Politics

Democrats’ Message

The overall theme of all major stations, radio programs, and news around the country has been on the question of “How can Democrats recover from the recent blow?” I have read Bill Clinton’s answer. He said Democrats need to put out a clear message. I read Rev. (whatever this title means) Al Sharpton’s interview with Bill O’Reilly when he said Democrats need to put out a clear message to the people. It seems that Democrats are agreed on one thing: We need to put out a clear message to the people!

But what kind of message does the people want to hear? I will tell you what they don’t want to hear. They don’t want to hear about the Democrats seeking reconciliation in the country. It won’t happen when you have no moral principles. And further, they don’t want to hear more whining. This I can’t guarantee won’t happen throughout the next four years. However, there is one thing they do want to hear, and that is, Hillary Clinton for 2008. Hey, if you want to go ahead and claim another defeat ahead of time, have at it!

Reflections on the Election and the Future

It has surely been an surprising election. For most of us who believed this would prolong to the next month or so were proven wrong. At least we know that the nation has learned from Florida’s mistakes in 2000. President Bush has earned the respect of a nation and also for a good part of the world today. As I read Brazil’s news I noticed that even the Brazilian president was concerned about establishing better relationships with the US in  these next four years. While Arafat is spending his last few days on earth, we will once again see the Israeli and Palestine wars on the top of the news. Further, the Iraqi war will be another concern in these next four years for Bush. As for Bill Clinton’s chance of becoming the head of the UN in 2006, he better forget it about and start focusing on his wife’s campaign for the presidency in 2008. Speaking of which, consider the two candidates of the 2008 election (if all things continues as planned): former mayor Rudy Guliani and Hilary Clinton. One important issue to keep in mind is that Rudy as a Republican is more of a democrat on ethical issues than anything. Besides being pro-abortion, he is also pro-homosexual marriage. This puts the top two candidates in 2008 as largely anti-Christian. Maybe a third party may be an option for 2008… what do you think? As for Bush’s re-election, he has proven once again to be vastly conservative. All you have to do is see the map and be in awe of all the red states. However, since the Republican Party is so diverse, this means that the red states aren’t as red (conservative) as some would like to believe.

A couple of final remarks will help us to think ahead even to our next election. First, in the words of Matt Drudge, “this is a Bush Revolution.” Indeed Bush has received the greatest support in American history surpassing the big 50% margin. This time (unlike 2000) he left no doubt who would be the chief in command. Secondly, with this Revolution comes also the remarkable dominance of the Republican Party in the Senate (55 v. 44). Thirdly, I raise the obvious question, will Bush compromise even more with Democrats in order to bring together this divided nation (Kerry asked this of the president today in his 5 minute phone conversation as he conceded)?

Finally, as for the Constitution Party, we are still concerned that this nation is in danger because of the abortion clinics, consequently because of “Conservatives” funding abortion institutions. Further, we are concerned that the educational system of this nation is in utter ruin. It is a revealing fact when 50 million people vote for a candidate (John Kerry) who is so unethical in his ideas. The government educational system needs to be re-considered by Christian parents before they send their sons and daughters in a godless proselytizing system.  You cannot restore a nation to godly rule i parents send their children to ungoldy education.

We will not give up and we will not concede to those who wish to minimize the importance of God, Republic and Family, but we will always fight for a God honoring country that submits to the council and mandates of our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Why Michael Anthony Peroutka; Georger Bush and Inclusivism

We still have three days and about 16 hours for the election and I cannot stress how important it is for us conservatives to think about who we are voting for. I have publicly endorsed Michael Peroutka for President for many reasons. Here are a few of them: 1) Peroutka is the only 100% Pro-Lifer in this campaign, 2) He is the only one who believes in the depravity of men (as I quoted a few weeks ago, Bush has stated that all men are basically good), 3) Peroutka considers the family a priority in his campaign, 4) The Constitution Party is against amnesty for illegal aliens, 5) Peroutka is determined to abandon the UN, 6) Unlike other candidates, he refuses to support the homosexual agenda by funding anti-family organizations.

These are only a few reasons why I endorse Micahel Peroutka as President. It appears that for some these issues are no longer important. It seems that “principles” have been altered for “popularity.” Listen, voting for Bush is not an evil act. I am not condemming anyone for doing so, but what I do condemn is the vague and shallow reasons for choosing a candidate. My point is that for us Christians, issues like ethics and Biblical integrity are fundamental.

Recently President Bush was interviewed by Charlie Gibson and these are the crucial Q&A sections of that interview I wanted you to read. If you desire to read the entirety of the interview, simply e-mail me and I will send it to you. Before you do read, here is a verse to consider… warning: It may sound too familiar, so read it carefully.
John 14:6: “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

CG: Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?

GWB: I think we do.

CG: Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?

GWB: Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there…

You have three days to make up your mind.
Bush’s interview link

Back to Politics – answering a common objection

A few nights ago in a popular chat channel, we began a brief discussion on why we should vote based on principles rather than on the outcome. Many agreed that in essence voting for Bush would be voting for the lesser of two evils. I proposed that voting for the lesser of two evils is unbiblical and unethical in a Christian worldview. Further, I stressed that voting for a man who has clear Christian principles is the right choice for any believer. Of course, someone quickly responded by saying that in that case, we could put a prominent theologian (I won’t name who) as a write-in for this election. The argument is simple: Why not just get any Christian leader and write him in as a candidate for the presidency?

This is a valid argument and I propose a few observations contra this proposition. Hopefully, it will lead to further interactions. First, my primary concern is to find a leader that represents God’s truth when running for president. One thing to keep in mind is that only in America you have this distinct privilege. The truth is, only here is the possibility of that scenario even possible. Secondly, voting for a party that is Christian, in the Orthodox definition, is letting America know that there are other options out there besides the dominant two-party system. Thirdly, in order to be a Christian candidate one must be qualified. If this prominent Christian theologian or leader is qualified for a position of an office, and in turn is politically inclined and understands the issues facing our society today, then my response is a hearty encouragement to his candidacy. Of course, I assume we are all very aware that to become a candidate is quite a difficult task.

My position is favorable to as many Christians as possible running for the office. Can you imagine in 2008 at least two distinctly Christian parties committed to denouncing abortion once and for all? Further, can you imagine two Christian parties holding hands defending the same ethical issues? What kind of message would this send to America?

I am all in favor of having as many Christian parties as possible, but until that happens or until that prominent theologian (who by the way, usually makes horrible politicians, with the exception of Abraham kuyper) is up and running for office of the United States of America, I am voting for the Constitution Party.

The Constitution Party on the Family

Strong families are the essential building blocks of a strong, moral and just community. But America’s families today are under constant attack by federally funded programs that are dangerous and unconstitutional. Government schools are drugging and “dumbing-down” our children making them dependent and compliant.

The Constitution Party encourages faithful fathers and mothers to train their children to love God and serve others according to their own conscience and without the interference of unConstitutional federal programs

What Others Say: On Wasting your vote By Robert Bird

“True conservatives should jump while they still can.”

Conservatives (which is becoming an increasingly murky term) are almost unanimous, if they are honest, in their agreement that their cause is currently dead in the water. The reasons are complex, but a few might be possible to identify.

First of all, they have a president who is sometimes called “far-right” by his enemies, but which less-government citizens know better. This is a man who has never wielded his veto pen to stop runaway spending by a Congress controlled by his own party — spending that would make LBJ and his Great Society welfare state envious. This president has increased the power of the federal government with a tyrannical No Child Left Behind Act (it’s Ted Kennedy’s brainchild), where the feds are now a bull-in-the-china-shop in the area of one of the most hallowed premises of American democracy: local control of education.

This is a man who actually signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act saying, “It’s probably unconstitutional,” creating the biggest threat of freedom of speech and press since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Someone must have forgotten to remind this president that his oath of office compels him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But, he instead abdicated his sacred duty and turned it over to the despotic gurus of the Supreme Court, a court still firmly in control by the liberal consensus by which both major parties subscribe.

He has increased the power of the police state while waging a war overseas, a war which arguably is wrong on both constitutional and moral grounds.

This guy’s a conservative?

Then we have Lisa Murkowski, a Republican with a decidedly liberal voting record during her tenure in the state Legislature, and who as a U.S. Senator voted in favor of a resolution accepting Roe v. Wade as “rightly decided.” Notwithstanding the local bishop’s weak excuses on her behalf, this is a Catholic pro-abortion politician.

So, now we come to Alaskan Republicans’ conundrum: Who the hell to vote for? Principled third-party candidates exist, but the stock answer is usually, “OK, I know that X is a better candidate, but they have no chance of winning. If I vote for them, it will only help the Democrats to win, and they’re worse. I can’t waste my vote.”

This is the conventional wisdom, to be sure, but it is wrong. Continuing to vote for wrong-headed Republicans is the real “wasted vote,” and I will attempt to demonstrate why.

Ask yourself, fellow conservatives, which is better: short-term gain versus long-term loss, or short-term loss versus long-term gain? Most people would admit that, however painful it might be, the latter option is the better.

Unless and until Republicans are punished for acting like socialist, more-government Democrats, we are going to continue being given the same sordid options. What the fake two-party system now offers us is this: The Democrats and Republicans are both speeding toward a cliff in pickup trucks, the Democrats at 110 mph and the Republicans at 55, with the voters riding in back. So, the “thoughtful” Republican voter jumps from the back of the Democratic pickup onto the Republican one, knowing full well that this option is only delaying the calamity that awaits on the horizon.

As for me, I’m going to jump the truck, bounce and roll a bit, pick myself up and walk in the opposite direction. And if the jump kills me, well, I’d rather be dead than fall down a cliff into the black pit of slavery.

There isn’t a conservative I know that doesn’t admit that if we all did this, two things would happen: Either the Republican truck would turn around and head the other direction, or a different car will come along and take us to where we want to go — to the freedom side of the cliff.

That is why I am voting for Jerry Sanders for the U.S. Senate and Michael A. Peroutka for president.

A long journey, my friends, begins with one simple jump from the pickup.

Michael Peroutka as President. Why not?

I can’t tell you how many people have told me to not vote for Peroutka because voting for him is worthless. In fact, just last night a dear friend e-mailed me and said in essence, “he seems to be a good option but voting for him is fruitless.” The heart of the question is usually, why vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance to win? These types of questions I believe are antithetical to the Christian message and even to the Christian conscience. Has there ever been a time when you voted or have chosen something not because of its popularity but because it was the best option? Further, the concept of the lesser of two evils (pragmatism) is not a Christian position as it is Deweynian. As Gary North once stated: “The lesser of two evils usually is.” Your vote will not be wasted in Michael Peroutka!

Take for example Rhinehold’s argument concerning these voters who believe their vote is wasted:

What they fail to realize is that no vote for a candidate of your choice is ever ‘wasted’, even if it doesn’t end up electing a candidate. For example, if you live in Oklahoma where Bush is ahead in the polls 65% – 27% and you are thinking of voting for Kerry. Does that mean you are ‘throwing your vote away’ if you vote for him? Of course not. But time and time again people who are not happy with either current candidate or the way the two big parties have been treating them and putting candidates up for election are told not to vote their conscience and pull the lever against the lesser of two evils.

One further example will suffice. Suppose your father was running for mayor in a big city. The polls indicated that the top candidate had 70% of the votes and your father only had 3% of the vote. Now you knew that your father would make a better candidate. After all, he is honest and you have seen him in action every day. You know him to be a man of character and integrity. Beyond all that, he is a great Christian who upholds the Scriptures as his final authority in every area of life. Now, would you consider voting for your dad a “wasted vote?” Please reconsider your decision, I have.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. –John Adams

Visit the Constitution Party website and learn more: GOD FAMILY AND REPUBLIC

What about third parties?

Most people see votes on third parties as wasted votes, perhaps even worse than useless. The general assumption is, if a third party candidate has no chance of winning, then it is foolish to lower the chances of the next-best, big-party candidate. Voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate who can win would be better than voting for an ideal candidate who will lose. Read the rest…

Michael Savage the Theologian? Correcting terminologies…

aboutmichael_savage.jpg Instead of the usual “HELLO INFIDELS” introduction, Michael Savage, host of the “Savage Nation,” began his popular talk show program by boasting in the success of his most recent book: The Enemy Within. Believe it or not, good ol’ Savage is ahead of Clinton’s Memoir in many big cities in the country. It is really no big surprise that Clinton’s 950-page self-pitying, self-congratulatory tome is not reaching all the expectations that the former president thought it would. To top it off, the New York Times wrote a scathing review denouncing Clinton’s book as ” poorly written,” and “written in a hurry.” In yesterday’s post, Matt Drudge reported at least ten different cities in which the book seems to be in dire straits. It is not that My Life has not sold copies, in fact, it has even broken some records, but these records are not what were expected.

Michael Savage dealt with a few other, uh, let’s say “touchy issues.” He denounced, without any moment’s hesitation that Saudi terrorists are “sub-human.” “They are inferior to you and I,” he screamed. Now, let me see if I can be subtly theological without spoiling my political post. While our hatred towards terrorist actions (such as the recent beheading of two Americans and a South Korean) is justifiable, there is one fundamental presupposition we must carry amidst conflict or war (such as the one we are in right now); this presupposition is that all men are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28).

It is indeed difficult to conceive how such savages can so calmly and seemingly without any remorse cut one’s throat and still be called human, but the Scriptures still put all men in one category. Your heart and my heart cries for justice; we long to see these men punished as severely as their victims. We are infuriated with the extent of their religiosity and radical commitment to annihilate all that looks, sounds, and tastes Western. At the same time, we confuse categories by calling them “sub-human,” as if by putting them in a separate group we restore our own goodness or our innocence. To quote an unpopular verse, ” all our actions are as filthy garments.”

Of course, our actions are not as theirs, but our hearts are. It is corrupted and despicably depraved. We are still in need of cleansing, still in need of purification, we are still as wicked savages killing each other with our minds and seeking justice with our own hands.

So, should we seek justice? Yes. Are terrorists sub-human? No. But in what ways can we tie these two truths? Let me suggest that the imprecatory Psalms are one way. Yes, they are for God’s people and are to be sung, prayed, and read by God’s people. Secondly, we cishmaelite_prayer_gallery.jpgan pray that human justice will prevail and that they will be punished accordingly. And finally, we can keep bad people in the same category as “civilized society” (as some call the west). There is no such category as “sub-human.” All men are lost, whether be American or Saudi  until Christ by His Spirit conquers the hearts of men. In the end, our hope is that God’s justice, which has passed over us because of His love, may be applied to those whom He hates (Psalms 5:5).