Illinois recently abolished the death penalty.
I posted a comment about that on one off my Facebook friend’s wall about how this action devalued human life. He asked me what I meant and I wrote the following comment which I hope will be useful to you:
In Genesis there is a description of an increase of violence and murder from the time when Cain killed Abel until the flood.
After the flood God established the first “civil government” type law recorded in the Bible. It predates the Mosaic law and was given to the ancestors of all mankind – Noah and his sons and their families.
That law? “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed….”
The reason God gives for that law? “for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
The reason implied by the Biblical context? The death penalty for murder is needed to prevent a complete collapse into violence and murder. The value of each individual human being as made in the image of God needs to be established and preserved by putting murderers to death.
(These quotes are from Genesis 9:5-6: http://bit.ly/gTLPqv.)
So God Himself established that human beings should execute the death penalty for murder and that the reason is because of the value of human beings as the “image of God.”
Therefore, to disregard God on the issue of the death penalty for murder is to devalue human life.
Governor Quinn in Illinois has now cooperated with the legislature in Illinois to devalue human life by abolishing the death penalty for murder.
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government, Thomas Jefferson advised, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
A multitude of nullification acts already are in the works across the nation on issues ranging from firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, a rejection of Washington’s mandates on cannabis laws and even Obamacare.
Center founder Michael Boldin said the idea that states would reject a Washington demand is not radical, it’s reasonable. He said what’s radical is “the idea that the federal government can be the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers.” [Read More]
So… Is State Nullification the way to go to stop the increasing invasion of Federal Government Power?
Well, you’d better be ready to back that up if it comes to blows. The last time States tried to assert “State’s Rights” didn’t go so well. The Federal Government has been established by force to be sovereign over the states.
I do like the current trend, though, to tell the Federal Government to back off. We need to elect people who will back this trend up in the U.S. Congress and Senate. We need to never elect someone who will appoint “progressive” federal judges again.
We are in this situation because of the kind of people we elected.
David Barton of Wallbuilders wrote an interesting article about how State Nullification is not the way to go. You can read that article here.
What are your thoughts? Is State Nullification the way to go?
I just read an article by Roland Martin at CNN.com. He is ripping on Sarah Palin because she was pointing out the error of thinking that the federal government is the answer to obesity in America.
Roland Martin does not get it.
Here is a bit from the article:
“It’s clear that we can’t go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of politics to find something wrong with first lady Michelle Obama’s effort to curb obesity in America’s kids.
“In a radio interview on Wednesday with conservative talker Laura Ingraham, Palin took dead aim at the first lady’s ‘Let’s Move’ initiative, which is all about getting children active and involved in exercise and healthy eating.
In the wacky world of Wasilla’s finest, Palin tries to cast the effort to fight obesity as part of Michelle Obama’s ‘different worldview.'” [Read More]
Here is my response that I posted at CNN.com:
Roland Martin doesn’t get it.
Does he actually believe that the federal government can stop obesity?
This is the same false reasoning that statist proponents always use – they actually believe that by showing a problem exists that it follows logically that the federal government needs to “fix” the problem.
It is now and has always been a myth that a huge centralized government is the answer to problems. Individual and local initiative is the answer.
The federal government cannot succeed in solving this kind of problem.
The risk of way to much intrusion in our lives is to great if the federal government tries.
When will statists like Roland Martin wake up?
When will Americans wake up and stop taking the kind of nonsense in this article seriously?