America has), religious bigotry (such as islam), anti-capitalism ideologies (such as socialism, communism and others), and other similar reasons.”

        [COMMENT: I stand by the reasons I cited.]

        And I stand by mine.

        [COMMENT: As I say, you seem unfamiliar with any details of what’s been going on for decades. For example, you think our CIA overthrowing the government of Iran in the 1950s has nothing to do with Iran’s enmity toward us? You think our total support for Israel only in that area has nothing to do with Arab hatred for us? 

In the 9/11 Commission Report,” in a section titled “The Foundation Of The New Terrorism,” the question is asked: “How did Bin Ladin — with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans – win thousands of followers and some degree of approval for millions more?” Answer: “He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.” Bin Ladin’s charges, this “Report” says, “found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.

Of course our sticking our nose into fights none of our business has created hatred for us around the world in many areas. It’s political physics: Action, re-action.]



        RE: Iran – I doubt it. Since Mosaddegh was not an islamist, and since he was instituting reforms that benefitted the country rather than instituting sharia law, I would have to say no. The government of Iran today would likely have overthrown him as well. They may use the 1953 coup as an excuse for their rhetoric, but it doesn’t fit with their well publicized islamist attitude. And, before the question is asked, no, I would not have supported the coup, and no I do not agree with it. We should have not been involved in it.

        RE: Our support of Israel – Of course the islamic world hates us for our support of Israel. The islamic world is violently anti-Semitic. They hate all Jews, they hate Israel, and they have, almost as a whole, vowed to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. Therefore, if we support Israel (and there is no reason why we should not), the rest of the islamic world (including our supposed allies) hate us with an equal passion.

        You can quote the 9/11 Commission Report as to the reasons why bin Laden attacked us, and I will quote bin Laden himself as to why he attacked us. I also feel compelled to point out that the methods he employed to recruit terrorists and the reason he attacked us are two very different things. You made comments regarding why he attacked us, not what methods or speeches he used to recruit terrorists. I simply gave you bin Laden’s own response as to why he attacked us.

        This does not excuse our “sticking our nose into fights none of our business” as you put it, and I will agree that our government has done exactly that on too many occasions. I will also say, however, that our involvement is not unwarranted when we are asked to help, and are asked to become involved.

        [COMMENT: Nonsense. The religious beliefs of Islam have told Muslims for more than 1500 years to attack Christians. So, why did they come here big time in 2001? A November, 2004, report issued by the prestigious Defense Science Board (DSB) —a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense — tells us. Citing several polls showing widespread animosity against the U.S. in the Muslim world, the report says, “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

        The report adds, re: this hostility to America: “Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities….

        “If there is one overarching goal [these hostile Muslims] share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the ‘apostate’ regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive….

        “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits [in public opinion polls] in some Arab societies….

        “Yet the world of Islam — by overwhelming majorities… at this time — see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical, and American actions as deeply threatening. In other words, they do not hate us for our values, but because of our policies” (all emphases mine.)]

        I am not sure I would describe the DSB, or any other governmental agency in the current administration, as “prestigious,” but each to his own. Additionally, since the DSB, who was appointed by the current administration, has put forth an opinion that virtually parrots the opinion already put forth by the current administration, I can only ask what would you expect them to say? Therefore, I will have to continue to stand by my previous comments until a more independent and reputable source can be found to support your comments.

        You ask why did the muslims come here “big time” in 2001, and by that statement I assume you are asking why muslims have never attacked us on our own soil prior to the attack on 9/11. If that is indeed what you are asking, then I would have to ask you where you came up with that – especially since there have been over 1100 people either injured or killed by muslim radicals on American soil, just between the early 1970’s and Sept. 11, 2001. This does not include the more than 20 attacks and foiled attacks against Americans by muslim radicals in other areas of the world between 1979 and 2000 – including islamic terrorist attacks on several of our embassies, multiple military bases, numerous civilian airplanes, and other attacks; and including foiled attempted assassinations of two American presidents. The number of dead and wounded Americans in these attacks by muslim terrorists climbed into the thousands. If you would like to go even further back into our history, we can go back to the Barbary War (1801-1805) when we were at war with muslim pirates. I would have to say that our involvement with muslim attacks did not begin on September 11, 2001, but many years before that – and it is still going on. And again, as to why they attack us, I need look no further than Osama bin Laden. To paraphrase him: It’s what muslims do because the koran and the hadith demand it.

        [COMMENT: Obviously all of this unGodly, unConstitutional aid has done nothing to bribe these countries to stop hating us.]

        How is helping those who ask for our help “unGodly”as you say? No, you do not need to answer, as you have already answered this in your next comment where you write, “Handouts from the Federal GOVERNMENT are not “Christian charity” which comes from PRIVATE Christian individuals, organizations.” Putting aside all the “PRIVATE Christian individuals [&] organizations” that have been providing aid to these countries for years, am I to understand then, that any aid that comes from the federal government to those countries who ask for help, should be stopped because it is “unConstitutional” as you say?

        I’m sorry, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around your logic. Although I do disagree with much of the foreign aid that our government hands out, I have no problem with aid that goes to countries that not only need it, but request it and use it for the purpose it was intended. To say it is unconstitutional and should therefore be prohibited is ridiculous. I am constantly amazed at those who insist that the only laws and rights that can be afforded or enforced by the federal government are those which have been established by the Constitution.

        Established by which version of the Constitution? Do we go only by the original Constitution which was ratified in between 1787 and 1788? Do we include the Bill of Rights which wasn’t ratified until December 1791? Do we stop there as some “Constitutionalists” say, or do stop at some other period up to 1992 when the 27th Amendment was ratified? And what about those amendments that have expired before they could be ratified, such as the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 which prohibited inequality of men and women. This amendment was never ratified, so should we ignore it? And what of any future amendments? Do we follow them or ignore them? What if a current amendment is overturned, such as say, the Second Amendment? What then? And this does not even address those areas of our society that are not addressed by the Constitution. What of the federal highway system? The Federal Aid Highway Act was made law in 1956, but are the taxes we pay to support it covered by the Constitution? No, they are not. So should we stop paying taxes to support it? The implications of doing so should be obvious.

        Just because something is “unConstitutional,” meaning it isn’t covered by the Constitution, does not necessarily mean it is wrong and should be prohibited. You have to look at totality of the item in question, not just whether or not it is in the Constitution.

        [COMMENT: Handouts from the Federal GOVERNMENT are not “Christian charity” which comes from PRIVATE Christian individuals, organizations.]

        I must admit I am a bit confused by this comment. You seem to imply that you want a Christian government, based on Christian values and morals, and operating according to those same Christian values and morals, and yet you object to that same government when it actually does act according to those values. I also deduce from your choice of words that you are very much against any form of social welfare. Not that I am inviting a debate on that topic, I am just making an observation, and by that observation I would assume that you are a strict Constitutionalist, and therefore stridently against anything the federal government does that is not covered by the Constitution. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

        [COMMENT: There are no “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.” Those are two separate and VERY different religions, one for Christ, one against Christ. And all “theocracy” means is Godly rule which we had for about three generations, roughly 1620-1730 or so.]

        Apparently you are not familiar with the Bible and the term “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.” I would suggest a brief study of both, as both would be beneficial. Briefly, however, the Bible is separated into two parts – the Old Testament (which contains Jewish history, law, etc) and the New Testament (which contains the teachings of Jesus and the commands and teachings of God after Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law of the Old Testament through His death and resurrection. It is, of course, much more than that, but I am attempting to be brief.) Therefore, the term “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics” refers to those morals and ethics as set forth by God in both the Old and New Testaments, and which are to be followed by His followers.

        Your comment that Judaism and Christianity are “two separate and VERY different religions” shows that you are not well versed in either. Again briefly, Judaism follows the Old Testament (to a degree) and is still waiting for the appearance of the Messiah. Christianity follows both the Old Testament (where applicable) and the New Testament, and accepts that Jesus is the awaited Messiah, and we await His second coming. It is correct to say that as Christians we are “completed Jews” or “adopted Jews,” although both terms are lacking. Both Ephesians 2:11-22 and Romans 11 teach this. This is not to say that since we have been “grafted” or “adopted” into Israel we are now obligated to follow all the Jewish laws of the Old Testament. Remember, Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law, and by following Him, we are in obedience to that law. Unfortunately, many of our Jewish brethren have not recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and so are still following the old laws unnecessarily.

        Your comments on theocracy are also incorrect. A theocracy is not simply a “Godly rule” as you suggest. A theocracy is a form of government in which God (or a god) is considered the supreme ruler of the land, with specified church leaders being the only ones allowed to interpret God’s laws, which all the people are required to obey under threat of church punishment. America has never had a theocratic government.

        You claim that America had such a government (or “rule”) for approximately three generations between 1620 and 1730 (which is actually more like five generations), when you claim we had a “Godly rule.” Are you sure of this? Perhaps we should take a look at some of the highlights of this “Godly rule” you speak of. I will be brief.

        In 1620, the Pilgrims arrived and instituted a form of government here. As Puritans, their “Godly rule” imposed Puritan interpretations of Scripture, including the beliefs that all children bore the stain of sin upon their birth, and female children more so than males, as baby girls were guilty of the sin of Eve. Children could only be saved through religious instruction (rather than the blood of Jesus as the Bible teaches). Women were equal to their husbands only in that they were spiritual elders of their children. Other than that they were to be obedient and subservient to their husbands in all things and at all times. The church held absolute rule over all.

        In 1633, Maryland was settled as a Roman Catholic colony, and held beliefs contrary to those of the Puritans. One country, two very different views of God, and two very different ways of obeying Him. Which was right and which was wrong?

        In 1637, the Massachusetts Bay Colony banished and excommunicated Anne Hutchinson because she and her husband were holding religion meetings in their home, in violation of the church rules. She was forced to leave the colony and live in the wilderness where she was later killed by Indians. How “Godly” is that?

        In 1649 Maryland passed the “Toleration Act,” which states that all Christians, including Roman Catholics, are to be granted religious toleration. Imagine, a law had to instituted by men and passed by men, in order to enforce tolerance. Didn’t God already say to “love thine enemies and pray for those that persecute you”? (Matthew 5:44) Doesn’t sound like “Godly rule” you claim we had was working very good for the first 30 years of the time frame you’ve indicated.

        Let’s jump ahead to 1692, 72 years into the “Godly rule” you say we had in this country. It was in that year that 20 people were unjustly killed by government officials during the infamous Salem Witch Trials; and moving up to 1712, 18 years before the end of the ”Godly rule” you claim we had, 21 slaves were executed in New York because they wanted to be free. Again I ask, how “Godly” is that?

        No Mr. Lofton, we have never had a theocracy in any way, shape, or form. I am afraid you are simply mistaken sir.

        [COMMENT: All governments, all legislation are based on some kind of “morality.” That is inescapable. Thus, the only question: Which morality? Whose morality? And the role of civil government is to administer and apply God’s Law, period (Romans 13). It is NOT to give health, education or welfare to anyone.]

        I think you should read Romans 13 again. Nowhere does it say “the role of civil government is to administer and apply God’s Law, period.” On the contrary, Romans 13 instructs us to submit to the government, period. Therefore, if you rebel against the government, then aren’t you rebelling against God, and thus risking punishment, as Romans 13 clearly states?

        Furthermore, if Romans 13 said what you claim it says (which it doesn’t, but for the sake of argument), then isn’t it required to care for and feed the poor? There are twenty different passages in the New Testament alone (with dozens in the Old Testament) which command us to take care of the needs of the poor. If this is God’s law (which it clearly is), then isn’t the government required to follow these laws as well (as you claim Romans 13 instructs)? Or, are we to take a bottle of white out and eliminate those verses and laws and commands which do not fit what we already believe?

        [COMMENT: You seem, from your post, not all that familiar with what God has settled.]

        On the contrary, sir, I am quite familiar with what God has settled, and He has made it quite clear to me on many, many occasions, through many, many periods of instruction – some pleasant, some not so pleasant – but a loving Father is not adverse to using discipline to instruct. As Scripture says, “spare the rod, and spoil the child.”

        I would suggest that it is you who are unfamiliar with what God has clearly laid out for us in His Holy Word – and I say this with no disrespect or insult meant. I would further suggest, and only with the utmost sincerity for your best interests at heart, that you turn away from the teachings of men, and toward the teachings of God. And do so with a willingness to change what you believe if it is contrary to what God teaches.

      • — Your dismissal of John Owen’s sermon as referring only to “Israel, the chosen people of God” is wrong. The same national sins bring the same national judgment for all nations, all peoples for all time. Your flawed hermeneutic would make the 10 Commandments applicable to only ancient Israel which is also not true.

        — You are also wrong when you say: “The First Amendment, however, which the Founders did incorporate into the Constitution, prevents any American government, including the Founders, from imposing a state run religion. And that includes Christianity.” First Amendment applies only to CONGRESS establishing no national religion. When Constitution OK’d several colonies had established religions. And as Declaration indicates, our government had VERY “religious” founding. They said our rights from a “Creator” God, purpose of govt to protect/secure God-given rights.

        — And of course I agree that “not all citizens could be held responsible for the actions of their government.” I am the one who made that point!

        — Your statement that “that our involvement is not unwarranted when we are asked to help, and are asked to become involved” is a prescription for constant war and sticking our nose into fights none of our business. We are NOT the world’s policeman who has to go where any nation calls us. Scripture limits what constitutes a just war and not other countries asking us to help them with their wars. You need to read George Gillespie on “Forbidden Alliances” and what the Founders said about the dangers of “entangling alliances.”

        — You ask, presumably seriously: “am I to understand then, that any aid that comes from the federal government to those countries who ask for help, should be stopped because it is “unConstitutional” as you say?” YES, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. Our Constitution enumerates and specifies where Congress can spend money (Article 1, Section 8). If a program not in that section, then money CANNOT be spent! There is no “foreign aid” in that section; thus, “foreign aid” is unConstitutional. This is not rocket science.

        — You say: “Apparently you are not familiar with the Bible and the term “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.” There is, of course, no reference to “Judeo-Christian” anything in Scripture. There is a HEBREW religion in the OT but it is radically different from Judaism. Read and learn here from Arthur Cohen who writes in his book “The Myth Of The Judeo-Christian Tradition” (Schocken Books, 1971):

 “[The idea of a Judeo-Christian tradition] is a myth which buries under the fine silt of rhetoric the authentic, meaningful, and irrevocable distinction which exists between Jewish belief and Christian belief… .The effort of the philosophes was both to debunk the irrationality of religion and to construct a civil society grounded upon the neutralization of religion in the public domain…
         
        “European intellectuals came to regard Judaism and Christianity as essentially similar — similar not with respect to truth, but rather with respect to the untruth which they shared. Voltaire played no favorites, nor did any of the French philosophers of the Enlightenment. Christianity was the palpable enemy of reason, but Christianity grew from the delusions of Judaism, and hence Judaism was equally a ragbag of legends, superstition and falsities. The Judeo Christian connection was formed by the opponents of Judaism and Christianity, by the opponents of a system of unreason which had nearly destroyed Europe” (emphasis mine).
         
        Denouncing a mythical tradition “in which distinctions are fudged, diversities reconciled, differences overwhelmed by sloppy and sentimental approaches to falling in love after centuries of misunderstanding and estrangement,” Cohen says secular threats are real to both Jews and Christians. But, he adds: “Patching-over cannot suffice. The patching over can only deteriorate further what it seeks to protect…This is a time — and the time of the apocalypse is always such a time — when men must speak out of their differences and over the chasm that separates them…
         
        “It is only the illusion of a temporizing equalitarian society which imagines that a Judeo-Christian tradition is a reality… .I do not believe that the difference between Judaism and Christianity is minor, nor do I imagine that the difference is one of mere accent and private idiosyncrasy. The myth (and I do believe that it is a myth) of the Judeo-Christian tradition obscures that vast chasm of being which separates the two faiths. Christianity offers in Jesus Christ the promise and certainty of life. Judaism offers the world not the certainty but the choice of life, believing that only by choice (man’s inordinately Pelagian choice) is creation authentically sanctified” (emphasis mine.)
         
        Rejecting the “fundamentally autonomous view of religion,” Cohen says the view that “ought to prevail” is “the theonomous view.” And pointing out more differences, he says: “Judaism asserts that history is not redeemed. Christianity maintains that it is. This is a fundamental irreducible disagreement, which divides Judaism and Christianity to the end of time.”

        — You are also wrong on the meaning of “theocracy” when you say it means Godly rule with “with specified church leaders being the only ones allowed to interpret God’s laws, which all the people are required to obey under threat of church punishment.” Who says “theocracy” means this? What is the source of your definition? Read and learn hear from one of America’s greatest theologians on this topic:

The Meaning of Theocracy

        By Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

        Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.
        In Biblical law, the only civil tax was the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). This tax provided an atonement or covering for people, i.e. the covering of civil protection by the State as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). This very limited tax was continued by the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem, and from 768-900 AD helped make the Jewish princedom of Narbonne (in France) and other areas a very important and powerful realm (see Arthur J. Zuckerman: ” A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768-900” (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1965, 1972). This tax was limited to half a sheckel of silver per man.

        All other functions of government were financed by the tithe. Health, education, welfare, worship, etc., were all provided for by tithes and offerings. Of this tithe, one tenth (i.e. one percent of one’s income) went to the priests for worship. Perhaps an equal amount went for music, and for the care of the sanctuary. The tithe was God’s tax, to provide for basic government in God’s way. The second and the third tithes provided for welfare, and for the family’s rest and rejoicing before the Lord (see E.A. Powell and R.J. Rushdoony: “Tithing and Dominion” (Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67 Vallecito, CA 95251).

        What we today fail to see, and must recapture, is the fact that the basic governmentis the self-governing of covenant man; then the family is the central governing institutionof Scripture. The school is a governmental agency, and so too is the church. Our vocation also governs us, and our society. Civil government must be one form of government among many, and a minor one. Paganism (and Baal worship in all its forms) made the State and its rulers into a god or gods walking on earth, and gave them total over-rule in all spheres. The prophets denounced all such idolatry, and the apostles held, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

        From the days of the Caesars to the heads of the democratic states and Marxist empires, the ungodly have seen what Christians too often fail to see, namely, that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic State. Defective faith seeks to reduce Biblical faith to a man-centered minimum, salvation. Now salvation, our re-generation, is the absolutely essential starting point of the Christian life, but, if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied. Salvation is then made into a man-centered and egotistical thing, when it is in fact God-centered and requires the death, not the enthronement, of our sinful and self-centered ego. We are saved for God’s purposes, saved to serve, not in time only, but eternally (Rev. 22:3). To be saved is to be working members of that realm.
        In a theocracy, therefore, God and His law rule. The State ceases to be the over-lord and ruler of man. God’s tax, the tithe, is used by Godly men to create schools, hospitals, welfare agencies, counselors and more. It provides, as it did in Scripture, for music and more. All the basic social financing, other than the head tax of Ex. 30:11-16 was provided for by tithes and offerings or gifts. An offering or gift was that which was given above and over a tithe.

        Since none of the tithe agencies have any coercive power to collect funds, none can exist beyond their useful service to God and man. For the modern State, uselessness and corruption are no problem; they do not limit its power to collect more taxes. Indeed, the State increases its taxing power because it is more corrupt and more useless, because its growing bureaucracy demands it.
        California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson has repeatedly called attention to the fact that, once elected, public officials respond only under pressure to their voters but more to their peer group and their superiors. Lacking faith, they are governed by power.

        People may complain about the unresponsiveness of their elected officials, and their subservience to their peers and superiors, but nothing will alter this fact other than a change in the faith of the electorate and the elected. Men will respond to and obey the dominant power in their lives, faith, and perspective. If that dominant power or god in their lives is the State, they will react to it. If, however, it is the triune God of Scripture who rules them, then men will respond to and obey His law-word. Men will obey their gods.

        One of the more important books of this country was Albert Jay Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State”(Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho, 1935). Without agreeing with Nock in all things, it is necessary to agree with him that the modern State is man’s new church and saving institution. The state, however, is an antisocial institution, determined to suppress and destroy all the historic and religiously grounded powers of society. With F.D. Roosevelt and “The New Deal,” the goal of the Statists became openly “the complete extinction of social power through absorption by the State” (p.21). This will continue in its suicidal course, until there is not enough social power left to finance the State’s plans (as became the case in Rome). The State’s intervention into every realm is financed by the productivity of the non-Statist and economic sector: “Intervention retards production; then the resulting stringency and inconvenience enable further intervention, which in turn still further retards production; and this process goes on until, as in Rome, in the third century, production ceases entirely, and the source of payment dries up” (p.151f). It is true that crime needs suppression, but, instead of suppressing crime, the State safeguards its own monopoly of crime.”

        We can add that the solution to crime and injustice is not more power to the state, but God’s law and a regenerate man. The best safeguard against crime is godly men and a godly society. Furthermore, God’s law, in dealing with crime, requires restitution and with habitual criminals, the death penalty. (See R.J. Rushdoony: “Institutes of Biblical Law”).

        One more important point from Nock: he called attention to the fact that “social power” once took care of all emergencies, relieves, and disasters. When the Johnstown flood occurred all relief and aid was the result of a great outpouring of “private” giving. “Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. (p.6)
        This was once the only way such crises were met. Can it happen again? The fact is that it is happening again. Today, between 20-30% of all school children K-12 are in non-state-ist schools, and the percentage is likely to pass 50% by 1990 if Christians defend their schools from state-ist interventionism. More and more Christians are recognizing their duties for the care of their parents; churches are again assuming, in many cases, the care of elderly members. Homes for the elderly people, and also for delinquent children are being established. (One of the more famous of these, under the leadership of Lester Roloff, was under attack by the State, which refused to recognize sin as the basic problem with delinquents, and regeneration and sanctification as the answer.) Christians are moving into the areas of radio and television, not only to preach salvation but to apply Scripture to political, economic and other issues.

        Moreover, everywhere Christians are asking themselves the question, “What must I do, now that I am saved?” Answers take a variety of forms: textbook publishing for Christian Schools; periodicals and more. The need to revive and extend Christian hospitals is being recognized and much, much more.
        Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that when Christ was born, the government was to be on His shoulders, and that “Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.” By means of their tithing and actions, believers are in increasing numbers submitting to Christ’s government and re-ordering life and society in terms of it.

        The essence of humanism, from Francis stateto the present, has been this creed: to be human, man must be in control (Jeremy Rifkin with Ted Howard: “The Emerging Order”, p. 27.). This is an indirect way of saying that man is not man unless the government of all things is upon his shoulders, unless he is himself God. It is the expression of the tempter’s program of revolt against God (Gen. 3:5). John Locke developed this faith by insisting that Christianity thus could not be the basis of public activity, but only a private faith. The foundation of the State and of public life was for Locke, in reason.

        But, reason, separated from Christian faith and presupposition, became man’s will, or better, man’s will in radical independence from God. The State then began to claim one area of life after another as public domain and hence under the State as reason incarnate. One of the first things claimed by Locke’s philosophy and “reason” was man himself! Man, instead of being a sinner, was, at least in the human and public realm, morally neutral; he was a blank piece of paper, and what he became was a product of education and experience. It thus was held necessary for the state, the incarnate voice of “reason,” to control education in order to product the desired kind of man.

        The State claimed the public realm. The public realm had belonged, in terms of Christian faith, to God, like all things else, and to a free society under God. The church was scarcely dislodged from its claims over the public realm when the state came in to claim it with even more total powers.
        But this was not all. The state enlarged the public realm by new definitions, so that steadily, one sphere after another fell into the hands of the state. Education was claimed, and control over economics, a control which is now destroying money and decreasing social and economic productivity. The arts and sciences are subsidized and controlled, and are begging for more. Marriage and the family are controlled; a White House Conference on the Family viewed the family as a public and hence, Statist realm, one the state must invade and control.

        Ancient Rome regarded religion itself as a public domain and hence licensed and controlled it. (The very word “liturgy,” Greek in origin, means public service. Religion is indeed a public concern, more so than the state, but not thereby a matter for state-ist control.) Rome, like all ancient pagan states, equated the public domain with the state’s domain, and it saw all things as aspects of the state’s domain.

        For any one institution to see itself as the public domain is totalitarianism. All things public and private are in the religious domain and under God. No institution, neither church nor state, can equate itself with God, and claim control of the public (or private) domain. Every sphere of life is interdependent with other spheres and alike under God. No more than mathematics has the “right” to control biology do church or state have the “right” to control one another, or anything beyond their severely limited sphere of government.

        There are thus a variety of spheres of government under God. There spheres are limited, interdependent and under God’s sovereign government and law-word. They cannot legitimately exceed their sphere. The legitimate financial powers of all are limited. The state has a small head tax. The tithe finances all other spheres.

        The tithe, it must be emphasized, is to the Lord, not to the church, a difference some churchmen choose to miss or overlook. This robs the individual believer of all right to complain about things; by the godly use of his tithe, he can create new agencies, churches, schools, and institutions to further God’s Kingdom in every area of life and thought. Holiness comes not by our abilities to whine and bewail the things that are, but by our faithful use of the tithe and the power God gives us to remake all things according to His Word.

        Tithing and godly action, these are the keys to dominion. We are called to dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:1-17; Joshua 1:1-9; Matt. 28:18020; etc.). The creation mandate is our covenant mandate; restoration into the covenant through Christ’s atonement restores us into the mandate to exercise dominion and gives us the power to effect it.

        Aspects of that mandate can be exercised through institutions, and sometimes must be, but the mandate can never be surrendered to them. The mandate precedes all instructions, and it is to man personally as man (Gen. 1:28). This is the heart of theocracy as the Bible sets it forth. Dictionaries to the contrary, theocracy is not a government by the state, but a government over every institution by God and His Law, and through the activities of the free man in Christ to bring ever area of life and thought under Christ’s Kingship.

        
— You are wrong on Romans 13 which says specifically that he who is in civil government is a “minister” of God. Thus, the job of those in civil government is ministerial, to administer, to apply, God’s Law. And, interestingly, the Greek word in Romans 13:4 in the New Testament for “minister” is “diakonos” meaning, as I say, minister, but also translated as “servant.” And it is from the Greek word “diakonos” from which we get the English word for one of our church offices, the Office of Deacon. And there is not one Bible verse that says it is the role of civil government (Caesar) to give healthcare, education, welfare to ANYBODY. That ministry of grace is to be carried out by God’s people, Christians.

         

      • Mr. Lofton, again, here are my comments on your recent comments. For reference, I have again placed your comments in brackets.

        [— Your dismissal of John Owen’s sermon as referring only to “Israel, the chosen people of God” is wrong. The same national sins bring the same national judgment for all nations, all peoples for all time. Your flawed hermeneutic would make the 10 Commandments applicable to only ancient Israel which is also not true.]

        I did not say that John Owen’s sermon referred to only to Israel. I said the text he used as the basis for his sermon referred only to Israel – God’s chosen people. An examination of the text clearly shows this.

        [— You are also wrong when you say: “The First Amendment, however, which the Founders did incorporate into the Constitution, prevents any American government, including the Founders, from imposing a state run religion. And that includes Christianity.” First Amendment applies only to CONGRESS establishing no national religion. When Constitution OK’d several colonies had established religions. And as Declaration indicates, our government had VERY “religious” founding. They said our rights from a “Creator” God, purpose of govt to protect/secure God-given rights.]

        So, if I understand you correctly, you are not only in favor of a state run religion, you are saying that America should have one. Am I correct? And if so, what religion should that be? And if it is Christianity, then what form of Christianity will the state run religion be?

        [— And of course I agree that “not all citizens could be held responsible for the actions of their government.” I am the one who made that point!]

        Actually, you implied that everyone was responsible for the actions of their government. In my comments I made case for not all citizens could be held responsible.

        [— Your statement that “that our involvement is not unwarranted when we are asked to help, and are asked to become involved” is a prescription for constant war and sticking our nose into fights none of our business. We are NOT the world’s policeman who has to go where any nation calls us. Scripture limits what constitutes a just war and not other countries asking us to help them with their wars. You need to read George Gillespie on “Forbidden Alliances” and what the Founders said about the dangers of “entangling alliances.”]

        Your position is very “Ron Paulish,” and I have already commented on that, and I stand by my comments.

        [— You ask, presumably seriously: “am I to understand then, that any aid that comes from the federal government to those countries who ask for help, should be stopped because it is “unConstitutional” as you say?” YES, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. Our Constitution enumerates and specifies where Congress can spend money (Article 1, Section 8). If a program not in that section, then money CANNOT be spent! There is no “foreign aid” in that section; thus, “foreign aid” is unConstitutional. This is not rocket science.]

        You say if a program is not contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, then money cannot be spent on it. You say, there is no foreign aid in that section, thus foreign aid is unconstitutional. Using your logic, the space program is unconstitutional, as are food stamps, Medicaid, medicare, social security, military pensions, military disability, the VA, the FDA, the EPA (and other federal programs), eliminating jobs formerly done by the military and outsourcing them to private companies such as Blackwater, FEMA and FEMA disaster aid, and many other federal programs which are not contained in Article 1, Section 8 are all unconstitutional and, according to you, money cannot be spent on them. I trust you can see the obvious problem with your logic here, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Article 1, Section 8 to say that many of these “unconstitutional” programs are indeed constitutional. As I stated previously, you have to take the constitution as a whole, as well as the Supreme Court decisions, in order to understand the constitution. You have not.

        [— You say: “Apparently you are not familiar with the Bible and the term “Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.” There is, of course, no reference to “Judeo-Christian” anything in Scripture. There is a HEBREW religion in the OT but it is radically different from Judaism. Read and learn here from Arthur Cohen who writes in his book “The Myth Of The Judeo-Christian Tradition” (Schocken Books, 1971):

 ”[The idea of a Judeo-Christian tradition] is a myth which buries under the fine silt of rhetoric the authentic, meaningful, and irrevocable distinction which exists between Jewish belief and Christian belief… .The effort of the philosophes was both to debunk the irrationality of religion and to construct a civil society grounded upon the neutralization of religion in the public domain…]

        Cohen’s purpose in writing “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition” was to elevate Judaism over Christianity. He felt that the term and the belief in the Judeo-Christian tradition was an attempt to “de-Judaize” Christianity and diluted Judaism by making it a part of or equal to Christianity. Cohen said that the term was first used by German critics of the Bible who were attempting to remove or conceal the Jewish roots of Christianity. In actual fact, however, the term was first used in English and French accounts from the mid 19th century. To sum it up, Cohen was wrong.

        And how can you say “There is a HEBREW religion in the OT but it is radically different from Judaism.”? The Old Testament IS Judaism! To the Jews, it is not known as the “Old Testament,” it is known as the Tanakh, or “The Written Torah.” The Tanakh is the Old Testament. True the names of the books are given in Hebrew, and there are occasional differences in the numbering of verses as well as some differences in the translations in some areas, but by and large the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh are the same thing!

        [— You are also wrong on the meaning of “theocracy” when you say it means Godly rule with “with specified church leaders being the only ones allowed to interpret God’s laws, which all the people are required to obey under threat of church punishment.” Who says “theocracy” means this? What is the source of your definition? Read and learn hear from one of America’s greatest theologians on this topic:

The Meaning of Theocracy By Dr. R.J. Rushdoony]

        I am not sure I would call Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony “one of America’s greatest theologians,” and I think an examination of Dr. Rushdoony will bear that out. So let’s take your advice and “Read and learn hear from one of America’s greatest theologians … Dr. R.J. Rushdoony.”

        In his three volume work, “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” Rushdoony supports the reinstatement of Old Testament laws, specifically the penal sanctions found in the Mosaic Law. If Rushdoony had his way (according to his own words) the following crimes (as well as others) would carry a mandatory death sentence: Homosexuality, adultery, lying about one’s virginity, witchcraft (including reading one’s daily horoscope) and sorcery, females (but not males) who engage in premarital sex, idolatry or apostasy, heresy, public blasphemy, striking a parent, false prophesying, breaking the Sabbath, kidnapping, being an incorrigible or disobedient child, and bearing false witness in a capital case. [see also The Chalcedon Report #252]

        I can agree with spanking a disobedient child, but not killing him as Rushdoony would have.

        In addition to these “crimes,” Rushdoony also advocated the death penalty for those who believed in and/or promoted democracy.

        Rushdoony was hyper-critical of democracy. In fact, he despised democracy. He wrote in “Thy Kingdom Come – Studies in Daniel and Revelation” (1970, pg 39), “The heresy of democracy has since worked havoc in church and state … Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies. … Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy.” He characterized democracy as “the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”Now, remember, Rushdoony advocated the mandatory death penalty to all who are guilty of heresy and idolatry – and this is just how Rushdoony labels all who believe in and promote democracy.

        He also wrote in Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law, (page 468): “All who are content with a humanistic law system…are guilty of idolatry…they are asking us to serve other gods.” Since Democracy is a humanistic law system, Rushdonny equates it with idolatry – for which he advocates the mandatory death penalty. Rushdoony goes on to say, “This condemnation does not apply to a missionary situation, where the land is anti-God to begin with: this is a situation for conversion. It does require a nation grounded in God’s law-system to preserve that order by punishing the basic treason against it. No society is without testing, and God tests man by these challenges, to see whether man will stand in terms of God’s order or not (v. 3). Idolatry is thus not only punishable by law as socially detrimental, it is in fact a capital offence. It constitutes treason to the King or Sovereign, to Almighty God.” (The Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 38-39 and 66.) So, if a country is not theocratic (as I have defined it), then they are to be forced by open warfare to abandon their current form of government (such as communism, socialism, or a democratic republic such as America), and then are to be put to death if they do not renounce their current form of government in favor of a theocracy (see Institutes of Biblical Law, pp 93, 113).

        The only thing Rushdoony and I agree on, is the definition of theocracy. We both have the same definition (which is quite different than yours).

        Moving on, Rushdoony also seems to deny the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. He said, “The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany (i.e., the death camps) is especially notable and revealing…. the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 … very many of these people died of epidemics.” (The Institutes of Biblical Law) According to Rushdoony’s own interpretation of Mosaic Penal Laws, those who condemn the Nazi’s for killing six million Jews in the death camps, are actually guilty of bearing false witness against Germany in a capital case, and are therefore deserving of the mandatory death penalty.

        Based on Rushdoony’s own writings, he is advocating a holocaust of his, including those who do not share his anti-Semitic, holocaust denying views.

        Perhaps the greatest blasphemy committed by Rushdoony, whom you call “one of America’s greatest theologians” is racism and the advocating of slavery.

        He spoke out against the Civil War, specifically against the North winning the war. He felt that the loss by the South destroyed the American Republic, a Republic which Rushdoony envisioned as a Protestant ruled feudal system. He said that the North’s victory was a “defeat for Christian orthodoxy.” In fact, he once proclaimed, “All men are NOT created equal before God.”

        How does this compare with the Word of God? Galatians 3:28 states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 3:11 states: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” and 1 Corinthians 12:13 states: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

        Clearly, there are two very different, contradictory teachings here. On the one hand you have Dr. Rushdoony proclaiming “All men are NOT created equal before God” and on the other hand, in direct contradiction to Dr. Rushdoony, you have God Himself saying that in Christ all men are equal. These two teachings cannot be reconciled, as they are diametrically opposed to one another.

        But, Rushdoony did not stop there, as his writings (the writings you encourage me to read) state the following:

        “An employer therefore has a property right to prefer whom he will, and he can prefer whom he will in terms of color, creed, race, or national origin.” (Foundations of Social Order)
        “Selective breeding in Christian countries has led to … the progressive elimination of defective persons.” (Foundations of Social Order)

        “A ‘Litany’ popular in these circles identifies ‘God’ with the city, with the ’spick, black nigger, bastard, Buddhahead, and kike,’ with ‘all men,this concept runs deeply through the so-called Civil Rights Revolution… But …no society has ever existed without class and caste lines.” (Foundations of Social Order)

        “The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually.”(Institutes of Biblical Law)

        “Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence . . . The law is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so.” (The Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 286 and 251)

        “For example, the white man is being systematically indoctrinated into believing that he is guilty of enslaving and abusing the Negro. Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States. There is not the slightest evidence that any American Negro had ever lived in a “free society” in Africa; even the idea did not exist in Africa. The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually as well as personally. The Negroes were sold from a harsh slavery into a milder one. Slavery was basic to the African way of life, to the point that slaves were the actual money of the African economy. Elsewhere, gold and silver served as money; in Africa, it was slaves…. The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form. Much is said about the horrors of the slave ships, many of which were very bad, but it is important to remember that slaves were valuable cargo and hence property normally handled with consideration.” (R.J. Rushdoony, “Politics of Guilt and Pity,” Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, [1970, 1978], pp 3-4, 19, 25)

        And, “inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.” (The Institutes of Biblical, page 257) Please note that not only does Rushdoony condemn inter-racial marriages, but also marriage between religious groups (such as Catholic and Protestant, Quaker and Baptist, etc.) and also inter-cultural marriages (such as between Jews and non-Jews, Irish and Italian, etc.).

        As I said, I am not sure I would call Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony “one of America’s greatest theologians,” but again, to each his own.

        With regard to my definition of theocracy, you say, “Who says theocracy means this? What is the source of your definition?” Well, try these:

        Theocracy [θɪˈɒkrəsɪ]
        n pl -cies
        1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a deity or by a priesthood
        2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a community or political unit under such government
        [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003]

        the•oc•ra•cy (θiˈɒk rə si)
        n., pl. -cies.
        1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme ruler.
        2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
        3. a commonwealth or state under such a form of government.
        [Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.]

        Theocracy
        1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
        2: a state governed by a theocracy
        [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

        Theocracy
        The definition of a theocracy is a government or country that is ruled by someone who has religious authority or divine right.
        [YourDictionary definition and usage example. Copyright © 2013 by LoveToKnow Corp.]

        the•oc•ra•cy
        [thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
        noun, plural the•oc•ra•cies.
        1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
        2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
        3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
        [Dictionary.com]

        Theocracy
        noun
        Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; divine kingship.
        [Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]

        Theocracy
        1. a system of government in which God or a deity is held to be the civil ruler; thearchy.
        2. a system of government by priests; hagiarchy.
        3. a state under such a form of rule. — theocrat, n. — theocratic, adj.
        [-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.]

        Theocracy
        By Tom Head, About.com Guide
        Definition: A theocracy (“theo-” = God, “-cracy” = government) is a government operated under divine rule, or the pretense of divine rule. In practice, this term refers to a government operated by religious authorities who claim unlimited power in the name of God or other supernatural forces.

        There are many governments–including the United States–in which leaders invoke God, or claim to be inspired by God, or claim to obey the will of God. This does not, in practice, make a government a theocracy. What makes a government a theocracy is when lawmakers actually believe that leaders are governed by the will of God, and write laws predicated on this belief.

        http://civilliberty.about.com/od/religiousliberty/g/Theocracy-Definition.htm

        Do you require more? As you point out, “few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy.” As you have adopted a misinterpreted understanding of theocracy as defined by your eminent “theologian” Dr. Rushdoony (who understood it quite well, and wanted to institute a forced theocracy under the threat of death in America), I would say you are correct that the nature and meaning of theocracy are commonly misunderstood – as you yourself have clearly misunderstood it.

        [— You are wrong on Romans 13 which says specifically that he who is in civil government is a “minister” of God. Thus, the job of those in civil government is ministerial, to administer, to apply, God’s Law. And, interestingly, the Greek word in Romans 13:4 in the New Testament for “minister” is “diakonos” meaning, as I say, minister, but also translated as “servant.” And it is from the Greek word “diakonos” from which we get the English word for one of our church offices, the Office of Deacon. And there is not one Bible verse that says it is the role of civil government (Caesar) to give healthcare, education, welfare to ANYBODY. That ministry of grace is to be carried out by God’s people, Christians.]


        Where in Romans 13 does it specifically state that the role of civil government is to administer and apply God’s law? Again, the answer is nowhere. In fact, the phrase “God’s law” does not appear anywhere in this chapter. It may your interpretation, but it is a misinterpretation.

        Romans 13:4 clearly states “For he is the minister of God to thee for good.” This definition is repeated again in verses 5 & 6. In your comment you first interpret the term minister as meaning “ministerial, to administer, to apply,” but this is a wrong interpretation, likely chosen by you because it fits what you want it to say. You then go on to change your interpretation of the word as meaning “servant” which is a correct interpretation. You also point out that the original Greek word used here is diakonos, from which we get the title of Deacon. This is also correct. And what are the Biblical responsibilities of a Deacon? To serve, of course. In the Greek New Testament, the word translated as “serve” is diakoneo, which literally means “through the dirt.” It refers to an attendant, a waiter, or one who ministers (or serves) another.

        Deacons do not preach or teach or reprove, rebuke or exhort. These are the duties of Elders and Pastors (see 2 Timothy 4:2). Deacons are responsible for taking care of the everyday things such as building maintenance, organizational tasks, and, most importantly taking care of the needs of others. And there is your social welfare obligations of government.

        In Acts 6:2, we find the first use of “Deacon” as a servant, when the Apostles said “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” They had been spending their time feeding those who came to hear them preach. Yes, feeding them – providing for their needs – social welfare. They then appointed Deacons to do this for them, thus freeing them up to spend more time spreading God’s Word.

        This is also spoken of in Romans 13: 4-6 where it lists the responsibilities of the “civil government” (as you call them), or the “minister (servant) of God.” In verse four we find the first, and presumably the most important of the servant’s responsibilities (by virtue of the fact that it is listed first), and that is, “he is the minister of God to thee for good.” It is his responsibility to do good for you. In other words, to take care of your needs. Again, this would include social welfare. (It is important to note here, that this social welfare is designed only for those who are unable to care for themselves due to circumstances beyond their control, and not for those who are simply lazy and taking advantage of the system).

        We also find in verse 4 the second of the “civil servants” responsibilities, and that is to be “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”In verse 5 we see that we are to be subject to God’s servant, which places him in a position of authority over us – not to impose God’s laws as you say, but to be subject to the wrath spoken of if we do evil, as well as for our consciences sake. And in verse 6, we see the last of his responsibilities as laid forth in this chapter, and that is to receive the tribute (or taxes) that we are to pay, and the reason given is that they (the government) “are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

        And, as I pointed out in my previous comments on Romans 13, in this chapter we are instructed, by God, to submit to the government. If we rebel against God’s servant, who is fulfilling his responsibilities are set forth by God, then are we not rebelling against God Himself? And, therefore, subject to the punishment described in Romans 13? Clearly, the answer is yes.

        The remainder of Romans 13 are instructions (or commands if you will) from God to His followers on how to live. These include, by the way, five of the ten commandments given by God to Moses, as recorded in the Torah portion of the Tanakh, or Old Testament.

        The clear and direct teaching of Romans 13 is in direct contrast to your comments and beliefs.

      • Last post on these topics:

        — To say that my anti-interventionist views are very “Ron Paulish” as if that in and of itself means my view is wrong shows you have no argument against what I post.

        — My position on the Constitution is not based on “logic” but rather THE TEXT of the Constitution. And this text and NOT the Supreme Court determines what is or is not allowable spending (Article 1, Section 8). Your ignorance of the Constitution and what it allows spending on is astonishing but, alas, typical which is why were are gazillions of $$$ in debt.

        — Dr. Rushdoony IS one of America’s greatest theologians. I knew him personally and am familiar with his writings. He was NONE of the things you accuse him of. He did indeed support God’s unchanging Law (as I do).

      • Mr. Lofton, I would like to sincerely thank you for your comments. They have enabled me to understand both you and your beliefs, and thus the beliefs of the Constitution Party (since you were a 2004 presidential candidate for the Constitution Party). I believe that due to your comments, I also have a better understanding of the political ideology of what I will call “strict constitutionalism” (as opposed to “constitutionalism,” as I believe that not all constitutionalists are as extremist as you are). I have enjoyed our conversation very much. Again, I thank you.

        As with my previous replies to your comments, I have placed your comments in brackets in order to differentiate them from my comments.

        [Last post on these topics:]
        [— To say that my anti-interventionist views are very “Ron Paulish” as if that in and of itself means my view is wrong shows you have no argument against what I post.]

        Actually, I countered your anti-interventionist views in our second exchange, and quite successfully I believe. That being said, however, I am not a Ron Paul supporter (obviously), so when your views and Ron Paul’s views mesh, I would not support your views either. And they do on more than one point (most prominently your view on why muslims hate us. You can read an article on why Paul’s view on this matter is wrong, here: http://independentrealist.blogspot.com/2011/08/ron-paul-needs-lesson-in-history-of.html)

        As far as your anti-interventionist views, I am not sure you are anti-interventionist, as anti-interventionism is contrary to some of your well publicized ideologies. For instance, anti-interventionism teaches we (or any anti-interventionist government) should avoid any wars that are not directly related to self-defense, and we should not have any alliances with any other country. It also teaches, however, that we should retain diplomacy and trade with these other countries. Retaining diplomacy and trade with these other countries is contrary to your own teachings, Mr. Lofton.

        You have repeatedly stated that our government is to be a Godly government, based on God’s laws, and enforcing God’s laws, and God’s laws alone. You have gone on to state on more than one occasion that any law that does not conform to God’s laws, is not really a law, and therefore unenforceable. (Please note your appearance on the public access television program “Vision” with Dr. Alveda King). You have also stated that we, as a nation, are to have nothing to do with the ungodly. This would also include our government. Even your own Dr. Rushdoony (whom you admire so much) said, “All who are content with a humanistic law system…are guilty of idolatry” and therefore, ungodly. This would include all non-Christian nations. Therefore, to say that you are anti-interventionist, and as thus, believe in maintaining diplomatic relations (and trade as well) with ungodly nations around the world (as all who are not governed by a Christian theocracy would be), is completely contrary to your own teachings.

        In addition, since your views are virtually identical to those held by your beloved Dr. Rushdoony, it is safe to assume that you agree with his teachings. All of them. Therefore, since Dr. Rushdoony also advocated war with any nonChristian nation for the purpose of forcing them to accept Christianity – even if at gunpoint, you must hold this view as well. This would be further validated by your (and Dr. Rushdoony’s ) belief that those who practice heresy (any nonChristian religion) are to be put to death. Again, this viewpoint would invalidate your claim that you are non-interventionist.

        [— My position on the Constitution is not based on “logic” but rather THE TEXT of the Constitution. And this text and NOT the Supreme Court determines what is or is not allowable spending (Article 1, Section 8). Your ignorance of the Constitution and what it allows spending on is astonishing but, alas, typical which is why were are gazillions of $$$ in debt.]

        I must admit your statement here is almost too ridiculous to even answer, but I will give it a shot.

        Using only the text of the Constitution, and abandoning all logic in arriving at an answer, do you believe the individual states must pay their debts, all debts, in, and only in, “gold and silver coin”? The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 10: “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” If so, then are the individual states violating the Constitution by not using gold and silver coin when paying state income tax refunds, and where do I sign up for the class action law suit against all the states I have lived in over the years?

        Now, bear in mind that Congress has made the dollar legal tender, although it is not backed by gold or silver. Of course, this is not in the Constitution, and according to you this makes it invalid (and thus all money not backed by gold or silver is invalid as well – which begs the question: Are you using counterfeit money to buy your groceries and pay your bills? But that is a question for another time).

        Again, using only the text of the Constitution, and abandoning all logic in arriving at an answer, do you believe the city of Providence, Rhode Island is entitled to their own representative in the United States House of Representatives? Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states (with reference to how many representatives are allowed for each state): “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations – one.” Therefore, using only the text, and completely ignoring logic, both Rhode Island and Providence Plantations are entitled to one representative each in the U.S. House of Representatives.

        Currently, there are two representatives from Rhode Island in the House of Representatives. However, according to the text of Section 2, they are only entitled to one. Providence Plantations was established in 1636 as a village. It later became the city of Providence, Rhode Island. Therefore, since we are abandoning all logic here and basing our interpretation of the Constitution only on its text, the City of Providence is entitled to its own representative in the House. That Rhode Island has apparently taken Providence’s representative for itself, is clearly grounds for litigation. At least based on your method of interpreting the Constitution. I wonder if Providence can have Rhode Island arrested for kidnapping. Or would that be “rep-napping”?

        You are claiming that my “ignorance of the Constitution and what it allows spending on is astonishing” (excuse me whilst I snicker here for a moment… okay, I’m back), “but, alas, typical which is why we are gazillions of $$$ in debt.”

        Wow. GAZILLIONS of dollars in debt. The federal government is really spending money in even greater amounts than I ever imagined! Especially since just last year you, yourself announced that we were “more than 56 trillion dollars in debt.” Going from more than $56 trillion to gazillions in less than a year is, well, astounding. By the way, as of this month (April 2013), the United States total debt is $16,808,240,386,273. Almost $17 trillion, and a far cry from “more than $56 trillion” and even father from “gazillions.” Still criminal, but I would have thought that you could have refrained from embellishing the amount. Just a bit anyway.

        [— Dr. Rushdoony IS one of America’s greatest theologians. I knew him personally and am familiar with his writings. He was NONE of the things you accuse him of. He did indeed support God’s unchanging Law (as I do).]

        I realize you admire Dr. Rushdoony, and your admiration is bordering on deification, but again I have to question your description of him as “one of America’s greatest theologians.” The fact that you knew him personally does not make him a theologian, must less a great one. If you were as familiar with his writings as you claim, then you would realize that he is everything that I said of him (and likely more).

        As I stated previously (and fully documented as well I might add), Dr. Rushdoony believed, supported and advocated for eugenics, anti-Semitism, racism, slavery, holocaust denial, the mandatory death penalty for all who violated Mosaic law, and he believed that “All men are NOT created equal before God” (which is directly contrary to God’s Word). Dr. Rushdoony openly supported all of these anti-Christian and unGodly views in his writings. Writings that are still readily available today.

        You can deny this as often and as vociferously as you like, yet Dr. Rushdoony’s own words support my claims against him, and invalidate your defense of him. My question to you is, since you are such a vocal advocate of and for Dr. Rushdoony, and your admiration for him is shown by your enthusiastic support of his teachings, do you agree with his positions on eugenics, anti-Semitism, racism, slavery, holocaust denial, the mandatory death penalty for all who violated Mosaic law, and his statement that “All men are NOT created equal before God”? And, if not, then why do you not renounce him? Why do you still promote him, his beliefs and his teachings?

        As I know you will read this, I will take your silence on these final questions as your tacit approval, acceptance and agreement of Dr. Rushdoony’s anti-Christian and ungodly beliefs and teachings.

      • For-the-record, my silence re: any of your arguments means nothing other than that I am silent. Your sleazy attempt to impute motive and meaning to my silence is yet one more example of your intellectual dishonesty. Also, for-the-record, I am in no way affiliated with the Constitution Party and have not been for many years. The fact that you, obviously, cut-and-paste from internet sources, and believe those sources, demonstrates your reckless disregard of facts and what is true.

      • PS — And I was never a Constitution Party candidate for anything.

      • And here I thought you were done. Didn’t you write at the beginning of your last post, that is was indeed your last post on this topic? Why yes, yes you did. Apparently you were mistaken. I’ll not call it a lie. Now then, did you just resort to name calling? Did you just call me “sleazy”? To think that I had not believed that you would stoop as low as name calling and insults. Especially since you claim to be a Christian. Can you please tell me where in the Bible God excuses this type of behavior, as I seem to have missed it somehow.

        As for cutting and pasting, I only cut and paste when I am posting exact quotes and sources. Otherwise, the words I write are my own. Just to be clear and just for the record, as you say. You claim that you are in no way affiliated with the Constitution Party, and have not been for many years. I did read that you were a candidate for the Constitution Party in 2004, however, I cannot recall the source. Therefore I will retract that. My apologies. As for not being affiliated, you yourself have stated on your own website that you were an advisor to the presidential campaign of Michael Peroutka, who ran in 2004 on the Constitution Party ticket. You also state that you were his communications director. You also state that you joined the Constitution Party, and there is no mention that I could find, anywhere on your website, that you had left the Constitution Party. Instead, you sing the praises of the Constitution Party, again on your own website.

        You have currently posted on your Facebook page that you “like” the Constitution Party of South Carolina, and ZoomInfo.com has you listed as a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina. Finally, Wikipedia says of you: “Lofton is most closely allied with the Constitution Party.” Granted, Wikipedia can be notoriously unreliable since virtually anyone can write whatever they want, however, you also have not only the opportunity and ability to change the Wikipedia article about you, but you can dispute it as well. Since you haven’t, I can only conclude it is accurate.

        Therefore, since all the sources I have been able to find, including your own website and your own Facebook page, all show you as currently being affiliated with the Constitution Party, I can only conclude that you are indeed affiliated with them, regardless of what you are now saying here. If you would like people to recognize that you are not affiliated with the Constitution Party, then perhaps you should make changes to your website and your Facebook page to reflect this.

        I would also like to note that you are avoiding answering my question, so allow me to repeat it: since you are such a vocal advocate of and for Dr. Rushdoony, and your admiration for him is shown by your enthusiastic support of his teachings, do you agree with his positions on eugenics, anti-Semitism, racism, slavery, holocaust denial, the mandatory death penalty for all who violated Mosaic law, and his statement that “All men are NOT created equal before God”? And, if not, then why do you not renounce him? Why do you still promote him, his beliefs and his teachings?

        What is your answer Mr. Lofton?

  2. Are Christians to be held responsible by God for their country’s actions, especially if they have no say in how their country is run or the decisions their country makes? I would have to say no, and yet this seems to be a common theme in the beliefs of many Christians. As hard as I try, however, I can find no Biblical basis for it. Galations 6:7 says, “… whatsoever a man soweth,m that shall he also reap.” A “man soweth,” not a country soweth. Proverbs 26:17 says, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him,…” again talks about the individual, not the country. If we are to assume that the individual (whether Christian or not) is to be held personally responsible for the actions of his or her government, then you should be held personally responsible for our government’s lack of response in Benghazi and the resulting deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others who died there. I should be held personally responsible for ObamaCare, even though I had no input into its creation, even though I did not vote for Obama, even though I have long spoken out (and continue to do so) against ObamaCare. And, following this same logic, Mary, the mother of Jesus, should have been held personally responsible for the death of Christ on the cross because it was ordered by the government of her country, and insisted upon by the leading religious elders of her country. I am sure you see the problem with holding the individual responsible for the actions of their country.

    I will grant you that our country does have a habit of meddling in the affairs of other countries, often with very negative results. However, is that not the way of mankind? Do not many countries, if not all of them, do the same thing? I would not say our country has been the bully of the world, nor would I imply that for generations our country has been torturing and murdering people, nor “treating many foreigners in many countries as if they are our hired help.” Although this could be said of many other countries, especially those islamic countries in the Middle East who have been conquering and enslaving other countries for thousands of years and continue to do so to this day.

    I believe the real reasons there are those in other countries who hate us (and I do not believe there are as many as the left would have us believe) are many. Jealousy (such as third world countries who do not have the resources – including freedom – America has), religious bigotry (such as islam), anti-capitalism ideologies (such as socialism, communism and others), and other similar reasons. To say that countries hate us because of our meddling in their affairs (such as Ron Paul has repeatedly stated) is nothing more than nonsense. Proponents of this theory continually claim this is the reason we were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, in spite of Osama bin-Laden himself stating, on more than one occasion, “I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.” We were attacked because their religious beliefs instructed them to do so. No other reason.

    You say these countries Should hate us for the way we have treated them. Should they hate us because of billions (or trillions) of dollars we have given them in foreign aid? Should they hate us for tons of food we have given them? Should they hate us for the industrial and technological advancements we have given them? Should they hate us for the educational opportunities, humanitarian aid, social improvements and medical care we have given them? Should they hate us because they have come to us and asked and begged for our help and assistance when they have been overrun by their enemies and are being oppressed and abused and murdered – and we have gone to their aid?

    And aren’t these forms of aid that I have mentioned (as well as others) actually a form of “Christian charity”? They ask and we give. They come to us with their open hands extended and we give. They appear on our doorstep with empty bellies and open mouths and we feed them. They are hurt and we heal them. If this is not “Christian charity” then I do not know what is.

    If you want to say that our country has turned its back on God, I will agree, at least up to a point. But I will also say that although our country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, we have never had a theocratic government. Nor would I want one. My relationship with Christ is between God and me, and it should not be legislated by any government. Legislating morality is this the responsibility of the Holy Spirit, not man, and for any man (or government) to do so is tantamount to blasphemy because that man (or government) is setting himself (itself) up as equal to God. (and we all know what happened to the last individual who tried that!)

    I will even go so far to say that many who call themselves “Christians” in this country, are likely not. Far too many of them attempt to change the meaning of God’s Word to fit what they already believe, when the reverse should be true. This has been a trend amongst “Christians” for the past several decades. Several years ago a bumper sticker became popular amongst Christians. It read: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” And that became almost a rallying cry among the “Christians” that I speak of. In reality, it is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard, and whenever I heard a “Christian” say it, my response has always been, “What makes you think your beliefs have anything to do with it? The saying should be: God said it, that settles it! Because in the long run, what you believe has nothing to do with it.”

    So yes, I will agree that a portion of the Christian church, perhaps even a large portion, has become nothing more than an apostasy. A hypocritical, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, legalistic, wilderness wandering group of people who need to turn from their ways, and back to the way of God.

    Where are Moses and Aaron? We could really use them.

    I will now relinquish the pulpit, and apologize for my long-windedness.

  3. Just talked to my cousin in Boston. The place is in an uproar with people completely numb and severely rattled. Most people there are blaming our Muslim foes and believe it to be a foreign act of terror. Time will tell if that is correct, the work of one of our home-grown jihadist sympathizers, or the action of some other group, ideology, or agenda. Any way you look at it, it is a tragedy for the innocents targeted, their families, and the nation as a whole. All sides should be held accountable if they try to capitalize on this politically as Pres. Obama did in regards to the Sandy Hook massacre. Those kinds of things should simply not be tolerated, whether it comes from the Left or the Right. But inevitably they will occur in our deeply divided country.

    • You are absolutely correct Dave, they should be held accountable if they are going to politicize a tragedy such as this. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that they will. Such is the nature of the beast.

      By the way, I apologize in advance for my lengthy (and likely to get lengthier) debate with Mr. Lofton above.

      • You SHOULD apologize because you say many things that are false.

      • Actually, I have not said anything false, although I have said things that you disagree with (particularly my statements concerning Dr. Rushdoony). However, the fact that you disagree with what I say does not make my statements false. I have also included numerous sources that support my statements, including numerous books, papers and other writings by Dr. Rushdoony.

  4. Well, damfino who dunnit. If it was organized political terror, where’s the proud bragging to ‘take credit’? Seems to me, assigning blame in ignorance merely to demonize the opposition is pathetic, puerile, dishonest and politics as usual. Which is to say, worthless.
    Rather than ‘who’ perhaps we should consider the ‘why’.
    1. As said in a comment, we’ve been the bully of the world since WWII ended and the soviets collapsed.
    2. We tossed our traditional Christian ethic to justify abortion and have watched increasing social violence since.
    3. We created the IED’s by invading Iraq and Afghanistan, offing many thousands of locals whose countries hadn’t attacked us.
    Now, the IED’s have evidently followed the troops home, no surprise.
    It seems to me, whoever did Boston, we’d best get used to it. And watch the government ‘help’ us by restricting our freedom increasingly…without much affect on our level of violence.
    Be nice to be wrong…

    • As with you Jack, I too have no idea who is responsible. The only thing I have read that may indicate responsibility are the unconfirmed reports I mentioned above. I can only hope that whoever is to blame is brought to justice, regardless of who they are.

      And as you also pointed out, the one thing that is almost certainly guaranteed to come out of this tragedy are further restrictions on our freedom, which will have have little effect, if any, on any further acts of violence.

      • And “justice” means they, as murderers, must be, as God commands in His unchanging Word, executed.

      • Now don’t change positions in mid-stream, John, by excluding what is necessary for justice to be served! They should receive justice only if there is enough evidence, gathered by lawful means, to convict. Even if they confess to the bombing, that is not enough to convict. As you yourself have said, confession in itself has no real standing. Even if God Himself intervenes and they confess to Him, and God testifies in court, that confession is invalid, because, as you have said, “Not even God’s supernatural discovery” is sufficient “for conviction. … even a God-established confession must have the corroboration of evidences.” [“Dr. R.J. Rushdoony On The Bible, Justice, Torture, Confession,” by John Lofton, (See Lofton Facebook Notes), Chalcedon Position Paper No. 68, November, 1985]

        I must admit, I was rather surprised to learn that the One True God, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Creator of all that was, is, and is to come – is so limited by evidentiary rules.

  5. I find the target interesting. Of all the sporting events we have in this country, a marathon is probably the most open. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of events every year. The vast majority are in enclosed facilities where our handbags are searched before entry since 9-11-2001. Although, why this particular marathon? Age and notoriety, I guess. More symbolism we just don’t think about.

    I’m not going to speculate on who is responsible before investigations are finished, but the weapon used: a plain old pressure cooker like my grandmother used to can tomatoes with ball bearings and other hardware. No guns, no C4, no dynamite, no grenade, no mortar. Proof positive that weapons can be everyday ordinary things.

    And I can’t imagine any true American conservative attacking the Boston Marathon, whether or not runners get on our nerves as a regular thing. It’s just not the way conservatives operate.

    • I agree CL, I too just cannot fathom a conservative being responsible, but stranger things have happened. And, I would not put it past the dominant liberal media to do everything they can to paint the culprit as a conservative if there is even the remotest of threads connecting the culprit to any conservative group, individual, or ideology.

      • “Conservative” or “liberal” are irrelevant terms, categories that do not matter. What matters primarily is the “spiritual war” we are in, as God call it in His Word. And that war is between the children of God (Christians) and those who deny Christ and have the devil as their father, as Jesus says in John 8:44ff.

        In any event, “politics,” for the most part today, is whoring after false gods. It will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.


      • Fortunately, I do not trust in politics for my salvation. However, as politicians, whether of God or not, are responsible for the direction this country will take (politically speaking), I do look to them to make wise decisions. Unfortunately, I have not found many who desire to do so. The vast majority of them are, in my opinion, interested only in what power and money they can garner for themselves.

        I do find the terms “Conservative” and “Liberal” to be useful, however, in spite of their limitations. They do help in identifying/labeling the direction those politicians are likely to take.

  6. You accuse Dr. Rushdoony, “thomaspaine2ndthomaspaine2nd,” of what you call “holocaust denial.” I say your statement is false. Post here where Dr. Rushdoony ever “denied” the “holocaust”, where he ever said the “holocaust” did not happen which is what “deny” means.

  7. You can call me “Thomas Paine 2nd” or even “Thom” or “Mr. Paine” or something similar, but it is not necessary to repeat my name twice in succession. It seems somehow redundant. As far as Dr. Rushdoony’s “denial” of the holocaust, I have already addressed that. He stated his apparent denial in his book, The Institutes of Biblical Law. For your benefit, however, I will re-address it here.

    “ Rushdoony also seems to deny the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. He said, ‘The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany (i.e., the death camps) is especially notable and revealing…. the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 … very many of these people died of epidemics.’ (The Institutes of Biblical Law)”

    According to Rushdoony’s own words, as written in his own book, claiming there were death camps in Germany is bearing false witness against Germany. According to Dr. Rushdoony, the only Jews who died (1.2 million rather than 6 million as history records), died after deportation, and “very many of [them] died of epidemics,” rather than in the gas chambers, gallows, or mass executions – again, as history records. It is interesting that although the meticulous records kept by the Nazi’s themselves clearly show that they did indeed kill 6 million Jews in the death camps, Dr. Rushdoony still denies the existence of the death camps, as well as the deaths of the Jews in those camps.

    In addition, according to Dr. Rushdoony’s interpretation of Mosaic Penal Laws, those who condemn the Nazi’s for killing six million Jews in the death camps, are actually guilty of bearing false witness against Germany in a capital case, and are therefore deserving of the mandatory death penalty.

    • So now it is an “apparent denial” and no longer just, flatly, a “denial.” Progress being made as your false statements are exposed.

      • Sigh. A flat out denial, an apparent denial, or just plain denial – call it what you will.

        Rushdoony said that accusing the Germans of having death camps was bearing false witness against the Germans. You tell me, what does that mean?

        Rushdoony said the only Jews who died, did so AFTER deportation, and that the number that died was only 1.2 million rather than 6 million (which is contrary to proven history), and not only did they die AFTER deportation, but they died from epidemics. Again, you tell me, what does this mean?

        To break it down for you (which is apparently necessary): History says the Germans had death camps (and some still exist today). Rushdoony says no they did not.

        History (and the Germans) say the Nazi’s killed 6 millions Jews in those death camps. Rushdoony says no they did not.

        So I will ask you. Do Rushdoony’s words constitute a denial of the holocaust or not?

        [and please, just answer the question without your typical obfuscation. It is a yes or no question. I cannot make it any simpler for you.]

      • “A flat out denial, an apparent denial, or just plain denial” are NOT the same thing. Your statement about Rushdoony has been proved false by your own weasel words.

      • First you call me sleazy, and now you call me a weasel. I pose important questions to you, and all you can do is argue the semantics of a sentence that has little if anything to do with the questions. And you still refuse to answer the questions! All you do, and continue to do, is obfuscate, evade and avoid. Your staunch refusal to answer even a simple yes or no question indicates to me that your answer, if honest and not a lie, would be self-incriminating, and self-condemning. Thus you avoid answering.

        I will, however, give you another chance to answer. I will not attack your answer or question your answer. I will not even comment on your answer, unless you ask a question of me. I simply want to know the answers to these yes or no questions.

        Do you support Rushdoony’s ungodly and unchristian views? Yes or No. ( I have already listed them, and documented them – so do not avoid the question by asking for something you already have).

        Do Rushdoony’s words constitute a denial of the holocaust? Yes or No.

      • He had NO unGodly-unChristian views and did not deny the “holocaust.”

  8. Please note that I have consolidated all of the comments between John Lofton and myself into a (long) blog posting on my website. I have also done some research on Mr. Lofton himself, as well as his beliefs, and I have included this all in the same blog post. If you would like to know more about Mr. Lofton, his beliefs, and read the comments from this article in chronological order, please visit: http://independentrealist.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/conversations-with-john.html

    • — Your statement that I have a website that proclaims me to be a member of the Constitution Party is false.

      — Your statement that I am an “extreme conservative: is false. I am NO kind of “conservative.” I am a Bible-believing Christian.

      — The view that you denounce — that a law not in accord with Scripture is invalid — is what is taught in Scripture and was taught by St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William Blackstone and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.”

      John Lofton, Recovering Republican
      Editor, JohnLofton.com
      Also: Archive.TheAmericanView.com
      Active Facebook Wall
      JLof@aol.com

      • You can make all the claims you want that my statements are false. It will not change the truth of my statements, especially since my statements are backed up with documentation, including the screen shots I took of your website which state you are a member of the CP. In other words, the statements I have made have evidence to back them up.

        It is clear that you stand by your statements, and as I have repeatedly said, I stand by my statements (which are supported with documentation). Let the reader decide which are true. And unless you have something new to add to this conversation, then I do not see how continuing it would be fruitful. If you would like to continue this conversation, then I suggest you continue it by answering the questions I have asked you, and answer them directly. Stop with the obfuscation, the evading and the avoiding those questions and statements that you do not want to answer.

        By the way, I find it interesting that you would quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. since you consider him to be a disgrace, a drunken, adulterous, double-minded fraud, and likely even worse than can be imagined. Why would you quote someone whom you clearly do not think was a Christian, to support what you claim is a Christian teaching? I guess it is a case of whatever works, right?

        Oh, and you can also take the reference to you being the editor of JohnLofton.com off of your signature, as that website has been shutdown. You are not editing anything there.

      • Another false statement. You have posted NO screenshot of any website of mine showing I am a member of the Constitution Party. Your false witness is evil.

      • Since comment sections do not typically allow for screen shots to be added (which is simple common sense – something which does not seem to be your forte), I have added an “Update” to the original article I wrote. This update not only answers your comment, but also includes the screen shots which you imply do not exist (thus making my claim false). As you can clearly see by looking at the screen shots, every claim I made was true. You can view the original article, with your comment answered (and refuted) included, by visiting: http://independentrealist.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/conversations-with-john.html

      • Another false statement proved false by the posting of your screen shot, a shot of something almost 10 years old! I have not had any affiliation with the CP for several years. Thus, your statement — “you are a member of the CP” — is false.

      • John, in answer to your statement:

        Point #1: The age of the article is irrelevant. The article appears on your American View website and was written by you. In the article you state that you are a member of the CP. You cannot deny this simple fact, and the screen shots prove this. Whether you still are a member of the CP or not is not addressed on The American View, nor in your article. The other websites from which I have posted screen shots all confirm what you yourself have said – that you are a member of the CP. This is the information I based my statement on. I found no evidence to say otherwise. So no, my statement is not false.

        Point #2: The issue of your affiliation with the CP is a very minor issue. I only mentioned the CP because you mirror the CP platform almost perfectly, and as you were or are affiliated with them, it helps to understand you and your views. Now, if you are a member of the CP that’s fine, and if you are not a member of (or affiliated with) the CP, then that’s fine too. I really don’t care either way. So, if it makes you feel better about yourself, and helps you sleep at night, then fine, you are not a member of the CP. As I said, it is a very minor issue.

        Point #3: As the issue of the CP is such a minor issue, and since you have latched onto it and waved it around to such a degree, it is clear that you are using it as a means to avoid and evade answering the more important issues I have raised – you know, the one’s you steadfastly refuse to answer. So enough with the CP, and the false flag of “false claims” that you keep waving, and the evasion and avoidance. I am calling your bluff. Either bet or fold and leave the game. And, I will make this easy for you, only yes or no questions. Ready?

        Dr. Rushdoony wrote, “The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.” (Institutes of Biblical Law)
        1. Do you believe that any law enacted by the government that is not founded on Biblical law represents an anti-Christian religion?
        2. Are Christians required to abide by those non-Biblical laws?

        Dr. Rushdoony wrote that Old Testament Mosaic Penal Laws should be instituted in modern society. This included the reinstatement of a mandatory death penalty for those crimes listed in the old Jewish law as contained in the Old Testament.
        3. Do you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be put to death (Leviticus 20:10)
        4. Do you believe that any woman whose husband has discovered her to not be a virgin, should be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
        5. Do you believe that stubborn and rebellious children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
        6. Do you believe that any woman who is engaged and is raped within the city limits, and does not cry out for help, should be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
        7. Do you believe that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36)
        8. Do you believe that anyone who tries to convert people to any religion other than Christianity should be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20)
        9. Do you believe that if the residents of a town come to believe in a different god, they are all to be put to death, every animal in that town is to be put to death, and the town is to be burned to the ground (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
        10. Do you believe that anyone who curses their parents is to be put to death (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)
        11. Do you believe that anyone who owns a dangerous bull, and does not pen it up, and that bull kills a person, the owner of the bull is to be put to death (Exodus 21:29)

        Dr. Rushdoony wrote in The Institutes of Biblical Law, “All who are content with a humanistic law system…are guilty of idolatry…they are asking us to serve other gods.”
        12. Is democracy a humanistic law system?
        13. Are those who are content with democracy guilty of idolatry?
        14. Should those who promote democracy be put to death? (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

        In The Institutes of Biblical Law, Dr. Rushdoony wrote, “The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany (i.e., the death camps) is especially notable and revealing.”
        15. Do you believe accusing the Germans of having death camps to be false witness?

        In The Institutes of Biblical Law, Dr. Rushdoony wrote, “the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 … very many of these people died of epidemics.”
        16. Do you believe the Nazi’s killed 6 million Jews during the holocaust?

        Dr. Rushdoony, wrote in Foundations of Social Order, “An employer therefore has a property right to prefer whom he will, and he can prefer whom he will in terms of color, creed, race, or national origin.”
        17. Do you believe an employer has a right to refuse to employ someone based on their race?

        Dr. Rushdoony wrote in Foundations of Social Order, “Selective breeding in Christian countries has led to … the progressive elimination of defective persons.”
        18. Do you believe in selective breeding?

        In Politics of Guilt and Pity, Dr. Rushdoony wrote, “The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States.”
        19. Do you believe that the enslavement of blacks, as practiced in the United States, was benevolent?

        20. Do you believe that any law contained within the United States Constitution or any of its amendments that is not based on Biblical Law, is to be declared invalid?

        I await your answers, John, and no more evading and avoiding these questions. Yes or no.

      • It’s nice to see someone finally take on Mr. Lofton. He’s always skulking around heaping scorn on others and their efforts to fight for the Republic and the conservative cause.

      • Those who are fighting apart from Christ ought to have scorn heaped upon them.

      • And the “conservative cause” has failed.

      • Dave: I find it interesting that John Lofton, who claims to be a Christian, also embraces views that are not only non-Biblical, but clearly contrary to God. Views that I have clearly outlined in my article “Conversations with John” (which is a compilation of the comments from this article, as well as a background on Lofton), as well as provided supporting sources for. In researching John Lofton and his teachings, as well as the teachings of his spiritual mentor and close friend R.J. Rushdoony, it quickly becomes clear that John Lofton is practicing a form of legalistic “Christian” supremacy.

        He is quick to judge those who question his teachings and his views, often proclaiming them “sinful,” “condemned,” worthy of scorn, and “not Christian.” It is the height of presumptuousness to assume one has the authority to proclaim who does and does not have salvation in Christ. Only God Himself has that authority, and an individual’s salvation is between them and God, and not up to John Lofton. Hence the numerous Bible passages regarding the “urgings” of the Holy Spirit (and try as I might, I can find no Bible passages regarding the urgings of John Lofton or Rousas Rushdoony).

        When I find myself confronted with the John Lofton’s of the world, I am reminded of Ephesians 5:11, which instructs Christians to “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (NIV) And that is a command straight from God’s mouth to my ears that I find I cannot ignore.

      • You have not, from Scripture, proved that even ONE view I hold is wrong….not ONE view.

      • You have not defined what any of your views are! However, this is what I do know: Rousas Rushdoony is your spiritual mentor, your theological mentor, and your close friend. (“Simply Writing Something On A Piece Of Paper Does Not, Necessarily, Assure Anything….,” May 17, 2012, http://www.johnlofton.com/2012/05/simply-writing-something-on-a-piece-of-paper-does-not-necessarily-assure-anything/ ) (By the way, congrats on getting your website back up finally)

        You have repeatedly refused to disavow anything Rushdoony has said, and in fact, you have stated that all of Rushdoony’s views were both Christian and Godly. Therefore, it is clear that Rushdoony’s views are your views. Therefore,

        1. It is your view (as well as Rushdoony’s) that anyone guilty of homosexuality, adultery, lying about one’s virginity, witchcraft (including reading one’s daily horoscope) and sorcery, females (but not males) who engage in premarital sex, idolatry or apostasy, heresy, public blasphemy, striking a parent, false prophesying, breaking the Sabbath, kidnapping, being an incorrigible or disobedient child, or bearing false witness in a capital case, are to be executed according to the Old Testament Mosaic Law.

        However, you are taking a law given specifically to the Jews of that time and place, and you are applying it to Christians. This is contrary to Scripture. Colossians 2:14 tells us that the old law, including the Mosaic Law you want instituted today, were fulfilled in Jesus when He was crucified. To deny this truth and attempt to bring back the Old Testament law that Jesus fulfilled is to deny the efficacy of His death, and therefore it is also to deny the salvation that is available only because of His death. In short, your views as described here are unchristian, ungodly, and non-Biblical, and they deny Christ. (see also Matthew 28:18; James 2:8-13; John 18:36 and Romans 12:18)

        2. It is your view (as well as Rushdoony’s) that anyone who is content with a humanistic law system (such as democracy) are to be put to death. (Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony). This is in direct contrast to Romans 12:18 in which we are commanded to live at peace with everyone. This is another of your views which is proven wrong by Scripture.

        3. It is your view (as well as Rushdoony’s) that supporting slavery and supporting racism are godly, Christian views. (The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony). You point to Old Testament passages wherein God instructs the Israelites to treat slaves fairly (thus in your mind approving of slavery). However, Ephesians 2:14-16 states, “For he himself [Jesus] is our peace, who has made the two groups [Jew and Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.”

        In other words, where there had been enmity between the two different cultural ethnicities of Jews and Gentiles (Christians), Jesus, through His death on the cross, combined the two cultural ethnicities into “one new humanity,” thus condemning and removing the racism between the two. Therefore, your view on slavery and racism is condemned by Scripture and proven wrong.

        4. I could go on and on and on, but in order not repeat everything I have already written throughout the comments section as well as in the “Conversation with John” posting, this will be the last incident (for this posting) of Scripture proving your views wrong. In 2011, you appeared on “The Vision,” a public access television program hosted by Dr. Alveda King. Among the many questionable things you said on that
        program, was, you made the statement that America was “more than $56 TRILLION in debt.”

        The national debt is not top secret, nor is it difficult to find out what that debt is. As of April 2013 the national debt was $16,808,240,386,273. You delivered your statement as if it were a fact. You did not qualify it as an approximation or a guess or estimation, but you stated it as if it were a fact. It was actually a lie.

        Although your statement on the national debt is not a theological view, the fact that you lied is equally important – even more so in your case. Colossians 3:9 tells us not to lie. A pretty simple command from God. Leviticus 6:1-4 tells us that lying is a clearly a sin [“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour…or hath deceived his neighbour…and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,”].

        Even more important, however, are the words of James 2:10-13, and how they apply, especially in light of your view that the Old Testament Mosaic Law, along with its penalties, should be reinstated in this country. James 2:10-13 states: “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.”

        It is your view that Old Testament law should be reinstated. You are mercilessly unbending in your insistence that all people in this country (indeed the world) follow and held accountable under Old Testament law – and this includes you John Lofton. And yet, although you “keep the whole law,” you have stumbled and broken one of those laws by your lie.

        Therefore, you are, according to Scripture, guilty of breaking all of it – every single Old Testament law, including idolatry, blasphemy, murder, lying, etc. And, because you are so unbendingly merciless in your application of Old Testament law to everyone else – “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.”

        You cannot legitimately and truthfully deny this. This is your rule, that you insist be applied to all, and you cannot exempt yourself from it without exposing your hypocrisy and your violation of the very laws you propose to enforce. Remember Proverbs 6:16-19 and do not continue to mock God: “These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.”

      • Thank you for your admission that you have not, from Scripture, refuted even one of my views. I accept your surrender.

      • I made no such admission, nor have I surrendered in any way. Clearly you are hoping that I will stop exposing you and your unchristian views, otherwise you would have not have made such a ridiculous statement. Be careful John, your desperation is showing.

      • I challenged you by saying: “You have not, from Scripture, proved that even ONE view I hold is wrong….not ONE view.”

        You replied: “You have not defined what any of your views are!,” a manifestly absurd and idiotic statement since in our exchange and in thousands of other places I have expressed my views VERY definitively!

        Your failure to provide ONE example where, according to Scripture, any view of mine is in error proves my point that from Scripture you cannot prove that any view of mine is wrong.

        Is English your first language?

      • Yes, English is my first language, and your insult is noted as the unchristian and ungodly act that it is. No need to apologize, however, I don’t hold it against you. And you are correct in that I did not provide “ONE example where, according to Scripture, any view of [yours] is in error.” I admit my error. You asked for only one example and I provided four. I apologize for providing more examples than you asked for.

      • No, you directly quoted not ONE of my views and then showed from direct Bible quotes how even one of my views is wrong. You did not do that. Wrong again…..

      • Yes, actually, I did. Your refusal to accept the truth does not change the truth. You are living in denial John, and and your self-defense auto-response mantra of “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong” is a clear indicator of your desperation. You have been exposed, your views have been exposed, you refused to defend your views, you are done.

      • No, actually, you did NOT. And you continue to post no such direct quotes.

      • John sure has shown no problem heaping scorn and derision upon the Christians here, that’s for sure.

        Whether or not conservatism has ‘failed’ history will judge, but conservative principles are timeless and have outlasted politicians, societal fads, political parties, and even entire nations. And certainly outlasted many ‘holier than thou’ types who seem to spend a great amount of time trying to get the splinters out of their neighbor’s eyes while failing to see the log in their own. It is the realm of common sense, logic, principle, and frankly of what works in the grand scheme of things. I encourage you to read the article “Conservative Ideology” which I authored and is included as a link on the right sidebar.

        I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of evangelical, Bible-believing, and frankly wise Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and your scornful, and often name-calling, version of Christianity and politics is appalling and frankly embarrassing. Going around bashing those on the Right who still care about and defend the Republic and the constitution is akin to shooting the guy next to you in the trench, and accomplishes absolutely nothing positive. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

        Thom is not someone to trifle with in a debate and has done as fine a job here as anyone could possibly do. Well done sir.

      • Modern “conservatism” has failed because it has been, de facto, Godless and, operationally, atheistic in the political arena. Thus, it was predestined to failure because secular “conservatism” will NOT defeat secular liberalism. To God they are simply two faithless peas-in-a-pod. I know this because I was in on the founding of this wretched movement and God raptured me from among those folks. The great theologian Dr. RL Dabney described the Godless “conservatism” of today when he denounced the Godless “conservatism” of his era more than 150 years go:

        “”[Godless conservatism’s] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

        “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

        Amen!

        In any event, “politics” today, for the most part today, is whoring after false gods. It will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.
 And it is not “conservatism” that will heal us.

        John Lofton, Recovering Republican
        Editor, JohnLofton.com
        Archive.TheAmericanView.com
        Active Facebook Wall
        JLof@aol.com

      • Before I go any further, I must complement you John, for I had no idea that you were as old as you apparently are! You look remarkably younger than your apparent years. To be “in on the founding of this wretched movement” (modern conservatism) as you claim, you must clearly be past eighty years old by now, and yet I believed you could not be past sixty or sixty-one. So, I am indeed impressed. Perhaps, if it is not too much of an imposition, could you relate to us your first hand impressions of Russell Kirk. (Note: the modern conservative movement traces its beginning to the 1953 publication of “The Conservative Mind” by Russell Kirk). At any rate…

        Robert Lewis Dabney? Again with the “great theologian” title! Robert Dabney was, much like Rushdoony, a racist who not only endorsed slavery, but supported it as well. As you clearly have shown a propensity for labeling racists as great theologians, is it safe to say that you are a racist as well?
        To continue: one of the problems with your religious ideology (Christian Reconstructionism) is, that it is a form of dominionism, which presents Christians as if they are somehow the modern equivalent of ancient Israel. In other words, God’s chosen people – commanded by God to take this country in His name, allow only Christians (and only those who subscribe to this belief system) to vote, although all citizens of all groups are required to financially support the ruling class, which are, of course, made up exclusively of those who subscribe to this belief system. It is almost a form of Anglo-Israelism. The fact of the matter is, however, nothing could be farther from the truth, Biblically speaking.

        So it is entirely understandable that you would condemn conservatism, however, just as you would also condemn liberalism. It is part and parcel of your dominionist theology. You simply cannot escape it, for to do so would be to deny your theology, your ties to Rousas Rushdoony, and your ties to Christian reconstructionism. That being said, however, you continue to kick against God’s Holy Word.

        Our system of government is part of the world system. It was defined by men, created by men and operated by men. God’s Word clearly tells us that we are not to be conformed to this world. We are in the world, but not of the world. The two are not only separate, but disparately so. For you to advocate a theocratic government is an attempt to transform a part of the world system into a “Christian” sytem, based on your version of Christianity. Need I remind you of the Words of God when He said clearly tells us that the world and its systems belong to the devil and are controlled by him. We, however, belong to God and we obey Him (or at least we should) when we are transformed by the renewing of our minds. (Romans 12:2; John 15:19; John 12:31; John 16:11; John 17:14-15; 1 John 5:19). Your usage of passages that relate to the Children of Israel and how they were to relate to the world around them, and your attempt to interpret those passages to Christians today, tends to ignore the New Testament passages that relate to the followers of God today.

      • Thank you Dave. John Lofton presents his position, and when it is challenged he cannot defend his position other than to call the challengers names and heap scorn upon them. His views are as indefensible as they are unbiblical, unchristian, and ungodly.

      • What can I say? It’s been an interesting, if drawn out, exchange.

      • Dave, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to debate John, and I apologize that I allowed this nonsense to go on as long as I did. I should have realized long ago that he would not progress beyond argument for arguments sake. But it was interesting to say the least.

      • And there is a lot more for which you should apologize…….

  9. “Those who are fighting apart from Christ ought to have scorn heaped upon them.”

    John: Considering your numerous anti-Christian views, can you please provide me with a Scriptural passage to support your statement here. I would like to have them in order to further justify my exposing of you and your views. Thank you.

    • If you knew and believed Scripture you would already know that Jesus Himself heaped scorn on those who denied Him. He called some folks liars, others hypocrites, one bunch children of the devil and He told another group that whores and tax collectors would get to Heaven before them! Now THAT’S “heaping scorn!” Amen!

      • If I knew and believed Scripture? I know Colossians 4:5-6 which tells us “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” And I know Ephesians 4:29 which tells us “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” I know 1 Peter 3: 8-9,15 which tells us “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. … But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” And I know 2 Timothy 2:25-26 which tells us “Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

        You have chosen to take specific incidents that appear to support your viewpoint, and taken then out of context, and you have chosen to ignore specific instruction from God’s Word, because that specific instruction does not fit into your preconceived bias against all who do not agree with your teaching. I don’t think I am going out on a limb when I say your open scorn of all who do not agree with your teaching, and then using Scripture to support your preconceived notions, is almost a mockery of God Himself.

  10. “And the “conservative cause” has failed.”

    John: Although the GOP may have failed (at least the “old guard” so to speak), I would say the conservative cause itself has not failed. I find that since you are ultra-conservative in many of your views, to the point of being puritanical and legalistic, it is somewhat surprising to me that you are so quick to sound the death knell on the conservative cause.

    • “Puritanical,” eh? I consider that a compliment. Thank you.

      • You consider being puritanical to be a compliment? Of course you do. I trust you realize this means you consider it a compliment to be compared with those who severely punished those who danced, those who laughed or joked, and those who wore any clothing deemed inappropriate by the Puritans.

        You consider it a compliment to be compared with those who believed that only active church members could vote.

        You consider it a compliment to be compared with those who advocated the torture and murder of those who did not believe everything the puritans believed – even if they were Christians. (The horrendous treatment the Puritans inflicted on the Quakers, and those they considered “witches” are ample evidence of that. Lopping off ears, hot pokers through their tongues, whippings and hangings – all brought on by the Puritans. Lovely people.)

        That you consider it a compliment to be compared with the Puritans causes me to think you likely hold these same views. Do you? Do you hold these same Puritan views that I have described?

  11. Oh, and by the way John, I am still waiting for your answers to the 20 simple questions I have posted above. Your steadfast refusal to answer them leads me to believe that you would answer all of them with a resounding “YES,” with the exception of #2 and #16, which you would answer with an emphatic “NO.”

    If I am wrong, then please answer the questions. I, indeed all of us, are waiting.

      • [“You are wrong as usual.”]

        Thus far you have been either unable or unwilling to show how I am wrong, and thus far you have been unable or unwilling to disprove any of my statements. If I am wrong as you say, then how am I wrong? Answer the questions I posed and show that I am wrong. To simply say I am wrong proves nothing more than that you have an opinion, but it does not prove that I am wrong. Answer the questions.

        Or, better yet, let me condense all twenty questions down into one simple question, again a yes or no question: “Do you endorse Dr. Rushdoony’s teachings?” Yes or no.

      • You have not, from Scripture, shown that any of Dr. Rushdoony’s views are wrong.

      • Actually, I did. Several times. Your refusal to accept the truth of Scripture, and your repeated claims that your and Rushdoony’s unchristian views are from God, expose the true foundation of your beliefs – and it is not God.

      • No, not ONCE did you directly quote anything said by myself or Rushdoony that you then showed from a Scripture text is wrong.

      • Allow me to refresh your memory. You challenged me to show from Scripture where your or Rushdoony’s views were wrong. I did. Nowhere did you say you required a direct quote. That being said, however, I did provide a direct quote, from you, and then gave Scripture that condemned what you said. Therefore, to quote you again, “you are wrong.”

      • My statement stands. You cited no direct Rushdoony quote and then showed a direct Bible quote proving Rushdoony wrong.

      • Again, yes I did, and I did so repeatedly. Refusing to accept the truth does not change the truth. You have been unable to defend your views, you have been exposed, and you have been unable to refute anything that has been said against you or Rushdoony. You have failed. You are done. This conversation is over.

      • No you did not and I notice you posted no such direct quotes in your reply.

  12. Your lack of a defense shows your views are not defensible. I have already refuted them. I have already exposed the falsity of them.

    • Why are you afraid to write under your true name?

      • I am not afraid of writing under my own name. In fact, after a long career in corrections there is very little that I am afraid of. I assume by your question your are unfamiliar with the term “nom de plume.” It means “pen name.” It is a device used by many writers for many reasons. In my case, I felt the name “Thom Paine, 2nd” suited my chosen writing genre far better than my own name which is Bob Tuttle. By the way, I do include my real name on my website. If you had looked, you would have seen it. Whenever I have been asked, I have always revealed my real name. As I said, I am not afraid of much of anything, least of all of writing under my own name.

      • Your choosing as a pen name the name of a God-hater like Thomas Paine tells us a lot about you.

      • Actually, you know little to nothing about me. I also find it rather ironic that you, who openly denies Christ, would condemn a “God-hater like Thomas Paine.” Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

      • I know you choose the name of a God-hater as your pen name. And that tells me A LOT about you….

      • John: You ignore the obvious, and the important issues. You ignore anything that exposes your fraudulent teachings. You refuse to answer any questions directly related to your views and teachings as well as those of Rushdoony. In the face of incontrovertible evidence which exposes your views as wrong – including Scripture which proves your views are wrong – you either ignore that evidence completely and refuse to answer, or you fall back on your old standard response of: You’re wrong. No defensible argument, no evidence to support your view, nothing, just: “you’re wrong.”

        Rather than address the serious problems concerning your views and teachings, said concerns having been presented repeatedly here, you simply evade, avoid, obfuscate, and change the subject. This is what you are doing now. Rather than definitively answer the questions I have posed, rather than give any evidence or argument in defense of your views and teachings, rather than take advantage of the opportunity to present your teachings and proselytize – you decide to ask about my pen name and you attempt to shift the focus of this conversation onto me. Need I remind you, it was you who started this conversation and brought the resulting controversy upon yourself. It is a little too late to try and shift the focus away from you in an attempt to avoid having to answer tough questions about your teachings and views.

        I am tired of your circular reasoning, your ad hominem arguments, and mostly your inability to logically and rationally explain your views. You simply argue for the sake of arguing, probably to help fulfill some innate need to feel superior. I have given you ample opportunities, and you refuse to take them, instead you simply continue to argue and condemn. Your tactics, your views, your attitude, your entire mindset is not just unchristian and ungodly, but is anti-Christian and anti-God.

        I will no longer entertain your anti-God positions. I have already refuted them, and shown them to be wrong. I am done with you. If you feel the need to boastfully proclaim your superiority, and shout your victory from the rooftops, please, be my guest. We all know the truth and your refusal to accept it does not change it. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, bolsters your self-esteem, inflates your ego, whatever, go right ahead. You have my permission. This conversation is now over.

      • “I will no longer entertain your anti-God positions,” says the man who chose as a pen name the name of a God-hating, Bible mocking atheist.

  13. Hello! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you
    if that would be ok. I’m definitely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,353 other followers

%d bloggers like this: