If one ever begins to question whether Democrats/Progressives/Marxists lie reflexively, the attached article by Glenn Kessler of the WASHINGTON POST Fact Checker may be a helpful reminder that Progressive Democrats do not believe THEMSELVES that they can win without fraud & deception. Allison Lunderman Grimes, Kentucky’s version of the demographically perfect Senate candidate, CDE-CAG birthday lunch-2013is caught lying repeatedly in an attack ad against Kentucky Senator McConnell. Grimes’ desperation has reached a new low, although there are still two-weeks to get even worse, as she abandons the stentorian voice of an unseen narrator to personally repeat lies that have already been debunked by that Conservative bastion THE WASHINGTON POST, which gave her four Pinocchios, an award even the Liar-in-Chief only reaches some of the time!!!

Grimes & herdesperate fellow-travelers are merely embracing the corrupt ideological culture from which the Progressive Movement sprung. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, FDR & countless other Collectivist elitists have felt free to deceive & lie as a consistent strategy over time. Stalin’s “Big Lie” about the non-existence of the Ukrainian Terror Famine of the 1930’s & FDR & Harry Hopkins’ myriad lies about Stalin’s Soviet Union during WW II are obvious examples. Obama has lied to the American people about so many major issues, it is at this point difficult to keep count.

Obama’s intellectual mentors include Saul Alinsky, the author of the well know playbook for political deception, RULES FOR RADICALS, & an actual mentor to Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton. If one spends a few hours with this evil but fascinating little book, it is impossible to come away without a thorough understanding of why Obama/Clinton/Grimes/etc. all base a major part of their political strategies on bald-faced deception…lying about the lies they have told about the earlier lies they have told & so on & so on.

While I am not a Kentuckian or a Republican & I don’t admire Establishment politicians, of which McConnell is certainly one, corrupt & dishonest Obama-clones like Allison Grimes have been tearing down our nation’s values, economy & our Constitution for over a century & the last 6-years have been among the worst we have experienced as American citizens. To send Grimes, who claims to be an Obama-critic, to Washington, would be to support the environmental extremism of Progressive plutocrats like Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, & many others, who live lives of luxury while destroying the coal-based economy of much of Kentucky & destroying the lives of many hard-working Kentucky families.

If Ms. Grimes goes to Washington, she will be a consistent vote for everything that Kentuckians & all working Americans find corrupt & dishonest. Her lying during this campaign merely prefigures how she will behave in office. She is exactly what America cannot afford if we are to heal our nation from the terrible & deceptive damage already inflicted by Obama & his cast of elitist Progressive political hacks & their crony capitalists supporters!!! CDE

Challenger Alison Grimes (D) puts her credibility on the line by asserting 4-Pinocchio claims herself.



  1. They would have to know and understand that they are lying before they could answer that question. Do we know they are aware of this? And are we absolutely sure we are not lying to ourselves at the same time?

    • kells…One of the things I particularly enjoy about posting here on RNL is that you always find a humorous way of introducing sex into the discussion. I’m not complaining, but there is a pattern, Darling!!! CDE

  2. Our liar in Texas, Wendy Davis, can keep up with the best of the degenerate liar’s, thieves and reprobates in the Democrat Clan of Enslavers. Joe has it right. Wendy Davis and Allison Grimes are so ignorant of the real truth they believe what they are saying is the truth.

  3. There are 2 kinds of “Progressives.” (I will use the label they use for themselves. Although they are more accurately described as Marxists, or in Woodrow Wilson’s self description, “American Communists”.)

    The minions who do not understand the false world they support, and the “elites” who know exactly what they do. The latter group knowingly lie and practice their tactics in order to quickly prevent any discussion. Now that I have done my homework reading their founders’ writings, I can “paint them” into their corner in front of others; In personal discussions with Progressives, when I confront them and explain to others their history and tactics; the knowing Progressives exhibit true hate and vitriol. Carefully observe them as you confront them with the truth of their founders (from Woodrow Wilson’s writings to the Frankfurt School to Alinsky’s writings); and you can see in their eyes and body language. Once exposed, they will avoid all interactions from then on. It is quite invigorating, freeing, to expose them when the opportunity arises, and see how they avoid all contact afterwards. (Progressives continue to spread their lies and deceit to others in an attempt to recruit more useful idiots (much like Jihadists.).

    I have had similar encounters with followers of Islam, when I ask them pointed questions such as (what is “taquiyya”, “tawriya”, “kitman”, “muruna”, after they claim Islam is a “religion of peace” …

    Progressives and Jihadists are cowards and bullies and will not stand on a level playing field. They will hide, surprise, and destroy you when the opportunity presents itself.

    no honor

    no virtue

    They see themselves above everyone else and not subject to the same laws and code of conduct they impose on everyone else.

    • texas: Great comment, as usual!!! I’ve posted on other blogs a number of variations on my statistically-based argument that the Progressive Movement/Democrat Party/Marxists can be shown to hold a firm hold an the really stupid part of the US population. So far no one has been able to successfully dispute my case, but that may be because they’re not particularly well versed in inferential statistics. That doesn’t mean our little pin-headed Progressive friends are happy with it, since the Lefties have long held the laughable position that they are always the smartest people in every room…they’re not.

      To maintain a Marxist/Progressive/Communist worldview requires maintaining an ideologically twisted false consciousness, which although it no doubt becomes easier with time, has to be draining on some level. Marx & Engels were fantasy writers & their cousin John Maynard Keynes’ theories have more in common with 3-card Monty dealers than real economists. But the Obamas of the world are required to lie constantly, even to themselves, to obscure the cold, hard reality of their utter failure every time & place their absurd theories have been forced on innocent victims.

      Under Obama, his Fat Cat financial supporters have gotten richer while the poor schlubs who actually thought he was their guy have sunk deeper into misery & government dependence!!! Who could have guessed that would happen??? Probably 70% of American citizens whose General Intelligence, as measured by IQ, makes it to one Standard Deviation above the mean (110). The Democrats have a stranglehold on the stupid people in America, who will continue to vote against their own interests & keep believing government can improve their lives. It can’t!!! CDE

    • Senior Tejas,

      Do you think, in educating those with potential to be educated, that equating what you say about Progressives and Jihadists being Cowards and Bullies with PC language ALSO being about Bullying is a good connection ?

      I ask because the PC pressure and language games are so much a part of Everyone’s everyday life. And knocking it down from its assumed “intellectual” level to its REAL level of Bullying and intimidation seems to be something that almost everyone could relate to.

  4. Excellent comments, All.

    As I am on a new venture, studying and trying to understand, find the truth about Christianity, I am
    amazed of the similarity of the circumstances of Jesus and the Pharisees, Sadducees in AD 29-30.

    The Pharisees lied and conspired to kill Jesus and Lazarus: The democrats/Progressives lie about
    their intentions, cheat and rig voting, denigrate their opponents, and use any illegal effort (aliens), to
    further their degenerate cause of Socialism/Communism.

    I agree with you Joe, texas95 has the answer: Confront any and EVERY democrat/progressive and
    make them stand and prove their point. I wish the “Old Republicans” would!

    • EdwardS,

      If you are interested in learning about the doctrines of Christianity, pa-lease consider following The OYL (www.theoyl.com). I have just started to explain my own journey into this faith, and plan to share what I have learned about it since I started to study Scripture as hard as I have studied secular history. You may (or may not) find what I write going forward on The OYL to be of help.


    • EdwardS: The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to Saul of Tarsus, who was the founder of Christianity, share incredible overlap with those of the great Rabbi Hillel. Hillel was a generation older than Jesus, lived in the same region, & it has long been assumed by many Biblical scholars that Jesus spent some of his “lost years” between his barmitzva to the beginning of his public ministry at age 30 or so following Hillel, who often taught & discussed topics in the traditional rabbinic manner while strolling the Judaian countryside.

      Having studied the thinking & teaching of both Jesus & Hillel fairly extensively, I have arrived at a few observations. First, the records of the two demonstrate highly innovative approaches to the challenges of human life, & both approach such problem solving in a more rational, humane & less legalistic manner than their Jewish contemporaries. Their common statements of what we today call “The Golden Rule” is an obvious example. Hillel’s version, stated 50 or so years before Jesus,’ is “Do not unto others that which you do not want them to do to you.” A generation later Jesus would restate the same idea as “Do unto others as you would have have them do unto you.” As the token libertarian on RNL, I’ve always felt more at home with Hillell’s formulation, since I have no desire to do unto others unless asked to do so, & I’ve never enjoyed having others (including the US Federal government) do unto me unless I specifically request it!!! Libertarians are the Greta Garbos of American society…we want to be left alone to make our own decisions about our own lives & those of our loved ones.

      Today’s Jews are the spiritual descendants of the Pharasee Sect, since that was & is the Judaism of the rabbis & modern Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism, with the exception of mystical groups like the followers of the Karbala. None of today’s Jews can really be called “Biblical Jews” since all view the development of Rabbinic Judaism as a continuing process today. From the Hassidim to Reformed Jews, all see the Rabbinic process of examining the Torah & rabbinic literature of the past through daily discussion & argumentation with other scholars as the highest calling a “man” can achieve.

      In that sense Judaism broke completely with Christianity in terms of the process & value of continuous reexamination of Holy Scripture at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine’s Council of Nicea in 326 BCE, at which the still pagan emperor decided which documents would comprise the Christian Holy Books. Since the Roman Popes assumed the role of the Emperors after the Western Empire’s collapse, Constantine’s decision at Nicea has never been changed by either Roman Catholics or Protestants.

      My over & under is that my good friend Joe will differ with me on several of my statements within 30-minutes, but that’s only if he is following this thread today!!! CDE

      • CDE,

        Yes, I disagree with you, but probably not in the way you might have expected. If someone rejects Christ’s claim to be the Son of God, then I can understand how they would arrive at the conclusions you have. But even then, your conclusions are only valid for someone who has totally rejected the Spiritual foundation of the Bible.

        Now, if you have actually read the Bible with a heart to understanding it, then you would know that it teaches that we are saved by faith from the first chapter to the last. It also teaches that God desires mercy, not legalism. This means that Christ was just doing exactly what He said He was doing: correcting the apostasy of the Pharisees (that’s what He meant by ‘the yeast of the Pharisees.’). Sadly, if one only approaches Scripture from a secular perspective, they will — not might — WILL miss this, and more.

        The Pharisees had ‘legalized’ their religion, and Christ clashed with them over it. But there were still some of those same Pharisees who were saved by faith. Nicodemus was probably among them. This then means they had not destroyed their faith, but corrupted it. Christ was just setting them back on the correct path: something that anyone who had studied the Scripture and heard the Spiritual message could have done. This is why you Rabbi Hillel is of no real importance: because he wasn’t teaching anything that wasn’t already in the Tenahk from Genesis.

        The next point you seem to have missed is Christ’s claim that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The majority of people today will claim that God is love, but they forget that He is also perfect justice. Part of God’s plan — the law — provides for redemption of the sinner. That redemption requires sacrifice — a perfect sacrifice. No man is nor will ever be perfect, so no mere man can be that perfect redeemer. That required God to become man — so He could resist every temptation we experience as humans — yet live totally without sin. This is how and why Christ could become the perfect and Most High priest. He did not have to atone for His sins before He could atone for ours (also part of the law), so He can be the redeemer for all who believe in Him. He was slain from the foundation of this world, so His blood covers all who cling to His name and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S LAW! Christ meets the part of God’s law that provides for the redemption of sinners.

        Again, ALL of this was already in Scripture when Hillel came around, so he was not teaching anything new. At the same time, the modern Jew is not practicing a new religion. He is following the Law. This means the Jew is still saved because He still believes in Christ. He just doesn’t see that Christ has already come. To the modern Jew, the coming of the Messiah is still in the future. But then, if you read Scripture, you know why this is. Christ — Himself — cursed the Jew. He prevents the Jew from seeing Him for Who He really is, and He does so for the sake of the lost Gentiles. If you had read Paul (not Saul), you would know this.

        Which brings us to the last point: PAUL DID NOT CREATE CHRISTIANITY!!! This is unforgivable — even for the secular scholar. Paul taught “The Way,” just as the other 12 Apostles did. It was a Gentile who first coined the term ‘Christian’ to refer to Christ’s disciples, but it was not Paul who invented it. It already existed before he was converted — or have you forgotten that SAUL was a persecutor of Christ’s followers??? Even then, if you bother to read Paul’s letters, he clearly and repeatedly asserts that Christ was the one Who taught Him everything about the faith. Paul had personal experiences with the Living Son of God, and Paul said so (as did others).

        If you will accept what Hillel says on face value but not Christ’s and Paul’s own words, then you’re doing little more than inventing your own story for the sake of appeasing your own conscience. You have totally ignored and/or rejected the most important half of what you claim to be studying. That’s the same mistake people make when they talk about the Constitution while rejecting the Declaration. This is where, how and why I disagree with you. It is also why the Libertarian ideal is no better than the Marxist ideal: because they are equal in their rejection of God’s reality.

        • Hi Joe…I won my bet!!! One of my rules is that I never argue with anyone about his or her religious beliefs, since I regard that as the most intimate & personal belief any individual can hold. However, since you will never change any of your beliefs, which I am sure you regard as admirable, I will take a few minutes & correct some of your glaring misstatements & mistakes in your last comment. In the process I will likely reveal some of my own beliefs, but that will not be done in an attempt to “convert” anyone or cause anyone to question their own faith. I will deal with the religious statements you make, & correct your myriad misunderstandings of what “libertarianism” actually is about in a later comment or post.

          First, let me clearly state that I have great respect for Jesus of Nazareth & noting that some of his teachings paralleled those of Hillel was & is far from an insult or disparagement of either teacher. As you may not remember, I have spent my entire life studying the world’s religions & great religious leaders, & have spent particularly large amounts of study focused on Judaism & Christianity, including having committed large portions of the Hebrew & Christian scriptures to memory because they have guided the important decisions in my own life. But that is where I regard my religious beliefs as belonging…directing my own life decisions, as I do not presume to direct the personal decisions of others unless their beliefs cause them to impinge upon the personal choices & beliefs of others. Hence my strong rejection of Islam in all its forms as the Islamic command to its believers to convert nonbelievers or kill them. I regard killing someone as impinging on his or her personal freedom at its most basic level. By the way, let’s assume you’ve already used the quote about even Lucifer being able to quote the Torah from Jesus’ trials in the desert.

          All of the statements in the comment you responded to in my comment are factual, since I regard sticking to reality as preferred to seeing things “through the eyes of faith,” which to me reflects seeing through an ideological lens. Jesus employed the same teaching methods & drew many of the same conclusions as Rabbi Hillel. I challenge anyone to read the words of both & not draw the same conclusion. One of the problems Christianity has is that there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teachings, unless one regards the Apostle John as the actual author of the Gospel that bears his name. All of the synoptic gospels & the Gospel of John came into circulation during the first or second generation after the death of Jesus & Paul’s letters, which were written in the generation following Jesus’ crucifiction, assumed the existence of the churches that Saul/Paul had established or helped establish or save (ie. the Church at Jerusalem led by Jesus’ brother James).

          As I read the words repeated as Jesus’ teachings I find a great teacher whose wisdom & understanding of the Hebrew faith, like Hillel’s, was much deeper & more profound than the other rabbis of their days. Jesus’ ability to understand & articulate the laws of Moses & the later rules created during the Davidic Period & the various captivities of the Jewish people make the spirit of Adonai come alive as standards any person seeking to align his or her live with the Almighty would want to follow. But if Jesus ever intended to create a new religion I find no evidence of it in his teachings. Even the “kingdom” passages in John’s Gospel, which I regard as unlikely to have been spoken by Jesus, do not discuss a new faith but rather the restoration of the Jewish people to a right relationship with Adonai. Had the original 12-disciples thought Jesus was starting a new religion, wouldn’t one or two of them thought to have written more of what his teacher had to say about how it should work??? Just a thought!!!

          As for whether Saul/Paul was the “Founder of Christianity,” as Christian Biblical scholar C.H. Dodd referred to him, I don’t think that can really be rationally questioned. The only alternative would be Jesus himself, & nowhere does Jesus indicate he was starting a new faith. I guess one could suggest “Peter” but Paul was the great evangelist who, as a Roman citizen, was able to take Christianity throughout the Empire. So I find it difficult to believe you could regard that statement to be somehow blasphemous. Jesus died in about 30 CE, Paul experienced his Damascus Road conversion within 10-years of Jesus death (or so). Paul clearly believed Jesus had risen from his grave & ascended into Heaven, which was & is a rather ill defined place, & Paul spent his rather long career taking what he clearly regarded not as a Jewish sect but a new religion, to the far reaches of the Roman world.

          Paul & Peter were both executed in Rome for what were perceived as political crimes against the Empire, essentially stirring up trouble, which the Romans would not abide. Paul was killed by reheading & Peter by being crucified upside down, but they left behind a growing new faith that was clearly no longer a Jewish sect. Please do not confuse Christian faith with the Christian Religion, as that mistake has resulted in millions of human deaths & atrocities being committed in the name of a teacher who eschewed violence throughout his short life.

          I will close by asking (hopelessly, I’m sure) that you not try to impose your personal religious or spiritual beliefs, which I respect, with a Procrustean approach to the historical information we now know to be true. If Paul did not create Christianity, who did, is an honest question, not an assault on your or anyone’s faith. If the teachings of Hillel & Jesus are quite similar that is an observable fact, not a diminution of your or anyone’s faith. Religious faith held without question throughout human history has caused many horrible things to happen, many in the name of Christianity & today many in the name of Islam. In my view anything that causes individuals or nations to kill each other in the name of an alleged or real eternal being is a highly dangerous & even demonic religion, which I regard with the same concern as false religions like Marxism & Progressivism. CDE

          • “Glaring misstatements?” How can someone make such an assertion when he has rejected the claim of Scripture before providing any rational foundation for doing so?

            Yes, I remember that you have studied the world’s religions, including the Bible. But then, religion is a man-made construct. It has nothing to do with faith, or the true precepts in the Scriptures. So — in this sense and this sense alone — then your statements are ‘factual.’ I already granted that. But where you still miss the mark is in dismissing the fundamental claim of the Bible: that it is the inspired and living word of God! Unless and until you can show that this is a false claim, then everything you may have to say on God’s word should be held suspect. You seem to think faith is not reality. Well, sir, that is a mistake in the application of logic. In fact, it is the very fallacy I accused you of making in my original reply, so I guess I ‘win that one,’ myself.

            Your rejection of John as the author of John is just another example of how you are trying to force things to fit your narrative. You have no evidence to the contrary, so why question it — especially without questioning the authenticity of Hillel’s writings? Another mistake you have made which comes directly from the first assumption — that the Bible is not the living word of God — is in assuming Hillel came before Christ. HE DID NOT! Unless and until you can provide the evidence that the Bible is not as it claims to be, then not only did Christ come before Hillel, HILLEL WAS MADE THROUGH AND BY CHRIST! This is why you are — in fact — wrong: you are framing things as YOU want them and then proceeding as though you are correct (that is the essence of original sin, by the way).

            Next, Jesus didn’t just explain the laws of Moses, he corrected the people’s misunderstandings of them. In fact, He told the people that HE was the one who gave those laws to Moses. This is also why your argument that Jesus didn’t want to start a new religion falls flat. Christ never claimed to be starting a religion, NOR DID ANY OF HIS DISCIPLES (including Paul). Christ was fulfilling that which had already been foretold!!! See Jer 31:31-34!!! But then, even when prophecy is fulfilled, I expect you will dismiss it, too. I mean, you must. If don’t, then everything you are saying is revealed for what it is: the words of a man who has studied but never understood the thins about which he is talking (yes, CDE, I am saying you wasted a lot of time studying because it is very apparent you do not see wi spiritual eyes).

            As for the Apostles: why did they suddenly have a change of heart so great as to go willingly into martyrdom if they did not believe what they were teaching? Answer that, Charles. If they knew Christ was ‘just a man,’ then why did they live as they did from the ascension forward?

            And as for Paul: do not even pretend to be arguing from logic if you are going to reject Paul’s own words. Paul calls himself a slave of Christ many times. Everything he did pointed to Christ. He did not start anything; he was trying to end it when he met the Living Christ on the road to Damascus. And that is another question you need to answer: how did Saul — a Pharisee who hated Christ’s disciples — go to Paul, the strongest follower of those disciples? Unless Paul had the experiences he claimed to have had, nothing makes sense of his conversion.

            As for the claim I am confusing faith with religion: I reject that. I have clearly stated otherwise, and provided evidence that I know the difference. The problem you have here is that, in the first century, Christianity was not yet a “religion.” It was called ‘The Way” because it was a way of life; a FAITH! It’s perversion came later, just as Christ said it would in Revelation. So do not accuse me of “imposing my religion” on anything. All I have done is read the Scriptures (including a study of the culture, Hebrew and Greek languages) and accepted them on face value. If you ask God to open your heart, He will. And when He does, the Bible is not that hard to understand. In fact, it is rather simple. The hard part is keeping from doing exactly what you have done, and have accused me of doing: making your own personal little world out of it.

            Oh, to answer your question about Who created “Christianity:” read Jer 31:31-34 and Matt 9:1-17. If you still do not know after that — if you still do not see why and how you are wrong — then it is as I say: you wasted a lot of your life studying something you still do not understand. For, if God has opened your heart, those two passages will tell you that Christianity is not a “new religion,” but a continuation of the old. It will also tell you who established that new covenant. But then, you could try reading Paul (i.e. Romans). He will explain it the same way, as will the book of Hebrews.

            Bible scholar my butt. You have eyes and ears but you neither see nor hear.

            • Joe: I wrote you a longer (too long) response about the religious content of your comment that appears elsewhere, but I would be negligent if I did not correct your repeated misrepresentations of the libertarian approach to the relationship of the individual & government & to free market economics. We’ve done this before, & I had stopped responding to the bilge you choose to ladle out about every 5-weeks under the ridiculous title “WHY I REJECT THE LIBERTARIAN IDEAL!!!”

              As a starting point, I assume we can stipulate that I am a movement libertarian, as I have stated & supported many times on RNL & even more times elsewhere. That means I accept the centrality of individual freedom, free markets, the protection of private property rights & limited government as essential tenets of American society & culture. I reject Big Government, & especially government coercion & intrusion in the lives of American citizens. It does not mean I believe in multiple dimensions, recent visits by extraterrestrials or any number of other silly ideas that Progressives & Cultural Conservatives often attempt to ascribe to libertarians. I have other values that I follow, but those are strictly my own & do not reflect libertarianism per se.

              One reason your periodic repetitions of your “rejection of the libertarian ideal” stopped prompting my often acerbic responses is that by your title you announce to the world that you have no real knowledge of what libertarians actually think or hold important, hence why would I feel any need to drag you out of Plato’s cave into the bright light of Aristotelian reality??? But I love you & I appreciate your comments generally so here goes again!!!

              There is no “libertarian ideal,” & there never can be, because we libertarians are not Idealists & never have been. We are preeminently realists & always have been. We reject all Utopian illusions, & attempts to distort reality by means of ideologically constructed “false consciousness,” whether that be Marxists, Fascists, Progressive or religious zealots. Our Lode Star is always the centrality of individual freedom, as memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution & Bill of Rights. Our intellectual ancestors are Aristotle, Aquinas, Galileo, Newton, Locke, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Coolidge & Reagan. In recent times our leading libertarian thinkers have been von Mises, Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, Murray, Epstein, Ridley & Nozick.

              Libertarians are the sworn enemies of all Utopian visions, from Plato’s REPUBLIC with its authoritarian “Philosopher King,” to Augustine’s “City of God,” Puritan New England, Lenin & Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Third Reich, Mao’s China & Obama’s America. Since our reference points are always individual freedom, free markets, protection of private property rights, & limited government, we reject all forms of social organization that establish the Collective’s inevitable authoritarianism. We regard government’s legitimate role in American society as providing for a strong military, enforcing private contracts, & protecting private American citizens from coercion or theft, especially from the Federal government itself.

              Some American Conservatives share the heritage & values of our Founders with libertarians, although within the Conservative Movement there are many sub-groups who share with the Progressive Movement the unending desire to control the personal decisions of other American citizens. Many “Cultural Conservatives” do not so much reject the notion of Big Government controlling our personal decisions as they prefer to be the ones wielding that overwhelming government power to force other citizens to follow their moral code.

              This approach to the relationship between the individual & the state has a long history in America as it was the model that dominated Puritan New England, Virginia & other colonies & was represented at the Constitutional Convention most prominently by John Adams of Massachusetts. Unlike Franklin, Jefferson & Madison, who viewed religious freedom as an absolute individual freedom, Adams viewed the government as having a role in converting a specific moral code into the law of the new nation. Libertarians reject the idea that the Federal government should have any role in enforcing a specific moral code beyond our basic belief that neither the government nor other individual citizens should be allowed to impinge on individual freedoms, free markets, or the protection of private property rights.

              These are the ideas that libertarians believe should form the basis for the relationship between each American citizen & the US Federal government. This is the approach that built the US into the most successful society in world history, with everyday American citizens living better that all but the wealthy elites in the Old World. This is the bedrock that has made the US an exceptional nation & in the words of President Reagan, “A bright shining City on a Hill.” These are the values that have been under attack by the Progressive Movement since 1900, an attack that has intensified under Barack Hussein Obama’s corrupt regime. Libertarians reject completely any form of Collectivism. CDE

              • CDE,

                All I know is that — according to YOUR criteria — the letters after my name (i.e. degrees) make ME the ‘expert’ on logic and philosophy. After all, you do not miss the opportunity to tell people your letters give you some authority on Scripture, so why shouldn’t I claim the same here where Libertarianism is involved?

                Next, I studied under a leading Libertarian. He was the Dean of our philosophy department. His start pupil was a Libertarian. He was my only political ally in the entire philosophy department as he was the only Libertarian, and I the only conservative — in the whole school. So I know the Libertarian ideal very well.

                This is why I reject your claims. You are painting a special case for yourself; trying to co-opt the model of the CLASSIC LIBERAL. This is the problem with most Libertarians: they want to claim the principles and ideals of our founders while rejecting the foundation for those principles and ideals — GOD! Instead, they want to substitute their own reasoning. But all you get is the French Revolution and not the American.

                Libertarianism has NEVER worked — and never will. The best attempt of living the Libertarian ideal is recorded in history as THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! It failed — and for all the reasons I have been stating. But, if I were to ask why this is, I suspect I would get an answer along the lines of “It wasn’t tried the right way,” or “It wasn’t tried by the right people.”

                No, the truth here is, when you boil them both down, the Libertarian ideal is VERY similar to Marx’s description of Communism (Communism according to Marx, not applied communism as the world knows it). Neither work because neither deal with the realities of human nature.

                So, you can claim that you know best all you want, and others may well accept your claims. That’s fine. But I know better — because I learned from true believers. Mind you, I am not condemning their desire or their goal. They mean well and I admire them for it. It’s just that they cannot succeed in their attempts — as you cannot. And all of you will fail for the same reason. You have replaced the key ingredient with yourself, and Natural Law condemns anyone and everyone who ever attempts this folly. It always has and it always will.

  5. Joe,
    As can be expected, I have questions. I considered asking you for your opinion earlier, but didn’t want
    you to get involved in a deep discussion process that would occupy too much of your time. So far have
    restricted my queries to relative incidents in Jesus’ last days.

    I will be checking OYL for info. Thank you for your interest, I NEVER expected to become so involved
    in a subject that is now so IMPORTANT to me.

    • EdwardS,

      For this subject, I will gladly and willingly put away EVERYTHING ELSE in my world and give you my undivided attention. In fact, if I can help, my email is joe@newtmd.com.

      Lord willing, tomorrow, I will start a new series dealing with some of the general questions many people seem to have when first coming to Christianity. I just have to take my time as I really, really want to word things in a way that avoids sounding prideful. I really want to help those who have sincere questions, and — if I can get me out of my posts and focus on God’s word — I hope to do that.


  6. Thanks for all the attention! Hope I didn’t (maybe not) start a theology (seminary) course on Christianity!

    Joe/CDE, have to print your responses and digest what you have presented to respond. As I stated, I
    am totally immersed in this Christianity study. I can understand why The Bible is not a Book that I can
    read and accept like a novel and not be interested in re-reading because I know the ending.

    Each book in The Bible intrigues me more each time I finish. I HAVE to find the TRUE Meaning!

    Any help that will reward me in my search for the TRUTH is welcome!

    • EdwardS,

      If you want to study the Bible, then you cannot study it in the company of those who start by rejecting it’s central claims. Those people simply cannot and will not understand it — period. This i not my ‘opinion,’ but flat-out stated in Scripture. God will not let anyone who opposes Him understand His word.

      That said, you have to understand that I have my hand in the air right now admitting that this was me for the majority of my life. I did not understand because I was at war with God. I just didn’t know it. It was not until I humbled myself and started to ask Him to teach me how HE wants us to understand things that I started to see His truth. Once this happens, you will see and understand that nothing in the Bible contradicts, and nothing is without reason. In fact, everything from start to finish is about God’s perfect law and His perfect application of that law.

      Please keep this in mind as you search — even if it means you feel you must reject my commentary.

  7. CDE,
    Totally agree with you on Constantine’s Council of Nicea in 326 BCE and the acceptance by the Roman Catholics and Protestants. This is probably my greatest opposition to The Roman Catholic Church and the
    Protestant Doctrine.

    Emperor Constantine was not going to accept anything that differed from his concept of Christianity,
    his heavy hand on Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is one example.

    Hope this takes some of Joe’s heat off of you?

    • Edwards,

      Sorry, no. I stand in agreement: the later changes tot he Church are apostate. I understand where they came from and why they happened. But I also understand that they have nothing to do with the fundamental doctrines of the faith. This is why I will not relent on CDE. He is putting forth a false teaching. This is why CDE tried to get me not to point out that Satan can and does use Scripture. The difference is, Satan uses it to deceive, whereas God’s people use it to point to God, glorify Him, and edify His believers. Nothing I have said in reply to CDE is outside the sound doctrine of the Judeo/Christian faith. Contrary to CDE’s assertions, I am not imposing ‘religion’ on Scriptural doctrine, but defending that doctrine from unsound attack.

      BTW: once you understand it, the first part of Revelation speaks directly to the issue you and CDE are addressing here. The seven Churches refers tot he seven Church ages, and the Spiritual condition of the Church in those ages. Once we understand that it is Christ addressing the Churches, and we see that He was accurately foretelling the Spiritual condition on the Church in these ages, then the period you guys are discussing comes into clear focus. This is why I do not object to the general criticism, but also why the secular approach will lead you astray.

    • EdwardS,

      If you refer to my exacerbation with CDE, I’ll accept your condemnation of my behavior. It is deserved. I lost my temper. But then, I do not suffer hypocrisy very well — even in myself. CDE like to plead special case quite often, and that is a clear violation of logic. On this ground alone he sets me off. For example:

      CDE claims to be a Bible scholar, yet he rejects the majority of what the Scripture claims. OK, that’s his choice. But then he demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of what Scripture contains. If this were not the case, CDE would never say Christ was following Hillel, when Christ claimed to have been the original source of the Law of Moses. In addition, Christ clearly said He WAS establishing a New Covenant. Then there is Paul, who explains that the Jews and Christians are one faith. They are the two witnesses of Revelation. So to claim Paul started a new religion when Paul clearly and forcefully says otherwise is fallacious reasoning to a criminal degree.

      Yet, CDE will then turn around and tell me I am totally wrong about my position on Libertarianism. Somehow, CDE is an authority on the Bible because he has a degree in Bible Study, yet he shows he has no understanding of Scripture. then he tells me — a person who studied under a leading Libertarian and earned my philosophy degree from that Libertarian — that I do not understand the Libertarian ideal. This is fallacious argument, and hypocrisy of the highest order. If I did it, I would expect you to come down on me as hard as you could, as anyone who tries this foolishness in my presence should expect the same from me.

      If this offends, I apologize to you for being weak and human, but not for the principles I defend — because they are true and everlasting on both counts (Scripture and Libertarianism).

  8. CDE,
    One of my pressing questions is something you stated in your (16:42) post that Peter was executed
    in Rome (upside down on a cross, assumed by Nero). Can you identify the location of this execution
    in The Bible? What evidence do you have that Peter (Cephas) was Ever in Rome? Who has ever
    identified Peter or made reference to his being in Rome?

    Everyone cites 1 Peter 5:12-14, but I am convinced Peter was in Babylon, Egypt (with his wife)
    and Mark, who at that time was the head of the Christian community at Alexandria, Egypt.

    I am currently reading a book: “Babylon of Egypt” by Peter Sheehan, which is all about the Christian
    Community at Fortress Babylon (The new Cairo).

    Do you have any reference on this subject?

  9. Joe,
    Now you are exhibiting the dialogue that I expected. Thank you for helping me understand
    your thoughts on this intriguing subject, The Bible. It is intriguing to me because at the start of my
    investigation of Biblical History, I thought I could learn everything on a supporting type of learning
    process, e.g. What I learn today is final forever, but each new inquiry takes me back to something
    I thought I knew all about and I rediscover how ignorant I was to accept the meaning I determined
    to be the final word! I have to thank CDE also because now he has me off on a new investigation
    of “The Peter in Rome” assumption (unaccepted tradition). I’m saving “Revelation” for the Future?

    I hope that the “Understanding” continues.

    • EdwardS,

      Scripture explicitly says that it is understood line by line. You must understand the basics before you can understand the next layer. When you start to understand enough, you will find that the layers overlap and intertwine and all support each other. It is amazing, but only if you are sincerely trying to find God and asking for His guidance. If not, you will find nothing but seemingly ‘crazy’ claims. Here’s an excellent example.

      There is a passage in which Christ says that, if you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can tell a mountain to go and jump into the sea and it will go.

      OK, on the surface, this seems impossible, and many would be inclined to dismiss it. However, Scripture provides definitions for mountain and sea. A mountain is a central authority (king, dictator, etc), and the sea is the masses of people. So, when you have come to understand Scripture well enough — as His original audience did — you will understand it as the ancient Hebrew would. In this case, you would have heard Christ say:

      If you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can tell Caesar to go and jump into the masses and he will go.

      Now, before you think too little of this, consider that Gandhi studied Christ as his model, and then look at what Gandhi did. However, if a person dismisses the Spiritual aspect of all this — as someone here has already done — they will miss ALL of this (exactly as Scripture says they will…)

  10. Joe,
    I always have my mind focused on “The Big Picture.” There are a few other meanings in having
    faith in the mustard seed, but thats for another time.

    Joe, I NEVER think too little of ANY comments posted by anyone in this blog. My opinion is that
    the overpowering problem today is that there are too many one-sided arguments conducted by
    narrow minded (politicians) people who have been indoctrinated into believing everything they
    were taught in school/college and read in the government press instead of using logic and common
    sense in their reasoning.

    I understand that Jesus tried to teach/explain this dilemma that was prevalent even in His day?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.