Episode 418: In the Image Of?

Subscribe: RSS

Watch ‘In the Image Of?’ on Rumble and YouTube.

As I began working on this topic of ‘In the Image of?’ I was again challenged with the hospitalization of a family member. So if the continuity of this program seems a little off, please bare with me. But then again, some of you may think my continuity is off often. That is humor, I think.

Not so breaking news: In the second segment I give a little more detail on the new Speaker of the House. I want you to think about Christian Nationalism and that that Mike Johnson is the quintessential Christian Nationalist.

A tad in the Second but mostly in Third segment is the tying together Rushdoony’s explanation of Magic in relationship to science, language, politics and tyranny.

Finally, In the Third Segment, bringing into focus Ohio Issue 1 and Hamas. Pointing you to the reality that one of the prime sponsors/promoters of Ohio Issue 1 is, according to UN documentation, an entity out to destroy the foundational meaning of ‘The Family.’ And I show why the language of the amendment does not mention ‘parent,’ ‘adult,’ ‘children,’ or ‘minor.’ Oh, see the sub-title Getting Long Winded in this post.

Seriously,

When I ask the question, ‘In the Image Of?’ I want you to consider that we are created in the image of the Biblical God but the rejection of this living God beginning with Adam and Eve has brought forth the distortion of ‘the imagery of language’. This distortion was interesting even in the considerations by the Anti-federalists when assessing the Constitution of 1787.

‘The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness. To avoid the possible and transitory evils of one extreme, it is seduced into the certain and permanent misery necessarily attendant on the other. A state of anarchy from its very nature can never be of long continuance; the greater its violence the shorter the duration. Order and security are immediately sought by the distracted people beneath the shelter of equal laws and the salutary restraints of regular government; and if this be not attainable, absolute power is assumed by the one, or a few, who shall be the most enterprising and successful. If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting the new Constitution, it would be infinitely better to incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a good government rising out of licentiousness. But to rush at once into despotism because there is a bare possibility of anarchy ensuing from the rejection, or from what is yet more visionary, the small delay that would be occasioned by a revision and correction of the proposed system of government is so superlatively weak, so fatally blind, that it is astonishing any person of common understanding should suffer such an imposition to have the least influence on his judgment; still more astonishing that so flimsy and deceptive a doctrine should make converts among the enlightened freemen of America, who have so long enjoyed the blessings of liberty.’ from Anti Federalist No. 6, The Hobgoblins of Anarchy and Dissentions Among the States (Centinel essay no. XI), 16 January 1788, by Centinel

The influence of imagery has been noted here with ‘the growing colors of eloquence’ as well as the concept that the Constitution is ‘the instrument of deliverance’ then and even now. What is more important in this weeks program is that in assessing the question of humans determining ‘life and death,’ be it by abortion, distortion of the human anatomy or by Hamas, the eloquence of language and design an imagery to which individuals are shaped into.

Ponder this quote from The Biblical Structure of History:

‘We have already learned from earlier sections of Genesis 1 that God spoke the cosmos into existence. This means that there is a fundamental distinction between God and the creation. In this sense, the universe is personal. It is the product of the God who speaks. Language existed before the cosmos. God thought by means of language. He spoke the cosmos into existence by means of language.’

Language and Imagery

Language and Imagery even define the fundamentals of governance and law. In evaluating the proponents of Ohio Issue 1, these individual humans reflect the distortions that are internationally humanistic. Let me take you back to Hillary Clinton with her mantra of ‘It takes a village.’ Hillary and the humanists in general believe and promote a heterogeneous concept of family with the definition of ‘person’ and ‘family’ being flexible in definitions. With this comes a conundrum in relationship to that of language even in the international scheme of law.

What Hillary and her ilk are in particular making a compelling humanistic argument in law or amendments, and related to Ohio Issue 1, is that:

“There is no definition of the family under international human rights law,” according to a report on “protection of the family” prepared by the UN staff and released last week ahead of the next session of the UN Human Rights Council.

The report touches on the family, human rights, and social and economic development, and downplays the legally binding understanding of the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties that implicitly exclude same-sex relationships from the meaning of family in international law and policy.

The UN human rights bureaucracy tries to balance the longstanding understanding of the family that dates back to the founding of the United Nations, and effectively defines the family for purposes of international law and policy, with a progressive, and aggressive, attempt to expand the meaning of family in international law and policy to include same-sex relationships. The result is not entirely consistent.

The above is from an article Center for Family and Human Rights, ‘UN Report: “There Is No Definition of the Family” By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | January 29, 2016.

I want you to fully consider that abortion, is a moral argument that can only be justly dealt with in the confines of those with a distinctive moral grounding. Sexuality, gender-bending and trans issues are thrown into the winds of international human rights law. What we have with the proponents of Ohio Issue 1are humans that ascribe to international humanism, which are making every effort to establish precedent to obviate traditional, Biblical definitions of the family.

Getting Long Winded

I’m getting long winded in this posting. I’ll leave you with the facts of a quote from ‘Center for Reproductive Rights Submission for OHCHR Report on Human Rights Council Resolution 29/22 on the Protection of the Family, October 23, 2015,’ which instantiates the ‘individual’ in this document and the language of Ohio Issue 1.

I. Individuals are the holders of human rights

In accordance with the international human rights framework, although there are a number of human rights that relate to the family, the individual members of the family are the rights-holders to whom states have specific legal obligations. States are obligated to ensure that all measures they take which relate to the family comply with the full range of rights afforded each individual. In this regard, states should not invoke protections of the family or traditional family values as a justification or excuse for infringing on each individuals’ ability to effectively exercise his or her human rights.

II. A constellation of human rights held by individuals relate to relationships within families and childbearing

Although the family unit itself does not possess human rights, a constellation of human rights that are held and exercised by individuals relate to relationships within families and the right to make decisions around one’s family and childbearing.

This is why ‘parents’ and ‘children/minors’ is not in the langue of Ohio Issue 1.

Sam Adams Wisdom

ARTICLE, UNSIGNED.

[Boston Gazette, April 2, 1781; a draft is in the Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]

‘The Framers of our Constitution, while they gave due Attention to Political were not forgetful of Civil Liberty—that personal Freedom and those Rights of Property, which the meanest Citizen is intitled to, and the Security of which is the great End of political Society. It was not indeed their Province to make particular Laws for these Purposes. To do this, and to provide for the equal and impartial Execution of such Laws, agreeable to the Constitution, is the Duty of the Legislature. Hence every Citizen will see, and I hope will be deeply impressed with a Sense of it, how exceedingly important it is to himself, and how intimately the welfare of his Children is connected with it, that those who are to have a Share in making as well as in judging and executing the Laws should be Men of singular Wisdom and Integrity. Such as are conscious that they are deficient in either of these Qualities, should even TREMBLE at being named as Candidates! I hope the great Business of Elections will never be left by the Many, to be done by the Few; for before we are aware of it, that few may become the Engine of Corruption—the Tool of a Junto.—Heaven forbid! that our Countrymen should ever be byass’d in their Choice, by unreasonable Predilections for any man, or that an Attachment to the Constitution, as has been the Case in other Countries, should be lost in Devotion to Persons. The Effect of this would soon be, to change the Love of Liberty into the Spirit of Faction. Let each Citizen remember, at the Moment he is offering his Vote, that he is not making a Present or a Compliment to please an Individual, or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn Trusts in human Society, for which he is accountable to GOD and his Country.’

Thank you to all who are subscribers to the program. Please share the newsletter and subscribe to the Rumble or YouTube channel.