Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I remember when the GOP stood for big business and small government. Now it stands for evangelicalism.
no it doesn't
In the Biblical Blueprint Series George Grant argues that no charity should be available to anyone not under the protection of the Biblical Covenant; charity is the responsibility of families and churches so any other version of it is tyrannical.
In another example, Ray Sutton writes about ending public education (also considered tyranny) in his book in the same Biblical Blueprint Series:
if you run for the public school board, do it with one intention only: to create an orderly transition to exclusively private education. If you can't be elected on this platform (as seems likely), then become the candidate who wants to reduce waste. (The Biblical definition of wasteful public schools: "public schools.")
| Biblical Blueprints
George Grant and Ray Sutton can both jump off a cliff.
They probably molested the neighbor's Rottweiler when they were kids.
I remember when the GOP stood for big business and small government. Now it stands for evangelicalism.
no it doesn't
Jerry Falwell called the GOP, God's Own Party. Pat Robertson consider GW Bush the first Dominionist Regent of America.
All GOP candidates are trying to outchristianize each other in an effort to win evangelicals who make up 45% of the Republican Party.
no it doesn't
Jerry Falwell called the GOP, God's Own Party. Pat Robertson consider GW Bush the first Dominionist Regent of America.
All GOP candidates are trying to outchristianize each other in an effort to win evangelicals who make up 45% of the Republican Party.
Just because Falwell may have made a comment like that doesnot make it right. Robinson is intitled to his opinion but bush proved otherwise
no it doesn't
Jerry Falwell called the GOP, God's Own Party. Pat Robertson consider GW Bush the first Dominionist Regent of America.
All GOP candidates are trying to outchristianize each other in an effort to win evangelicals who make up 45% of the Republican Party.
Just because Falwell may have made a comment like that doesnot make it right. Robinson is intitled to his opinion but bush proved otherwise
In the Biblical Blueprint Series George Grant argues that no charity should be available to anyone not under the protection of the Biblical Covenant; charity is the responsibility of families and churches so any other version of it is tyrannical.
In another example, Ray Sutton writes about ending public education (also considered tyranny) in his book in the same Biblical Blueprint Series:
if you run for the public school board, do it with one intention only: to create an orderly transition to exclusively private education. If you can't be elected on this platform (as seems likely), then become the candidate who wants to reduce waste. (The Biblical definition of wasteful public schools: "public schools.")
| Biblical Blueprints
George Grant and Ray Sutton can both jump off a cliff.
They probably molested the neighbor's Rottweiler when they were kids.
I feel the same way about them.
Jerry Falwell called the GOP, God's Own Party. Pat Robertson consider GW Bush the first Dominionist Regent of America.
All GOP candidates are trying to outchristianize each other in an effort to win evangelicals who make up 45% of the Republican Party.
Just because Falwell may have made a comment like that doesnot make it right. Robinson is intitled to his opinion but bush proved otherwise
Bush WAS the first Dominionist Regent.
The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America
"It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation."
George W. Bush, Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Antonin Scalia, Dominionism, Republican Party, Christian Reconstructionism, Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary North, Herb Titus, Regent University, Charles Colson, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, Francis Schaeffer, Paul Crouch, TBN, Secular Humanism, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen, Leo Strauss, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle, Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Harry Jaffa, Social Darwinism
The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church-State | Good and Bad Religion
Just because Falwell may have made a comment like that doesnot make it right. Robinson is intitled to his opinion but bush proved otherwise
Bush WAS the first Dominionist Regent.
The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America
"It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertsons act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation."
George W. Bush, Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Antonin Scalia, Dominionism, Republican Party, Christian Reconstructionism, Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary North, Herb Titus, Regent University, Charles Colson, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, Francis Schaeffer, Paul Crouch, TBN, Secular Humanism, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen, Leo Strauss, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle, Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Harry Jaffa, Social Darwinism
The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church-State | Good and Bad Religion
Sounds like somebody has been eating paint-chips as a kid.
Where you get this bull crap from?
You know....the internet can be a blessing......and it also can be the source of lies on a level unheard of before.
I remember when the GOP stood for big business and small government. Now it stands for evangelicalism.
Bush WAS the first Dominionist Regent.
The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America
"It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation."
George W. Bush, Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Antonin Scalia, Dominionism, Republican Party, Christian Reconstructionism, Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary North, Herb Titus, Regent University, Charles Colson, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, Francis Schaeffer, Paul Crouch, TBN, Secular Humanism, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen, Leo Strauss, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle, Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Harry Jaffa, Social Darwinism
The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church-State | Good and Bad Religion
Sounds like somebody has been eating paint-chips as a kid.
Where you get this bull crap from?
You know....the internet can be a blessing......and it also can be the source of lies on a level unheard of before.
I don't invent it. People are writing books about this phenomena. Ralph Reed, Robertson's prodigy was talking about "stealth candidacy" over ten years ago. These guys have been busy.
Jerry Falwell called the GOP, God's Own Party. Pat Robertson consider GW Bush the first Dominionist Regent of America.
All GOP candidates are trying to outchristianize each other in an effort to win evangelicals who make up 45% of the Republican Party.
Just because Falwell may have made a comment like that doesnot make it right. Robinson is intitled to his opinion but bush proved otherwise
I don't put much stock in the words of televangelists.
Sounds like somebody has been eating paint-chips as a kid.
Where you get this bull crap from?
You know....the internet can be a blessing......and it also can be the source of lies on a level unheard of before.
I don't invent it. People are writing books about this phenomena. Ralph Reed, Robertson's prodigy was talking about "stealth candidacy" over ten years ago. These guys have been busy.
Just because people are writing books about it doesn't mean it's true.
If you want to know about a threat to our nation you might want to turn on a TV and look at the Occupy Wall Street folks. They've staged protests all over the world. It's not just confined to the USA. There is your threat.
Katherine Yurica is a writer with an agenda.
She starts out with a belief that Christianity is evil and has gone about the business of proving that belief in a totally backwards manner.
She talks about possible abuses that supposedly took place in GITMO at the hands of evangelicals and does this by using false stories in the media as a starting point.
She wants to prove that Chaplains in the military are ideological plants being used to turn military members into what she calls "Dominionists ", a term I've never heard of before now. It's total horse shit. Having served myself I can tell you that you never see a Chaplain unless somebody dies in your family.
All I see is accusations with no proof. She is a bigot. Her target is Christianity and anyone on the right. She ignores the fact that Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic, Harry Reid is a Mormon, and Barrack Obama is a regular attendee of Baptist church services.
"This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea's promoters-in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement.
"We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it-if it is to succeed at all-because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society..
"There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture..
"Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions..
"We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
"We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime.
"We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths.
"We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement.
"We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people.. We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.."
The entire original article, The Integration, of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement by Eric Heubeck
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.htmln
The Yurica Report obtained a copy of the original Eric Heubeck essay, "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement" that was published on the Free Congress Foundation's website in 2001. These guys have been busy for ten years.
"This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea's promoters-in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement.
"We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it-if it is to succeed at all-because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society..
"There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture..
"Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions..
"We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
"We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime.
"We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths.
"We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement.
"We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people.. We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.."
The entire original article, The Integration, of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement by Eric Heubeck
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.htmln
The Yurica Report obtained a copy of the original Eric Heubeck essay, "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement" that was published on the Free Congress Foundation's website in 2001. These guys have been busy for ten years.
Im wouldn't support it. It reminds me of a Right Wing version of "Rules for Radicals".
We need to move past Electing our Keeper's and Trainer's. We need more, Voice, Representation, and Respect as Constituents;'s in General. Our concerns do matter. We should be Strengthening Individual Liberty, no matter what side of the equation one is on.
Do we seek Justice? If so, we need to hear and consider legitimate Concern and Witness.
The Constitution in Exile movement believes that many of the laws underpinning the modern welfare state are unconstitutional. (See The Unregulated Offensive, New York Times magazine, April 17, 2005) The "exile" began in 1937 when the Supreme Court finally stopped declaring Roosevelt's New Deal programs unconstitutional.
One of the movement's better-known adherents is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 he wrote an opinion for the 5-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal law banning guns in school zones. Thomas' position makes originalists such as Scalia look almost moderate by comparison. From the New York Times' article:
... most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.
The greatest right of all, according to adherents of this movement, are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that takes away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.
| Dominionism and The Constitution in Exile Movement
The Constitution in Exile movement believes that many of the laws underpinning the modern welfare state are unconstitutional. (See The Unregulated Offensive, New York Times magazine, April 17, 2005) The "exile" began in 1937 when the Supreme Court finally stopped declaring Roosevelt's New Deal programs unconstitutional.
One of the movement's better-known adherents is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 he wrote an opinion for the 5-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal law banning guns in school zones. Thomas' position makes originalists such as Scalia look almost moderate by comparison. From the New York Times' article:
... most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.
The greatest right of all, according to adherents of this movement, are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that takes away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.
| Dominionism and The Constitution in Exile Movement
The Constitution in Exile movement believes that many of the laws underpinning the modern welfare state are unconstitutional. (See The Unregulated Offensive, New York Times magazine, April 17, 2005) The "exile" began in 1937 when the Supreme Court finally stopped declaring Roosevelt's New Deal programs unconstitutional.
One of the movement's better-known adherents is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 he wrote an opinion for the 5-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal law banning guns in school zones. Thomas' position makes originalists such as Scalia look almost moderate by comparison. From the New York Times' article:
... most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.
The greatest right of all, according to adherents of this movement, are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that takes away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.
| Dominionism and The Constitution in Exile Movement
Try putting that in your own words.
What does that mean to you?
I'm not really interested in someone else's statements.
