Ted Cruz: Like Father, Like Son

Ted_Cruz (2)Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the man I’m enthusiastically (yes, I said enthusiastically) supporting for president in 2016. Cruz has the most consistently conservative record of all the candidates who have announced or are being discussed today. Not one of the most-THE most consistently conservative.

While some Republicans just talk about opposing the Leftist agenda, and some “Republicans” actually help protect and advance the Leftist agenda, it was Ted Cruz who was going to the mat and trying to stop it, like he did with the effort to defund ObamaCare before that unholy mess got started two years ago.

When you know a little about his father, it’s not hard to see why Ted Cruz is so solidly conservative. Rafael Cruz was born in Cuba and suffered under tyranny there before getting out. Afterward, he started life over in another country from scratch, became a born-again Christian and worked to help elect conservatives like Ronald Reagan.

Rafael Cruz said that even as a boy, Ted got a solid education in Biblical worldview from hearing conversations around the kitchen table. A pastor, Rafael points out that the Bible says we are to be salt and light in a decaying and dark world, and that means Christians need to be bringing the light they have received from God to every dark corner of life-including government and politics.

The Left knows Rafael Cruz is its enemy (and tries to demonize him for many of the true things he has said), and Rafael’s son Ted is vilified like no other person in the United States Congress, for the same reason.

I wouldn’t give you a wooden nickel for what someone says when their rhetoric is contradicted by their record (as it is with so many so-called “conservatives“). I’m also not interested in conspiracy theories that may or may not hold water, especially when, again, the record says something different.  I’m not even interested in supporting a Republican with an otherwise good record but who starts to pander to the Left when he seeks a higher office. And I darned sure am not interested in allowing the “mainstream” media and other liberals to sell me on the lie that says a real conservative is “too divisive” to be elected president.

Ted Cruz’s record is that of a consistent, principled conservative. If our nation has any hope of being saved from the Leftist cesspool we are already chest-deep in, Ted Cruz in the White House is irreplaceable to that hope.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Robbins Mitchell

    Cruz or lose

    • http://tnolpp.ning.com/ David Farrar

      We all lose with Cruz. Like most Tea Party supporters, I, too, would surely wish Sen Cruz and Sen Rubio were Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizens, but they are not. If we abandon the natural born citizenship clause now, it will be exploited by others who come after Sen. Cruz and Sen Rubio who may not share his political convictions, and expose us all to the greatest threat to the Republic the founders and framers of the US Const. knew well, feared the most, and warned us all against: the loss of our freedom and liberty, not from an external military force, but from subversion within our own political system.

      Moreover, when you realize virtually all executive power in this country is held by one person as the commander in chief of this nation’s armed forces, and you also take into account the vast increase in destructive force and speed modern weapons now have over their 18th Century counterparts, you begin to realize just how important these three little words have become in today’s turbulently shrinking world, and how important it is to apply the narrowest of definitions to the “natural born Citizen” clause as a presidential requirement rather than standing on the threshold of abandoning it altogether.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Completely and totally wrong. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen, and is thus eligible to serve as president of the United States:


        • http://tnolpp.ning.com/ David Farrar

          Apparently you missed the fact that positive law cannot “create” natural law. They make this assumption using two examples from history: The first is the fact English common law extended natural born subjectship to English subjects who were born out of English jurisdiction. The second assumption they used is the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, to illustrate that the founders and the framers of the US Const. also understood this aspect of English common law and used it to form the basis of incorporating the offspring of Americans born abroad into natural born citizens. Of course, as the third Congress quickly realized, what might be good in theory, when put into actual practice, it was quickly realized the two terms did not mean the same because the two terms were used differently by their respective countries. Equating a natural born US Citizen, a legal term of art, used in the presidential qualification clause of the US Const. to block foreign influences from the highest reaches of the Republic, which included the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces, with the Blackstonian equivalency of a natural born subject, which is, and has never been, used by Parliament to establish qualifications for the ascension to the British crown in order to block non-English subjects from ascending the throne of England.

          If it hadn’t be redrawn, the 1790 Naturalization Act would have allowed the English to lay claim to an American, natural born, who happened to have been abroad within English jurisdiction, even if born of two US Citizen parents, to be a British subject, with perpetual allegiance to the British Crown, quite irrespective of its natural born American citizenship. Such a person could then be sent back to the United States, sufficiently bankrolled to obtain the highest office in the Republic, who, was, in fact, a perpetual British subject. This possibility was quickly realized and adjustments were made to the correct equivalency: a natural born British subject as being no more than a US citizen at birth, and not an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen as used in the presidential qualification clause on the US Const.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Apparently you missed the fact that this issue has nothing to do with Natural Law.

            I grow really tired really fast with obtuse people who can’t allow inconvenient things like facts to invade their pea-brains and upset their preconceived biases.

            I outlined the issue, and the successive clarifications of citizenship law over the course of the past 228 years. It’s pretty darned clear…unless, that is, one doesn’t want to see.

            • The Blue Tail Gadfly

              Hi Bob

              Re: inconvenient things like facts

              Since Publius Huldah’s article on the natural born Citizen clause has been published at this site and is under ‘Similar Posts’ in the link you gave David Farrar above, I assume you have read it. If you haven’t, then you should do so immediately.

              Both your article and the sources you link to, which erroneously assert Cruz’s eligibility, violate the three classic laws of thought to do so.

              1. Law of Identity

              2. Law of Non-Contradiction

              3. Law of Excluded-Middle

              You really should rethink your opinions if you are going to be so vehement in defending them.

              Cruz is a natural born Usurper, not our political messiah. He isn’t even that conservative if you bother to examine the principles behind his rhetoric… well, conservative in the traditional American sense of conserving and applying our country’s founding principles that is, perhaps as a Tory though…


              “The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.” ~Samuel West, Election Sermon May 30, 1776

        • thinkwell

          When an alien naturalizes as an American, we require that he or she take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the USA and that he or she renounce all former allegiances. A naturalized citizen is not permitted dual citizenship or split allegiance. This is the standard for naturalized citizens, yet they are barred from becoming president because they were not born meeting this standard. Clearly a natural born Citizen must meet this same standard, but must meet it from birth on and must meet it naturally without the need of any additional naturalization process.Naturalization itself clarifies that the presidential eligibility standard must be for exclusive 100 percent allegiance to the USA. “Natural born” clarifies that this standard must be met naturally from birth on. A natural born Citizen clearly is one who has never had any allegiance to any country but the USA, which can be clearly met by requiring one be born of USA citizen parents within USA territory.Blood and Dirt

        • thinkwell

          Ted knows that aka obama got away with trashing the Constitution by posing as the leftist messiah, so if Ted can do the same thing, but only from the right, why not him, too?Ted knows that he is ineligible — he has just let his personal political ambition overpower his love of Constitution.Is that what you want? Really? When there are millions and millions of true natural born Citizens to chose from, do you really think killing the Constitution is going to save the country? No one man is a magic bullet.

    • thinkwell

      If you support Cruz, you are no conservative and you are a traitor to the Constitution. Until he renounced his Canadian citizenship just this year he was as much Canadian as American. He was born in a foreign land to a foreign father (who didn’t even bother to become an American until 2005, by the way) and an American mother. He was born two parts alien and only one part American. Is that what you call a natural born Citizen? I don’t think so. Ted Cruz was born with naturally divided allegiance. He is not eligible to become a legitimate president. Support and defend the Constitution and vote for someone like Scott Walker or Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or Alan West.

  • SkippingDog

    In this case, comparing Ted to his father provides just one more reason to oppose his candidacy. All we need to do is look at Iran to see what having religious zealots in high office produces.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, we wouldn’t want a serious Bible-believing Christian to lead a country, would we? After all, we know how terribly it worked out when people like George Washington, John Adams, John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, James Madison and other religious zealots got involved in American government, don’t we? All that nasty, evil freedom broke out and royally messed things up for the anti-God tyrants.


      Because Christianity and Islam are exactly the same (in the minds of ant-Christian zealots).


      • SkippingDog

        I’d prefer a national leader more attuned to rational analysis.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          You’d be hard pressed to find a person better attuned to rational analysis in either party than a man with these credentials:

          1) participated in the Free Market Education Foundation starting at age 13
          2) Top speaker award 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship
          3) University of Texas law professor
          4) Princeton University grad
          5) Harvard Law School grad
          6) Harvard Law Review editor
          7) Described as “off-the-charts brilliant” by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz
          8) Clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
          9) Deputy U.S. Attorney General
          10) Texas’ youngest, longest-serving Solicitor General
          11) Wrote some 70 Supreme Court briefs
          12) Presented nine oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court
          13) University of Texas law professor
          14) United States Senator

          And these are just some of his major accomplishments.

          Of course, I understand that in the mind of a Leftist, you cannot be considered “rational” unless you loathe America, hate freedom, hold moral values in contempt, and despise the founding principles of the United States.

          • SkippingDog

            I certainly get that you’re a fanboy, Bob. The reality is that Cruz is emblematic of the most extreme right branch of our politics, making his essentially the Republican equivalent of Barry Sanders. Both are amusing, but neither has a chance of being elected president.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Given that Bernie Sanders is an out-of-the-closet socialist (something almost no Democrat is brave enough-or stupid enough-to admit), then I can easily live with the statement that Ted Cruz would be the Right wing equivalent-which makes Cruz the quintessential American patriot and defender of American values.

              If Cruz can win the primary from the powerful RINO establishment, he will walk away with the general election. If Americans are finally given a chance to vote for a real conservative after all these years, they’ll jump at the chance.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                You know, this kind of visceral hatred of Cruz by liberals is precisely why he is the best choice. Liberals never have this kind of animus for their RINO lapdogs.

          • SkippingDog

            BTW, a number of people I know participated in debate with Cruz. They consistently tell me he was known as a cheater.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              If you’re really telling the truth about knowing people who debated Cruz and if you’re telling the truth about what they said, I have zero doubt that they said it because he wiped the floor with their pitiful arguments.

              Yes, I’m sure he “cheated” to fool Alan Dershowitz, cheated to fool Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and everyone else.

              Sure. Dream on, Leftist.

    • WXRGina

      I guess it depends on what you mean by “religious zealots.” When it comes to Islam, yes, that’s a very bad leader to have in office, but as Bob says below, if you’re talking about a serious Bible-believing Christian, that would be the best person you could hope for-even those of you who despise the Lord and His people would be protected by a true Christian. You just don’t get it, and instead, you cling to commie tyrants to be your “saviors.”

      • SkippingDog

        There’s nothing positive about religious zealots running a government - any government.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Yes, who would want religious zealots like Patrick Henry, George Washington, Robert Treat Paine, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Noah Webster, John Jay, Samuel Adams, John Witherspoon, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, John Hancock, James Madison and their ilk running a government? Abhorrent (to an America-hating Leftist).

          • SkippingDog

            Very few of those would come anywhere close to the fundamentalist moonbattery of the evangelical movement.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Dream on, Leftist.

              “General Washington hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. To the distinguished character of Patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” General George Washington’s general orders, July 9, 1776

              “Divine service be performed in a solemn and reverent manner twice a day, and a sermon preached on Sunday, unless bad weather or other extraordinary accidents prevent it; and that they come all, or as many of the ship’s company as can be spared from duty, to attend every performance of the worship of Almighty God.” - General George Washington’s orders to the u.S. Navy

              “It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes…No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States…the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” - President George Washington in his inaugural address

              ” Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

              It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” President George Washington’s farwell address

              “I have now disposed of all my property to my family; there is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian Religion. If they had that, and I had not given them one shilling, they would be rich; and if they had not that, and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.” - Patrick Henry

              “I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.” - Robert Treat Paine

              “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.” - John Adams

              “Let us live no more to ourselves, but to Him who loved us, and gave Himself to die for us.” - Roger Sherman

              “I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die…nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God.” - John Hancock

              “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” - Noah Webster

              “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” - John Jay

              “Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.” - John Dickenson

              “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavours to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” - Samuel Adams

              “Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.” - John Witherspoon

              “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” - Charles Carroll

              “I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. The spirit is opposed, not only to the splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many of its precepts have for their objects republican liberty and equality as well as simplicity, integrity, and economy in government. It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions of the world.” - Benjamin Rush

              “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” - James Madison

              The founders would make most pastors of today look like reprobates. And they are the personification of what you anti-American Leftist denounce as “religious zealots.” Which reveals how incredibly far off you are from embracing American values. So sad.

        • WXRGina

          What I said is the truth.

        • DCM7

          Show me someone who says they don’t want “religious zealots” running a government…
          …and I’ll show someone who wants the government to be run according to his (or her) own personal beliefs — without regard to how it actually affects things (especially other people).

  • thinkwell

    Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen the moment he appeared in the Canadian doctor’s hands who caught him as he was born, but if his mother hadn’t bothered to register him with the American consul and his family hadn’t moved to America when Ted was four, he wouldn’t be an American citizen at all. A natural born Citizen doesn’t need to be registered at the consulate and move to America. A natural born American is born exclusively American (like me or most of you reading this). Ted Cruz was born with naturally divided allegiance among Canada, Cuba and America. Not eligible. The Constitution still matters (at least to true conservatives).

  • Pingback: Fiorina: Another RINO in the Race()

  • franklinb23

    That someone is or is not a Christian is irrelevant to whether they’d be a good leader. Besides, our Constitution explicitly rejects the notion that religious faith is a qualification for office by stating “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”

    In any rate, is saying that a politician is a “Christian” supposed to imply something about how they’d govern? Jimmy Carter was a Baptist, but so is Pat Robertson. They’re not exactly mortal enemies (Pat even had Jimmy on his show), but could any two politicians be further apart politically?

    You have your liberal Christians who belong to Sojourners, but you also have men like Joe Eidsmoe (a friend of Michelle Bachmann’s). According to Eidsmoe, if biblical law conflicts with civil law, “the first thing you should try to do is work through legal means and political means to get it changed.” (This form of Christian “Dominionism” has a certain degree of popularity in some circles. )

    Clearly, what you can’t say is that being a Christian implies that one will have (or must have) a corresponding way of how they’ll run a military or balance the budget or what laws they’ll seek to push. From what I see, it’s all over the map.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      That someone is a Christian is more than just relevant-it’s vital.

      While a person can be a “good leader” without being a Christian, the question is: what are they leading the country toward?

      As you pointed out, Jimmy Carter claims to be a Christian. Yet he was a pathetic leader. But he was also a pathetic excuse for a Christian, as well, which probably had a great deal to do with why he was a pathetic leader. Carter was more influenced by the principles of Marxism than he was by the principles of Christianity, which was most of his problem.

      If a leader is leading the country toward something bad, then it doesn’t matter what a “good leader” they are. What matters most is that they are leading the country in the wrong direction. You could be a great driver, to rival the best NASCAR has to offer…but if you’re headed for a cliff doing 200 MPH, being a “good driver” doesn’t count for squat.

      A Christian (a real one, not a fake one who calls himself one while living like a pagan) understands the truth, and what is right. What’s more, since our nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles, they know better than a non-Christian how to make this country run the best it can. Just as a car built to run off gas isn’t going to run well on swamp water, so a country built to run on Christian principles isn’t going to run well on Marxist or humanist principles. As the writings of the founders illustrate, the Bible speaks truth and wisdom to virtually every area of life, including (even especially) government and justice. If one follows the Bible, as the founders did (and as even most people who call themselves “Christians” today do not), the right path becomes very clear on almost all issues.

      No, there is no official religious qualification for office, nor should their be. It is not the government’s job to dictate who can and can’t hold office, at least with regard to religious affiliation.

      It is, however, the important and vital duty of the American people-especially those who call themselves Christians-to exercise their personal judgment and choose only the best candidate for our nation (that was, again, designed to run on the “fuel” of Christian principles).

      That is why the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

      Doing that is critical to maintaining the political prosperity of which President George Washington spoke:

      “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

      It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

      Too many leaders who not only don’t understand this but hold this truth in contempt, has got this nation in the mess it’s in.

      • franklinb23

        “But he was also a pathetic excuse for a Christian, as well, ”

        Again, Bob, you seem to be implying that an authentic faith must manifest itself in a very rigid and specific political ideology. In other words: you can tell who is a Christian by how they view the role of civil government.

        I don’t know how you can say this.

        There are devout Catholics and Orthodox who will agree with you 100% on matters of sexual ethics but who will insist that the only real form of government is a Christian monarchy. You, yourself, seemed to discard Christian Reconstructionists, but are RJ Rushdoony or today’s Dominionists not “real Christians”? They all seem absolutely sincere to me, and they want something akin to a theonomy where idolatry, fornication and blasphemy have civil punishments, some of them harsh. You’ve never advocated that.

        Carter may have been a so-so President, but the man seems empathetic and self-reflective. These are the hallmarks of the Christian life, no?

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Yes, I can say that with complete confidence because it is completely true.

          You may recall a dialog we had a few weeks ago that could be summed up in one phrase: ideas have consequences. http://www.americanclarion.com/irs-sued-over-covert-deal-with-atheists-against-churches-37618#comment-1958197297

          The Bible is, in secular terms, a set of ideas that conform to a few big ideas or even one big idea. Taking those ideas in context with one another produces something called a “worldview” or a lens through which one views the world (and EVERY philosophy or ideology has its own worldview, even and especially atheism). The sum total of those ideas (which really becomes a full philosophy in concert) leads to certain actions when taken seriously, and those actions lead to certain outcomes.

          It is no surprise to the student of history and philosophy that building a nation to operate on God’s principles has produced the greatest nation in all of human history; it only makes sense that the creator of the universe and everything in it would know how things would work best, even in his fallen universe, and to follow those principles provides the best hope of success in life, whether it be personal or national.

          It also is no surprise that following a philosophy that is the antithesis of God’s principles would produce one of the worst outcomes imaginable-and it has, every time it’s been tried, as you can see in every communist country that has ever been around the world. While they may be short-term military gains, it comes at the expense of the freedom, prosperity, and often very lives of the people in those countries. Marxism is characterized by an atheistic rejection of God and God’s values, and it isn’t surprising that Marxism is responsible for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million deaths in the 20th Century.

          So yes, faith (faith in whatever object) produces certain outcomes. Faith in the values of Jesus Christ (a member of the Trinity, the Living God) leads to the kind of civil government we built in the United States some 200 years ago-a nation that recognizes God as the transcendent lawgiver, recognizes that humanity is fallen and predisposed toward sin and mistreating his fellow man, and that government is only a delegated custodian of God’s authority to help bring justice to that fallen world. You can find all these principles and more (property rights, frugality, freedom of religion, checks and balances, etc.) in the Bible, and when they are pursued seriously, a great nation like the United States is the outcome.

          When they are pursued tainted with Marxist ideology as Jimmy Carter and some others have done, you have an ailing and impotent nation. )Carter is an example of what the Bible describes as “having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof.” He calls himself a Christian, and has some nominal-and frankly, easy and undemanding-Christian characteristics, but where the rubber meets the road, he embraces Godless Marxism and humanism OVER what the Bible teaches.)

          And when Biblical principles are completely rejected as Marxist nations do, you have some of the most brutal repression, oppression and bloodshed this planet has ever seen.

          If you really want to put what I’ve said to the test, and really want to understand what I’ve said, the first and best place to begin your study would be the Bible itself, at Genesis 1:1. The writings of Sir William Blackstone (an English jurist who heavily influenced the founders) would also be invaluable. And the work of John Locke, who, outside of the Bible, was probably the single biggest influence on the founders, would also be of immeasurable benefit. Locke especially will help you tie together the ideas and philosophies taught in the Bible, and how those play out in civil government when pursued. Locke was a theologian and church leader, but he was also one of the greatest thinkers in the realm of government and civil matters in the last 1,000 years or more.

          • franklinb23

            Perhaps my question was not the right one.

            Let me rephrase: will “good” or “true” Christians (however you define it) disagree on matters of public policy, or can you weed out the false ones by the political decisions they make?

            Good example: can reasonable Christians have disagreed (or continue to disagree) on whether the Iraq invasion was the right decision for this country or not (assuming all of them had the same knowledge of the circumstances)?

            George W was a Christian, as you know. Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken atheist, agreed with the invasion. Peter Hitchens (his brother, a devout Christian) did not. No one here’s a mind reader, so we can’t judge the sincerity of any one of these three. Would you suggest, though, that we can reasonably ascertain that either George or Peter were not authentic believers merely by virtue of the political positions they held?

            That’s what you seem to be saying … unless I’ve misunderstood.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Like most things, there is some room for disagreement on minor details and nuances of public policy, but when someone goes directly against or refuses to defend the Biblical standard, that’s a sure sign that the person either isn’t really a Christian, or is in such a “backslidden” or disobedient state as to make them, for practical purposes, not behaving as a Christian.

              Regarding your example of the Iraq invasion and assuming as you stated that they all had the same knowledge of the actual circumstances, no, not and uphold the best standard of defending what is right. The Iraq invasion wasn’t a clear-cut moral issue in the sense that homosexual behavior or killing unborn children are, so I wouldn’t put it in the same “absolute” category as the two aforementioned issues. There is no “Thou shalt invade belligerent countries that support terrorism” type instruction like their is for not engaging in certain behaviors. But there are principles which, when considered by a mature Christian, point in a certain direction.

              In the case of the Iraq invasion, when all the facts are taken in total, the right thing for a moral person to support is clear. In brief, we were dealing with (a) a sponsor of terrorism, (b) a country that had invaded and taken over another country in an unprovoked attack in 1990 and had threatened other countries in the region, (c) a country that had violated the cease fire agreement it made with the United States and the civilized world in 1992, (d) a country that violated some 17 resolutions passed by the international community to deal with its violation of the cease fire agreement, (e) a country that fired on U.S. and British warplanes over 200 times in the year prior to the invasion, (f) a country that had shown every indication that it would continue its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction if given the slightest chance. In further consideration of all the above, efforts and expectations of dealing with these violations and threats rested solely on U.S. military power…and the failure to exercise it appropriately would have resulted in a loss of U.S. credibility, which in turn would have invited further attacks on the U.S., most likely of the terrorist variety. Further, the United States, in response to nearly 3,000 Americans being slaughtered by terrorists in one day, had declared war on global terrorism, and since Iraq was a promoter and sponsor of terrorism, for us to do nothing-especially in light of all the other factors I mentioned-would further erode our credibility, even further inviting attacks on our nation-and one of the primary responsibilities of a national government is to protect its citizens from foreign attack.

              Many Christians were and probably still are misled by the Leftist propaganda efforts of the “mainstream” media and have forgotten the facts I mentioned above, if they ever knew them in the first place (I know for a fact some were, because I’ve heard some of the most asinine, and easily verified falsehoods come out of some of their mouths), but those remain the facts, and no rational person interested in living up to moral duty could look at those facts and say, “We should have done nothing.”

              I’m not familiar enough with Peter Hitchens’ Christian testimony to make a full judgment, but as I said before, more than few Christians didn’t know the facts concerning the Iraq invasion.

              What’s more, as I’ve pointed out many times, calling yourself a Christian doesn’t mean you really are one. And even some folks who are really Christians haven’t delved into the Bible enough to be competent with their own personal moral issues, much less those of the world. They are the people the apostles talked about in the New Testament who were babies in Christ, who could only handle milk when they should have been able to handle meat. Such immature Christians, while genuinely born again, can and do still make bad decisions and fail to do the right thing because they fail to be good disciples and learn about God’s principles.

              So to summarize my answer, Christians should ALWAYS agree on behaviors the Bible has clearly said are right or wrong (“DO this” or “DON’T DO that”), and anyone who disagrees with what God has clearly said is either (a) ignorant about what God has said, (b) in some stage of rebellion against God, or (c) isn’t really a Christian after all. For matters that require some maturity and discernment (because the Bible doesn’t clearly say “DO” or “DON’T” about a particular thing), the same three possibilities are true, but you can add a fourth possibility, and that is closely related to (a) but requires more reading of the ENTIRE counsel of God to discern because it isn’t clearly spelled out in a “yes” or “no” answer.

              Then, of course, there are those relatively few matters that aren’t really an issue of right or wrong, but are of expediency, or the BEST way to handle something, but they’re a whole other matter, and there aren’t many of those in public policy anyway (at least not in a way that divides the people deeply).

  • democrat CockRoach

    Born in Canada to a Cuban father who’s a Castro sympathizer right when Obama is opening up Cuba for his next dictatorship no thanks.