Sunday Reflections

 I graduated with a degree in civil engineering, and minors in mathematics and (believe it or not) English and American literature.  Note that having studied English and American literature does not make me a better writer. (sigh!)  In any case, philosophy was not on the menu, as courses in math and science, and how to apply them to a civil engineer's work took up all my time.  It is something I regretted until, talking with my pastor, who graduated from Yale with a philosophy degree.  He noted that philosophy was pretty much hogwash.  He didn't use that term but indicated that the study of philosophy was without value for God does not operate as man would expect, but out of His gracious love.

Now, in studying Marx's Communist Manifesto, I had to study a bit of Hegel.  His explanations of things did not particularly impress me, and he was...how do I put this...loquacious.  I had also read short passages from Nietzsche, but again I had to wonder what he was on about.  In other words, I no longer regret my lack of a philosophic background, for philosophy just puts others ideas into your head. The world would be a better place without a Neitzche or a Hegel.

Today, at the American Thinker Arthur Schaper has an article entitled Leaving Keirkegaard in which he points out that while many people read and were influensed by Keirkegaard's writings, the author discovered that the true light of the world is not philosophy, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Keirkegaard its seems is another philosophy the world could do without.

I am writing about the wily Dane, Soren Kierkegaard.

My senior year in high school, I came across his writings in the local library. His last name alone was hard to ignore. From there, I read his signature treatise on faith and the sacrificial account of Abraham and Isaac, Fear and Trembling. The poetic depth of his passages on the role of the poet and the beautiful courage of Father Abraham brought tears to my eyes. I admired The Knight of Faith, desiring to live a life filled with peace and purpose, in which everything has meaning and encounters nothing but wonder in an otherwise plain world.

Kierkegaard’s other work, The Sickness Unto Death, captivated me, as well. His first paragraph (“Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self? But what is the self? … “) made me laugh out loud. His cryptic syntax served as a necessary jab and tonic to the prolix Hegelian universalism swamping European colleges and discussion halls at the time. The titles of his books were quite gruesome, and his voluminous readings on the topics were profound in every sense. Kierkegaard intended for his writings to be difficult because he was engaging in parody but also stripping away the self-righteousness of a smug world determined to prove its own smarts.

Schaper writes that at the time he encountered Kirkegaard's writings, he too was taken in by the clever prose and the turns of phrase, the humor and the pathos. But eventually he discovered that:

The hardships we face cannot be overcome by philosophical texts. Who can overcome the sorrows and struggles of life with lots of thinking? There are bills to pay, people to see, challenges to deal with, hardships to overcome, and victories to enjoy. All of the abuses and traumas that I had suffered as a child could not be resolved by reading philosophy.

Furthermore, faith in falsehood cannot save, no matter how earnest the faith. Truth matters, and truth is not something that we come up with or is something merely grounded in our personal experience. In one of his most massive texts, The Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard writes: “Truth is subjectivity."

No, it isn’t. If you jump into a pool, thinking it’s ten feet deep but actually only three feet deep, you will crack your head on the concrete. If you are dying of thirst in the desert, and you spy an oasis, only to find more sand, you will die. Kierkegaard’s determination to turn inwardness into certainty is not only wrong but dangerous. He minimized biblical revelation in other ways. In The Book on Adler, Kierkegaard argued that God doesn’t speak anymore. Yet the New Testament is replete with accounts of the Holy Spirit directing man to do God’s will.

In my youth what philosopy I read often seemed obscure, and deliberately so. The writer wanted us to think he was smarter than the reader. My feelings here have only hardened. It was obscure because the author wanted to cover over the basic falsehoods in his thinking. Here is where Schaper turns to the Truth, which can only be found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Kierkegaard’s miserly misunderstandings of Christianity ignored the fullness of the sacrifice that Christ Jesus accomplished on the Cross, and one can see the serious problems people will run into when they take someone like Kierkegaard seriously. If Nietzsche’s philosophy was consolation for those who were no good at living, then Kierkegaard’s philosophy is a comfort measure for Christians who don’t understand the Gospel.

Christian faith is not subjective. It’s not about our feelings, but it’s based on the accomplished fact and the eternal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Where Kierkegaard talked about Jesus as an example, the Gospel proclaims Him as the Savior whom we receive. Only then do we follow him, only then do we learn to love others, and only because we learn that He first loved us.

As I matured, I found Kierkegaard unappealing and unrewarding. Kierkegaard believed in a law-centered, man-centered Christianity, one where man has to try harder in his own efforts, where there is never a sense of peace and rest. Very little time did he spend expounding on the wonders and grace of God, the Finished Work of Jesus Christ, and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing more to say

Gun Control Now Out In the Open

 At the American Thinker today, D. Parker has a post entitled Leftists move on from 'nobody's coming for your guns'. Like most of their anti-liberty agenda, the mask is coming off now, and the left feels certain it can steal its way to winning back the Senate and House in the midterms. They are so sure of it that they don't need to hide their true intentions. And their true intentions are to disarm normal Americans and cram their tyrannical program down our throats.

Leftists are no longer hiding their plans to take your guns if they ever gain power. That means it’s time to get activated in defending freedom.

The gun-grabber ghouls of the left have always played a little game incrementally demanding more control over a commonsense and constitutional civil right. Though they used to occasionally say the quiet part out loud, things have changed. They’ve never been as blatant about it as they are now.

In the past, the ghouls had the advantage that history had yet to be made in other Western countries, so they could brush off the very real accusations that they were ultimately out to confiscate guns. They could say we were being paranoid or toss off some variation of the infamous line that “no one is talking about taking your guns.”

But now guns have been confiscated around the world. Even worse, the facile promises of safety from these actions have failed to materialize. We now have the advantage of hindsight, to the point that the ghouls can no longer dismiss the gun confiscation accusation as “extreme.” We can now easily point to the U.K., Australia, and Canada, so they’ve changed their tactics.

I don't know if Parker goes back as far as I do in the gun debates. I can remember the great debate over "Saturday Night Specials." These were supposedly cheaply made revolvers that so called ghetto dwellers would use during their Saturday night escapades. The debate was terribly racist. Indiana Senator Birch Bayh (a Democrat of course) and others wanted to get rid of guns and so created the Gun Control Act of 1968. But of course, these measures are always a "good first step." The gun-ghouls will never be happy until we are disarmed and mere surfs in their machine.

Even as a teen I realized that the Second Amendment was not about hunting but defending the nation and for self-defense against tyrants. So-called "Saturday Night Specials" were not hunting weapons, so were derided for not having a "sporting purpose." Well, no they didn't. They were designed to be self-defense weapons when one was attacked. One of a legitimate government's jobs is protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But the state cannot be everywhere, so it becomes incumbent on the individual to protect himself. These things I realized even as a teen.

With that as background, I was happy to see the first state, Florida, to pass a shall-issue concealed carry law. That was in 1987. Since that time, most of the states have passed shall issue concealed carry, and many have passed so-called Constitutional carry, which doesn't require a permit. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not tied to being in a militia. But all that hard work over that last 50 years is in peril.

Even if you’re not a gun owner — or lost all your guns in an unfortunate boating accident — these stories should make it crystal-clear what is at stake in the upcoming electoral contests. Cruel leftists have already made noises about persecuting pro-freedom patriots, nuking the filibuster, making Puerto Rico and D.C. states, and packing the Supreme Court. And that’s what they will openly admit to at the moment. Who knows what else they have in mind?

If there is any constant in the universe, it’s that the collectivist left will lie, and lie often. It’s a hobby and a skill. It’s just like a spanner in the leftists’ political tool kit. It’s when they tell the truth that you really have to worry.

They Really Do Hate You

 J. B. Shurk today at the American Thinker asks the question Why Do Democrats Hate America? He eventually answers that question, and I will get to it shortly. But first Shurk cites a number of examples, some of which border on treason. And it isn't always just to "get Trump."

Earlier this week, Democrat Senator Chris Murphy highlighted a disputed news story claiming that a shadow fleet of several dozen Iranian vessels had successfully eluded the U.S. Navy’s blockade near the Strait of Hormuz. Above what appears to have been Iranian propaganda, Murphy wrote one word: “Awesome.” How much does a Democrat senator have to hate the country he putatively represents to root for a foreign enemy presently engaged in battle with the United States?

Murphy’s choice to side with Iran’s Islamic terrorists over American servicemembers should surprise no-one. As commenters quickly pointed out, the Democrat was caught meeting with members of an Iranian spy ring a few years back (most likely a crime under the plain statutory meaning of the Foreign Agents Registration Act for which Murphy was never prosecuted), and he actively lobbied the Biden administration to remove Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the same group that slaughtered over 40,000 Iranian protesters a few months ago — from the list of U.S. sanctioned terrorist organizations...

...snip...

On Tuesday, Virginians narrowly passed a congressional redistricting amendment that will allow Democrats to replace their current 6-5 advantage in the House with a 10-1 drubbing that entirely ignores the state’s rather evenly split electorate. As of yet, Republican-led states have done nothing that so disenfranchises voters as what Democrats just did in Virginia.

Shurk continues on, citing the recent indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who actually paid what are extremely tiny and ineffective organizations to stir up racial strife where none exists. So, why do Democrats hate America?

The Democrat Party’s whole business model essentially runs on hate.

Gentle readers need to read the whole article. Then, imagine what it must be like to be a Democrat. One cannot sustain that kind of hatred of the people around you naturally. It takes a special kind of hatred to seek a job representing the people of your district and then using that postion to enrich yourself.

We are in the midst of a Color Revolution

 I have two today, both on the indictment of the SPLC.  But first I need to ask, if convicted, who goes to jail?  This business of indicting a organization seems...like cheap theatre.  But let's get into the articles, neither of which answer the question.

The first came yesterday evening in a post by Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker entitled Dems attack Hegseth to advance a coup against Trump. It is a fairly long post, containing lots of embedded X posts by DataRepublican, so get yourself a cup of coffee for this one.

The basic premise for this one is that the Democrats are attacking Pete Hegseth in order to split the military from Trump. It is standard in color revolutions to open a wedge between the military and police, and the current head of the administration for obvious reason. But the Democrats also go after the troops claiming that the administrations orders are not legal, and therefore if they don't want to be found guilty of war crimes, they should refuse them.

On April 15, thirteen radical House Democrats introduced six articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth, accusing him of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The charges are spurious, alleging that he violated the War Powers Act (which didn’t apply), that he committed war crimes because Iran claimed that girls were in a building on an IRGC base that the U.S. struck, and managing the military in ways they disliked.

Those articles may have been the acts of radicals, but the fact is that the Democrats have relentlessly sought to undermine Pete Hegseth at every turn. Some of it is purely policy-driven: They want mentally ill people in the military, low recruitment, a focus on social justice, not winning wars, and the triumph of overt enemies.

However, DataRepublican has a more shocking contention. She says the continued efforts to destroy Pete Hegseth are the prelude to an actual coup. I particularly noted this because Democrats are engaged in a stealth revolution against our Constitution and the Founders’ vision. DataRepublican, however, a more kinetic coup, which requires disposing of Hegseth.

Widburg includes a lot of posts from DataRepublican which should be read in full to decide whether she is right or not. I tend to believe she is correct; indeed, I have felt that the Deep State along with the media and the Democrat party are fomenting a color revolution to overthrow our Constitutional Republic for a long time. But it has gotten more obvious as we watch manufactured protests funded by leftists billionaires.  And the Left has undertaken that long march through the intuitions and now believes itself to be ready to spring the trap.

The second piece today is also at the American Thinker by D. Parker entitled Bombshell: SPLC accused of funding neo-Nazi and KKK groups to spark a color revolution.

The leftist NGO SPLC was acting very much like firefighter arsonists from real life and TV. Throwing gasoline on the coals of racism and then profiting from putting out the fire. Then, of course, there is the reality that the KKK was supported by the Democrat party, and our research has shown more than 50 common traits between them and the Brown Bolsheviks of the Third Reich.

One does have to wonder why the leftist 'law center' would be funding these groups, given all of the leftist falsehoods that they are supposedly on the 'right.'

But then again, anyone who researches past the lies should realize that it all makes sense. We'll set that aside for the moment, because these allegations raise even worse implications in that all of this was to stoke the fires of a color revolution.

Parker concludes with:

If the left wins, they have already started talking about packing the Supreme Court, locking people up, and taking other maneuvers to keep themselves in perpetual power, and that's now, while we're months away from the election. Think about what they would actually do if they were already in power and get activated.

The solution is to get out and vote. In such circumstances, your vote should be for the lesser of two evils, because in this fallen world there will always be evil. But if you want to pass on an America where the government protects our God given rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, you must get out and vote. Oh, and buy guns and ammo, as Kurt Schichter advises.

Progressivism and Islam are not compatible with our republic

 I have felt for a long time that Clarence Thomas is a national treasure, and I hope he continues to be such for many years to come.  He recently gave a lecture at the University of Texas in which he made the case that Progressivism is incompatible with America's founding principles.  It is also incompatible with Islam.  The lecture can be found here, or you can also find it at the bottom of the article by Earick Ward entitled Clarence Thomas on the origins and dangers of progressivism.

Woodrow Wilson named the system "Progressivism," but it really should be called "regressivism." For Wilson was naming something that goes back into the very beginnings of civilization itself, "Tyranny." The Germans had long lived under various rulers, all of whom claimed a natural or divine right to rule over them. Bismark, whom Wilson admired and whose system of rule he wanted for America, was just the latest in a long, long line. Thomas says:

I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think. The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines self-evident as obviously true and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation.

I believe now, as I did then, that the Declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our republic. Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our Founding, we should not forget that the Declaration established the principles that produced, despite all of our imperfections, our miscues, and our tragic mistakes, it gave us the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world.’’

...snip

As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominent among them, the 28th president of our country, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.

Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.

Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power, nearly perfected.

Liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.

...snip...

It will, of course, not be easy. It never is. But if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and to sustain you through it all.

Most of our Founders were Christian. As such they recognized that while the Kingdom of God was a kingdom after all, here in our fallen world, we could not entrust our government to kings and "divine" rulers. Christian theology has always maintained the concept of original sin.  We are not born good, but each of us is born in sin.  Our experience with George III showed us that we could not trust a king. After much thought, they came up with a republican form of government. But even though they thought this the best form, one can never discount the evil that men do. So, Thomas's closing remarks are very appropriate.

Please read the article, then listen to the lecture.

The Irony...

 The irony is thick in this story.  A gun grabber shoots and kills his wife then himself.

Today at Ammoland David Codrea has an article about the murder-suicide of Justin Fairfax and his wife. But Justin Fairfax was a former Lt. Governor of Virginia and a great proponent of red flag laws and gun control in general.

“Former Democratic Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax killed his wife and then himself in a shocking murder-suicide early Thursday morning, according to the Fairfax County Police Department,” Fox News reports. “Justin Fairfax shot and killed – shot several times – and killed his wife, ran to a different part of the home and then killed himself with the same firearm he just got unseen,’ said police chief Kevin Davis during a press conference on Thursday morning.”

While some may say it’s too soon, it can’t go without mentioning that Fairfax was a big proponent of citizen disarmament edicts, including those ostensibly purporting to be enacted to prevent domestic violence. The Fox News story itself notes, “He supported Virginia’s first red flag preventing individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing, possessing or transporting any kind of firearm.”

...snip...

It wasn’t “gun violence” that killed Fairfax and his wife, it was him. Since there are no reports at this writing that the gun he used was illegally owned, it’s fair to presume he went through a background check when he bought it. And he only needed a few rounds.

Time and again, it is shown that those who don’t trust us with guns and demand to control them really can’t trust and control themselves.

Why does it seem that these kinds of events always spring from those who would disarm you and me. Go read Codrea's article.

VA gun grab fight preparing to become nasty

 Virginia, a commonwealth that was fairly free on concealed carry and other firearms issues is facing suddenly becoming California.  According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, Virginia has about to heat up. A donation to the Virginia Citizens Defense League will be appreciated.