[Reverend Wright]

“The longer the Left misrules, the more miserable the country becomes and the more willing are Americans to accept our conservative values.”

---

They say that what happens in California soon happens in the rest of the country.

That’s certainly been true for the last 30 years.

California has been spiralling into self-destructive leftist insanity. And the rest of the country only a few years behind.

If you were right, California would be the first to reject leftism, since they have the greatest level of leftist misrule.

But it is not happening. Things are just getting worse and worse and worse and worse. As conservatives get weaker and weaker and weaker and weaker. (same as the rest of the country).

Again I ask: this isn’t working . What is the plan ?

Cf. the supposed Biblical basis of all this.

In the Bible it specifically endorses the legitimacy of tribal/clan leadership, Judgeship, Monarchy, Empire.

Nowhere does it endorse Republic or Democracy as legitimate government forms.

So I am being chided for suggesting Monarchy or Empire solutions to the failed American Republic on the basis of them being “unBiblical”.

When Monarchy and Empire are specifically recognized in the Bible, and Republics are not !

[PCPOET7]

live in California and the reason California is not rebelling as much as it should is that hard core conservatives that would be the backbone of any resistance to liberal rule are fleeing the state.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“So I am being chided for suggesting Monarchy or Empire solutions to the failed American Republic on the basis of them being “unBiblical”.”

No, basically you are being ignored.

[BroJoeK]

Reverend Wright: "California has been spiralling into self-destructive leftist insanity.
And the rest of the country only a few years behind.
If you were right, California would be the first to reject leftism, since they have the greatest level of leftist misrule."

With the notable exception of Ronald Reagan, and even he governed more moderately than his speeches suggest, all of California's Republicans were "moderates" if not RINOs, consider:

1. Earl Warren 1943 - 1953
2. Goodwin Knight 1953 - 1959
3. Ronald Reagan 1967 - 1975
4. George Deukmejian 1983 - 1991
5. Pete Wilson 1991 - 1999
6. Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003 - 2011

I post this list to show that California Republicans were almost never very conservative, and pointedly, because the list begins with Earl Warren and ends in Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Of course, I well remember, in 1964 conservative Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater defeated more moderate New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller in the California Primary, but then Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson by over 18 points, with Johnson carrying all but a small handful of California counties.

My point is, going all the way back to Earl Warren, California Republicans were seldom seriously conservative and with Arnold Schwarzenegger California Republicans more or less committed Japanese ritual seppuku.

Impossible to say now if or when California Republicans can ever recover their mojo, or who might lead them, especially since demographic trends are replacing conservative citizen voters with illegal aliens voting for Democrats.

But at some point even the most "oppressed intersectional minorities" must look around them at the results of one-party Democrat top-down rule and begin to look for something better from their elected leaders.

Not all Hispanics, Asians or blacks are brain-dead lock-step die-hard corruption-tolerant Democrats.
Some will want a better life for themselves and their communities.

Out of somewhere there will come the Republican leadership to inspire voters to change course.

Where & when is impossible to say now, but it will happen, when God wills it, I believe.

Reverend Wright: "Cf. the supposed Biblical basis of all this.
In the Bible it specifically endorses the legitimacy of tribal/clan leadership, Judgeship, Monarchy, Empire.
Nowhere does it endorse Republic or Democracy as legitimate government forms."

Seriously? Here you are, yet again, on conservative Free Republic, defending values which have nothing to do with American conservatism??

Well, you can burn in heck if you try to pit the Bible against the Constitution, FRiend, that does not work on Free Republic.
We consider the two documents closely related and tied together.
And if you seriously wish to debate this, we certainly can, at great length if necessary.
How about if we begin here:

1. Adam & Eve had no king
   
2. Noah had a large family and no king.
   
3. Abraham lead his family and tribe and had no king.
   
4. Moses was God's chosen leader of 12 tribes, but he was not their king.
   
5. Samuel was God's prophet and God did not want him to anoint a king, because God well knew that kings were often more problems than solutions.

Are you beginning to see what the Bible really thinks about kings and other such rulers?
They are at best necessary evils and at worst can lead to total destruction.

Do we need to go on with this debate, or are you starting to see my point?