“Once conservative, then liberal.” This is part of the long tradition of Supreme Court Justices. Republican voters cheer with great elation only to find out a few years later that their joy has turned against them.
Even staunch Republican Ann Coulter realizes how bad of a decision it was to nominate John Roberts to the supreme court. Coulter notes: “…let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.”
Adam Aranjo also had some interesting remarks which echoes my thinking. He writes that Republicans: “…don’t care about the “Christian vote” until elections roll around.”
Will this be another betrayal in this long tradition?
You may be a Constitutionalist if…
I know the election’s momentum is gone, however, if your ideas on politics are in a state of stasis, perhaps this will stir your political deprivation. In the past I have written rather sternly about why I think it would be a consistent decision for Christians to abandon the Republican Party and join the Constitution Party. So, for some of you who have never heard of the Constitution Party or have and are interested in learning about it, here are 30 propositions that may determine if you are a Constitutionalist. If you agree with all of them and still desire to remain in your party of choice, then at least you share the same principles we do.
This list is compiled from Chuck Baldwin.
1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that elected
leaders should really obey the U.S. Constitution.
2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before
the United States invades and occupies another country,
Congress must first declare war.
3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal
government should live within its means, like everyone else
is forced to do.
4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking
away people’s liberties in the name of security is neither
patriotic nor does it make the country more secure.
5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see
politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make
everyone else submit to. Continue reading “You may be a Constitutionalist if…”
Bush and the Lie
by Doug Wilson
Liberals are fond of calling the president a liar, which is just one of the things that makes our vibrant democracy such a monkey house. The only standard they have for measuring the truth is (apparently) the level of decibels. Lying at the top of one’s lungs is their idea of speaking the truth to power. So liberals are not the benchmark.
But with all that said, yesterday in his inaugural address, the president did use that august opportunity to lie to the American people. Advancing the course of his quasi-conservative syncretism, he equated the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Koran. Evangelicals who support the president are the very same people who object (and loudly) when college professors do this, when seminary professors do it, when pastors do it, when theologians do it, and when their unbelieving next door neighbor does it. All roads lead to God, or, as in this case, all the main arterials lead to God, happens to be false. Evangelicals know it to be false. When will those Christians who support the president politically show some theological backbone and oppose him in his role as false teacher?
Three Conservative Voices Analyze Bush’s Inaugural Speech
Chalk Another One Up For The Pro-Aborts:
Covenantnews.com – WASHINGTON — Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales, under scorching criticism from senators, condemned torture as an interrogation tactic Thursday and promised to prosecute abusers of terror suspects. He also disclosed the White House was looking at trying to change the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoner rights.
Pressed at his confirmation hearing by senators from both parties, the White House counsel defended his advice to President Bush that the treaty’s protections did not extend to al-Qaida and other suspected terrorists. Read the rest of the story…
Memo to Robert F. Kennedy
For those who have lately followed politics, you realize that liberals are in a great dilemma. They need to convince the nation that they are a religious people. Wow, what a task! But in order to do so they will have to re-write the Bible. Oh, let me give you a proof of this. Sandlin deals masterfully with exposing one of the greatest liberals in America after John Kerry.
By Andrew Sandlin
Thursday night, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was on Bill O’Reilly’s FOX News “Factor.” In light of the Democrats’ very public and very painful anxiety that they are losing the “values” debate with the American public, we should not be surprised that they’ve ramped up their Bible reading and Jesus-quoting to stay apace with the more Christianized Republicans.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose flaming political liberalism would make Howard Dean blush, is Exhibit A.
O’Reilly was pointing out that Kennedy’s uncle (President John) and father (Attorney General) adopted policies quite consistent with the present policies of George W. Bush that Kennedy, Jr. (nephew and son) so loudly excoriates: a preemptive strike (Cuba), big tax cuts, frequently invoking God’s name in speeches, and employing the Justice Department to aggressively uproot domestic crime.
Kennedy, Jr. responded not by defending his uncle and father but by quoting the Bible and church history. Namely:
Jesus defended those persecuted for their sexual practices (the woman taken in adultery); ergo, Christians should defend homosexuals today persecuted in being forbidden marriage.
Jesus said, “Judge not that you be not judged”; ergo, Christians shouldn’t judge the homosexual lifestyle.
The Pilgrims escaped religious persecution to come to the United States; ergo, Americans should be sympathetic with the homosexuals persecuted by eleven states that have refused to allow them to marry.
When flaming secularists start invoking Jesus and quoting the Bible, you know that orthodox Christianity is making cultural headway. But more to the point:
Jesus was quite willing for the woman taken in adultery to suffer the consequences that God’s law imposed (Jn. 8:7). However, there were insufficient witnesses who were without sin, i. e., the sin of which they were accusing her. Jesus forgave the adulteress and warned her not to sin again. This has nothing whatever to do with identifying as persecution the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Jesus warned us that if we judge, we would be judged by the same criteria (Mt. 7:1-2). He did not suggest that we are forbidden to judge, but rather that we are to judge righteously (Jn. 7:24). Jesus spent plenty of time “judging” people (Mt. 23!). And in affirming every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law (Mt. 5:17-18), he implicitly judged homosexuality to be a grievous sin (Lev. 18:22).
Now to the Pilgrims. They indeed came these shores to escape religious persecution. They were English separatists who broke with the Puritans, who, the Pilgrims believed, did not follow consistently the principles of Biblical Reformation. They were persecuted because they refused to be a part of the established church. To equate the persecution they endured at the hands of the ecclesial establishment with homosexuals’ inability to legally redefine (i. e., eviscerate) the meaning of marriage is not so much monstrous as laughable.
But we cannot expect Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to know any of this. He is a self-respecting secularist.
Ergo, he should quit quoting the Bible and church history.
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.