Editor’s note: This is a guest contribution and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Caffeinated Thoughts, it’s editor or other contributors.
I personally respect Senator Ted Cruz for many reasons, not the least of which was his firm and valiant refusal to surrender (along with most of the feckless U. S. Senate Republicans) on the great Constitutional usurpation of Obamacare. At this hour, Senator Cruz is one of only a few men in an ever-shrinking list of possibilities that I am still willing to consider supporting during the pivotal first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucus. Indeed, there are many reasons for which I appreciate Senator Ted Cruz, but I have legitimate concerns that remain unanswered at this hour, and my concerns need to be aired publicly, lest any bandwagon brass musicians drown out the voice of reason. In trying times like these, those of us who care deeply for America must not fall prey to the threats of sycophant-class voters, who are unwilling to entertain any possibility that their favorite candidate could actually have a fatal flaw – a flaw that will not only fail to help America, but may hurt her more than she has already been wounded.
Senator Cruz was absolutely correct to question Hillary Clinton for accepting foreign donations from groups who do not have the best interests of Americans in mind. In this world, contributions are given thoughtfully, revealing one of the highest forms of human solidarity when they take the shape of a large financial donation. Does this beg the question of Hillary Clinton’s own ideology? Could it mean that she is more in line with the un-American statist ideologies of Europe and China than she is with Americanism here at home? It certainly could. (Based upon her well known public stands on everything from gun bans to socialist, pro-infanticide “healthcare”, she clearly does.) Meanwhile, does Hillary admit these donations pose a conflict of interest that anyone should be concerned with? No, she does not. Does she resent the suggestion? Not enough to have avoided the appearance of evil.
Lest we fall into party brand idolatry and hypocrisy, the same standard should then be applied with those who choose to show financial solidarity with all Republican candidates for President (before and after their official campaign launch). Since Senator Ted Cruz properly made mention of this matter concerning Hillary, our own scrutiny must also include Senator Ted Cruz. Does his association with aggressive “married” homosexual activists (who apparently do not feel threatened by his rhetoric, but on the contrary, wish to donate to his campaign) raise concerns for those of us down in the valley fighting a painful and costly war for what’s left of religious freedom? Of course, it raises legitimate concerns. God knows that all of America’s enemies do not live overseas. America has enemies right here at home. Will Ted Cruz resent the suggestion of a conflict of interest here? Not unlike Hillary, he probably will. Should it be raised anyway? Yes, it absolutely should.
Senator Cruz has enjoyed some groundswell momentum over the last couple of weeks both in Iowa and Texas after initially announcing his candidacy. However, his momentum should not be maintained if his campaign continues dropping bread crumbs on the ground leading those of us who carefully vet candidates (an admittedly smaller number of folks in Iowa politics) to a source of French Libertarian ambiguity on so-called “state’s rights” as they relate to marriage.
Do states have the ability to ignore the natural law of mathematics when setting a state spending budget? They sure do. (We’ve proven that with our record-breaking Republican-led largest budget in Iowa history.) Do they have a “right” to do it? Not according to the organic law of these United States – The Declaration of Independence. Do states have the ability to ignore natural law realities with regard to gravity when making codes that impact construction safety? They sure do. Do they have a “right” to put public safety in jeopardy by behaving this way? Not according to the organic law of these United States – The Declaration of Independence. Is the idea that state courts or state legislatures have an “ability” or “right” to create new and unimagined rights and grant them under the title of gay “marriage” really what makes America great? Ted Cruz seems to believe it is, according to his clear and unambiguous remarks to Jay Leno at the 9 minute mark.
Does Ted Cruz simultaneously believe that our rights come from God? Apparently, he also sincerely believes this to be true, as well. Can both of these positions be true at the same time? No, they absolutely cannot both be true at the same time. Either our rights come from men or they come from God, but they surely can’t come from both. When Ted Cruz tells Jay Leno that states have a constitutional right to redefine marriage if they wish to do so, he is clearly lending credence to the myth of state created and state granted rights. Is that a quintessential American position? No, it is not. Why, pray tell, did the founders firmly believe that decentralized government and state’s rights were so important? Because the principle of decentralized government was in harmony with nature and nature’s God. Therefore, when modern state’s rights arguments are being twisted to suggest that “new rights” can be created by men and granted by men at the state level, we have ourselves a serious problem that does not comport with the virtues of decentralized government.
You should not on the one hand champion federalism (which stems from natural law) while also holding a position that undermines the premise of federalism. How can I make this any more clear? Creating the mythical right of gay “marriage” undermines the premise of federalism, because men don’t grant rights or create rights anymore than two men can have intimacy that creates new life. Apparently, natural law (in this case biology and anatomical reality) is the biggest “hater-bigot” on Earth. It REFUSES to allow two people of the same gender to reproduce. For this reason we correctly say the relationship is quite unnatural. You see, when we fail to embrace the government-limiting chains of natural rights, we promote unnatural wrongs as a consequence. It that a Christian position? No, it is not. Is that a position that would have been accepted by the signers of the Declaration or Constitution of the United States? Concerning sodomy? Preposterous! Would such a concept pass muster in secular humanist and libertarian France? A woman in France married the Eiffel Tower a few years ago. I digress.
The unmistakable existential threat posed by radical homo-fascists utilizing the oligarchy (courts) like bazookas blasting away at our First Amendment is nothing to be cavalier about, whether you are unhinged from natural law or not. Most Americans aren’t unhinged from their own rights and still seem to appreciate the limitations on government enforced by the Bill of Rights. It’s just that selfish Americans don’t pay attention until their own head is on the proverbial chopping block. Note to selfish and gay-marriage-ambivalent Americans: once the First Amendment is trounced, the second will follow, then the third, etc.
This very real threat is faced across America, right now, by churches, Christian florists, Christian bakeries, Christian photographers, Christian journalists, Christian pharmacists, a recent Indiana pizzeria owner and kind ladies like my wife, Molly, who have been (and are being) discriminated against for their husband’s public stands of faith…these wrongs require a remedy. The disease only continues by a combination of cowardice and lawlessness spreading through both major political parties.
Who will speak for us? So far the pickings are slim.
Ted Cruz and many other presidential hopefuls had a chance to speak for all the victims of this ongoing war against our first-freedoms when he was asked a softball question on a reasonably conservative radio show (Hugh Hewitt) a few days ago. Though some sources tell me he had advanced notice of the question, he still stumbled (uncharacteristic for Cruz) in response to the inquiry and ultimately evaded the answer altogether. Is the motive for that question pure when asked by pro-gay media? Of course not, but so what?! Why should suffering photographers, journalists, pharmacists, wedding chapels, and pizzeria owners be forced at the tip of the statist sword to answer the question, while Republican presidential hopefuls bask in the limelight?
Meanwhile, several of the current Republican presidential candidates made it abundantly clear this past week that they do not take the clear and unambiguous command of Ephesians 5:1-12 seriously. In other words, they fear the judgment of public opinion more than they fear the judgment of the God they profess to humbly follow by Biblical authority. Shame on them. Evangelical voters take note! Several candidates cavalierly announced their all-too-happy willingness to show public solidarity with a celebration where two homosexual persons essentially pledge to live in uncompromising rebellion against God and Scripture “till death do they part.” Note to self: No one who made said announcement is serious about protecting traditional marriage if they become the President of the United States.
“Would you attend a gay wedding?” quipped the pro-gay media.
“Sure,” said most of the Republican lineup, save one.
How convenient for them.
Christians do not celebrate their own sins or the sins of others. They are to repent of their own sins and mourn the sins of others.
Meanwhile, there remain millions of consecrated, orthodox Christian Americans who are much more concerned about standing in solidarity with the God of the Bible. THOSE salt-of-the-earth American patriots seek representation, not squishy men-pleasers who will throw both them and the First Amendment under the bus at the first sign of a little discomfort from an embarrassingly biased and unprofessional media. The media is all too happy to grind their axes into Republican candidates while covering for their allies in the Democrat Party. Perhaps this gives Republicans a chance to empathize with the Christian God they profess to follow, for they are all too happy to abandon the commands of the Bible and cover for their own self-aggrandizement.
The constant polls are always seeking to identify where the public is leaning. What folks ought to be asking is if any of the current candidates are leaning toward doing something about the oligarchical tyrants issuing Caesarian edicts from their self-appointed thrones we used to call “court rooms.” Most importantly, is there a presidential candidate running that can represent Christians in a nation that owes its very existence to Christianity’s covenant theology, the original pattern for what is known today as “constitutionalism?” In my humble opinion, the unusually large crowd of presidential contenders has thinned much more rapidly than I had ever thought possible so soon. My plumb line for who I can support in good conscience was made for me at the top of Mt. Sinai. It is very simple and reasonable, and honoring marriage as the preeminent institution that creates human life is the first priority. More than 10,000 people have watched me explain that plumb line in all 50 states in only a few weeks of time. No word yet on whether any of the candidates are carefully watching and listening. Candidates that treat that Biblical plumb line like a tight-rope act under the big tent do themselves a great disservice. Christians are, after all, looking for fearless leadership.