Matt Bai wrote a very long article in defense of Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, centrism, globalism, the Third Way, and neoliberalism, etc. ("The Clinton Referendum," by Matt Bai. Times Magazine. [The New York Times; NYTimes.com] December 23, 2007.) Of course, the timing of the piece is designed to bolster Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Here is what is wrong with compromisers. They always open or leave open the door to falling further. Clinton didn't stand up for the message of Jesus, which is the message of giving and sharing all, total pacifism, total disarmament, and sexual harmlessness. He compromised on each of those. Here is what happens and fails to happen on account of such rationalizing.
Every person uses everyone else as his or her excuse. The argument always falls to the level of claiming that others won't and don't or haven't accepted the message, so one must compromise. That of course becomes the self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecy for those who engage in such rationalizing.
If everyone litters, then throw your trash out the window while driving down the road. That's a stupid defense, and no solution. Rather, the old slogan is right. "Every litter bit hurts." That's the message of Jesus Christ concerning every bit of harm people do to one another. Bill Clinton, of course, didn't buy it. He is given credit for being a political genius, but he wasn't and isn't yet smart enough to grasp that he is excusing those who throw their trash out the window while driving down the road because others do it or because there will always be those who won't give up being selfish (stupid).
Can people just stop every bit of harm? What they can do is head in that direction. That is not what Clinton did. What he did was find the center and move there rather than pull it toward the real Christian message. It worked for him within his context. Therefore, many picked up on it out of their own selfish desires. What that did though was diminish the strength and zeal and zest of the movements that were pulling the center closer to the Christian message, even if all the adherents of those movements didn't fully realize it. What Clinton did was relax the effort people had been exerting toward finding meaningfulness. He facilitated meaninglessness. He enabled the naysayers to strengthen their positions. Hence, we have the very widening gap between rich and poor rather than strengthening the poor or really even the middle class (upon whom Clinton focused for votes and campaign contributions).
Here's a telling bit from the article.
He recited a litany of his accomplishments — the first sustained rise in real wages since 1973, the biggest land-protection measure in the lower 48 since Teddy Roosevelt, victories against the tobacco and gun lobbies — and told me he couldn't understand the allegation that his administration wasn't really progressive.
"I think that if 'progressive' is defined by results, whether it's in health care, education, incomes, the environment or the advancement of peace, then we had a very progressive administration," Clinton said. "I think we changed the methods — that we tried also to reflect basic American values, that we tried to do it in a way that appealed to the broad middle class in America. We sure did, and I don't apologize for that. The question is: Were the policies right or not? And I think in terms of the political success I enjoyed, people have given more credit to my political skills than they deserve and less credit to the weight, the body of the ideas."
"The question is: Were the policies right or not?" That's right, and they weren't. In every instance, he appealed to selfishness. That's antichrist. He succeeded in using the entire Yuppie Movement. He succeeded in using consumerism. Things during his administration were defined by compromise and rising incomes before the dotcom crash. We see how things turned out.
It must also be said that he failed to strive mightily to adhere to the whole message of Jesus Christ is why he fell into the pit of sexual error. He allowed the greedier and more violent an issue to seize upon that Clinton couldn't make go away by appealing to the middle class. He didn't dare point to all the adultery of the general population and his attackers, even though many were being extremely hypocritical about his extramarital sexual affairs.
Did Jesus compromise? He tolerated, but he didn't condone. He always called for rising. He never caved into the temptation to say, "Other people do it," or words to that effect, as an excuse.
When Jesus told the rich man to give all to the cause of the poor and to follow Jesus, Jesus's disciples were amazed. They asked who could get into the highest heaven if people with any trace of selfishness (unshared possessions) could not enter, since who could be perfectly unselfish enough to give all to the cause of the poor rather than work for self. Rather than stand up for this, Clinton dragged the people into the falsehood that is the center of the worldly world. He gave them false hope in the worldly way, the system of selfishness. It will always fail.
Another very telling bit from the article concerns Bill directing the author, Matt Bai, to a quote from Machiavelli's The Prince:
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arriving partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, the opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger.
That is so sinister. It is a blatant attempt to be subtle in tugging leaders with the temptation to cave into compromising with the devil. What Machiavelli says is absolutely true when taken out of context. However, when it is put within the whole context of Machiavellianism, it becomes more of his reasoning for not standing up for righteousness no matter the personal danger. It's weak and backwards.
Machiavellianism advocates deception, period. It is completely antichrist. It comes from Hell and leads there.
Here's a compromise for less compromising. It still isn't good enough!
Miles Mogulescu: Democrats Need John Edwards to be Their Mike Huckabee: Part 1
Miles Mogulescu: Democrats Need John Edwards to be Their Mike Huckabee: Part 2
by Miles Mogulescu
The essence of Clintonism as a political strategy is triangulation, playing progressivism off against conservatism to effect small-bore change that doesn't challenge powerful special interest. In foreign policy, Hillary is the most ...
What are souls to do? Souls are to reject the direction of compromising with evil even while they tolerate (but don't condone). That's real Christianity. It's from Heaven and leads there. They are to straighten out the error. The truth isn't go ahead and litter because there will always be some selfish hold out for evil. The truth is rather go ahead and don't litter because if everyone follows your unselfish behavior, there won't be any littering, willful or even careless in the end.
Don't vote for or invest in less than real Christianity. That means you can't be a Christian and vote for the leader of the divided house that is this Earth where hellions are still trying to pull down angels of light. It means plow your excess (whatever you have above what you really need) into the new world of Jesus's vision for our future. Don't be a fearful Machiavellian. Don't fall to what Machiavelli described as "the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it" See the light of the message of Jesus Christ and bring it to fruition, because it is right.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:16.
If you believe Jesus's own words, show your faith. Shine the light. Come together in holiness as one heart and one soul with all others who likewise believe. Together, we can bring forth the good works for which Jesus is calling. Freely give what you receive so all his lambs and sheep will be fed. Cleans the real temple within (the kingdom of Heaven is within us; God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwell within us) of all that Jesus cleansed from the Temple in Jerusalem (selfish and false gain). The resulting bounty of our synergistic work will overflow into feeding other houses. Many who would not otherwise see the light will convert to real love until the whole of the Earth is reborn conflated with Jesus's new vision of Heaven, as prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 65:17;66:22).
Enter the Labor of Real Love
Join the movement. Bring forth together. Give to The Christian Commons Project of the Real Liberal Christian Church to further this message and to translate unrighteous money out of its evil system. Free the children of God. Continue down this column or click the link to below the comment section to the section entitled, "The Righteous Appeal to Softening Hearts." Help with what you are able. Do it while you still have time.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)