Have you been following the story about the silencing of Princess Warren in the Senate the other day? Princess Warren, or Liz as she likes to be called, is one of the most God-of-the-Bible hating career politicians to come along in a long time. She adores, praises and worships at the throne of civil government while, at the same time, she despises Christianity with an intense passion. She also believes that everything earned by the top 49% of the income population is her personal budget to be spread around as she sees fit, but only to those who vote for her of course. Apparently the Senate was debating the potential appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general the other day when Liz assumed the podium to argue against his appointment. In the course of making her argument as to why Sessions, an admitted racist, xenophobe, homophobe and, according to some "dark" sources, a cross-dresser, dog beater and friend of Vladimir Putin, she read from a letter written by the widow of my favorite socialist adulterer....Martin King. Coretta King wrote a letter way back in 1986 to oppose the appointment of Sessions to a federal judgeship position. She got her way and Sessions was not appointed. Liz decided to read that letter to her fellow Senators as an argument against the appointment of Sessions to the position of attorney general of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. The Republican senators who happened to be on the floor that day got tired of her endless whining (who wouldn't?) and invoked an obscure Senate rule to force her to shut up and sit down. It is that rule, and the application of it, that I would like to consider here today.
Senate Regulation 19 states, in part, that it "...bars any senator from impugning the motives of any other senator or imputing any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a senator." What a bunch of sissies those privileged career politicians are! They make rules regulating free speech on the floor of their own branch of government. Can you think of a more audacious violation of the right to free speech than Rule 19? Senators run around doing all sorts of immoral things and then they make a rule which prohibits them from talking about it with each other. We all know and realize that senators have made this rule because they are notoriously insecure people. They expect to be worshiped by the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and they usually are. They also expect to be worshiped by their fellow senators but that rarely happens. They know too much about each other to engage in the fiction of praise for one another. So rather than deal with the fact that they are a bunch of immoral louses constantly seeking the praise of men they write a rule that forbids them from ever telling the truth about each other in public. What a joke it all is.
Have you ever watched the British House of Commons? You should. Go here for a funny moment on the floor of the House of Commons. If you watched the clip, or if you have seen the antics that take place in the House of Commons before, you will realize how genuinely human the proceedings that take place there really are. The career politicians who populate that branch of government in the UK make no attempt to pretend that they can get along with each other, much less that they could or should actually like each other. They are true to their beliefs and they ridicule, demean and defame the other party's representatives with wild abandon. How refreshing it all is.
Then we come to the proceedings of the SDA Senate and we find a rule that expressly prohibits honest verbal interaction between the senators. Why? Because the senators are so thin-skinned and terrified that the truth about their plethora of immoral activities might get out to the general public they enforce a gag order on each other to make sure that never takes place. I have had the opportunity to sit in meetings such as those that take place on the floor of the senate many times in my life. Most all of those meetings have been in the context of the Christian church. To nobody's surprise, Christian leaders are identical to senators when it comes down to being thin skinned and extremely emotionally and intellectually insecure. I can't recall how many times I made a comment on the floor of a presbytery meeting only to be answered with a shrill form of the question, "are you trying to impugn my motives?" My answer to that question was always the same. It was, "of course I am, otherwise I would not have said what I said." Things would rapidly degenerate from there. On another occasion I was considering joining a church with a powerful pastor who was also very insecure. I was looking over the application for membership when I discovered that prior to becoming a member I was required to swear an oath to never impugn the motives of the pastor as well as to report to him the moment I ever heard anyone else impugning his motives. Needless to say, I did not complete the application process.
My Pa had an expression that he would use on occasions like this. He would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I have used that expression a lot over the years. People who put themselves in positions of public authority are voluntarily putting themselves into a "hot" position. Positions of public authority are rife with disputes, rancor and accusations of wrongdoing. It is the very nature of the beast. So what is the response of fearful, cowardly, insecure and controlling men and women to that environment? They make rules in what is always a vain attempt to control the behavior of others. I have a simple suggestion for the senators in the SDA Senate. If you find yourself taking offense when others disagree with you, call you names or impugn your motives do yourself and the rest of us a favor...resign from your office.