Why Scotland Should Vote 'YES' for Independence

Why Scotland Should Vote ‘YES’ for Independence

With the approach of the Fourth of July and my recent reading of Diana Gabaldon’s newest book, I find my thoughts turning more and more to Scotland and its upcoming vote for Independence on September 18^th of this year (2014). As an American, I would assume that this would be a pretty easy decision for a Scottish person to make.  After all, isn’t this opportunity for independence something that many Scot’s ancestors died for at the Battle of Cullodeen in 1746? If you are reading this and don’t know about Cullodeen, don’t worry you can watch the ‘Outlander’ TV series in August on Showtime based on the aforementioned author’s first book.

You’re probably wondering why an American (or Yank to some) would care about whether Scotland votes ‘Yes’ on independence or not. Well, I am honestly not sure. Maybe it is my English/Irish/Scottish ancestry, or my love of the movie Braveheart, or my memory of driving through the Highlands on a visit to Scotland many years ago. Whatever the reason, I find myself compelled to speak out on the issue and give encouragement to citizens of Scotland to not let their fear rule over them but to take the opportunity of independence and see how wonderful it can be for their country. For those who are interested in all the facts go to: www.yesscotland.net. There are all sorts of little sayings that go along with this sentiment such as ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’ and ‘the greater the risk the greater the reward.’ Of course, America has had its own encounters with England on independence and chose to go it alone….and we’ve all seen how that has turned out. Who knows maybe Scotland will be the next great superpower, but we will never know if it doesn’t take this opportunity and go for it!

I’ve also understood that President Obama has voiced his disapproval of Scottish independence, which I think is so sad. I would counter his comments by saying, when has anyone in power ever wanted to give it up? Trust me, this President is going to town on his own personal power trip. It doesn’t surprise me that the closer Scotland gets to the vote, and the supporters of independence increase, the more naysaying and negativity that will arise from those who hold power now. There will ALWAYS be someone to say it is not a good idea or to throw fear and ‘what if’s’ into the mix. However, Scotland will never know what it can truly be, or more specifically, what it was meant to be until it becomes independent. Yes, it may take some time and need some negotiating, but that is not a reason to forego independence. The naysayers should stay out of the publicity concerning the vote and let the country of Scotland, and its people, decide for themselves.

I would challenge each and every Scottish citizen to claim your right and vote ‘YES’ on September 18, 2014, truly a once in a lifetime opportunity. I would encourage Brits who live in Scotland to do the same and allow Scottish citizens the same opportunity that English citizens have every day. In addition, I would encourage Scots to ignore the international community and critics who are looking to their own selfish interests when espousing negative views on Scottish Independence. Instead Scots should embrace Independence without fear and vote YES on September 18^th!

So you say there is no Homosexual Agenda

The time will soon be upon us when the wheat is going to be sifted.  The progressive culture has finally found the issue that they believe can be effectively wielded to shut down Christian faith and practice.  This article from the Daily Caller gives us a glimpse into the future for Christianity in America...or for that matter, free thought. 

The Supreme Court

The necessity to control the citizenry pervades every aspect of our civil government.  This is no different in the case of the nine judges that give a stamp of approval to all sorts of activity that lie clearly beyond the bounds of the Constitution.  This article from the Mises Economics Blog does a great job in highlighting how the Court, just as much as any individual politician, has a vested interest in consolidating the power of the civil government and maintaining its own prestige at the expense of sound decisions and the rights of individual citizens.

Rousas Rushdoony: Law and Liberty: The Flight from Knowledge

Rushdoony is absolutely correct when he discusses the a general societal flight from knowledge.  Now, many will object and say that there is a greater dissemination of knowledge today than at any time in the history of man.  The problem is that we, as human beings, have deluded ourselves into thinking that information equates to knowledge.  Sure, there is a massive outpouring of information across every technologically advanced source, but that does not mean that people are taking the process to analyze that information against their worldview in order to advance true knowledge. 
The question we must ask is what has true knowledge been replaced with.  Rushdoony offers this first quote from a Chief Justice, Frederick Moore Vinson, "nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes." Let me just add that it is reassuring to know that we have people serving on the highest court of the land that are judging the constitutionality of laws under such flexible standards as to make their ruling irrelevant.  Another replacement for knowledge is, "[that] man must renounce meaning and knowledge for the pragmatic use of things.  The goal of learning therefore is not knowledge but the power to manipulate."  We see this evident today in the education system in our country where, instead of teaching reasoned knowledge, "its negative function is to indoctrinate its subjects with a radical cynicism concerning the family, patriotism, philosophy, theology, and all things else."  When indoctrination and not education is the true aim of the government controlled school system, is it really any wonder that we continually churn out a populous incapable of applying reason that at the same time looks to reshape society under the new norms dictated by those in power. 
The church is not immune to this same charge.  "People go to church not to worship, not to submit themselves to God and to gain knowledge from God's word, but to advance themselves psychologically and socially."  The problem is that for the Christian and non-Christian alike, all of the re-education and information in the world will not allow you to escape a sovereign God that holds all of His creation in His hands.  "To deny that there is any absolute truth and absolute knowledge is to deny that there is a God who is the creator and lord of all things, and whose order and truth governs all things and is the source of all truth and knowledge...[As a result] man's purpose becomes power over other men, that control over men and things which will prove to himself that he is the god which he believes he is." And here lies the problem, because man has looked to flee from knowledge and from God in order to stake out his own claim on his creation and yet fails at every turn to escape the inescapable.  When faced with this dilemma, that he cannot escape that which he cannot control, there is no other avenue then to direct his attention to the control of that which is within his grasp.  When this happens, the control that he desires over God is now brought to bear on other men and it is at that point his lack of knowledge comes full circle as he wields information, education, law and all the tools at his control to enslave his fellow man.

From the ridiculous file of the day: Military researching "moral" robots

This article from Defense One concerning the military's spending of money on projects to study the feasibility of developing "moral" robots shows us how far off the rails we really are.  First, the civil government and the military that it equips and trains are doing everything they can to remove the moral compass of actual human beings on a daily basis.  At the same time that Judeo-Christian ethics are being openly discouraged in the military, they are hoping to somehow create a "moral" robot.  I'm sure that the government would love nothing more than a complacent robot to do their bidding that reacted according to the government directed programming rather then having to deal with human beings that can think for themselves.  I can only imagine the level of mischief that could be unleashed with a robotic army that can change "morality" not through extensive learning and study, but at the touch of the keystroke.  Pardon the use of Star Wars to make my point, but since we are talking robots....at one point in Episode 3, the Jedis are going along just fine doing what they do taking out the bad guys when all of the sudden the guns of their own "robots" in the form of clone troopers are turned against them by the Emperor who initiated a code which essentially changed the "moral" rules delineating who was an enemy.
You see, as with almost every other issue when dealing with the government, it ultimately comes down to control.  In this case, a robotic army is much easier to control than a human agent that has actual free will.  Sure, you can program in scenarios that articulate the most pragmatic or utilitarian ways in which to approach the battlefield, but at the end of the day, the robot has no free will to disregard what the programmer/government is commanding.  And that should be enough to scare anyone who considers such technology actually beneficial in any possible way.
   

Rousas Rushdoony: Law and Liberty: Custom and Morality

Rushdoony starts with the following quote in this chapter, "customs or social mores govern us often much more strongly than does morality.  Most people are more afraid of offending their friends through bad taste than of offending God by sin."
There are many customs and mores in our society.  Some of them are important and, if properly understood as subservient to a Godly moral foundation, they will hold their rightful, crucial place in society.  The problem comes when customs become a product of a society detached from the scriptures and thus are free to run directly antithetical to morality.  When this happens, the individual must make a concerted effort to resist the temptation to follow in society's error and make a stand on the side of moral truth.
Rushdoony shows that rightly understood, "moral order represents the establishment on earth of objective ethical or moral truth; it is the conformity of earth and man to the will and word of God...it grounds society in truth and thereby makes possible the health and welfare of society as a whole."  In contrast to this, a society bereft or a Godly morality has already had the ground prepared for revolutionary changes to its foundations.  "The greatest asset to any revolutionary group is a large body of people who are governed by conventions or customs.  With such people, since appearance is all that matters, the country can be gutted of its historic position, constitutionalism, and liberties, and there will be no objection as long as the form is retained."  We have a President now that was swept into office on the promise for change, but in reality, that tact, while seemingly ingenious, was nothing more than embracing what was already going on in American society.  While there are political, military, and economic issues, just to name a few, that are changing the face of our society, the bottom line is that it was the ecclesiastical and moral breakdown that precipitated those changes.   When society, as a whole, turned away from its adherence to God's righteous rule, there was no longer a moral backdrop that anchored our decisions.  Almost every day in the United States today, there are political leaders that are attacking the historic positions held in our society even to go as far as attacking our most basic rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to defend oneself with constitutionally protected weapons, etc. While the form of our nation is intact, the form is about all we have left and the only question that remains is how long the shell can hold in place as the remaining core of the nation is systematically removed. 
Rushdoony gives a warning to these apathetic traitors in our midst.  "these people who cling to the appearance rather than the reality are the bread and butter of all revolutionary groups;  they finance them, support them, and defend them, because they too are revolutionaries.  They are the first wave of every revolution, and, even though  the second wave first uses them and then destroys them, the conventional people are still part of the revolution.  This means we cannot treat these people who sit complacently in apostate churches, and how ignore all subversion in the political order, simply as blind people.  They are themselves the first great wave of social revolution, of moral anarchy and national and religious decadence...the conventional people have a deadlier revolution.  They are for the Bible, but it doesn't really mean what it says, and we mustn't go overboard on those things." 
So, what is our answer.  First, learn, believe and live out a Godly righteousness.  Second, learn to recognize the subversive among you, whether it be coming from an individual, church, media, politician, etc.  Third, prepare yourself to respond to the subversive and engage with the goal of changing both minds and hearts. 

Rousas Rushdoony: Law and Liberty: Marxist Law

The next chapter that we wade into, although titled, Marxist Law, can also de described more generally as secular humanistic law.  As Rushdoony points out, "Marxism is relativistic; it denies that there is any absolute truth, and fundamental right and wrong in the universe...all ideas of truth and law simply reflect the will of the ruling class."  And here is the problem that we have today, because Marxist or not, our civil government has forgotten the fundamental nature and foundation of our law and replaced it with the spuriousness of man's opinion.  The result of a systematic attack on the nature of law in our society has led to an executive branch unwilling to follow law, a legislative branch incapable of creating cogent law and a judicial branch actively jettisoning historical precedent to create a new, improved law. 
Rushdoony continues, "for Marxism, law is simply the will of the state. Law is simply a system of prescriptive and binding rules which express the totalitarian and coercive will of the state."  So, whether the idea of attributing this change to "Marxism" is accurate or not, the truth behind the statement in today's society is abundantly clear where rules and procedures have been developed to enhance civil government at the expense of individual rights. 
Rushdoony lists some aspects of Marxist law that I think are equally applicable today in America:
1)  "Marxist law denies any absolute truth." (If you don't believe this than tell me what the basis for law is today, the will of the people, the will of the civil government...)
2)  "Law is a political weapon to be used in destroying enemies and remaking its subjects."  (If you don't believe this, take a look at how the IRS was used against the "enemies" of the executive branch)
3)  Totalitarians are not opposed to tyranny as long as they are in control.
4)  "A fourth aspect of Marxist law is its use of the courts.  Since the law has no reference to an absolute right and wrong, neither can the courts be geared to any absolute justice.  The courts have nothing to do with justice; they simply safeguard the interests of the state and work to destroy all its enemies."
5)  "[There is no toleration] for division of powers."
6)  "Marxism denies that anything can be called law which does not further socialism.  As a result, all Christian systems of law are called frauds."  (In our case, law is only that which can further the state, socialist or not....and Christianity is definitely one of those things that stands in the way of its progress.
7)  "The only real crimes are crimes against socialism." 
8)  "[Marxist law] insures a perpetual state of civil war."  By this he means that once detached from absolute truth, law becomes a tool to be waged towards the furtherance of the state.  There are no sides in this war, with those in power contesting for supremacy, the ruling body in a constant struggle against the people and even individuals against each other as their own liberties are siphoned off to the civil government.  The resultant effect is nothing more than chaos on a societal scale.