Bible Reading mks Liberals

[GayatfootofCross]

5 hours ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

As a person who is of above average education and as one who studies the Bible on my own and not under the supervision of ecclesiastics, I find Jesus to be both a "bleeding heart liberal" and an unabashed conservative.  He did not sanction the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (liberal) as the conservatives would have done, but neither did He sanction the breaking of the law (conservative). In fact, His view of the 10 c was even MORE strict than the conservatives of His day. There are many  and conservative examples in the Bible.  Just to name a couple - lust after a woman in your heart and you are guilty of adultery.  Hate a person and you are guilty of murder.  His ideal (conservative) is a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, yet permitted polygamy (liberal).   Labeling God or Jesus as a liberal or a conservative is, imho, a complete misunderstanding of the Bible. 

I really appreciate what you are saying.. I assure you Gerry, We liberals do not advocate breaking law of God. Understanding the meaning and the intent is held differently. That is the big difference between the two camps.

I address  The God that many progressives are getting a glimpse of.

 

 This picture of God is Good News both to the Liberals and Conservatives.

ALL ARE SINNERS! EVERY MOMENT!

 

May the Joy of the Lord be your Strength

 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

Labeling God or Jesus as a liberal or a conservative is, imho, a complete misunderstanding of the Bible. 

In my book labeling anyone a liberal or conservative, is a complete misunderstanding of people in general! There is not one person that can claim they are a complete liberal and there is not one person that can claim they are a complete conservative! We are all both.

[Tom King]

I've read this thread with interest. I do believe the devil enjoys it when we play word games with labels. The "Jesus is a liberal" argument depends entirely on his kindness and forgiveness to make the case for this. This utilizes a nasty trick used by orators and propagandists - that is the false premise. The false premise in this case (and its been repeated several times in this discussion just so we are sure not to miss it) states that conservatives are "trying to keep the church pure by focusing on the sins of others."  Actually this is not a conservative practice. It is the practice of gossips and the self-righteous and judgmental. While you can make the case that some conservatives are judgmental and self-righteous and gossipy, I've done rather a lot of political blogging and commentary in my writing career and I've seen plenty of such behavior, some of it quite cruel, crude and tasteless, coming from self-described liberals. It's funny how people who hate those who judge them and criticize their behavior are some of the quickest on the draw when it comes to judging and criticizing those who disagree with them. Those who hate proselytizing by Christians are some of the most vehement about convincing you to become a Progressive Socialist if you want to be accepted into their herd.

Here's the story on political liberals and conservatives. In the late 1700s a group of liberal political leaders in America created a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Many were influenced by liberal philosopher John Locke as well as by the principles of the Bible. Most folk were big Bible Readers back then. Conservatives at the time were pro-monarchy, pro-class division, pro-centralized authority and planning.

Once the United States was well-established, the concept of what was liberal and conservative began to evolve. Conservatives over the 1800s became those who sought to preserve the Constitution and founding principles which had once been so at odds with mainstream belief in the British Empire - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being a natural right, for instance instead of something given to you by the grace of the monarchy. Those who believed in individual rights and freedoms, who rejected big government authority and the divine right of kings and nobles, became the forces resisting change in America; a distinctly American conservatism if you will. During the latter half of the 19th century, the work of Marx and Darwin were embraced by a fading upper class would-be hereditary nobility who believed themselves called to take charge of the raggedy masses and fix them up through centralized government planning. Disguised as "helping the poor", the movement claimed this shift back toward feudalism and class privilege, was for the benefit of those incapable of helping themselves. The results were a bloodbath that drenched the 20th century in blood and horror as the progressive fascination with eugenics (breeding criminality from the human race) turned into forced sterilization of sub-humans (the disabled and mentally ill and lower class persons), and eventually Hitler's "Final Solution", Stalin's purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Pol Pot's Killing Fields. All of this liberal progress came at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives.

I call myself a conservative. If I were to list my beliefs as a conservative, they would include:

1. The Golden Rule - Treat others as I would wish to be treated.
2. Small lean government - decentralized authority, local governance, minimal government interference and minimal taxation.
3. Strong defense of the nation and the weak and disadvantaged (military, police, fire, etc.).
4. Absolute constitutional governance. The Bill of Rights not open to interpretation or modification without an amendment to the Constitution voted by the people.
5. Moral behavior as informed by the ten commandments and the Bible.
6. Communities caring for the widows, orphans, seniors and the disabled persons in their midst as needed. It is not the government's responsibility, but mine. I believe in being compassionate toward those in need.
7. The Rule of Law (the kind you enforce once it's on the books and not selectively to punish your enemies).
8. Free market capitalism which I believe effectively regulates the economy if it is allowed to work and you don't decide some businesses are "too big to fail" or you allow businesses to buy extensive influence in the government.
9. Strict limitation of the power of individuals and parties to meddle in the lives of citizens.
10. Citizen service in government, term limits and no career politicians. Bureaucrats face constant review and supervision and are removed if found wanting just like any other job. No entrenched bureaucracy.
11. No state-sponsored church. Preachers can say what they want from their pulpits, churches can practice their religion so long as no one is hurt, defrauded or mistreated. Faith is NOT to be prohibited in the public square; rather the free expression of religion is protected.
12. The freedom to speak, broadcast, write, assemble, print and demonstrate so long as you do not injure others, damage their property or their person.

That's pretty much how I define conservatism. I don't believe the government should plan people's lives for them. I don't believe anyone has a right to force their beliefs on anyone. Period! That means they cannot force me or my church to accept gay marriage, forcible redistribution of wealth, the killing of babies in utero for no other crime than being conceived, discrimination due to race, creed or religion by the government, or the forced acceptance of massive numbers of non-Americans into the country so that a single party can pad its voter base.

While I believe God loves gay people, I also believe it's a sin to perform the act based on those feelings, but not to have them. I believe gay people when they say they can't help it. I think it's genetic, which will cause howling and lamentation in the LGBT et al corner where it's neither a choice nor a genetic defect, but it is both a choice and a genetic defect, except when it's politically expedient to be one or the other or neither.  Look, I get sinful feelings too that I choose not to act on because to do so would be, well, sinful. You shouldn't do things you know to be a sin. I also believe it's a genetic condition sometimes and sometimes the result of some environmental factor or experience. I have friends I love dearly who struggle with being gay. I believe there could be and should be treatment options available, unlike the LGBT advocacy folk who howl every time someone in the mental health field attempts to take a look at what causes the condition. I think that's cruel and removes people's choices by suppressing knowledge and/or development of treatment strategies. Not to be gay is a choice too.

The premise that conservatives are a bunch of rich, self-serving, self-satisfied hypocrites who want to feel better about themselves by condemning others is just not true. That particular attitude is the preserve of no single political philosophy. In my years as a conservative community organizer (the liberals in our bipartisan initiatives thought I should spontaneously combust because I cared about people), I discovered that, at least with honest people, we did not disagree on the issues, but on the method for addressing them. When we got off our ideological high horses and looked at addressing the problem, not propping up parties, we were able to accomplish great things. In the process, I had to teach liberals how to speak "conservative" to get Republican legislators on board. We stopped people from chaining themselves to buses and started them working on developing solutions that made sense. Instead of howling, we started helping. The Christians were my biggest advocates and most powerful at getting out supporters to make things work.

The church is where we unite. The devil would divide us over issues that are of no consequence. You may struggle with some sin. In God's eyes gay sex and gossiping are pretty much equally bad. We are told to remove the log from our own eye before we go after the speck in someone else's. Good advice. We can argue what method works best all day long. What we are not allowed to do is to condemn, harass, and mistreat others simply because they wear the wrong hat or don't like the same music we do. All have sinned and come short. We are judged by the same standard by which we judge others. If that doesn't sober you up and make you a little more liberal in your forgiveness and conservative in how we hold to the beliefs that make us who we are as Christians, then you really weren't paying attention.
 

Tom King
Puyallup, WA
"If it feels good, think hard before you do it."

[GayatfootofCross]

4 hours ago, Tom King said:

I've read this thread with interest. I do believe the devil enjoys it when we play word games with labels. The "Jesus is a liberal" argument depends entirely on his kindness and forgiveness to make the case for this. This utilizes a nasty trick used by orators and propagandists - that is the false premise. The false premise in this case (and its been repeated several times in this discussion just so we are sure not to miss it) states that conservatives are "trying to keep the church pure by focusing on the sins of others."  Actually this is not a conservative practice. It is the practice of gossips and the self-righteous and judgmental. While you can make the case that some conservatives are judgmental and self-righteous and gossipy, I've done rather a lot of political blogging and commentary in my writing career and I've seen plenty of such behavior, some of it quite cruel, crude and tasteless, coming from self-described liberals. It's funny how people who hate those who judge them and criticize their behavior are some of the quickest on the draw when it comes to judging and criticizing those who disagree with them. Those who hate proselytizing by Christians are some of the most vehement about convincing you to become a Progressive Socialist if you want to be accepted into their herd.

Here's the story on political liberals and conservatives. In the late 1700s a group of liberal political leaders in America created a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Many were influenced by liberal philosopher John Locke as well as by the principles of the Bible. Most folk were big Bible Readers back then. Conservatives at the time were pro-monarchy, pro-class division, pro-centralized authority and planning.

Once the United States was well-established, the concept of what was liberal and conservative began to evolve. Conservatives over the 1800s became those who sought to preserve the Constitution and founding principles which had once been so at odds with mainstream belief in the British Empire - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being a natural right, for instance instead of something given to you by the grace of the monarchy. Those who believed in individual rights and freedoms, who rejected big government authority and the divine right of kings and nobles, became the forces resisting change in America; a distinctly American conservatism if you will. During the latter half of the 19th century, the work of Marx and Darwin were embraced by a fading upper class would-be hereditary nobility who believed themselves called to take charge of the raggedy masses and fix them up through centralized government planning. Disguised as "helping the poor", the movement claimed this shift back toward feudalism and class privilege, was for the benefit of those incapable of helping themselves. The results were a bloodbath that drenched the 20th century in blood and horror as the progressive fascination with eugenics (breeding criminality from the human race) turned into forced sterilization of sub-humans (the disabled and mentally ill and lower class persons), and eventually Hitler's "Final Solution", Stalin's purges, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Pol Pot's Killing Fields. All of this liberal progress came at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives.

I call myself a conservative. If I were to list my beliefs as a conservative, they would include:

1. The Golden Rule - Treat others as I would wish to be treated.
2. Small lean government - decentralized authority, local governance, minimal government interference and minimal taxation.
3. Strong defense of the nation and the weak and disadvantaged (military, police, fire, etc.).
4. Absolute constitutional governance. The Bill of Rights not open to interpretation or modification without an amendment to the Constitution voted by the people.
5. Moral behavior as informed by the ten commandments and the Bible.
6. Communities caring for the widows, orphans, seniors and the disabled persons in their midst as needed. It is not the government's responsibility, but mine. I believe in being compassionate toward those in need.
7. The Rule of Law (the kind you enforce once it's on the books and not selectively to punish your enemies).
8. Free market capitalism which I believe effectively regulates the economy if it is allowed to work and you don't decide some businesses are "too big to fail" or you allow businesses to buy extensive influence in the government.
9. Strict limitation of the power of individuals and parties to meddle in the lives of citizens.
10. Citizen service in government, term limits and no career politicians. Bureaucrats face constant review and supervision and are removed if found wanting just like any other job. No entrenched bureaucracy.
11. No state-sponsored church. Preachers can say what they want from their pulpits, churches can practice their religion so long as no one is hurt, defrauded or mistreated. Faith is NOT to be prohibited in the public square; rather the free expression of religion is protected.
12. The freedom to speak, broadcast, write, assemble, print and demonstrate so long as you do not injure others, damage their property or their person.

That's pretty much how I define conservatism. I don't believe the government should plan people's lives for them. I don't believe anyone has a right to force their beliefs on anyone. Period! That means they cannot force me or my church to accept gay marriage, forcible redistribution of wealth, the killing of babies in utero for no other crime than being conceived, discrimination due to race, creed or religion by the government, or the forced acceptance of massive numbers of non-Americans into the country so that a single party can pad its voter base.

While I believe God loves gay people, I also believe it's a sin to perform the act based on those feelings, but not to have them. I believe gay people when they say they can't help it. I think it's genetic, which will cause howling and lamentation in the LGBT et al corner where it's neither a choice nor a genetic defect, but it is both a choice and a genetic defect, except when it's politically expedient to be one or the other or neither.  Look, I get sinful feelings too that I choose not to act on because to do so would be, well, sinful. You shouldn't do things you know to be a sin. I also believe it's a genetic condition sometimes and sometimes the result of some environmental factor or experience. I have friends I love dearly who struggle with being gay. I believe there could be and should be treatment options available, unlike the LGBT advocacy folk who howl every time someone in the mental health field attempts to take a look at what causes the condition. I think that's cruel and removes people's choices by suppressing knowledge and/or development of treatment strategies. Not to be gay is a choice too.

The premise that conservatives are a bunch of rich, self-serving, self-satisfied hypocrites who want to feel better about themselves by condemning others is just not true. That particular attitude is the preserve of no single political philosophy. In my years as a conservative community organizer (the liberals in our bipartisan initiatives thought I should spontaneously combust because I cared about people), I discovered that, at least with honest people, we did not disagree on the issues, but on the method for addressing them. When we got off our ideological high horses and looked at addressing the problem, not propping up parties, we were able to accomplish great things. In the process, I had to teach liberals how to speak "conservative" to get Republican legislators on board. We stopped people from chaining themselves to buses and started them working on developing solutions that made sense. Instead of howling, we started helping. The Christians were my biggest advocates and most powerful at getting out supporters to make things work.

The church is where we unite. The devil would divide us over issues that are of no consequence. You may struggle with some sin. In God's eyes gay sex and gossiping are pretty much equally bad. We are told to remove the log from our own eye before we go after the speck in someone else's. Good advice. We can argue what method works best all day long. What we are not allowed to do is to condemn, harass, and mistreat others simply because they wear the wrong hat or don't like the same music we do. All have sinned and come short. We are judged by the same standard by which we judge others. If that doesn't sober you up and make you a little more liberal in your forgiveness and conservative in how we hold to the beliefs that make us who we are as Christians, then you really weren't paying attention.
 

Tom King
Puyallup, WA
"If it feels good, think hard before you do it."

hi Tom King!

Great name!

Thank you for weighing in on my thread. I see it is your fourth post.

May the Joy of the Lord be your Strength!

[Tom Wetmore]

@Tom King I appreciate your weighing in on this.  But, I guess by your definition of conservative there are are a fair number of so called "liberals" that would read your list and discover quite to their surprise that they are  apparently mostly conservative too.  That the same or very similar values are shared by people on the the full range of the spectrum of supposed distinction between conservative and liberal is a major confusing element of the list you have posted and that reflects a commonly held misunderstanding of the distinctions.  Just take one that is on your list, the first one in fact - the Golden Rule.  Not sure that you intended it as #1 in a priority sense, but it certainly is likely to rank rather high on the list of values of many people.  And I should hope it comes as no surprise that many liberals likewise  place it as a very high priority value for themselves as well.  I fall in that category.  But the major problem with your definition is the inherent implication of such lists of the values/factors that supposedly make one conservative is that they distinguish a conservative from those who  are not conservative.  And given the extreme polarization that has developed, the challenge is that those who are not self-identified as conservative also must not hold those same values and more than likely hold quite the opposite.  Or alternatively, as you have alluded in the rest of your post, if someone exhibits behavior that is not reflective of the Golden Rule, the implication must be that such a person is not conservative and must be one of those nasty liberals.

Also at the beginning, you quickly summarize a historical fact that what is considered liberal and what is considered conservative have evolved to some degree over time.  In fact the distinction is truly a relativistic construct as the history shows and others have pointed out within their own country/culture/generation.  The example that I often go to is the use of those unfortunate labels is in Russia. In Russia today a conservative Russian is a Communist and the liberals of Russia are free market capitalists (your #8 conservative value.)  I would also say that your # 9 also gets reversed in Russia.  The progressives/liberals of Russia are the ones clearly trying to dismantle the communist system that has sought for a very long time to limit individual freedoms and extensively meddles in the lives of Russian citizens. The Communist party is struggling to maintain its hold against changing things as they know them. 

The bottom line is that the list is rather subjective and not truly or exclusively conservative values.  In fact I see the lines quite blurred by your list.   I think you have actually created a false premise  that you identified at the beginning.  

[Tom Wetmore]

Just yesterday I proposed  to a conservative relative that I think that the continuum of political leanings is not so much a straight line as a spectrum of right to left might suggest, but rather a circle.  I hear some of the libertarians and their rhetoric and that of some of the extreme right wing ideologies and compare it to the far left wing rants of that self proclaimed social democrat Bernie Sanders and they really sound quite similar. The extremists really come closer in their rhetoric than either comes to more moderate voices that would otherwise be considered vy much on th mainstream and middle of the political spectrum.

[Tom King]

@Tom Wetmore

Of course my list of conservative "values" encompasses values shared by self-identified liberals. And it is not meant to be a list that excludes anyone. My point was that we likely share more values than we disagree on. Liberal pundits constantly hammer on how mean-spirited conservatives are and how we hate the poor and we hate immigrants and that's a total lie. While there may be some extremists on the right and left who hate, the majority of us who self-identify as Tea Party conservatives spend on average far more of our own personal income and time helping the poor and down-trodden. Where we are at odds with the mainstream liberal community is strictly with regards to method.

I worked with a guy in East Texas when I was doing some community organizing around transportation issues. He was a traditional American liberal. He favored government transportation solutions because, as he said, "Governments don't run out of money. They can always get more."  The guy had a PhD.

And there's the difference. The guy completely doesn't recognize that the money he is talking about is being taken from everyone's pocket. It's charity at gunpoint basically and it never ends. Look at history. Governments always wind up getting greedy, taking more and more till practically nothing is left to take. America was supposed to be different.

Now that transportation coalition actually came up with some truly innovative solutions for transportation. Man of them got shot down because, as one disability advocate told me, "They make too much sense." But some actually worked.

Our transportation problem was caused by the fact that East Texas is like the Old Texans graveyard. Lots of folk retire there because the fishing is great and there are lots of lakes. Old people eventually lose the ability to drive. As a result more than 20% (1 in 5) East Texans over the age of 18 can no longer drive due to age or disability. Many moved to East Texas to settle in the country for their retirement. They don't want to live in town and shouldn't be forced to. Unfortunately, without adequate transit resources, you can't maintain yourself in a rural setting.

Our first challenge was getting our government funded rural transit system up and running. We made alliance with the new Republican majority in the Texas legislature and changed the funding formula for rural transit. We were the second largest rural transit district in Texas and received the smallest appropriation. Federal funds for rural transit are sent to the states on a per capita basis. The two Democrat dominated districts (Houston and Austin) Were receiving 6 million and 2 million dollars respectively. East Texas received $300,000. Democrats are better at lobbying.  We corrected that and tripled the ET rural transit budget. The director of the district (a die-hard liberal) fought us tooth and nail.

This is a woman who, when asked, "What's the difference between private and public transit?" responded. "Private transportation has to satisfy its customers. With Public Transit, the customer has to satisfy us in order to get a ride."

I kid you not. That's how she ran things. And she had no interest in upsetting her apple cart to provide better service to customers. She was already telling little old people they had to build a circular drive in order to get a ride because she didn't want her drivers to have to back up. We were pressuring her to make service more customer response. I was warned to check under my truck before starting it during all this because there might be some piddling with the funds going on and I was bringing scrutiny on the Council of Governments by increasing funding.

And that consistently has been my experience with big government (i.e. Democrat) solutions to social issues. Private people were more than willing to help our seniors and people with disabilities. We conservatives in the group set up a howl when we discovered dozens of colonias - illegal immigrants kept in ramshackle camps and transported to work in the rose farms in the backs of pickups. One guy was charging $80 worth of food stamps for a woman to ride into town in the back of a truck. They were using baby formula as currency. It was the conservative Christians who were making a ruckus about doing something about that - illegals or not.

We also got in trouble for being too efficient with our church and community nonprofit based food pantry program. It was working so well that applications for food stamps dropped dramatically. As a result the Feds cut $800,000 from the East Texas food bank program. We were publicly chastised by Food Stamp officials and asked to support a $200,000 ad campaign that said "Food Stamps are not part of welfare reform." They wanted us to waste time trying to get more people to apply for food stamps. The qualifications weren't changing. The embarrassing and humiliating process wasn't being changed. They just needed more applications so they could say, "See we have all these hungry people."  We were supposed to encourage people to apply for "free food" and tell them not to worry, the welfare to work initiative didn't apply to them.

I worked for decades with abused children and saw the tragic consequences when kids have been run through the public child care system. They came to us battered and emotionally scarred and on enough medications to tranquilize a moose. And for $56 a day (the state facility was spending $185 a day at the time for taking care of the same or less difficult kids) we helped them find their way back from damage caused by the tender mercies of the public welfare system.

I raised money for seniors, children, people with disabilities and low income families for 40 years and in that time ran into precious few bureaucrats. They had  no qualms about shutting down facilities and dumping the kids in psych facilities in order to meet a budget (remember this was when Democrats ran Texas). Thirty days and out and then off to the prison system. We're still cleaning up the debris from those days in Texas.

We came up with a plan for turning 22 state human services agencies into five in order to improve the odds that a wounded child or a person in need might find the help they needed. Boy did the bureaucrats set up a howl. These 22 agencies were each run like private fiefdoms according to the agency that reviewed the welfare system shortly after the Republicans came to power. One did not talk to the other and it was a crapshoot as to whether a person got the help they needed or not. One hand did not know what the other was doing.

I attended a town meeting where a man got up and railed against the streamlining of the system, painting pictures of starving old people standing alongside the road and children living in dumpsters.  I stood up at the meeting and asked the man who did he work for.  "The People United for the Equitable blah, blah, blah..." he said.

"No," I said. "I mean who signs your paycheck?"

He hesitated and then kind of mumbled, "The Federal and State Employees Union."

Most of us walked out of the meeting at that point.

That's why I have a problem with "liberal" solutions. They usually involve expanding government; shuffling off responsibility for the poor and disadvantaged onto some distant government authority so we don't have to worry about it. Joy Behar of The View once said exactly that in explaining why she wanted the government to do it. She didn't want to have to become personally involved.

I don't remember Jesus ever telling his followers that they should get the government to take care of the widows and orphans. He told us to do it. Sadly, most of us think the government actually does take care of those most in need and yet we see them living by the skin of their teeth or out on the streets or worse. The problem with big government solutions is that they don't work. You can't sit in Washington and design a welfare program that works in New York City and in East Texas. What works in Hawaii may not work at all in Alaska.

Central planning, the hallmark big idea of the liberal ethos says that a small group of smart people can some how figure out how to make everyone safe, healthy and happy. Jesus knew that wasn't true 2000 years ago when he said, "The poor you will always have with you." So long as man is a sinful creature, utopia is not possible. If you create large power structures they WILL be misused by people who love power. And, no, I'm not saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some people in Earth's history have handled power well and stepped aside gracefully when their job was done. I think of George Washington.

More precisely, "Power attracts the corruptible." That's why I want my president limited to 2 terms. That's why I want someone who is dragged to it reluctantly. I don't want someone with a fire in his belly to be the leader of the free world. With those people in command, it won't be the free world for long.

I'm sure there is a lot of overlap in values between liberals and conservatives. We all see the same woes in this sad old world. Unfortunately, what seems to be the best solution differs dramatically between the mainstream left and mainstream right. Instead of sniping at the radicalized fringe of our two philosophies, we ought to be learning to focus on what we do agree on and coming up with solutions to fix it.

In my time as a conservative community organizer working with both conservatives and liberals, I learned that we can work together if we are willing to look honestly at the problems and pick the best solutions rather than the ones that fit our ideology.

Just sayin'
Tom
 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

The OP is opening up

[LifeHiscost]

On 1/5/2016 at 6:25 PM, GayatfootofCross said:

I really appreciate what you are saying.. I assure you Gerry, We liberals do not advocate breaking law of God. Understanding the meaning and the intent is held differently. That is the big difference between the two camps.

I address  The God that many progressives are getting a glimpse of.

 

 

ALL ARE SINNERS! EVERY MOMENT!

 

May the Joy of the Lord be your Strength

 

Maybe sinners, not necessarily sinful.

24Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen....Jude 1

Some do not believe that.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[LifeHiscost]

Especially  Focusing on JESUS IS GOD ON THE CROSS RECONCILING ALL SINNERS TO HIMSELF

and to Reflect that!

 

 

Do you believe God keeps His promises to those who ask Him for deliverance?

13And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.'.....Matthew 6

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[joeb]

On 1/8/2016 at 1:04 PM, Tom King said:

I've read this thread with interest. I do believe the devil enjoys it when we play word games with labels. The "Jesus is a liberal" argument depends entirely on his kindness and forgiveness to make the case for this. This utilizes a nasty trick used by orators and propagandists - that is the false premise. The false premise in this case (and its been repeated several times in this discussion just so we are sure not to miss it) states that conservatives are "trying to keep the church pure by focusing on the sins of others."  Actually this is not a conservative practice. It is the practice of gossips and the self-righteous and judgmental. While you can make the case that some conservatives are judgmental and self-righteous and gossipy, I've done rather a lot of political blogging and commentary in my writing career and I've seen plenty of such behavior, some of it quite cruel, crude and tasteless, coming from self-described liberals. It's funny how people who hate those who judge them and criticize their behavior are some of the quickest on the draw when it comes to judging and criticizing those who disagree with them. Those who hate proselytizing by Christians are some of the most vehement about convincing you to become a Progressive Socialist if you want to be accepted into their herd.

 

Tom,

I liked your post. 

I would add another fallacy or two used by many today. 

This idea that because Jesus forgave sin He was OK with it.  Jesus condemned sin in all its forms, and condemned it roundly.  He said if a person practices it they are not going to heaven.  He was so severe in His condemnation of it that He said anyone who didn't follow Him all the way, even to the alienation of their family wan't worthy of His name.

The second fallacy is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were conservative.  They were not.  They rejected the word of God in many ways, and held their own reasoning above the word of God.  The Sadducees didn't believe in angels or the resurrection of the dead.  They rejected the very idea of an afterlife which is clearly taught by the Bible.  The Pharisees were even worse.  They taught that if two rabbis held theology that was completely contradictory then the common man must accept both as true, even though to do so was completely illogical.  They also taught that if a common man didn't accept everything they said as the word of God, that person must be excommunicated.  They taught that their rules, regulations, and teachings were far more important than anything written in the Torah.  

The above is why the people were in such awe of Jesus' teachings for He taught "as one having authority", not a mindless jumble of contradictory garbage. 

To accept the fallacy that the Pharisees and Sadducees were "conservative" is a major mistake for they were not.  To have been conservative, that is holding to the original teachings of the Torah, both groups would have had to rejected most of they themselves taught.  A very good example of how far away they were from conservatism is Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus where He asks him " art thou a master in Isreal and knowest not these things?". 

[Tom King]

Two responses.  First to the "OMG" list.  The primary proponents of the items on that list is a confused bunch. If you include OMG hillbillies, OMG rednecks, OMG Italians, OMG Pollocks, OMG Irish, OMG Christians, OMG the Military, OMG Tea party, OMG 1%, and OMG militias, you capture a slightly different picture of prejudice and hysteria in America. Also remember, that along racial lines (not political lines particularly), it was Democrats that passed Jim Crow and various other anti-immigrant laws and engaged in the sort of rhetoric you attempt to assign to those you call "conservative".  You cleverly shifted the types of prejudice toward the end of your list to capture the "Occupy" Anti-Tea Party narrative that progressive socialists have been pushing since the 60s when they revved up their efforts to push their agenda forward. The great myth that suddenly in the 60s, the Democrats "saw the light" picks up on a perceived shift in Democrat goals and attributes it to some sort of conversion experience in which hard case racial bigotry was replaced with Democrat love and compassion. And there was a shift, not in attitude, because the liberal Democrats are still as paternalistic toward minorities as ever.  What they shifted was their strategy from a policy of beating minorities down to a policy of keeping them in cages. The War on Poverty created a welfare system that rewards going along and punishes attempts by the poor to rise above their station. Lyndon Johnson famously promised the Democrats that if they would pas the N@#$% Bill, he would have the N@#$%s voting Democrat for 200 years. And he succeeded.

Democrats and progressive socialists have always been about soothing the lower classes into one complacent proletariat with an elite cadre of well-heeled leader class elites in charge of things. The Republican ideal has long been about freedom and opportunity for the individual to make of himself whatever he is willing to work hard and make for himself (or herself - remember it was Republicans that pushed women's suffrage, NOT democrats and elitist socialists. Admittedly, the Republican leadership has been captured by country club Republicans, but they are as much crony capitalists as their wealthy Democrat fellow billionaires. No political part truly represents the Christian ideal of charity without conditions.

Bigger government is inevitably about keeping money in the hands of wealthy aristocrats by taxing those who can't afford tax attorneys, redistributing their stolen wealth and returning a fraction of it to the ignorant masses in the form of inadequate, demeaning and restrictive social programs. Government is in large part a ragged coalition of self-interested men looking to cash in without having to work so hard at it by offering wealth protection to rich fat cats who may or may not have worked hard for their money.

Jesus told his disciples to care for the widows, orphans and the poor personally. He didn't tell them "Just pay your taxes and the government should take care of it."  He never commanded the government to care for the needy and sick. He enjoined US as his followers to do that. We can't look at inflated figures of how many poor children or starving grandmas there are in our country and sooth our consciences that we're not responsible because we pay our taxes and it's therefore the government's responsibility.

Jesus told us to give freely, not to vote to take from others to give on our behalf. Taking pride in the Food Stamp program is borrowing goodness from elsewhere and hoping God will give you credit for actually having done something.

Tom King
 

[GayatfootofCross]

Wouldn't Christians vote from their heart towards the marginalized?

And not their pocketbook?

And Hello Tom King!

Great Name!

2 hours ago, Tom King said:

Jesus told his disciples to care for the widows, orphans and the poor personally. He didn't tell them "Just pay your taxes and the government should take care of it."  He never commanded the government to care for the needy and sick. He enjoined US as his followers to do that. We can't look at inflated figures of how many poor children or starving grandmas there are in our country and sooth our consciences that we're not responsible because we pay our taxes and it's therefore the government's responsibility.

Jesus told us to give freely, not to vote to take from others to give on our behalf. Taking pride in the Food Stamp program is borrowing goodness from elsewhere and hoping God will give you credit for actually having done something.

Tom King
 

 

. #.Out of the abundance of their hearts...

[Tom Wetmore]

Lot of strawmen running around here...

[joeb]

On 1/21/2016 at 2:13 PM, Tom King said:

Two responses.  First to the "OMG" list.  The primary proponents of the items on that list is a confused bunch. If you include OMG hillbillies, OMG rednecks, OMG Italians, OMG Pollocks, OMG Irish, OMG Christians, OMG the Military, OMG Tea party, OMG 1%, and OMG militias, you capture a slightly different picture of prejudice and hysteria in America. Also remember, that along racial lines (not political lines particularly), it was Democrats that passed Jim Crow and various other anti-immigrant laws and engaged in the sort of rhetoric you attempt to assign to those you call "conservative".  You cleverly shifted the types of prejudice toward the end of your list to capture the "Occupy" Anti-Tea Party narrative that progressive socialists have been pushing since the 60s when they revved up their efforts to push their agenda forward. The great myth that suddenly in the 60s, the Democrats "saw the light" picks up on a perceived shift in Democrat goals and attributes it to some sort of conversion experience in which hard case racial bigotry was replaced with Democrat love and compassion. And there was a shift, not in attitude, because the liberal Democrats are still as paternalistic toward minorities as ever.  What they shifted was their strategy from a policy of beating minorities down to a policy of keeping them in cages. The War on Poverty created a welfare system that rewards going along and punishes attempts by the poor to rise above their station. Lyndon Johnson famously promised the Democrats that if they would pas the N@#$% Bill, he would have the N@#$%s voting Democrat for 200 years. And he succeeded.

Democrats and progressive socialists have always been about soothing the lower classes into one complacent proletariat with an elite cadre of well-heeled leader class elites in charge of things. The Republican ideal has long been about freedom and opportunity for the individual to make of himself whatever he is willing to work hard and make for himself (or herself - remember it was Republicans that pushed women's suffrage, NOT democrats and elitist socialists. Admittedly, the Republican leadership has been captured by country club Republicans, but they are as much crony capitalists as their wealthy Democrat fellow billionaires. No political part truly represents the Christian ideal of charity without conditions.

Bigger government is inevitably about keeping money in the hands of wealthy aristocrats by taxing those who can't afford tax attorneys, redistributing their stolen wealth and returning a fraction of it to the ignorant masses in the form of inadequate, demeaning and restrictive social programs. Government is in large part a ragged coalition of self-interested men looking to cash in without having to work so hard at it by offering wealth protection to rich fat cats who may or may not have worked hard for their money.

Jesus told his disciples to care for the widows, orphans and the poor personally. He didn't tell them "Just pay your taxes and the government should take care of it."  He never commanded the government to care for the needy and sick. He enjoined US as his followers to do that. We can't look at inflated figures of how many poor children or starving grandmas there are in our country and sooth our consciences that we're not responsible because we pay our taxes and it's therefore the government's responsibility.

Jesus told us to give freely, not to vote to take from others to give on our behalf. Taking pride in the Food Stamp program is borrowing goodness from elsewhere and hoping God will give you credit for actually having done something.

Tom King
 

Outstanding post, once again, Tom.  You're someone who actually knows a fair amount of our political history.

You will soon be ostracized on this site for simple truth is not appreciated by most of the posters here.  Tom Wetmore's sneering about straw men is only the beginning.  He also likes to call people racist, sexist, etc... for just disagreeing with politicians who hold the political ideology he accepts.

[joeb]

On 1/25/2016 at 7:58 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

Lot of strawmen running around here...

Right, Tom.....  LOL.  I notice you never dispute the facts you just decend into scorn and mockery in an attempt to silence those you disagree with.

[Tom King]

Actually I did respond clearly and with information as to why I believe what I believe. History is not a straw man. History is what we must NOT forget if we are not to repeat the past. "Progressive" socialism is neither progressive nor "social". Socialism has time and again surprised its adherents by becoming rule by the elite; in fact, a return to the old "noble class" that plagued the world for thousands of years. It's a dual class system where there are politburos and their minions and a vast proletariat whose members dare not raise their heads obove their fellows. Socialism ironically, discourages socializing given its propensity to create organizations like the Gestapo, the KGB, the NKVD, The State Security Directorate and a host of other scary agencies.  

An ideology that fosters genocide, suspicion, paranoia and massive poverty doesn't seem like it ought to be tried again. Apologists for progressive socialism (aka American liberalism) say that socialism must work because the ideology is correct and will work because we will have the right leaders holding the reigns of power; unlike Italy, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, et al. The trouble is that power, while not necessarily corrupting, does attract people who love power and are imminently corruptible.

Marxist socialism is an ideology that posits a man-made utopia on Earth. It's a religion that does not need God. It relies instead on the innate goodness of man. If you believe that one, what in the world are you doing on an Adventist forum?  Man is corrupt. The more power you give him, the greater risk to the world around him. Government is not, by nature kind and benevolent. Government is responsible for all war and most suffering no matter what religion they blame it on. Religions don't build tanks and bombs. Governments do and any religion that does isn't a religion at all but a government.

I have asked no one to be silent and I haven't scorned anyone. I have presented facts and my own opinion. Show me who I ridiculed. If by ridicule, you mean pointed out uncomfortable things liberal Democrat/socialists don't want to talk about (Jim Crow laws, segregation, the KKK, the failed war on poverty, the paternalistic treatment of blacks, the massive rise in size of government and the fact that this president has outspent every president before him put together), then, okay, by your definition I ridiculed.

You guys are using the Saul Alinsky rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions." - S. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Notice how that worked, Joeb.  I responded with a history lesson. You responded with baseless accusations which might work since I wrote such a long passage it's not likely that those who have a Twitter-based reasoning style will have read it.

As Adventists (And this is an SDA forum is it not?), we are taught to read and study deeply and to reason beyond superficial slogans and soundbites. So tell me what is wrong that I am saying. Did not Democrats write the Jim Crow laws? Did not Democrats form the KKK?  Did not Democrats rebel against the country in order to preserve slavery? Do Democrats not favor a progressive socialist agenda.  Look at the two candidates they are running for president. One is a full blown socialist and the other socialist-lite. Both would increase government size and spending and offer no way to pay for it that will work without impoverishing the middle class. They certainly won't take all the money from their wealthy patrons (18 out of the top 20 wealthiest Americans support Democrats heavily). 

So I'm calling shenanigans until you can show me where I ridiculed, mocked or scorned anyone on this forum.

Yours in Christ,

Tom King

 

[bonnie]

I think joab was addressing Tom Wetmore as that is the standard answer to ridicule those that disgree

[Tom Wetmore]

17 hours ago, joeb said:

Right, Tom.....  LOL.  I notice you never dispute the facts you just decend into scorn and mockery in an attempt to silence those you disagree with.

Pay attention joeb and Bonnie. 

That was my 6th post in this discussion. Perhaps you should  scroll back and actually read my previous posts before you launch your ad hominem whining and complaining about me. Despite your implication which Bonnie voiced about "standard answer", it seems to me that your standard knee jerk answer is to whine and complain and take personal offense whenever anyone disagrees with and offers a pointed contrary comment against you POV.

And for the record, the observation that there are a lot of strawmen running around had a lot more substance as an observation about the topic at hand, and was not directed at anyone specifically participating in the discussion, than your expressions of contempt  specifically about me.  Look up what a strawman argument is. Much of the arguments put forward in this discussion have indeed been precisely that.  No need to get sucked into that vortex of pointless argument and debate over irrelevant and falsely premised arguments that distract from the real and substantive points at issue.

 

[bonnie]

Despite your implication which Bonnie voiced about "standard answer", it seems to me that your standard knee jerk answer is to whine and complain and take personal offense whenever anyone disagrees with and offers a pointed contrary comment against you POV.

 

My dictionary has a different definition of stating a fact and whining and complaining.  As for personal offense,it would be a rare day when you can offend me personally. That can be done only by a very few people.

 You  have two standard answers to those that disagree with you. "Strawman" argument and "you are missing the point"

That is not whining,it is a fact that you use those two statements frequently. Not personal offense either,simply an observation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

That of course is a frequent comment rather precisely because some folk do indeed miss the point and do often use straw man arguments to push their POV or to try to refute others POV. 

[bonnie]

30 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

That of course is a frequent comment rather precisely because some folk do indeed miss the point and do often use straw man arguments to push their POV or to try to refute others POV. 

If this is true then why this type of comment. 

Despite your implication which Bonnie voiced about "standard answer", it seems to me that your standard knee jerk answer is to whine and complain and take personal offense whenever anyone disagrees with and offers a pointed contrary comment against you POV.

 

Obviously you don't disagree that it is a comment you frequently make so how does it become whining and complaining?. Simply a fact

As much as you seem to think that there are those that are incapable of understanding your point of view,not true. That comes across as rather arrogant at times. Maybe it is your lack or missing the point that at times is the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joeb]

On 1/26/2016 at 1:49 PM, Tom King said:

Actually I did respond clearly and with information as to why I believe what I believe. History is not a straw man. History is what we must NOT forget if we are not to repeat the past. "Progressive" socialism is neither progressive nor "social". Socialism has time and again surprised its adherents by becoming rule by the elite; in fact, a return to the old "noble class" that plagued the world for thousands of years. It's a dual class system where there are politburos and their minions and a vast proletariat whose members dare not raise their heads obove their fellows. Socialism ironically, discourages socializing given its propensity to create organizations like the Gestapo, the KGB, the NKVD, The State Security Directorate and a host of other scary agencies.  

An ideology that fosters genocide, suspicion, paranoia and massive poverty doesn't seem like it ought to be tried again. Apologists for progressive socialism (aka American liberalism) say that socialism must work because the ideology is correct and will work because we will have the right leaders holding the reigns of power; unlike Italy, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, et al. The trouble is that power, while not necessarily corrupting, does attract people who love power and are imminently corruptible.

Marxist socialism is an ideology that posits a man-made utopia on Earth. It's a religion that does not need God. It relies instead on the innate goodness of man. If you believe that one, what in the world are you doing on an Adventist forum?  Man is corrupt. The more power you give him, the greater risk to the world around him. Government is not, by nature kind and benevolent. Government is responsible for all war and most suffering no matter what religion they blame it on. Religions don't build tanks and bombs. Governments do and any religion that does isn't a religion at all but a government.

I have asked no one to be silent and I haven't scorned anyone. I have presented facts and my own opinion. Show me who I ridiculed. If by ridicule, you mean pointed out uncomfortable things liberal Democrat/socialists don't want to talk about (Jim Crow laws, segregation, the KKK, the failed war on poverty, the paternalistic treatment of blacks, the massive rise in size of government and the fact that this president has outspent every president before him put together), then, okay, by your definition I ridiculed.

You guys are using the Saul Alinsky rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions." - S. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Notice how that worked, Joeb.  I responded with a history lesson. You responded with baseless accusations which might work since I wrote such a long passage it's not likely that those who have a Twitter-based reasoning style will have read it.

As Adventists (And this is an SDA forum is it not?), we are taught to read and study deeply and to reason beyond superficial slogans and soundbites. So tell me what is wrong that I am saying. Did not Democrats write the Jim Crow laws? Did not Democrats form the KKK?  Did not Democrats rebel against the country in order to preserve slavery? Do Democrats not favor a progressive socialist agenda.  Look at the two candidates they are running for president. One is a full blown socialist and the other socialist-lite. Both would increase government size and spending and offer no way to pay for it that will work without impoverishing the middle class. They certainly won't take all the money from their wealthy patrons (18 out of the top 20 wealthiest Americans support Democrats heavily). 

So I'm calling shenanigans until you can show me where I ridiculed, mocked or scorned anyone on this forum.

Yours in Christ,

Tom King

 

Tom,

You misunderstood me.  I was refering to Tom Wetmore, not you.  You have not produced any strawman arguments.  You have produced exactly the opposite: well-constructed arguments supported by the facts found in our national history and the history of our world. 

I agree with you on almost everything you say.  The only time I have disagreed with you is when you accepted the premise that the Pharisees were conservative.  They were anything but that.

[Tom King]

Sorry about that Joeb. I think, though, you misinterpreted my statement that the Pharisees were conservative. Historically, a conservative, by definition, is one who seeks to preserve the status quo.  In that respect, the Tories in the days of the American Revolution were, in fact, conservatives. They wished to preserve the nobility and the power of the British class system in the colonies. Our Founding Fathers were considered liberal for their view that all men are created equal and that the nobility was not entitled to rule.  Once America won its revolution, those who held these stunningly liberal views, found they soon had to defend them from attempts to restore upper class elitist rule in America. Those who held to the principles of the Constitution sought to preserve or conserve those principles and became the conservatives they are today.  Liberals are little more than the old Tories who believe in rule by special people over the lower classes. They, unlike the Founding Fathers, favor larger, more powerful governments in order to keep the proletariat in line. Socialism is their chosen tool in this endeavor. Today's "liberal" is nothing like the classic liberal of the days of our nation's founding. 

In the same way, Jesus was, in fact, a liberal in his day espousing principles like the Golden Rule and calling for equality and truth and loving your neighbor as yourself.  Once those principles were truly established in the Christian church, adhering to those Biblical values meant you were attempting to conserve the principles laid down in the Bible from tampering. Those who tampered became the liberals.

The terms liberal and conservatives are more about direction than about hard and fast philosophy. One can be a Christian, moral, principled person who believes in keeping the commandments and treating all men as equals and be either a liberal or conservative depending on whether you are attacking the status quo or defending it. If modern liberalism establishes itself as the law of the land, it will become more and more conservative and you will hear less and less about hope and change and more about preserving the current system.  As today's conservatives press for equality for all, smaller government, equal opportunity and free markets, we will once again be the liberals in society.

It's already that way in some European countries where "liberal" there means pretty much what "conservative" means here. I personally like the term "elitist" and "egalitarian".  I'd use "libertarian" but unfortunately that word has been as tarnished as the word "liberal" of late. An elitist believes in rule by a special privileged class over a single class proletariate. An egalitarian believes in free markets and equal opportunity for all to rise in the world.

Just clarifying my use of the words. It's confusing to a lot of people, but allows for tremendous misuse by those who use words to hide their true purpose. Hope that clarifies what I said about Pharisees being liberals. Basically they are elitist conservatives as Jesus was an egalitarian liberal.

Tom King

 

[joeb]

On 1/28/2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom King said:

Sorry about that Joeb. I think, though, you misinterpreted my statement that the Pharisees were conservative. Historically, a conservative, by definition, is one who seeks to preserve the status quo.  In that respect, the Tories in the days of the American Revolution were, in fact, conservatives. They wished to preserve the nobility and the power of the British class system in the colonies. Our Founding Fathers were considered liberal for their view that all men are created equal and that the nobility was not entitled to rule.  Once America won its revolution, those who held these stunningly liberal views, found they soon had to defend them from attempts to restore upper class elitist rule in America. Those who held to the principles of the Constitution sought to preserve or conserve those principles and became the conservatives they are today.  Liberals are little more than the old Tories who believe in rule by special people over the lower classes. They, unlike the Founding Fathers, favor larger, more powerful governments in order to keep the proletariat in line. Socialism is their chosen tool in this endeavor. Today's "liberal" is nothing like the classic liberal of the days of our nation's founding. 

In the same way, Jesus was, in fact, a liberal in his day espousing principles like the Golden Rule and calling for equality and truth and loving your neighbor as yourself.  Once those principles were truly established in the Christian church, adhering to those Biblical values meant you were attempting to conserve the principles laid down in the Bible from tampering. Those who tampered became the liberals.

The terms liberal and conservatives are more about direction than about hard and fast philosophy. One can be a Christian, moral, principled person who believes in keeping the commandments and treating all men as equals and be either a liberal or conservative depending on whether you are attacking the status quo or defending it. If modern liberalism establishes itself as the law of the land, it will become more and more conservative and you will hear less and less about hope and change and more about preserving the current system.  As today's conservatives press for equality for all, smaller government, equal opportunity and free markets, we will once again be the liberals in society.

It's already that way in some European countries where "liberal" there means pretty much what "conservative" means here. I personally like the term "elitist" and "egalitarian".  I'd use "libertarian" but unfortunately that word has been as tarnished as the word "liberal" of late. An elitist believes in rule by a special privileged class over a single class proletariate. An egalitarian believes in free markets and equal opportunity for all to rise in the world.

Just clarifying my use of the words. It's confusing to a lot of people, but allows for tremendous misuse by those who use words to hide their true purpose. Hope that clarifies what I said about Pharisees being liberals. Basically they are elitist conservatives as Jesus was an egalitarian liberal.

Tom King

 

Tom,

By your definition of conservative a conservative would need to be a socialist and dislike our Constitution.  Since Woodrow Wilson's administration the socialists/progressives have been waging war upon our Constitution.  They have been in power in Congress, the Presidency, the Federal bureaucracies, and the educational system in this country for many decades.  Thus, to be conservative by your definition you have to be a socialist for the socialists have been in power for a long time.   We are so far away from what our founders gave us, and have been for so long, that I think we have a very hard time understanding how far away we are for there isn't anyone no living who has lived under a purely Constitutional government anymore.  All we know, our only reality, is a perversion of what we were given.

The Constitution says that any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government is denied to it.  Now, start reading the Constitution and then start looking at Federal bureaucracies.  You will find many of them exercising power that was never explicitly granted by the Constitution.  These departments of government were authorized, claimed to be Constitional by the SC, by construing the wording to mean such.  Such action is unconstititional in itself as the Constitution gives the SC no such power.  Thomas Jefferson said that if we allow the SC that kind of power we will by ruled by a tyrannical oligarchy, and that's right where we are at. 

There are two really good books for researching this:  Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" and Walter E. Williams' "American Contempt for Liberty".  Both men provide a lot of documentation for what they have to say. 

A few examples.  The Interstate highway system created by Eisenhower.  James Madison was presented with a bill by the Congress of his day that provided money for roads and highways.  He vetoed it because that power was denied the Federal government in the Constitution.  As someone who had a great deal to do with creating our Constitution he knew what it said.  Other presidents did the same thing for the same reason.  Madison also vetoed bills put before him that wanted to supply money for charitable purposes.  He did it for the same reason he vetoed the roads bills.