This ought to be a wake up call to the American people to get us to go back to the idea of non interventionism and non entangling alliances. So let's see, we have supported Osama, Sadam, the Shah, and now Musharraf. $5 billion in aid to Pakistan is unaccounted for. Who knows, maybe some of that money bought the bullets that killed Bhutto.
This idea really needs to be pushed in the Ron Paul candidacy. He was on Morning Joe minutes before news broke of Bhutto's death and he mentioned Pakistan was about to "blow up."
No foreign aid, no entangling alliances.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Threat of Islamofascism
Islamofascism. If you said this word prior to Sept 11, 2001, people would have looked at you like you were either nuts or some sort of college professor. Nowadays, it is an accepted term in the political vernacular used to describe the ideology of those muslims who wish to force strict adherence to the Koran upon ALL the world. There are certainly those among all the major religions of the world who seek the domination of the world by their religion. The Pope sees himself as ruler of the world. There are those within protestantism that are seeking the physical dominion of the whole world under the law of God. But islamofascism is different in that the adherents of such philosophy seek the "death of the west" and uses physical threats, terrorism, and anything else at their disposal to destroy anything judeo-christian and eventually anything that is not in accord with the Koran. There are indeed islamofascists and they have a passion for annihilating all things akin to western civilization.
Let me use an illustration. When I was in ninth grade, my mother had moved my brother and me close to family in New York State. I was new to the school, naturally shy, and the first few weeks really kept to myself. Several of the first few people to "greet" me were a part of the "clique" affectionately known as the "Burnouts." These were kids on the outs from most of the other kids and took to things like smokes, drugs, alcohol, heavy metal, and denim jackets at a greater proportion than the rest of us. They also enjoyed threatening people. On a few occasions during those first few weeks, I was threatened to be dumped in a trash can, beat up, and on one occasion told that after school, I was going to be "dead" after standing up to one. Now, I was a decent size guy even at 14 and clearly when I stood up to them in strength, there really was no threat in the sense that it would or could actually occur. Sure the one guy said I was going to die, but did I die that afternoon? Did he even try to kill me? Did we even see each other? No.
We hear many a threat throughout our lifetime. But it is not truly threatening UNLESS we believe there is truly an intent to carry it out AND the ability to carry it out. So it is in the world in which we live. We hear threats all the time. This nation here or that group there calling out "Death to America" or burning our president in effigy. Now, if we are to react to all these threats simply because they are spoken, then we will be on the offensive EVERYWHERE in the world and even within our own borders. And the more we go on such offensives, the more these supposed threats will increase.
But what if the person, group, or nation has no way of following through on such threat? Listen to the so-called conservative pundits and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or should it be every Muhammed, Mahmud, and Abdul) that rattles off a curse of the US has the capability to destroy the west and therefore needs to have his country destroyed and we prop up a government loyal to us.
So what is the answer? Those of us who adhere to a "non-interventionist" policy are accused of being soft on terror and that we are "taking our marching orders from the enemy." But isn't killing or imprisoning anyone who ever curses us truly "taking marching orders?" The islamofascists want us to attack, want us to occupy, want us to go after them for what greater rallying cry is there to the rest of the muslim world to join their cause in hating the west and seeking an islamic world?
Without our bombing there is NO rally cry for those few who truly espouse the islamofascist worldview. Without our attacking and/ or sanctioning, there is no appeal to the average middle easterner who simply wants to do what every man wants to do, live his life in peace. Without our occupation, there is no way to recruit others in droves to the terrorist martyrdom that so many now embrace.
The motivation of islamofascism is real but the ability to carry out such world domination dreams is not. Only by our constant intervention in other nations around the world is there even the possibility that that muslim minority which holds this can persuade the majority of muslims in the rest of the world to rise up and seek this islamis world order.
But what is the real threat of these islamofascists? Or should I ask, when does one who spouts hatred, curses, and threats become one that is now so threatening that we must take action? Should we consider anyone, anywhere, a serious threat, when they threaten us?
Let me use an illustration. When I was in ninth grade, my mother had moved my brother and me close to family in New York State. I was new to the school, naturally shy, and the first few weeks really kept to myself. Several of the first few people to "greet" me were a part of the "clique" affectionately known as the "Burnouts." These were kids on the outs from most of the other kids and took to things like smokes, drugs, alcohol, heavy metal, and denim jackets at a greater proportion than the rest of us. They also enjoyed threatening people. On a few occasions during those first few weeks, I was threatened to be dumped in a trash can, beat up, and on one occasion told that after school, I was going to be "dead" after standing up to one. Now, I was a decent size guy even at 14 and clearly when I stood up to them in strength, there really was no threat in the sense that it would or could actually occur. Sure the one guy said I was going to die, but did I die that afternoon? Did he even try to kill me? Did we even see each other? No.
We hear many a threat throughout our lifetime. But it is not truly threatening UNLESS we believe there is truly an intent to carry it out AND the ability to carry it out. So it is in the world in which we live. We hear threats all the time. This nation here or that group there calling out "Death to America" or burning our president in effigy. Now, if we are to react to all these threats simply because they are spoken, then we will be on the offensive EVERYWHERE in the world and even within our own borders. And the more we go on such offensives, the more these supposed threats will increase.
But what if the person, group, or nation has no way of following through on such threat? Listen to the so-called conservative pundits and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or should it be every Muhammed, Mahmud, and Abdul) that rattles off a curse of the US has the capability to destroy the west and therefore needs to have his country destroyed and we prop up a government loyal to us.
So what is the answer? Those of us who adhere to a "non-interventionist" policy are accused of being soft on terror and that we are "taking our marching orders from the enemy." But isn't killing or imprisoning anyone who ever curses us truly "taking marching orders?" The islamofascists want us to attack, want us to occupy, want us to go after them for what greater rallying cry is there to the rest of the muslim world to join their cause in hating the west and seeking an islamic world?
Without our bombing there is NO rally cry for those few who truly espouse the islamofascist worldview. Without our attacking and/ or sanctioning, there is no appeal to the average middle easterner who simply wants to do what every man wants to do, live his life in peace. Without our occupation, there is no way to recruit others in droves to the terrorist martyrdom that so many now embrace.
The motivation of islamofascism is real but the ability to carry out such world domination dreams is not. Only by our constant intervention in other nations around the world is there even the possibility that that muslim minority which holds this can persuade the majority of muslims in the rest of the world to rise up and seek this islamis world order.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Ron Paul, 6 Million Dollar Man
Unbelievable. That is sometimes a trite word but it certainly applies to fundraising results of Dr Ron Paul's December 16 Tea Party. Imagine, a second tier candidate who holds what many consider either outlandish, out of bounds, or outdated ideas raking in that kind of manoy with three weeks to go to Iowa. That also puts him at around $18 million for the quarter with $20 million in sight.
What about Ron Paul stirs up this kind of emotion and passion? After all, it is one thing to put a bumper sticker on your car, support one candidate over another, or even donate $20. But to pull in this kind of money from people of all walks of life, from all over the political spectrum is amazing. I mean, if you pull five donors at random, you are likely to get people from the far left left, far right, and everywhere in between supporting his candidacy. You might have a Bible believing pro life evangelical, a pot head, a conspiracy theorist, a gold standard sound money economist, and an antiwar activist. What draws them together in this epitome of "Politics makes strange bedfellows?"
I believe there are three common denominators among most, if not all Ron Paul supporters. These three are related yet distinct and all have to do primarily with the role of government. They are strict constitutionalism, belief in decentralization of govt, and a basic mistrust of govt.
Strict constitutionalism is the view that when our founders signed our constitution, there was a definite intent in following it in the most strict and literal way. Also, when an office holder takes a vow to defend the constitution, he or she is swearing to uphold this in its literal sense and ought to support and vote in such a way that the constitution is not compromised, even when it might go against public opinion or even one's own opinion.
Belief in decentralization of government simply means a philosphical belief that the "higher" in government you go, the less involvement in our personal lives, that government ought to be. For example, it is one thing for a local government to be involved in education through the school board but it is entirely inappropriate for the federal government to have a say in the issue.
Mistrust of Government is not something you hear much of these days but it is very simple. It means that you are wary of the rules, laws, bills of government and that its citizens ought to keep a careful eye on the government to avoid abuses. the old saying has been proven true time and again. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now, if you read our founding fathers on these issues, you read of all three of these in all of their writings. We are to have a healthy mistrust of government and therefore establish checks and balances in the levels of government and the branches of govt. We are to basically have a view toward decentralization and put more responsibility in the lower levels of govt rather than the higher levels. Of course, we are to abide by our constitution literally, which puts in place checks, balances, and limitations because of the mistrust of govt and the protection of the powers of the more local governments from the federal governement.
The candidacy of Ron Paul echoes back to these ideas and the founding fathers. Listen to Ron Paul speak and you might hear what our founders believed and were willing to die for. Pay careful attention to these themes and on any issue, the proverbial light will go on in your head. You will see how, on every issue and at all times, this humble little man is speaking the truths of America, the constitution, and freedom. No wonder he is the 6 Million Dollar Man today!
What about Ron Paul stirs up this kind of emotion and passion? After all, it is one thing to put a bumper sticker on your car, support one candidate over another, or even donate $20. But to pull in this kind of money from people of all walks of life, from all over the political spectrum is amazing. I mean, if you pull five donors at random, you are likely to get people from the far left left, far right, and everywhere in between supporting his candidacy. You might have a Bible believing pro life evangelical, a pot head, a conspiracy theorist, a gold standard sound money economist, and an antiwar activist. What draws them together in this epitome of "Politics makes strange bedfellows?"
I believe there are three common denominators among most, if not all Ron Paul supporters. These three are related yet distinct and all have to do primarily with the role of government. They are strict constitutionalism, belief in decentralization of govt, and a basic mistrust of govt.
Strict constitutionalism is the view that when our founders signed our constitution, there was a definite intent in following it in the most strict and literal way. Also, when an office holder takes a vow to defend the constitution, he or she is swearing to uphold this in its literal sense and ought to support and vote in such a way that the constitution is not compromised, even when it might go against public opinion or even one's own opinion.
Belief in decentralization of government simply means a philosphical belief that the "higher" in government you go, the less involvement in our personal lives, that government ought to be. For example, it is one thing for a local government to be involved in education through the school board but it is entirely inappropriate for the federal government to have a say in the issue.
Mistrust of Government is not something you hear much of these days but it is very simple. It means that you are wary of the rules, laws, bills of government and that its citizens ought to keep a careful eye on the government to avoid abuses. the old saying has been proven true time and again. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now, if you read our founding fathers on these issues, you read of all three of these in all of their writings. We are to have a healthy mistrust of government and therefore establish checks and balances in the levels of government and the branches of govt. We are to basically have a view toward decentralization and put more responsibility in the lower levels of govt rather than the higher levels. Of course, we are to abide by our constitution literally, which puts in place checks, balances, and limitations because of the mistrust of govt and the protection of the powers of the more local governments from the federal governement.
The candidacy of Ron Paul echoes back to these ideas and the founding fathers. Listen to Ron Paul speak and you might hear what our founders believed and were willing to die for. Pay careful attention to these themes and on any issue, the proverbial light will go on in your head. You will see how, on every issue and at all times, this humble little man is speaking the truths of America, the constitution, and freedom. No wonder he is the 6 Million Dollar Man today!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Open Letter to Fellow Ron Paul Supporters
Hello all,
I opened up the paper today to look for a letter to the editor from my pastor, Jon Smith of Post Falls Presbyterian. (Just FYI, if ever you want to attend a service much akin to one from the revolutionary times, join us!) In case you didn't catch it, it was a reprint of a letter to Gov Otter telling him of a very brief conversation Pastor Smith had with a local National Guard recruit at the mall. He asked him if he would go door to door confiscating guns if ever he were told to do so to which the national guardsmen responded, "I would follow orders."
ANYWAY, I was a little surprised to see a second letter from someone pretty well known in our community as a "White Pride" man and self pronounced "conspiratologist," Richard Masker. Now, everyone should be, WITHIN their realm of influence, speaking up and out for Ron Paul. The prolife evangelical in his churc h, the militia man in his regiment, the CTer in his 911 conspiracy theory meetup, the anarchists at their flag burning times, the pro drug crowd when they are burning something else, the economist when he talks $$ over cigars and brandy. I know I am stereotyping but I am angry when we take this outside our realm of influence and talk about Ron Paul wanting to expose some sort of neo Bolshevik conspiracy. I really feel this is completely counter productive and playing into the hands of those who are just licking their chops to label Ron Paul a nazi flag carrying member of the aryan nation.
So, I appeal to all of your better judgement. While I want Ron Paul to be president of all the people of the US, no matter creed, color, or culture, I think we all need to be very careful in what ways we seek to support Dr Paul's candidacy. I, for one, do not want to hear about how building 7 was brought down by explosives, how the illuminati masons are in some small room pulling the strings of the nations, or how Ron Paul is secretly running for the libertarian nomination. These kinds of conjectures have no place in serious campaigns. Is there not enough problems with the system (as is clearly seen) to deal with. Is the war in Iraq, our failing dollar, an out of control judiciary, a hell bent IRS, wire tapping, illegal searches, torture, GITMO, Roe v Wade, the ATF, CIA, FBI, NAFTA, the NAU, the shutting down of the liberty dollar, the federal reserve, the Patriot Act, federal program after federal program, the national ID card, and all the rest NOT ENOUGH for some of you?
Bill
I opened up the paper today to look for a letter to the editor from my pastor, Jon Smith of Post Falls Presbyterian. (Just FYI, if ever you want to attend a service much akin to one from the revolutionary times, join us!) In case you didn't catch it, it was a reprint of a letter to Gov Otter telling him of a very brief conversation Pastor Smith had with a local National Guard recruit at the mall. He asked him if he would go door to door confiscating guns if ever he were told to do so to which the national guardsmen responded, "I would follow orders."
ANYWAY, I was a little surprised to see a second letter from someone pretty well known in our community as a "White Pride" man and self pronounced "conspiratologist," Richard Masker. Now, everyone should be, WITHIN their realm of influence, speaking up and out for Ron Paul. The prolife evangelical in his churc h, the militia man in his regiment, the CTer in his 911 conspiracy theory meetup, the anarchists at their flag burning times, the pro drug crowd when they are burning something else, the economist when he talks $$ over cigars and brandy. I know I am stereotyping but I am angry when we take this outside our realm of influence and talk about Ron Paul wanting to expose some sort of neo Bolshevik conspiracy. I really feel this is completely counter productive and playing into the hands of those who are just licking their chops to label Ron Paul a nazi flag carrying member of the aryan nation.
So, I appeal to all of your better judgement. While I want Ron Paul to be president of all the people of the US, no matter creed, color, or culture, I think we all need to be very careful in what ways we seek to support Dr Paul's candidacy. I, for one, do not want to hear about how building 7 was brought down by explosives, how the illuminati masons are in some small room pulling the strings of the nations, or how Ron Paul is secretly running for the libertarian nomination. These kinds of conjectures have no place in serious campaigns. Is there not enough problems with the system (as is clearly seen) to deal with. Is the war in Iraq, our failing dollar, an out of control judiciary, a hell bent IRS, wire tapping, illegal searches, torture, GITMO, Roe v Wade, the ATF, CIA, FBI, NAFTA, the NAU, the shutting down of the liberty dollar, the federal reserve, the Patriot Act, federal program after federal program, the national ID card, and all the rest NOT ENOUGH for some of you?
Bill
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
National Guard: Defend Constitution or Obey Orders?
The town of Coeur d'Alene, ID is a beautiful place. I moved my family here nearly three and a half years ago from Ft Lauderdale, Fla and have loved my time here. It is absolutely beautiful here on the lake at the base of the Rocky Mountains. The people are as nice as can be, many of them right out of Mayberry with the way they would do anything for their neighbor.
But something troubling happened last week. My pastor was out shopping with his wife and like any normal husband at the mall with his wife, the constant trips to the dressing room and incessant questions about how this or that looks began to wear on him so he took a little walk outside Macy's into the mall. It just so happens that the first storefront outside Macy's is a National Guard recruitment office and since a few of us had recently had discussions about the unconstitutional confiscation of guns in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, my pastor walked into the recruiting office to ask a simple question of the lone recruiter, "If you were ordered to go door to door to confiscate guns, what would you do?"
You would expect some sort of discussion, perhaps some sort of appeasement, but there was none. He simply responded, "I would follow orders." Now, what would follow was a heated reply, a call to security, a trip to the local newspaper, and a letter to our Governor, Butch Otter. But no matter what happens with this situation, there is a larger question here. Are our National guardsmen, our policemen, our federal agents, our soldiers, our politicians, being taught and told to be good order takers or to be defenders of that which they take an oath to defend, even when it goes against a command? I am afraid that we are at the point that a "good soldier" (or guardsman or officer or agent) is now one who listens to physical authority and not necessarily THE authority, which is the constitution.
I suggest we ask those in such positions, if they are in their positions to take orders for their own sake or for the sake of the people and the constitution. Let's not go down the road of so many tyrannies of the past where we, in hindsight, point to the decision of soldiers, police, and politicians to obey those in higher position than they to the demise of their own law of the land, the constitution, and the people whose rights they are supposed to protect.
But something troubling happened last week. My pastor was out shopping with his wife and like any normal husband at the mall with his wife, the constant trips to the dressing room and incessant questions about how this or that looks began to wear on him so he took a little walk outside Macy's into the mall. It just so happens that the first storefront outside Macy's is a National Guard recruitment office and since a few of us had recently had discussions about the unconstitutional confiscation of guns in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, my pastor walked into the recruiting office to ask a simple question of the lone recruiter, "If you were ordered to go door to door to confiscate guns, what would you do?"
You would expect some sort of discussion, perhaps some sort of appeasement, but there was none. He simply responded, "I would follow orders." Now, what would follow was a heated reply, a call to security, a trip to the local newspaper, and a letter to our Governor, Butch Otter. But no matter what happens with this situation, there is a larger question here. Are our National guardsmen, our policemen, our federal agents, our soldiers, our politicians, being taught and told to be good order takers or to be defenders of that which they take an oath to defend, even when it goes against a command? I am afraid that we are at the point that a "good soldier" (or guardsman or officer or agent) is now one who listens to physical authority and not necessarily THE authority, which is the constitution.
I suggest we ask those in such positions, if they are in their positions to take orders for their own sake or for the sake of the people and the constitution. Let's not go down the road of so many tyrannies of the past where we, in hindsight, point to the decision of soldiers, police, and politicians to obey those in higher position than they to the demise of their own law of the land, the constitution, and the people whose rights they are supposed to protect.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Thoughts on Gov Huckabee
I remember hearing about Gov Huckabee back in the 1990s. It was so refreshing to think the people of Arkansas has seen the error of their Bill Clinton ways and vote for a bible believing minister to be Governor, even if he only "made it" originally because the previous governor had to resign. Still, I remember then thinking how great it was to have someone named "Huck" and prolife as governor.
Aside from that, I heard his name here and there but never in the national attention until this year as the GOP debates began. Originally, it was wonderful to hear his commitment to the life of the unborn, his opposition to L.O.S.T., and his belief in the true reasons for our second amendment. Of course, I have always been a Ron Paul supporter but it seemed that with Gov Huckabee, there perhaps was someone I could support in the general election if Rep Paul was not the nominee. I was wrong.
As time went along and the debates continued, more things became abundantly clear: Gov Huckabee was no real conservative and definitely no constitutionalist he claimed to be. My list of objections began to grow with each debate and interview I heard him. Originally, I of course had a problem with his support for the war, but his reasons for doing so (for "honor" even if it was a mistake, even if the whole of the nation was opposed to it) made no real sense. In an interview with Chris Matthews he was asked if he would sign a nationwide smoking ban in public place, including private property. He answered in the affirmative which shows his misunderstanding not only of prvate property (bad enough to sign as governor) but now also completely misunderstanding true federalism and the limits on the federal govt. He claimed to be Jeffersonian, but where were Jeffersonian and constitutional principles here?
As time went along, I also began to see that Huckabee was no conservative when it came to the role of govt altogether and especially spending. Apparently, there is not a program this guy does not like. In the debates, he has been for ethanol research, rubberstamping anything NASA wants including a manned trip to Mars, govt programs based on "need," and pretty much anything else under the sun. He even criticized the president for vetoing the child health care bill that came in at a cool $35 billion. Just about the only thing Gov Huckabee is for cutting is the income tax and ending the IRS. I applaud him for this but to make that your great appeal when you not only have to pass the fair tax itself but must coincide with the appeal of the 16th amendment, is hardly a walk in the park. What I am afraid will happen is that Gov Huckabee will get his national sales tax and we will still have some sort of income tax on top of it! It will be a real fiasco!
Turns out that Huckabee is more like GW Bush in the spending category than any other GOP candidate and the out of control spending is the biggest problem most Republicans have had with the Bush administration. Well, I should say the second biggest problem because there is also the issue of illegal immigration. More republicans are outraged with the administration over this issue than any others and yet Gov Huckabee falls very much in line with the president's position. Sure he is FOR securing the borders but ALL the candidates are for that. What does Gov Huckabee want to do for the illegals already here? How about scholarships in colleges? How about instead of shutting down the govt charity benefits, we come up with new ones? Huckabee has also supported a pathway to amnesty as well.
All this said, the latest from the Hucakbee campaign has really hammered in the final nails on the coffin of any hope I could ever support his candidacy. I see now that Gov Huckabee uses humor, story telling, and excellent personality to dodge issues, questions, and build trust with others a la another fellow from Hope, Arkansas. So what was orignally so appealing is now a turnoff for me as I see him not answering questions about the death penalty (Would Jesus support it?) and Mormonism (simply, as a Southern Baptist minister, is it or isn't it a cult?) and actually misleading potential supporters in telling the Amercian people what his part in the parole of convicted rapist really was.
All in all, Gov Huckabee turns out NOT to be someone with a couple decent core principles but completely misguided views on the role of govt and the way it spends taxpayer's money but rather a typical politician: one who grew up in the ways of manipulating people into the kingdom of heaven through an emotional look into the eyes, a well rehearsed good story, or a good joke and who now tries to do the same as he manipulates the truth or avoids his own positions to keep up his image of being well liked and to win the nomination.
Aside from that, I heard his name here and there but never in the national attention until this year as the GOP debates began. Originally, it was wonderful to hear his commitment to the life of the unborn, his opposition to L.O.S.T., and his belief in the true reasons for our second amendment. Of course, I have always been a Ron Paul supporter but it seemed that with Gov Huckabee, there perhaps was someone I could support in the general election if Rep Paul was not the nominee. I was wrong.
As time went along and the debates continued, more things became abundantly clear: Gov Huckabee was no real conservative and definitely no constitutionalist he claimed to be. My list of objections began to grow with each debate and interview I heard him. Originally, I of course had a problem with his support for the war, but his reasons for doing so (for "honor" even if it was a mistake, even if the whole of the nation was opposed to it) made no real sense. In an interview with Chris Matthews he was asked if he would sign a nationwide smoking ban in public place, including private property. He answered in the affirmative which shows his misunderstanding not only of prvate property (bad enough to sign as governor) but now also completely misunderstanding true federalism and the limits on the federal govt. He claimed to be Jeffersonian, but where were Jeffersonian and constitutional principles here?
As time went along, I also began to see that Huckabee was no conservative when it came to the role of govt altogether and especially spending. Apparently, there is not a program this guy does not like. In the debates, he has been for ethanol research, rubberstamping anything NASA wants including a manned trip to Mars, govt programs based on "need," and pretty much anything else under the sun. He even criticized the president for vetoing the child health care bill that came in at a cool $35 billion. Just about the only thing Gov Huckabee is for cutting is the income tax and ending the IRS. I applaud him for this but to make that your great appeal when you not only have to pass the fair tax itself but must coincide with the appeal of the 16th amendment, is hardly a walk in the park. What I am afraid will happen is that Gov Huckabee will get his national sales tax and we will still have some sort of income tax on top of it! It will be a real fiasco!
Turns out that Huckabee is more like GW Bush in the spending category than any other GOP candidate and the out of control spending is the biggest problem most Republicans have had with the Bush administration. Well, I should say the second biggest problem because there is also the issue of illegal immigration. More republicans are outraged with the administration over this issue than any others and yet Gov Huckabee falls very much in line with the president's position. Sure he is FOR securing the borders but ALL the candidates are for that. What does Gov Huckabee want to do for the illegals already here? How about scholarships in colleges? How about instead of shutting down the govt charity benefits, we come up with new ones? Huckabee has also supported a pathway to amnesty as well.
All this said, the latest from the Hucakbee campaign has really hammered in the final nails on the coffin of any hope I could ever support his candidacy. I see now that Gov Huckabee uses humor, story telling, and excellent personality to dodge issues, questions, and build trust with others a la another fellow from Hope, Arkansas. So what was orignally so appealing is now a turnoff for me as I see him not answering questions about the death penalty (Would Jesus support it?) and Mormonism (simply, as a Southern Baptist minister, is it or isn't it a cult?) and actually misleading potential supporters in telling the Amercian people what his part in the parole of convicted rapist really was.
All in all, Gov Huckabee turns out NOT to be someone with a couple decent core principles but completely misguided views on the role of govt and the way it spends taxpayer's money but rather a typical politician: one who grew up in the ways of manipulating people into the kingdom of heaven through an emotional look into the eyes, a well rehearsed good story, or a good joke and who now tries to do the same as he manipulates the truth or avoids his own positions to keep up his image of being well liked and to win the nomination.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Who Should Christians Vote for in 08?
I think as we look at Romans 13 we see we are commanded to submit to authority. Most Christians believe this to mean that we are to obey our leaders in everything unless they tell us to sin or forbid us to do something we are required to do. But this is not so, for when we look at Acts 16, we see something very out of place with this thinking. We see magistrates commanding Paul and Silas to leave quietly because the leaders found out they had had them beaten as Roman citizens. Now, the command to leave, was that commanding them to sin? No. Forbidding them to do something required? Not on the surface. So we must rethink what Romans 13 means...when told to submit to authority, does it mean to obey the physical men who hold office OR something bigger, the law of the land? Well, the text in Acts 13 leads us to believe that indeed when submitting we are submitting to the law of the land, NOT necessarily those in office. When those in public office follow the law of the land, they are to be obeyed. When they fall from that ideal, we are to hold them to such law of the land.
What is our "law of the land" but the US Constitution of course? In light of this, which candidate reflects most consistently abiding by that constitution and thus following the command from God to submit to the authority God has put over us? The only honest answer, my friend, is Ron Paul.
What is our "law of the land" but the US Constitution of course? In light of this, which candidate reflects most consistently abiding by that constitution and thus following the command from God to submit to the authority God has put over us? The only honest answer, my friend, is Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)