Posted on 10/02/2010 7:46:02 AM PDT by DelaWhere
//snip//Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, refers approvingly to the Tea Party's Christine O'Donnell recent victory in the Delaware primary:
Dorries says she has been inspired by recent events in the US - the primary victories of O'Donnell and others. With a new government in place, she senses a "wind of change" in the political atmosphere in Britain. In the last parliament, she says, it was "very difficult to talk about the family unit, and to talk about mothers and children . . . as the foundation of society, because it was seen as a very unsexy, untrendy thing to do and the opposite of what a woman should be doing". Given the sympathetic political climate, she sees an opportunity to mobilise a perceived constituency of ignored, stay-at-home mothers. "I think it's time somebody started to represent those mums," she says.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertarianrepublican.net ...
The ‘inspiration’ I would like to see is getting other officeholders to VERIFY that their DOMESTIC HELP are LEGAL CITIZENS.
The Brits need all the help they can get.
http://onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1188876
They (and O’Donnell) would be best to stay away from any Libertarian Party ties though.
What the Professor from Oxford has to say about Christine:
“During the summer of 2001, we worked through key aspects of natural law theory from a variety of perspectives. The final exam contained two questions: 1. agree or disagree with the view of natural law expressed in Sophocles’ Antigone using a disputatio format; 2. agree or disagree with Thomas Jefferson’s quotation from 1782: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”—again using a disputatio format.
Christine O’Donnell was a joy to have in the tutorials: intelligent, engaged, dynamic, good with questions and interested in ideas. Her paper on cloning was one of the two best papers written for me that summer. She successfully completed a rigorous, intellectually demanding course that was the equivalent of a course in the humanities at any graduate school at any university. As a result, I was happy to write recommendations for her for future graduate study.
The course we did that summer in Oxford is nearly a decade old, but the basic issues we addressed are eternal. Today, too many of the Republic’s leaders have abandoned the natural law tradition of the Declaration of Independence for a murky moral relativism—a relativism that is both destructive of democratic values and philosophically bankrupt. Christine O’Donnell would bring to the US Senate a deepened commitment to the philosophical convictions of the Founding Fathers at a time when the philosophical bankruptcy of too many leaders is mirrored in the economic bankruptcy of the federal government. She would surely add intellectual and philosophical depth to a Senate that at this point in its history badly needs both.”
Underlying message - Christine has been an inspirer and uniter in many ways. Bringing discussion of basic values and our founding principles - if the Libertarians see it along with all the others the RNC has moved their shrinking tent away from, so much the better.
The Tea Party is changing the World for the better.
Those basic values and founding principles of course would deal with the values and principle espoused by Christianity. Check any Libertarian website and see where God is mentioned ANYWHERE.
I'll all for an O'Donnell victory; I'm just making you aware of the false doctrine of Libertarianism, which has NOTHING to do with the values and principles that this great Christian nation was founded upon.
Yeah! They deal with "Creator"...They don't even mention that the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc., reference "God" or "Christian" all through them!
...or don't.
Definitely.
I wasn't aware libertarians reject God,I thought they leave it up to the individual;and said individual is still held reponsible for his acts and their consequences.
libertarians don’t necessarily. I can’t speak for Libertarians, though. I’m not a registered Libertarian, nor do I know much about their platform. I just believe in the libertarian foundation of this country and nation.
The problem with libertarians (and this isn’t true for all libertarians) is the tendency for idolatry. When you worship liberty as the “summum bonum”, it may not be a conscious rejection of God, but it amounts to the same thing.
...or don't.
Where shall we start? How about with the Declaration of Independence and it being the "charter" of our nation:
Michael Farris, a Constitutional lawyer and founder of the Home School Legal Defense League makes an interesting analogy in his book, "Constitutional Law for Christian Students. Revised Edition." He compares the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to a present day corporation's articles of incorporation and by-laws respectively.
Here's the short version of what he says:
The Declaration of Independence was the charter of our nation. It makes clear what most citizens of the colonies believed.
They believed that they were establishing a new nation based soundly on the Laws of God.
The opening statement of the Declaration expresses these firm beliefs and convictions. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them..."
They believed freedom was a gift from Nature and Nature's God. They intended to create a government that would protect these God given freedoms---not dispense them.
By basing our right to be a free nation upon God's law, we were also saying by implication that we owed obedience to the law that allowed us to be a separate country from England.
The last paragraph of the Declaration says they are, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly, publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;...", ending with, and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Farris says the Declaration is our charter. It the legal document that made us a nation like all the other nations of the world. It doesn't tell us how we are going to run our country---that is what our Constitution does.
In a corporation, the Charter is higher than the By-Laws and the By-Laws must be interpreted to be in agreement with the Charter. Therefore, the Constitution of the United States must be in agreement with the Declaration of Independence, or as Farris sometimes calls it, " The Declaration of the United States."
The most important statement in our Declaration is that we want to operate under the laws of God and we invoke His blessing.
When the courts today are deciding what the Constitution means in regard to specific issues, they should review and remember the "Charter" or the Declaration in regards to original intent.
The Constitution doesn't specifically mention God, because it doesn't have to. The Declaration is the charter or higher document and it clearly outlines our relationship with God and His laws.
The Declaration makes it very clear that we are a nation under God's laws. Therefore all laws of our country should be consistent with the law of God or they violate our national charter.
It was our Founders intent that this would be a nation under God, that would look to God for blessing and guidance.
Our Founding Fathers knew that you could not have a free people for very long without Biblical morality.
Here's what they said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams.
Link to Is the Constitution a Godless Document?
Btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.