This is part II of my What's Wrong with America series. The first of about 35 posts ( ;-) ) on liberalism and how liberalism is destroying America.
"Thus says the LORD, "For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead In order to enlarge their borders." (Amos 1:13 NASB)
Roe vs. Wade. One of the Holy Grails of Liberalism. So desperately clung to, yet what is the meaning? Why the unwavering devotion to this institution of death? I am really at a loss. They say; 'it's a woman's right to choose' or 'it's about privacy'. The decision written by 'Justice' Harry Blackmun cited the right to privacy. So a woman's right to privacy apparently supersedes the right to life of a child. The problem with this argument is that privacy rights are superseded by laws protecting the health and welfare of others. As one of my friends often says, 'You have a right to privacy in your bathroom, but you can't build your bathroom any way you want. It has to be built to code because of the health and welfare of your neighbors.' A woman has a right to medical privacy, but is her right to privacy greater than the health and welfare of the unborn child? If a pregnant woman is murdered, (especially if she is obviously pregnant) the murderer is charged with two counts of homicide. If the unborn child is a person then, why not during an abortion?
The only justification I can come up with for abortion is in the event of an ectopic pregnancy where both mother and child will die as a result. In the case of rape and incest it is tougher, but I believe that giving the child up for adoption is far better than abortion.
Some statistics on abortion. From: The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Worldwide there are 46 million abortions per year, 1.37 million in the U.S.
That's 126000 per day and 3700 per day in the U.S.
Strictly U.S. Stats
While many abortions are on those with incomes of $15,000 (28.7%), over 50% are on those with incomes of greater than $30,000.
93% of abortions are because the child is 'unwanted or inconvenient'.
80% of all abortions are by those 20 years old or older.
These worldwide and U.S. numbers are staggering and I honestly fear for God's judgment on America because of it. For while God judged the heathen nations, he judged Israel and judges those who know or who have the opportunity to know Him much more harshly. Abortion is an abomination. It destroys a human life. The liberals will say; 'it's not human until it's born' but I say garbage. It is a human at conception. The DNA in the single celled embryo is the same as that in every cell of the newborn child and the same as in an adult. What do we say next, 'you're not a full human until you're 18, so if you become burdensome we'll just have to get rid of you?'
No. I agree with choice. The choice to wait until you are married to have sex. The choice to accept that the act of sex often results in the birth of a child. I also believe in the choice to either raise the child that you conceived, or if too burdensome, to give it up for adoption so that someone who is unable to have children or who wants another will take care of the child. This is part of the liberal religion that needs to be stopped. It destroys a life. Who knows the contributions to society that are lost due to abortion. Who knows the wonders that are missing in families due to this monstrous practice. I pray that this nation will come around and end this abomination.
23 February 2008
18 February 2008
Grace: Out of Control
A discussion my wife and I were having got me to thinking. I will take a break from my "What's Wrong with America" series and get into something I feel is a problem with mainstream Christianity. It is Grace: Out of control.
"The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." (Proverbs 20:23)
I work evenings, which doesn't usually create a problem with church, but our church (and the San Antonio church) had a marriage retreat in Fredericksburg this weekend. We didn't plan on going because my wife was going to run in the marathon, which unfortunately didn't happen. But because of the marriage retreat, service was moved to 6 PM, while I was working. As my wife was telling me about service, this scripture came up in our conversation and I had a moment where something clicked in me. I've often tried to think, well I'll follow the bible because that's what God asks us to do, I want to please God and it feels good to do the things God wants us to do. There is also the part of me that says; "If I do what God commands, I'll be rewarded in the end." Well, it is most important that I do what God commands because I love Him, but sometimes doing things to avoid negative discipline helps to get us through moments when our heart is not right.
I remember in the past and even recently thinking, I'll follow God's Word, because that's what it says, and I want to be right. But I also hoped that those who don't can still get by. I realized though, that this scripture about differing weights applies not only to us in our dealings with others, but also to God in his dealings with us. Much like it is unfair for illegal immigrants to be given rights greater than citizens or legal immigrants, it is not right for God to show favor on those who are unworthy, no matter how much He loves them.
So where did my thought process go? Modern day Christianity talks about grace incessantly. You see the preachers with the 'Joel Osteen smile', saying; "God loves you, and there are no limits to His grace." (which is true) Then the preacher will say something like, "Pray Jesus into your heart and you will be saved!" Excuse me, but I missed that scripture. Maybe it isn't in the bibles I have.
My bible says things like; "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'" (John 3:5-7)
It also says; "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
So Jesus says you can't enter God's Kingdom without being baptized, and Peter says your sins are forgiven at baptism. Therefore if you are not baptized your sins are not forgiven and you can't enter God's Kingdom. So why are there so many scriptures about grace? What I believe is this. Paul, who wrote most of the letters in the New Testament, was writing to Christians who were getting some things wrong. The Judaizers in many of the churches were trying to make the Gentiles in to 'Jews for Jesus'. Paul was trying to say; 'Hey, you're saved by grace, not the law!' He wasn't saying that baptism doesn't wash your sins away. He just didn't make a big deal out of it because he was writing primarily to Christians. (whose sins had already been washed away) Like Jesus' commands in Revelation to the seven churches, these people had already been cleansed of their sin, and Paul was instructing them on how to remain in Christ's love.
What this has transmogrified into in the 20th and 21st centuries though is this; you are saved by grace and baptism is merely symbolic.
Paul says of baptism; "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)
I don't see this as symbolic. Paul is backing up what Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3, and what Peter says in Acts 2. Baptism is necessary and is what washes away our sins. Once we begin living the Christian life we have to remember that we are not saved by following the Mosaic Law, or by being circumcised. We need to have a loving heart that is willing to obey God's commands. However, that doesn't mean minimizing the importance of baptism. Mainstream Christianity has relegated baptism to a symbol, little more than a cross on a necklace. We must not ever forget that God's grace is what saves us, because we are not worthy to enter God's Kingdom of our own merit. However, we also must not ever forget that we are saved and cleansed of our sins not by a prayer that was developed in the 18th century (and a misuse of the letter to the Church of Laodicea) but by baptism as commanded by Jesus, and reinforced by the apostles.
"The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." (Proverbs 20:23)
I work evenings, which doesn't usually create a problem with church, but our church (and the San Antonio church) had a marriage retreat in Fredericksburg this weekend. We didn't plan on going because my wife was going to run in the marathon, which unfortunately didn't happen. But because of the marriage retreat, service was moved to 6 PM, while I was working. As my wife was telling me about service, this scripture came up in our conversation and I had a moment where something clicked in me. I've often tried to think, well I'll follow the bible because that's what God asks us to do, I want to please God and it feels good to do the things God wants us to do. There is also the part of me that says; "If I do what God commands, I'll be rewarded in the end." Well, it is most important that I do what God commands because I love Him, but sometimes doing things to avoid negative discipline helps to get us through moments when our heart is not right.
I remember in the past and even recently thinking, I'll follow God's Word, because that's what it says, and I want to be right. But I also hoped that those who don't can still get by. I realized though, that this scripture about differing weights applies not only to us in our dealings with others, but also to God in his dealings with us. Much like it is unfair for illegal immigrants to be given rights greater than citizens or legal immigrants, it is not right for God to show favor on those who are unworthy, no matter how much He loves them.
So where did my thought process go? Modern day Christianity talks about grace incessantly. You see the preachers with the 'Joel Osteen smile', saying; "God loves you, and there are no limits to His grace." (which is true) Then the preacher will say something like, "Pray Jesus into your heart and you will be saved!" Excuse me, but I missed that scripture. Maybe it isn't in the bibles I have.
My bible says things like; "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'" (John 3:5-7)
It also says; "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
So Jesus says you can't enter God's Kingdom without being baptized, and Peter says your sins are forgiven at baptism. Therefore if you are not baptized your sins are not forgiven and you can't enter God's Kingdom. So why are there so many scriptures about grace? What I believe is this. Paul, who wrote most of the letters in the New Testament, was writing to Christians who were getting some things wrong. The Judaizers in many of the churches were trying to make the Gentiles in to 'Jews for Jesus'. Paul was trying to say; 'Hey, you're saved by grace, not the law!' He wasn't saying that baptism doesn't wash your sins away. He just didn't make a big deal out of it because he was writing primarily to Christians. (whose sins had already been washed away) Like Jesus' commands in Revelation to the seven churches, these people had already been cleansed of their sin, and Paul was instructing them on how to remain in Christ's love.
What this has transmogrified into in the 20th and 21st centuries though is this; you are saved by grace and baptism is merely symbolic.
Paul says of baptism; "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)
I don't see this as symbolic. Paul is backing up what Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3, and what Peter says in Acts 2. Baptism is necessary and is what washes away our sins. Once we begin living the Christian life we have to remember that we are not saved by following the Mosaic Law, or by being circumcised. We need to have a loving heart that is willing to obey God's commands. However, that doesn't mean minimizing the importance of baptism. Mainstream Christianity has relegated baptism to a symbol, little more than a cross on a necklace. We must not ever forget that God's grace is what saves us, because we are not worthy to enter God's Kingdom of our own merit. However, we also must not ever forget that we are saved and cleansed of our sins not by a prayer that was developed in the 18th century (and a misuse of the letter to the Church of Laodicea) but by baptism as commanded by Jesus, and reinforced by the apostles.
09 February 2008
What's Wrong with America: Part Ia - Republicanism
I originally wanted to do one post on Republianism, but I see one more is necessary. Amnesty. Conservatives burn at the thought of giving the 20 million or more illegal immigrants amnesty for breaking our laws and coming here illegally. But a Republican president and Republican congress did nothing about fixing the problem. Now, with the do-nothing Democratic congress it surely will not get fixed. Question: Why aren't Republicans siding with their conservative base on this issue? Answer: Because Big Business wants cheap labor.
Cheap labor is so desireable for Big Business that they will sacrifice our security for it, and Republicanism lets it go. What happens? You have millions of people being abused, overworked and underpaid. But you, the average American, get your products a little cheaper. But you also get porous borders and a devastating strain on our social programs. Add to that the millions of people who have applied to come here legally who can actually add real benefit to our society who are left in the cold.
If I was someone in Mexico or Guatemala or whereever I lived that could somehow sneak into America and provide a better life for my family, I would probably do it too. After all, there is very little deterrence. In fact, big business and the Republican Party has invited you in. The Democrats have invited you in too, (because they want your vote) but the Republicans are the ones who claim to protect America. So you come here illegally, you lay brick for $8 an hour, putting every other bricklayer out, because it is just too low a wage for an American to compete with. Or maybe you wash dishes for $3-4 an hour. Either way, it's more than you would make in your own country, but it hurts America.
Since business wants this continual flow of cheap labor, they leave our borders open. But open borders comes with another consequence besides putting Americans out of work. If poor Mexicans can cross the border, how about well-funded terrorists? How about gang members and drug dealers? We know that 90-95% of the people coming here illegally just want to try to make a better life for their families, but what about the rest? When you are dealing with millions of people, 5-10% is a large number of people who are up to no good. We are producing enough criminals out of our own population, we don't need to import anymore thank you. Truly it is just a matter of time before a major terrorist attack is carried out in America due to our open border.
So what should we do? Build a real border fence from San Diego to Brownsville, and then one across the entire northern border. Cut off all benefits for those here illegally with the lone exception being TRUE emergency healthcare. That means no school for children here illegally, no welfare, nothing. Slam employers who hire illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs and no benefits, the ones here with the intent of bettering the lives of their family will leave. They will self-deport. It will be possible to eventually deport most of the ones who remain as we catch them for speeding, DWI, drug crimes etc. Then we make it easier and faster to come here LEGALLY, while still ensuring that those coming here legally do not have criminal records, and are not carrying disease. We should not let people come here illegally and spit in the face of everyone who did it 'the right way,' just so big business can keep the profits soaring and the Republicans (and Democrats too) can keep getting their campaign contributions.
Cheap labor is so desireable for Big Business that they will sacrifice our security for it, and Republicanism lets it go. What happens? You have millions of people being abused, overworked and underpaid. But you, the average American, get your products a little cheaper. But you also get porous borders and a devastating strain on our social programs. Add to that the millions of people who have applied to come here legally who can actually add real benefit to our society who are left in the cold.
If I was someone in Mexico or Guatemala or whereever I lived that could somehow sneak into America and provide a better life for my family, I would probably do it too. After all, there is very little deterrence. In fact, big business and the Republican Party has invited you in. The Democrats have invited you in too, (because they want your vote) but the Republicans are the ones who claim to protect America. So you come here illegally, you lay brick for $8 an hour, putting every other bricklayer out, because it is just too low a wage for an American to compete with. Or maybe you wash dishes for $3-4 an hour. Either way, it's more than you would make in your own country, but it hurts America.
Since business wants this continual flow of cheap labor, they leave our borders open. But open borders comes with another consequence besides putting Americans out of work. If poor Mexicans can cross the border, how about well-funded terrorists? How about gang members and drug dealers? We know that 90-95% of the people coming here illegally just want to try to make a better life for their families, but what about the rest? When you are dealing with millions of people, 5-10% is a large number of people who are up to no good. We are producing enough criminals out of our own population, we don't need to import anymore thank you. Truly it is just a matter of time before a major terrorist attack is carried out in America due to our open border.
So what should we do? Build a real border fence from San Diego to Brownsville, and then one across the entire northern border. Cut off all benefits for those here illegally with the lone exception being TRUE emergency healthcare. That means no school for children here illegally, no welfare, nothing. Slam employers who hire illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs and no benefits, the ones here with the intent of bettering the lives of their family will leave. They will self-deport. It will be possible to eventually deport most of the ones who remain as we catch them for speeding, DWI, drug crimes etc. Then we make it easier and faster to come here LEGALLY, while still ensuring that those coming here legally do not have criminal records, and are not carrying disease. We should not let people come here illegally and spit in the face of everyone who did it 'the right way,' just so big business can keep the profits soaring and the Republicans (and Democrats too) can keep getting their campaign contributions.
06 February 2008
What's Wrong with America: Part I - Republicanism
I have realized there are a number of problems with America, and the problems are not minor. We are showing the sort of wear-and-tear that the Roman Empire showed. There are serious cracks in the armor of this mighty nation. I will have at least two more posts which go into other facets of what's wrong, but I will start with the Republican Party and Republicanism. For those who do not know me politically, I am an independent conservative so what I am about to say is not the ravings of a liberal loon. I have given much thought to this subject. Anyway, that's enough introduction.
Republicanism. To the left, it is a word that means right-wing extremism, overzealous Christians and Big Business without regulation. This business of Big Business is what I really want to address. Republicanism (not to be confused with conservatism) wants business to be able to do whatever is necessary in order to bring profits. I voted against Texas Proposition 15 ($3 billion for cancer research) because I know that the money won't cure cancer. The problem is that the drug companies and research firms don't want to cure cancer. Why would they when they keep getting money for research? If they find a cure, they'll be out of business, the money will stop rolling in.
The bottom line is this: there is a cure for cancer, it is the human body. The human body fights cancer all the time. But over the last 50 years (especially the last 20) the increase in chemicals in everything has skyrocketed. Our bodies are spending so much time trying to get rid of the toxins we keep poisoning ourselves with that they can't fight off things that they normally would. We have also handicapped our bodies with medication. Taking medication for everything has made our bodies weak in that they don't have to fight anything, as the toxins are getting stronger and stronger. We need more and more medicine. Sure people are living longer, right now. But we're entering an era where many of us will live longer than our children, becuase they are starting out with their systems being bombarded.
What about the food we eat? The most important thing our bodies need to fight toxins has been relegated to what is most convenient. I won't discuss the lack of the family meal in our current society here, but that is a problem as well. But we eat what is easy, what is quick regardless of what is in it. I have taken a lot of Chemistry courses, but I still do not know many of the ingredients in the average person's food. Here's an idea: eat more food with one ingredient. For example, I like to eat this yellow thing that has one ingredient. It's one ingredient is; banana. How about the yellowy-orange things whose one ingredient is orange? Those are pretty good. You see, we were not designed to eat massive amounts of chemicals designed to taste like something. Most packaged food is so stripped of nutrients that flavor chemicals (chemicals that make the substance you are ingesting taste like food) have to be added. Why is this the case? In order to take our kids to piano, ballet, soccer, boy scouts, girl scouts, karate and swimming lessons, we eat on the go. The problem with the one ingredient foods are that they usually go bad in a week. So you strip all of the nutrition out and it lasts forever...literally. But now it doesn't taste so good, so you add the neurotoxin monosodium glutamate (aka glutamic acid, glutamate, natural flavor, artificial flavor etc) which stimulates your brain to give you a 'high' and add flavor to make it taste like something. But you get zero nutrition.
What does business get besides a pass from Washington? Big profits. All these people who are getting no nutrition will need medicine later in life because their bodies will inevitably break down. The cost of processing all of this 'food' is relatively cheap because most of it is done in a chemistry lab somewhere in large quantities. (probably in New Jersey) Then drug companies get billions of dollars for research and the sale of medicine to treat all of these problems that should not occur in the first place. Look at the obesity epidemic in America. How about childhood diabetes? These did not exist 30-40 years ago. At the very least they were the exception. But now it's a 'genetic' problem. "Hey Fred, you've put on a lot of weight. Yeah Sam, it runs in my family." Really? Roughly 10% of America was fat 25 years ago now its 30%. But sure, it must be 'bad genes.'
Americans have taken the easy road, and Big Business along with Republicanism has helped them all the way to the bank, wholly unchecked by the government who is supposed to look out for us. Instead, Congress is worried about raising money for their re-election campaign. They are not doing their job of protecting America, but instead are looking out for their own bottom line. They are trying to figure out how when they get out of office, they can know the loopholes in the system well enough to make $20 million consulting Big Business on how to best rip off the American people legally. This problem is not just Republicans, but they are the bigger offender in this area. It is why the health of this nation is deteriorating, why our borders are wide open and many other reasons. More to come...
Republicanism. To the left, it is a word that means right-wing extremism, overzealous Christians and Big Business without regulation. This business of Big Business is what I really want to address. Republicanism (not to be confused with conservatism) wants business to be able to do whatever is necessary in order to bring profits. I voted against Texas Proposition 15 ($3 billion for cancer research) because I know that the money won't cure cancer. The problem is that the drug companies and research firms don't want to cure cancer. Why would they when they keep getting money for research? If they find a cure, they'll be out of business, the money will stop rolling in.
The bottom line is this: there is a cure for cancer, it is the human body. The human body fights cancer all the time. But over the last 50 years (especially the last 20) the increase in chemicals in everything has skyrocketed. Our bodies are spending so much time trying to get rid of the toxins we keep poisoning ourselves with that they can't fight off things that they normally would. We have also handicapped our bodies with medication. Taking medication for everything has made our bodies weak in that they don't have to fight anything, as the toxins are getting stronger and stronger. We need more and more medicine. Sure people are living longer, right now. But we're entering an era where many of us will live longer than our children, becuase they are starting out with their systems being bombarded.
What about the food we eat? The most important thing our bodies need to fight toxins has been relegated to what is most convenient. I won't discuss the lack of the family meal in our current society here, but that is a problem as well. But we eat what is easy, what is quick regardless of what is in it. I have taken a lot of Chemistry courses, but I still do not know many of the ingredients in the average person's food. Here's an idea: eat more food with one ingredient. For example, I like to eat this yellow thing that has one ingredient. It's one ingredient is; banana. How about the yellowy-orange things whose one ingredient is orange? Those are pretty good. You see, we were not designed to eat massive amounts of chemicals designed to taste like something. Most packaged food is so stripped of nutrients that flavor chemicals (chemicals that make the substance you are ingesting taste like food) have to be added. Why is this the case? In order to take our kids to piano, ballet, soccer, boy scouts, girl scouts, karate and swimming lessons, we eat on the go. The problem with the one ingredient foods are that they usually go bad in a week. So you strip all of the nutrition out and it lasts forever...literally. But now it doesn't taste so good, so you add the neurotoxin monosodium glutamate (aka glutamic acid, glutamate, natural flavor, artificial flavor etc) which stimulates your brain to give you a 'high' and add flavor to make it taste like something. But you get zero nutrition.
What does business get besides a pass from Washington? Big profits. All these people who are getting no nutrition will need medicine later in life because their bodies will inevitably break down. The cost of processing all of this 'food' is relatively cheap because most of it is done in a chemistry lab somewhere in large quantities. (probably in New Jersey) Then drug companies get billions of dollars for research and the sale of medicine to treat all of these problems that should not occur in the first place. Look at the obesity epidemic in America. How about childhood diabetes? These did not exist 30-40 years ago. At the very least they were the exception. But now it's a 'genetic' problem. "Hey Fred, you've put on a lot of weight. Yeah Sam, it runs in my family." Really? Roughly 10% of America was fat 25 years ago now its 30%. But sure, it must be 'bad genes.'
Americans have taken the easy road, and Big Business along with Republicanism has helped them all the way to the bank, wholly unchecked by the government who is supposed to look out for us. Instead, Congress is worried about raising money for their re-election campaign. They are not doing their job of protecting America, but instead are looking out for their own bottom line. They are trying to figure out how when they get out of office, they can know the loopholes in the system well enough to make $20 million consulting Big Business on how to best rip off the American people legally. This problem is not just Republicans, but they are the bigger offender in this area. It is why the health of this nation is deteriorating, why our borders are wide open and many other reasons. More to come...
04 February 2008
Extremism
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater 1964 Republican National Convention
We are entering a new political era. These words from over 40 years ago can stir the conservative masses. But where are we? There is no one running for president who exemplifies this. The two Republicans who represented this ran poor campaigns. The only person still running who is semi-conservative (Mitt Romney) does not really fit this bill. If elected, I think Romney would be a good to very-good president, but I don't think he will be great, because I honestly don't think he will do everything it takes to defend America. I don't think he is an extremist for conservatism. I hope I'm wrong. But truly, what are our alternatives? John McCain, whose positions follow the Mainstream Media? How about Hillary Clinton? She never met a crowd she wouldn't pander to. Barack Obama seems like a really nice guy, but what about his policies? He sounds as far left as Hillary.
Both Clinton and Obama would pull our troops out of the Middle East regardless of the situation there. It could be argued all night about whether we should have been there in the first place, but we made a big mess, and now we have to clean it up. If the left and right keep arguing about how and if we should clean it up, it will still be a mess. If we work together, we can say; 'Well how do we fix this now? We'll figure out who's to blame later.' That's not what we get from Hillary or Barack though.
What else do they offer? Higher taxes. Open borders. Infanticide on demand. Socialized business. The restriction of the first and second amendments. It goes on and on. While most of Europe is going to the right as they've seen the impact of socialism, America keeps going left. John McCain is only marginally better than Clinton or Obama. He seems to understand that we must win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's willing to leave our borders open. He fought for the Amnesty bill, and when overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, he (along with his co-conspiritors) tried to sneak it in again.
So where does Romney stand? He is pro-business. Now I am not a fan of business having free reign as they have under the Bush adminstration, but socialism is not the answer either. He is for keeping taxes low. He is certainly better on infanticide, immigration, freedom of speech and religion, and taxes than anyone else running. I also think he will do a good job managing the war. He couldn't do worse than Bush and Rumsfeld anyway. So I hope that on super tuesday, conservatives will make the right choice. I hope conservatives will vote for Mitt Romney. Even if he loses the general election, we can't lower our standards so far to vote for McCain because; 'He polls better against Hillary.' That can't be it. Romney is no Lincoln, but who is? He is conservative enough to be a good President. Here's hoping conservatism is still alive in America. We don't have an extreme conservative, but we have a decent one, if people will vote for him. The alternative is less than 'moderation in the pursuit of justice.'
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater 1964 Republican National Convention
We are entering a new political era. These words from over 40 years ago can stir the conservative masses. But where are we? There is no one running for president who exemplifies this. The two Republicans who represented this ran poor campaigns. The only person still running who is semi-conservative (Mitt Romney) does not really fit this bill. If elected, I think Romney would be a good to very-good president, but I don't think he will be great, because I honestly don't think he will do everything it takes to defend America. I don't think he is an extremist for conservatism. I hope I'm wrong. But truly, what are our alternatives? John McCain, whose positions follow the Mainstream Media? How about Hillary Clinton? She never met a crowd she wouldn't pander to. Barack Obama seems like a really nice guy, but what about his policies? He sounds as far left as Hillary.
Both Clinton and Obama would pull our troops out of the Middle East regardless of the situation there. It could be argued all night about whether we should have been there in the first place, but we made a big mess, and now we have to clean it up. If the left and right keep arguing about how and if we should clean it up, it will still be a mess. If we work together, we can say; 'Well how do we fix this now? We'll figure out who's to blame later.' That's not what we get from Hillary or Barack though.
What else do they offer? Higher taxes. Open borders. Infanticide on demand. Socialized business. The restriction of the first and second amendments. It goes on and on. While most of Europe is going to the right as they've seen the impact of socialism, America keeps going left. John McCain is only marginally better than Clinton or Obama. He seems to understand that we must win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's willing to leave our borders open. He fought for the Amnesty bill, and when overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, he (along with his co-conspiritors) tried to sneak it in again.
So where does Romney stand? He is pro-business. Now I am not a fan of business having free reign as they have under the Bush adminstration, but socialism is not the answer either. He is for keeping taxes low. He is certainly better on infanticide, immigration, freedom of speech and religion, and taxes than anyone else running. I also think he will do a good job managing the war. He couldn't do worse than Bush and Rumsfeld anyway. So I hope that on super tuesday, conservatives will make the right choice. I hope conservatives will vote for Mitt Romney. Even if he loses the general election, we can't lower our standards so far to vote for McCain because; 'He polls better against Hillary.' That can't be it. Romney is no Lincoln, but who is? He is conservative enough to be a good President. Here's hoping conservatism is still alive in America. We don't have an extreme conservative, but we have a decent one, if people will vote for him. The alternative is less than 'moderation in the pursuit of justice.'
03 February 2008
Super Sunday/Evangelism Linebacker
Well its Super Sunday and we have a clear choice to make. Jesus. The evangelism linebacker will 'blow you up' if you're afraid to share Christ with others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM5UlXXRuT8
And now, about the football game. There is a clear choice even if you're not fortunate enough to be a Giants fan. It is the underdog Giants trying to stop the greatest team that ever cheated. Now the Patriots are extremely talented, but if the Giants play their best football, as they've been playing for a few weeks, and they can force the Belicheats to make a mistake or two, they can win. I think the key is early pressure on Brady, getting a few sacks, and putting him on the ground a few more times and generally getting pressure on him. If the Giants offense can run the ball effectively and pound the Pats linebackers and secondary with Brandon Jacobs early they will open up the run later for Ahmad Bradshaw's explosive running. An effective running game will also open up the pass for Manning and he won't have to force anything. He is playing well right now, but he plays best when he doesn't have to force things all game. He can usually make things happen for a drive or two, but if he's forcing the ball downfield all game he is likely to make a mistake. The Giants can win, but it won't be easy. My prediction: Giants win 31-30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM5UlXXRuT8
And now, about the football game. There is a clear choice even if you're not fortunate enough to be a Giants fan. It is the underdog Giants trying to stop the greatest team that ever cheated. Now the Patriots are extremely talented, but if the Giants play their best football, as they've been playing for a few weeks, and they can force the Belicheats to make a mistake or two, they can win. I think the key is early pressure on Brady, getting a few sacks, and putting him on the ground a few more times and generally getting pressure on him. If the Giants offense can run the ball effectively and pound the Pats linebackers and secondary with Brandon Jacobs early they will open up the run later for Ahmad Bradshaw's explosive running. An effective running game will also open up the pass for Manning and he won't have to force anything. He is playing well right now, but he plays best when he doesn't have to force things all game. He can usually make things happen for a drive or two, but if he's forcing the ball downfield all game he is likely to make a mistake. The Giants can win, but it won't be easy. My prediction: Giants win 31-30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)