IT IS TIME!
It is time. Election 2008.
Some would consider these pages too slow at dealing with the upcoming 2008
presidential election. However, the whole process began too early. Now
we are just less than a
year from the general election and a few weeks to the first primary.
On the other hand, the Republican and Democratic nominees will be iced down
within a few short months. Thompson is finally an official candidate;
Brownback has already given up without having completed a single primary.
It is time.
Nonetheless, Christian 'leaders' are falling all over themselves to endorse
their candidate. Of particular note is
Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy
Giuliani.
"The
overriding issue before the American
people, is the defense of our population
against the bloodlust of Islamic
terrorists," Robertson told the National
Press Club audience. "Our world faces
deadly peril...and we need a leader with
a bold vision who is not afraid to
tackle the challenges ahead."
Robertson said Giuliani is "a proven
leader who is not afraid of what lies
ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision
for all Americans ... It is my
hope and prayer that he will lead the
Republican Party to victory in
November of 2008."
|
Paul Weyrech has thrown his support with Mitt Romney. Each
explain their decisions with the most secular reasoning.
Robertson pursues security and protection of Americans coupled with
a fear of the Democrats.
Similar to the church in Ephesus (Revelations 2), have we forgotten our first love?
Each of us, and only each of us Christians, are expected to follow God's
direction for decisions in our lives. The simple, generally easily
understandable, directions laid out in scriptures. Usually easy to
understand, yet extremely difficult to follow when we try to apply the truth to
our lives only to see our sin nature rebelling. Yet the Biblical Word is life. It is
truth. It saves us. We need to recognize the overwhelming benefit
both now and for future blessings by applying it to our specific decisions.
We must seek the scripture's direction (portrayed throughout this web site with
scriptural references). Since we have not been doing this, our nation is
now under increasing pressures from internal and external sources, all
legitimate instruments of God's judgment. Yes, God is judging us.
Our founders recognized the importance of acknowledging God with humility and
thankfulness for our blessings. They realized God's historical approach of
punishing nations who fail to recognize this and our need to give Him the
position He deserves. This fact is portrayed all around historical
buildings in Washington, D.C. Moses, the Ten Commandments, scriptures and
many Christian references are not hidden but solemnly placed on many stone engravings.
The foundation for our nation is reliance on Christ and Christianity.
Numerous quotes of our Christian founders portray this truth (some may be seen
here). Like
it or not, it is still difficult to hide.
In a nutshell, we should expect God's blessings upon a nation that recognizes
Him as the Sovereign. When the people choose to ignore or oppose their
Creator, instead of a nation ruled by God's revealed law and this largely
administered in self-control, the republic moves into a destiny of us being
turned over to our sins. We now need the powerful arm of governmental
force to direct our actions to help avoid actions that inappropriately injure
others. Secondarily we find ourselves under greater restrictions by the
government, an inevitable consequence of losing our own ability to follow the
golden rule and to honor God. Our freedoms and liberty have been greatly
diminished as we feed the policing force to deal with the consequences of sin.
Are we a healthy nation? Are we broken?
Evidence of judgment - we have embraced greed, leading to a poor definition
of "success" as
trimming workers or salaries to make more money for yourself. Hiring illegals instead
of legal Americans. Businesses going to other nations to avoid hiring
Americans, leaving Americans out of work or forcing an acceptance of lesser paying jobs.
To make ends meet, both spouses must work. Credit card interest in the 25%
range exhibits the greed of card executives and the enslavement of the people to
the creditors. Banks multiply fees upon fees to increase their profits.
They post deposits late, allowing the charges of additional fees. From all
directions, we feel increasing pain on each of us.
According to the foundational Declaration of Independence - we
have been given unalienable rights by God, rights that
government may not take away without implying the government is greater than
God Himself. These include life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Alas, our government has failed to help secure the right to life of the unborn.
Instead of performing it's duty of protecting these rights, our government has
become a huge encumbrance. Are
we really free?
As defined in terms our founders understood, the definitions of liberty and
freedom are taken from Webster's 1858 Dictionary-
LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the
body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the
will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys
liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or
volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit,
without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a
state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and
the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the
establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural
liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient
for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of
natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or
oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others,
which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man
from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are
essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from
him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty.
But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a
nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by
another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe,
or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on
religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the
dictates of conscience, without external control.
FREE'DOM, n.
1. A state of
exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery,
servitude or confinement. Freedom is personal,
civil, political, and religious.
[See Liberty.]
We find ourselves under more and more laws and regulations. We are told
these are to protect us. Yet virtually all of us find ourselves trapped by these rules.
Rules that are enacted by people who have not read the legislation. Rules
self-servingly interpreted by people with a lust for power, money and importance.
For example, we find children being removed from their parents due to anonymous
tips to governmental agencies. Even if the social worker truly is on a
mission to find facts, justice is fleeting. How many have been falsely
accused with damage to their children by overzealous or even well-meaning social
workers?
In the Mosaic law of the Old
Testament, two witnesses were required to punish a wrongdoer. Not an
anonymous tip. When anyone feels this is appropriate, there is a major
defect in their reasoning. The tip comes from someone who may have an
agenda against the other. We find ourselves increasingly bowing to the whims of the
police and bureaucrats who are incorrectly labeled the "authorities".
These are imperfect individuals given power by the people who pay their salaries
yet must cower before them. Not that they are any worse than the citizens
they have "authority" over but that there is inherent danger when they are given
such power. They used to be considered civil "servants" yet we now find
ourselves serving them. Everything we do is now falling under regulations
that oppress us with conformation to a governmental standard that invites
nothing beyond mediocrity.
Property is seized through abuses of Eminent Domain to steal land
for developers promising greater tax revenues. This is evil.
Ecclesiastes 5:19 Moreover, when
God gives any man wealth and possessions , and enables him to
enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work--this is
a gift of God. 20 He seldom reflects on the days of his life,
because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. 6:1 I
have seen another evil under the sun, and it weighs heavily on
men: 2 God gives a man wealth, possessions and honor, so that he
lacks nothing his heart desires, but God does not enable him to
enjoy them, and a stranger enjoys them instead. This is
meaningless, a grievous evil.
3 A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no
matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and
does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is
better off than he.
Ezekial 46:18 The prince must not
take any of the inheritance of the people, driving them off
their property . He is to give his sons their inheritance out of
his own property , so that none of my people will be separated
from his property .'"
On NPR's
Morning Edition
12/12/07 , Juan Williams discusses his recent trip to
(Communist) China and relayed the following comments:
Juan Williams: "...Construction cranes all over the sky, the
Olympic
stadium, the birds nest being constructed, all the work being
done all around that Olympic villiage. That huge society
that is in the midst of transformation and transformation means
to them, 'I want to get rich'. I met a developer who is
developing in Shanghai. He said, "I can do development
more easily in Shanghai than I can in Los Angeles! It
is easier to deal with regulations, deal with zoning permits,
all that is easier in Shanghai!"
Steve Inskeep (tongue in cheek): "Don't have to deal
with those pesky environmental reviews..."
Juan Williams: "Right! Because all the government
officials in China are judged on whether or not economic growth
is taking place in their areas....."
Our government has become an excessive burden, not beneficial to
the people. Even Communist China has some more freedom than we do
(clearly not so with human rights issues, etc.). Yet, why
should we be behind them in any subset of freedoms we should enjoy?Is this needed? Of course, simply by the march of time, we have
increased our burden as legislators lacking discernment feel passing bad laws is
better than not passing laws (also known as "doing the people's work"). The
people must agree to limited self-government rules so wisely laid out by our
founding fathers in order
for our nation to last. We have currently abandoned this.
James Madison wrote:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of
government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity
of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God
John Adams
in 1776 wrote: Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but
it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which
freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure
virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than
they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but
they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and
tyrannies.
Thomas Paine wrote: Those who
expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the
fatigues of supporting it.
Ask yourself, do we need major change in our broken nation? Are you
tired of increasing violent crime, decreasing kindness of our neighbors, of
increasing tax burdens to (inappropriately) 'fix' the problems stemming from a
lack of God in people's lives? If so, what
is the best way to get there? ancient ways
Jeremiah 18: 15 Yet my people have forgotten
me; they burn incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their
ways and in the ancient paths . They made them walk in bypaths and on roads
not built up.
When we personally help our neighbors, when we keep ourselves
from doing wrong by a fear of displeasing God and a love of Him and our
neighbors, we need no government. In a real world, our founders recognized
we needed government
due to sin and the threats against our liberties. Yet there is a direct correlation with the amount of
restrictions placed upon us and the lack of self-control. A great place to
see this impact is the enormous financial burden our growing government is
consuming to fix our problems.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord
is the Spirit , and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2008 Presidential Candidates.
All Democratic candidates are pro-choice. This means all violate God's
command to protect the weak. The weakest of individuals are those prior to
birth. They affront God with their embracing homosexual lifestyles.
Psalms 41: 41:1 Blessed is he who
has regard for the weak ; the LORD delivers him in times of
trouble.
Psalms 82: 3 Defend the cause of
the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and
oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked.
If anyone still does not know, RudyGiuliani is for legalized abortions and has
marched in at least one gay pride parade. Pat Robertson is for him.
Enough said.
Mitt Romney He has
switched from pro abortion to pro-life to his credit. He is a high level
Mormon whose pro-life stance falls under the greater authority of the Latter Day
Saints church whose stand is less than unwaveringly pro-life. They allow
exceptions based on the trespassing nature of the fetus/baby in the mother's
womb, not an 'innocent' life after all and therefore disposable. He admits
his own 'personal' stance is subservient to the church's official position.
Their definitions of Christian terms vary from Christian
denominations. You can bet his religious beliefs will affect
the way he makes decisions.
“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no
one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one
interest. A president must serve only the common cause of
the people of the United States”
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney
The founder's answer to this reasoning:
Patrick Henry:
It cannot be emphasized too
strongly or too often that this great nation was founded,
not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason
peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum,
prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
If you like previous Republican presidents, you may like
Romney. If you are sick of business as usual and recognize
the need for national repair, he is a step in the wrong
direction.
Fred Thompson has so far distanced himself from
an acknowledgement of the great importance of the moral issues,
aside from claiming he is pro-life and yet had chosen to represent
abortionists while practicing law. He does speak strongly for
moving back to the governmental constitutional limits which is
appropriate.
Duncan Hunter to
his credit, has listed first under issues
on his web site, the Right to Life Amendment he cosponsored. He appears
to understand constitutional limits. He clearly wants to fix
the border problem. Unfortunately, he says the following: "
I
also strongly support U.S. efforts to establish free societies in
Iraq and Afghanistan."
Tom Tancredo centers
his campaign on the border problem. This is a huge issue and
he has other generally decent values but he maintains some federal
government roles that clearly are not given to it by the
constitution, such as education, social security, Iraq, etc.
Alan Keyes Frankly
it is tough watching the only person who seems to understand the
loss of our critical Christian moral foundation and it's influence
on our broken government to be late coming in and ignored. Although he is
a great orator, he has again opened himself to marginalization by
the press and others. He clearly sees our demise due to
removing ourselves from God. Nothing is more important.
Not only can God save us, He can destroy
us and for anyone not to see this in the direction we are going, is
simply willful ignorance. Ignorance that will harm us. We need
to ask for God's mercy and to repent. Only then can we hope He
will hear and rescue us.
If we understand how
far we have fallen. If we recognize God's wrath has been
invited because of our arrogant, unrepentant nature. If we see
our nation's desperate need for revival in order to assuage our
increasing suffering at the hand of God Himself, only Keyes puts
this first. He recognizes this truth above the others, even
Ron Paul.
Mike Huckabee
As of less than a month before the Iowa caucus, Huckabee has become
the unqualified white knight of many Republican evangelicals who have
failed to understand the years with Bush and others. They are
looking for a uniting savior for their years of utter, frustrating
failure. Could a friendly pastor with gubernatorial experience
be just that guy?
If only he were.
His past shows a big heart for big government programs that
theoretically help people. He is very giving with your money.
He forgets that role is the church's, not found in the constitution.
He loves a balanced budget, one achieved through raising taxes,
especially for things like cigarettes. Instead of government
getting out of individual's lives, he wants to control it through
incentives and disincentives.
Worst, he has been given excellent opportunities to stand firm
for the Gospel and he has found ways to cleverly avoid
confrontation. He was asked in the CNN YouTube debate
(11/28/07)
Cooper: ...Now,
having said that, there
are those who say, "How
can you be pro-life and
believe in the death
penalty?"
Huckabee:
Because there's a real
difference between the
process of adjudication,
where a person is deemed
guilty after a thorough
judicial process and is
put to death by all of
us, as citizens, under a
law, as opposed to an
individual making a
decision to terminate a
life that has never been
deemed guilty because
the life never was given
a chance to even exist.
Cooper: Governor?
Huckabee: That's the
fundamental difference.
(Applause)
Cooper: I do have to
though press the
question, which -- the
question was, from the
viewer was? What would
Jesus do? Would Jesus
support the death
penalty?
Huckabee: Jesus was
too smart to ever run
for public office,
Anderson. That's what
Jesus would do.
(Applause)
|
O'reilly twice asked Huckabee (10/31/07)- “Do you believes Jews and Muslims
are going to Hell because they don’t accept Christ as God?”
O'REILLY: But a lot of evangelicals say you can't get to
heaven unless you believe in Jesus. And if you are
president, I mean, you are going to tell all of the
Jewish-Americans and Muslim-Americans you ain't going to
heaven? That's tough.
HUCKABEE: You know, that is not the role of the president,
to tell people about.
O'REILLY: That's true.
HUCKABEE: . going to heaven or hell. The role of the
president is to lead this country and to improve the tax
situation, secure our borders, to give us a sense of peace
and safety and let people believe whatever they want to
believe.
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: But do you think the voters have a right to know
about your religious beliefs?
HUCKABEE: Oh, absolutely.
O'REILLY: You do.
HUCKABEE: I do. And I think.
O'REILLY: Now do you believe that Jewish- and
Muslim-Americans are not going to heaven because they don't
believe in Jesus is God?
HUCKABEE: I think that is going to be something they will
deal with. But again, it is not the role of the president to
start telling. |
Well, it is the role of the Christian (especially an
ordained minister committing his life to serving God) to answer this
question. Nothing is more important than to tell what the
scriptures say, to tell salvation is only through Christ. He
could have answered simply, yes. He could have referenced the
specific scriptures (Acts 4:12, John 3:16, etc.). This doesn't
mean it is a license to mistreat others. It means we should
love others even more. Huckabee missed a great opportunity (a
soft pitch by O'Reilly easily a home run ball) to 1. Honor God, 2.
Tell the truth, 3. Use the platform God had given him to awaken
those perishing in a loving way.
Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the
other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani),
except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a
pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as
Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage,
pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?
Not only as a Christian but as a pastor, his answer is completely
lacking. This is similar to the way he responded to Anderson
Cooper. He believes it is wise not to offend people with the
truth. He chooses winning over risking losing for the right
reason. In fact, as a Christian, nothing is more important
than to stand firm for God's word. Doesn't he know we need to
change ourselves to heal this land and to avoid more judgement?
These should have been easy
questions for him to handle. If he believes the word of God is
life to those who are perishing, in these opportunities Huckabee has
been given, how many people heard a 'representative' for God answer
in a way that fails to peak their interest, show no overriding truth
for Christianity over other religions that condemn people to hell?
If I understand correctly, no matter what job or situation we find ourselves in,
the truth of Christianity and standing up for God and His word is
most important. Much more important than any president.
Huckabee is a mistake. He knows no constitutional
restrictions on the power of our government. He fails at
standing firm for God, every Christian's obligation to our wonderful
Lord. He will compromise our rights and finances away to
benefit his personal preferences.
Ron Paul
Well. This man knows the obtrusive nature of our government.
He is absolutely correct in his view of liberterian constitutional
values. He stands alone. He outshines Alan Keyes in this
manner. Yet as great as he is on the constitutional values, he
is playing a game with his own Christian beliefs and his willingness
to expose his own belief. Dr. Paul, from absolutely excellent
sources, such as Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin, former Presidential
candidate Michael Peroutka and others, has a strong faith. He
is likely a most sincere Christian who lives his faith. Yet,
he purposefully avoids the appearance of his faith in his decision
making. When pressed, he acknowledges laws of Nature
and of Nature's God. He overcompensates for those
politicians who wear their religion during campaigning in a
hypocritical way. Ok. I get it.
At the same time, to imply libertarian values will repair our
fractured nation, is a gross miscalculation. One that Alan
Keyes wisely avoids. Our founders were Christian, like it or
not. At most, three of the 55 signers of the Constitution were
Deists (5.5%), the rest were solidly Christians. (M.E.
Bradford of the University of Dallas, A Worthy Company: Brief
Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution
(Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), pp. iv-v.)
Perhaps Dr. Paul recognizes the necessity of moral and religious
people, he should:
Thomas Jefferson
wrote in 1781:God who gave us
life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath?
Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just
that His justice cannot sleep forever.
George Washington
wrote in his 1789 Inaugural address: The
propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation
that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which
Heaven itself has ordained.
John Adams on
October 11, 1798 wrote: We
have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would
break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes
through a net. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Glenn Beck CNN Headline News 12/18/07
BECK: You -- you say you want to cut all of
these things, and you want people out. And so do I.
You want to go back to more of a libertarian kind of
life, and that`s really where we started.
We were libertarians at the
beginning.
But I have to tell you, sir, if you read the
Founding Fathers` words, and I know you do, you`ve
got to be a religious and moral people. Well, we`re,
generally speaking, not necessarily religious and
moral people. There are people that will not do for
themselves.
How do you finally say to people, "You know what?
You don`t have a right to health care. You don`t
have a right to all of the things that we`ve given"?
Bloomberg just today is starting to pay people for
showing up to go to free school. How do you get off
of that?
PAUL: Yes -- no. Well, I think you just deny
them the benefits. And we will be denying the
benefits when we run out of money and the system
collapses. All I want to do is make sure we start
before we have the financial crisis.
But the -- we are an
immoral national, but the immorality is through our
government. You know, Bastiat, when he
wrote the law, he made this very clearly the point.
He says, if you and I can`t steal from our
neighbors, we don`t have the moral right to ask our
neighbor -- our government to do the same thing.
So it is the moral aspect of the law. And we have
become an immoral nation, because we think that, if
you transfer wealth through the government force,
that it`s legitimate, it`s an entitlement, and they
have a right to it. As long as we have that, no.
There`s no way. You and I will probably agree with
that. There`s no way we can solve our problem.
But if you feed the system and allow people...
|
Glenn Beck 12/18/07 Paul says "we are an immoral nation but
it is because the government is immoral". Wrong!!! In
reality, we, being immoral ourselves, have agreed to support an
immoral government. He is mistaken. We cannot pretend
not to need a huge governmental budget without changing ourselves.
We require a heavy-handed government when we need to be reeled in
from harming others. When our greed, our violence, our
selfishness, and our anger has no moral self-control, forfeit our
rights unless the government gives them to us. We violate
Natural law as our Creator had established and for that reason we
have the overwhelming obtrusive government we currently deserve.
As great as he is, Ron Paul minimizes this paramount truth.
Not only many libertarian values should be embraced but first we
desperately require the reformation of Christian values. It is
our only hope.
