The New Bush…

Ron Paul has stated that “overall he does not think that the (Obama) policies will change.” He is speaking of Obama’s foreign policy position concerning Iraq and the rest of the Arab world. Ron Paul is not alone in his assessment. The NRO’s James S. Robbins confirms Paul’s prediction by comparing Obama’s recent and first interview with Al-Arabiya with George Bush’s interview with the same network. He concludes with this sobering statement:

Meanwhile those who were expecting the sweeping substantive changes in U.S. foreign and national-security policy that were promised on the campaign trail will have to keep waiting.

President Obama and the Prophet Jonah

oath-cp-w6118666

I wonder if one day my children will ask me: “Daddy, did you really watch President Obama be sworn in?” The country stopped to watch the first black American president. There is no doubt this is a grandiose day.  My younger brother in Brazil kept IM’ing me asking my thoughts on Obama. The entire ceremony was primetime in Brazilian television and undoutedbly in other parts of the world. While the now former president George Bush was mocked as he appeared on the screen, the new president and the chief justice stumbled over a 35 word oath.

Obama’s  speech was a unifying speech in typical American pluralistic language. We are a nation of all faiths and we must all work together: Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists. In unambiguous messianic tone, Obama says, “that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.” Then in covenantal terms he ended, “Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end (emphasis mine).” And finally, the unmistakable political benediction: ” God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.” Obama’s speech echoed the same theistic generalities uttered by the previous president in the last eight years. It was, after all,  the “evangelical” Bush who said that Muslim and Christians pray to the same God.

The new president of the United States will probably not bathe his future speeches with evangelical language, but he has started this new phase in American history no different than the previous one. The Psalmist was not speaking about “the God of many understandings,” he was speaking about the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33); that nation will be blessed. There may be a temptation from many evangelicals to simply give up and abandon this political process. But this is not to be the Christian response. God calls first the household of faith to repent of our trespasses and then to call the world to embrace the God of Israel. This was the task of the prophet Jonah, who despite his anti-Gentile disposition, fulfilled God’s  prophetic call. May President Obama hear a Jonah in this land and may he, like the King of Ninevah, decree a fast and put on sackcloth and ashes and humble ourselves before the Trinitarian God.

Armageddon Foreign Policy is Over

The past seven years have attracted a new breed of evangelicals: Armageddon Christians. The neo-conservative foreign policy combined with George Bush’s personal born-again experience has been the perfect combination for Evangelicals, who fell prey to the crusade-like policies of the current presidency.

Since evangelicals in the late 70’s were duped into thinking that born-again Jimmy Carter cared about their concerns, one would think they would learn from their mistakes. However, the most consistent characteristic of Armageddon evangelicals is that they are consistently willing to try the same error more than once. For them, the world divides into two categories: Us vs. Jihadists. There is no attempt to look contextually into the reasons Muslims attack us; there is no attempt to understand the legitimate theory of blowback explained by Chalmers Johnson. Thus saith George Bush. But this is the same George Bush who said that Islam and Christianity pray to the same god. One has to wonder why the evangelical mind is so naive in matters of foreign affairs. After seven years of “holy war” blunders, it is conceivable that some Armageddon evangelicals will abandon their ways and embrace a more sober foreign policy. A sober view of foreign policy means abrogating any dream of managing history through the barrel of a gun.

Liberal common-sense

Some liberals have the common sense to speak positively of Ron Paul. Recently, Rachel Maddow wrote that her favorite Republican was Ron Paul because he is fearless and civic-minded in his beliefs and yesterday she had Ron Paul speak on the inadequacy of the two-party system and the bias towards third-party candidates. I understand she could care less about Ron Paul’s concerns on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy, but maybe a few of the million who heard him may.

I endorse Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States

John Quincy Adams famously wrote: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” I have tried to faithfully use that principle in political judgment.

Third party candidates have a long history in United States politics, however, there has not been an elected third-party candidate as president since 1860. Back then the reigning parties–Democratic Party and the Whig Party–were the only parties available. With the rise of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party ( a third party) finally took office. Lincoln led the country through its greatest and most despicable internal war. In many ways, he set an example that would be followed by modern day Republicans. Despite–in my opinion–Lincoln’s abuse of power, his example is a strong testimony to the power and origin of a third party system in the United States. In the 21st century, third parties have become overwhelming. These days anyone can start a party. Communist, socialist and even neo-nazi parties are part of the American democratic system. Fortunately, these parties are nothing but an iota in the great political scheme.

In light of this brief history, why is my family supporting a third-party candidate?  The first thing to say is that the Constitution Party is the largest growing third-party in the US. It was established to limit the Federal Government to its constitutional boundaries and to restore civil government to the principles our country was founded upon. It is a nationally recognized party.

Secondly, we are supporting Chuck Baldwin because he best represents our principles as a family. These principles are written in the US Constitution. This same constitution that has been trampled on for the last 40 years. This Republic has experienced more abuse in these last eight years than perhaps in the previous forty years combined. The presidency of George W. Bush has made the Constitution a forgotten document. The Patriot Act served as an example of how far American policies have strayed from the Constitution. It was in the process of discussing the Patriot Act that our current president uttered the famous lines: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a g*damned piece of paper!”

The Republican Party, in my estimation, is not a completely lost cause. Once in a decade it presents a man like Dr. Ron Paul who believes so strongly in the Constitution that it makes him the oddball in a room of Republican candidates, when in reality, he is the true heir to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Despite Paul’s immense success nationally and financially, it was not enough to give him the preeminent seat at the Republican National Convention. In fact, they wouldn’t even allow him in. This in itself shows the distasteful state of the “Conservative Party.”

Make no mistake, I am under no illusion that the Constitution Party under Chuck Baldwin’s leadership has a chance to win this election. At this point in history–despite Ron Paul’s support of third parties–Chuck Baldwin or any of the major third parties in the US today (Constitution Party, Green Party or Libertarian Party) does not have the slightest chance of competing with the billions of either major American parties. But this is exactly what makes the choice of Chuck Baldwin so appealing. Let me explain. In a day where corruption, fraud, immoral behavior, lack of Constitutional understanding and radical interventionism prevail in the Republican Party, the time is ripe for Christian citizens to stand up for the only thing that makes us who we are: our Biblical principles.

If we do not begin to vote as Christian citizens, we are no better than the ignorant who vote because of race or because of the free government benefits. On the other hand, some are more principled and take the “lesser of two evils” argument to new heights. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. It is true that there is no perfect party or candidate, but imperfect is not the same as evil. Some are very fearful that an Obama presidency will make our dream of abolishing Roe v. Wade a distant possibility, but it is wise to remember that the Supreme Court judges were largely nominated by Republicans.

What began as a decent attempt to restore conservatism in Ronald Reagan has now declined to the big-government “conservatism” of our current president. If the trend continues, and if McCain is elected (a doubtful proposition), the elections of 2016 will feature a historic election with identical candidates. What some have already coined: Republicrats. For some of us who observe the political scene, this has theoretically occurred. All we need is an official ceremony, a marriage ceremony that is.

While Palin is an attractive candidate (pun intended), she is only a puppet in the hands of the neo-conservative mafia. Some may look to 2012 as a Palin administration. But we do not do evil that good may come, if good at all.

The radio stars and the Fox elite will continue to uphold their supposed commitment to conservative principles, but what they will really uphold is their hatred for the left and unswerving validation of whoever the Right selects, even if in the end he is only a better looking clone of his Democratic counterpart.

In the words of Oscar Harward: “If John McCain is a Conservative, I am an astronaut.” What am I supporting if I endorse McCain? I am supporting someone who believes in stem cell research, someone who believes that abortion is legitimate under certain situations like rape and incest (which consists of about 15,000 abortions a year), someone who continues to expand America’s wars, someone who refuses to shut down the unnecessary 700 US bases worldwide in countries that have no animosity towards the US, someone who does not even blink before allowing the government to bail out anormous corporations (even some Democrats had better sense), someone who embraces global warming as a fact, someone who was part of the McCain-Feingold legislation, which regulates the financing of political campaigns, someone who will embrace illegal immigration, someone who abandoned his first wife because she no longer fit the model profile. If he has enough character to endure five years of torture, why does he not have enough character to love his sick wife?

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he opposes everything McCain stands for. He is filled with integrity, committed to an orthodox Christian faith and endorsed by Ron Paul.

If some accuse my family of wasting our vote, then I shall ask: What are you gaining with yours?

What’s with Rush?

While Joe Klein from Time Magazine blames libertarians for not passing the monstrous bailout, Rush Limbaugh has been libertarianiesque this entire week. “Get government out of our homes,” he said. Even the Constitution has been quoted positively:

I take you back to the preamble of the United States Constitution where it says protect the general welfare, not ensure it.  Folks, there’s a word for this.  It’s called socialism.  When the federal government’s going to ensure all these things for you and make sure that there’s no risk, make sure that you’re never going to lose any value here, which they can’t do.

Even Rush deserves credit once in a while.

What say you Kissinger?

After the sparring over what Kissinger said concerning engaging foreign leaders with or without preconditions, the world was waiting to hear from Dr. Kissinger. The Weekly Standard speaks first on Kissinger’s reaction:

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.

But again, as Sullivan notes “Kissinger was prepared to meet with Mao,” and he did say on Monday that the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran “without conditions,” ABC News reported. Will the real Kissinger please stand?

The Palin Phenomenon

The Sarah factor is only a factor because evangelicals have made it so. In my opinion, which by God’s grace will continue to be shaped by a Biblical view of life, there has never been a better time to vote on principle alone. For us Reformed theologians, I offer a sixth sola: Sola principium. I am continually befuddled by how evangelicals are amused by the perpetual trickery of their politicians. On one side, James Dobson argues persuasively that he will not vote for John McCain, and then “wallah!” the Palin factor walks in and Dobson alters his ever-changing mind. On the other side, the Republican media machine, which castigated McCain for his unwavering commitment to bi-partisanship, now praises him as the agent of change. When the “moral” force of a party and the entertainment side of a party join forces, it is time for Christians to abandon the GOP ship.

Biden’s Blatant Blunders…

Biden was chosen after all because of his foreign policy experience. This is turn ought to balance Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. The reality, however, is that Biden’s experience consists is perpetual inconsitency. His ideology is not sustained by any amount of conviction. As Stephen Zunes writes:

In fact, his positions have sometimes been so inconsistent as to defy clear explanation. For example, Biden is one of the very few members of Congress who voted against authorizing the 1991 Gulf War – which the UN Security Council legitimized as an act of collective security against the illegal Iraqi conquest of Kuwait – but then voted in favor of authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which the UN Security Council didn’t approve, and was an illegitimate war of aggression.

Whatever sympathies paleo-conservatives like myself may have towards Biden’s opposition to the war, it is far outweighed by the dangers of Biden’s future decisions in wartime: a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.