Loyal Opposition

[Billy Britt]

On January 20, Barack Obama was sworn in as America’s 44th president. It was a historical moment as America’s first president of African-American heritage took the oath of office.But it should be noted that many Americans did not cast their ballot for Mr. Obama and there are those who remain wary and even suspicious of his presidency.Great din has been made of the public swearing-in of Mr. Obama, as mistakes were made in the oath of office.The oath or affirmation of office of the President of the United States was established in the United States Constitution and is mandatory for a President upon beginning a term of office. The wording is prescribed by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8), as follows:“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”However, the next day the oath was re-administered with the proper constitutional wording.Much has being made of the fact that on taking the oath for the second time Mr. Obama did not use the Bible as an instrument of the ceremony.While most of us hold the scriptures as sacred and believe the Bible to contain the Word of God, it is not prescribed for use during the swearing-in of the President.In fact, it is uncertain how many early presidents used a Bible or added the words “So help me God” at the end of the oath, neither being required by law in the presidential oath of office.That being said, for better or worse Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States of America, and with all my being I wish him the best and that God will bless the nation.While I firmly believe in a “loyal opposition” I disagree with to the politics of personal destruction.Loyal opposition is the concept that one can be opposed to the actions of the government or ruling party without being opposed to the constitution of the political system.Thomas Jefferson said, “An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.”Disagreement is within the nature of all people and no more so among a free people.However, one does not need to destroy an adversary to win an argument.Inflexibility in representative government with its vain hubris is antithetical to good government.Compromise of want without compromise of principle is an important component of a loyal opposition’s flexibility.Most Americans fall into the center-right category, being more conservative than liberal in thought and lifestyle. However, at present the liberal democrats hold power over the White House and Congress. But perhaps the reason for this is that over the last eight years Republicans have acted like reckless Democrats with unbridled pork barrel spending and thuggish corruption.A loyal opposition will only win with better ideas for private-sector solutions, limited government and peace through strength.Personal attacks will not serve long as a substitute for leadership.It is time for those who choose to rule over their countrymen to be mindful that the Sword of Damocles (in terms of the ballot box) hangs over their heads. As Shakespeare’s Henry IV explains, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”As tragedy or fortune in lives and governments are held in the delicate sway of blind chance.As we have been taught that it rains on the just and the unjust alike.So, we are faced with a myriad of problems but none of which are insurmountable for the American people.Despite our new president’s assertion, “That we are a young nation.” We are, in fact, the oldest democratic republic in existence, older than France, Germany or England.Our nation has been and still is the beacon of liberty and prosperity for the world and while our problems may be new in kind they are not new in nature.As Jefferson wrote, “Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”Therefore, let us reason together and in such reasoning find common ground on which to agree and secure the blessing of liberty for all Americans.Whether an Obama loyalist or a member of the loyal opposition, this is a new day with a new president. May we face it together, firm in our traditional ideals of liberty, freedom and prosperity.

[dick michaud]

In light of opposition. Historically Thomas Jefferson and John Adams probably had the greatest disagreements on political views. Both expressed themselves aggressively and in my opinion we are better because of their exchange. So opposition is healthy and censorship is unhealthy. I love to read all of your posts and learn from all of them. Thanks for sharing

[John Richeson]

Oh, and by the way. I really, really want Billy to continue to write insightful blogs.....don't you?

But my YEARS of experience in "other sites" has show me that people will slowly drift away from posting their thoughts if ensuing comments suck. We don't want to lose Billy or any others.
One piece of advice that might help....write out you post on a Word document and wait a day before posting it. Never post out of a knee-jerk response.

Most important of all...try to build people up and never tear them down.

[John Richeson]

Thanks, Kevin.

Please may everyone stay on topic and be polite and respectful to one another even if you vehemently disagree with them. If you have something personal to say about another poster, do so via private email please. Or, even better yet, just don't post.

I deleted a couple of posts here that violated these principles. Neither of them had anythng to do with this thread and will not detract from the flow of discussion.

Thanks, guys!

[Kevin Nye]

P.S.
Please overlook the typos. I am not going back through it again via the "copy/paste" method..

And yes, I did edit out some of the things I said to help put this blog back on track.

[Kevin Nye]

At any rate, I am in fact the one who said;

"And since I am more Conservative than Liberal, I vote accordingly with the hope that God will honor a Nation that votes in favor of things more in line with Him than the things of this world."

I would like to elucidate on this comment further, but I'll back up a bit more than that. I said;

"Basically, when I vote, I am under no illusion that I am going to "get what my candidate says he/she actually stands for". I basically vote for the "stated principles" of the particular candidate, and hope that he/she will honor his/her promises, for I don't know the future. I vote for the Principles allegedly stood for by the candidate, Principles that I believe are more Godly than the other guy's. And since I am more Conservative than Liberal, I vote accordingly with the hope that God will honor a Nation that votes in favor of things more in line with Him than the things of this world. And that's the best I can do. Naturally, there could be a debate between "what is Godly, and what is not", but that's another topic I suppose".

By the highlighted statement within the paragraph, I mean to say that I believe that conservative principles are more in line with God's Word than are the principles of Liberalism. For instance (and I'll use the neuter gender "he" instead of the "he/she" thing for simplicity's sake) :

I believe that people should come to rely on God as the Supplier Of Needs, and not Mama Government. And so, I seek a candidate who says he desires to spend less on "social services" than the candidate who is in favor of spending mass money on those whom I believe prefer Mama Government over trusting God.

I am not one who is in favor of gay marriage, and therefore seek a candidate who says that he is not in favor of same. (Yes I know Obama says he too is not in favor of it, but that's only one issue).

I believe that Capitalism is the engine that has driven and drives our economy to the abundance and freedom that we have come to know and experience here in America, and therefore seek a candidate who says that he is for smaller government, less taxation, and whose platform appears more capitalistic than a platform of Socialism. For instance, our 44th President just recently said and I'll quote:

“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe,” (highlight I added for emphasis)

Well, I as a Citizen do not agree that "only government" can provide the necessary boost for our economy. I believe that tax cuts will free up the the free enterprise entities (corporations as well as small businesses) that drive and boost our economy. I believe that God's Word promotes free enterprise over Socialism, and that God would bless our Nation if we were to choose what I believe to be more in line with His way. Once again, this is my opinion, and is open to further debate, but I am simply telling you why I made the statement you wondered about George. So, I seek a candidate whose platform is more in line with what I believe to be Godly and vote accordingly. And so, one more issue for clarity:

The redistribution of wealth. I do not believe in it. I believe that "the laborer is worthy of his hire", and that the slacker should not receive a portion of my hard earned money. I believe that every man should reap the fruit of his own labor. I believe as God says in His Word that we are to give "not of necessity for God loveth a cheerful giver". I believe that giving to the Poor should be something that should be a free will effort and not something that is mandated by Mama Government. Once the government mandates it, then it is no longer "giving", but rather becomes the government stealing and forcing me to "give". And that ain't right according to what I believe the Good Book says, and so, I seek a candidate who at least stands for or says that he stands for the same Principle.

Now. When I, or We The People vote in this manner, will we get what we have voted for? Maybe, maybe not. But at least The Almighty, looking down from Above, will see that at least The People took a voting stand for what is more Godly than that which is not, and regardless of what the elected politicians end up actually end up doing after voted in, at least The People made a choice in the direction of God's Word as opposed to "not". And so maybe just maybe, the Blessings of Liberty will continue to flow for a little bit longer. I believe that the further we as a Nation get from God's Word, the more we as a whole embrace idolatry, the more bondage we will, as a Nation, enter into. BUt, God will take care of those who love Him and keep His precepts. It would just be nice if this whole "American Experiment" could continue on for awhile, so our kids can enjoy it as we have...

I hope that that sense George...

[Kevin Nye]

My God yes. The Vice President of the United States shooting the former Secretary of the Treasury and killing him. Could you just imagine what it would be like today if the Vice President shot someone? Like, let's say Dick Cheney shot somebody, now wouldn't that be something? Oh wait, he did. Fortunately it was an accident though. And if my memory serves me, weren't Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton at each others' throats as well?

As far as today's political situation is concerned, you have well noted that there are many Americans who did not vote for Obama, and in my opinion are in direct opposition as to how to get our country back on track. Roughly 65 million voted for Obama, and 57 million voted for McCain. Although there is a fair difference in those numbers by roughly 8 million, that is not a huge margin by any means. 57 million voting Americans did not vote for Obama and his party's ideals, which is significant. I do believe that we shall see great conflict in the future concerning the difference between the ideals of those Conservative and those Liberal. Hopefully the conflict will remain civil. No duels please. Already, The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at the opinions of a particular conservative radio host who has been expressing his opposition to the ideals and stated policies of this new Administration. I wonder how much this petition is costing we American Citizens in the form of payroll paid from taxes? So yes, no doubt it will get less civil, in my opinion.

One more point: You said; "My point on Republicans and Democrats was only to suggest that the republicans while voicing distrust of big government have in practice expanded the Federal Government". And to this I agree, it is true, it happened. Basically, when I vote, I am under no illusion that I am going to "get what my candidate says he/she actually stands for". I basically vote for the "stated principles" of the particular candidate, and hope that he/she will honor his/her promises, for I don't know the future. I vote for the Principles allegedly stood for by the candidate, Principles that I believe are more Godly than the other guy's. And since I am more Conservative than Liberal, I vote accordingly with the hope that God will honor a Nation that votes in favor of things more in line with Him than the things of this world. And that's the best I can do. Naturally, there could be a debate between "what is Godly, and what is not", but that's another topic I suppose.

Interesting that there is now a "Federal effort" to quell an American Citizen's free will opinion and his efforts to make it known to others. Thank God we have the First Amendment to the Constitution. I don't think that this is going to bode well with a large percentage of those 57 million voters who did not vote for Obama. I liked your analogy of the "sword of Damocles" in reference to the voters. We shall see...

As an aside, Billy, my wife Shannon (Walls) Nye-7th Corps, recalls that you stayed at her house in Texhoma, OK, as a Lightbearer one time. Her Mom enjoyed your visit.

P.S.

Too bad there isn't a way to edit on this blog deal here. Other than putting it on Microsoft Word first.

[Billy Britt]

Kevin, George and Steve
When I was referring to the politics of personal destruction, our history is full of examples of hyper-partisan warfare such as when Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.
However one need look no further than the founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr for an example of denigrating personal lives for political ends. Perhaps our system is better than those who actually murder the opposition but in many cases death would be better for an honest man.
My point on Republicans and Democrats was only to suggest that the republicans while voicing distrust of big government have in practice expanded the Federal Government.
I do worry about the fruit of our counties left-wing agenda while also considering my own complicity by way of commission. Therefore I write, think and try to put forward a reasoned argument as to principles of practice.
Kevin, I would not disagree with your assessment of our countries current state and do not think I could do better than ponder and accept the propositions put forth by George. As well, Steve, your point is well taken, thank you for your semantical pardon (Warmest Smiles). My ability to foretell the future is less than zero, however I do try in earnest to coax from the past a way to forth tell a few truths.
Blessing to you all.

[Kevin Nye]

Yes George, I agree with that. And I look forward to Billy answering my question. And actually, I am adding an addendum here. Billy: are you referring to specific instances of "personal attacks" and "politics of personal destruction" that have already occurred during the campaign and after the election?

[George M. Hendrix]

Brethren,
I think it is impossible to put all Democrats in one lump together, as well as to put all Republicans in one lump together, and to put all libertarians in one lump together.
I've had the privilege of knowing equally wonderful God-fearing folks of all three political orientations.
Isn't it really more the ideology driving the politician?
Can't the issues and ideologies be discussed without surmising that one political party is any more evil than the other. All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have failed miserably.
It seems to me that instead of slinging mud at any one party, why not just present the facts, discuss the issues, and discuss the ideologies, as best as can be determined without the spin of the TV media and Talk Radio media.
This is not my blog, but maybe Billy, there can be decent debate or agreement on this blog without getting into mudslinging against either of the parties or each other.
I think if the participants of your blog will remain unemotional, reasonable, polite, and non-personal, this has the beginnings of a great blog.
I think you have written a very thought provoking piece here and look forward to the unfolding of what I hope is a decent, polite, and loving discussion.

Love and blessings!
George

[Kevin Nye]

Nicely put, both Billy and George. I am in full agreement with George, but Billy, you said:

"While I firmly believe in a “loyal opposition” I disagree with to the politics of personal destruction".

And you also said:

"Personal attacks will not serve long as a substitute for leadership".

While I agree with what you have said, you have made these two statements for a reason, and I am curious as to why. To what "politics of personal destruction" and "personal attacks" are you referring? Is it considered "politics of personal destruction" when someone vehemently disagree with, let's say, some of the policies that George listed? Personally, many of the things which George listed are major "red flags" (IMO) which America needs to wake up to. How does one respond to these concerns with an opposing voice without being labeled a "reactionary" who is implementing the "policies of personal destruction"? For instance, if I say that "Barak Obama is the most radical Leftist to ever be elected to the Presidency Of The United States", is that "policy of personal destruction"? I mean, he is in fact extremely Left leaning, and his proposed policies are very very radical making him an extreme Left wing radical. Is it wrong to state this? Just curious...