Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Glenn Beck Alleges Prez Guilty of Treason, Murder
Facebook suspends Navy Seals accounts, censors content to protect Obama in Benghazi disaster: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-obama-benghazi-meme-gets-censored-for-violating-facebooks-statement-of-rights-and-responsibilities/
Sunday, October 28, 2012
AmeriChussetts? Romney's "Evolving Consenus" on Key Issues
.jpeg)
The ultra liberal Des Moines Register just endorsed Romney and in so doing probably prophesied what a Romney presidency will be all about ... in a word compromise. So, looking back objectively, where did Romney the governor stand on the issues before he became Romney the Presidential candidate:
On abortion and the right to life (source ABC NEWS which calls him an "abortion moderate"):
2002: 'I Will Preserve and Protect a Woman's Right to Choose' While running for Massachusetts governor eight years later, Romney assured voters in the moderate state that he was "not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way."
2005: 'I Am Pro-Life' but, he also said he would uphold his campaign promise not to change Massachusetts' abortion laws."
2007: 'We Should Overturn Roe v. Wade' During his first presidential bid in 2007, Romney explained that he had "changed my mind" on abortion while serving his one term as Massachusetts governor.
2011: 'I Will Support Efforts to Prohibit Federal Funding for Any Organization Like Planned Parenthood' While Romney said repeatedly that abortion laws should be left up to the states, he told Fox's Mike Huckabee in October 2011 that he "absolutely" supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.
2012: 'There's No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I'm Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda' Less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney seemed to tack back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register this week that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda.So, it appears that on the issue of abortion Romney pretty well says whatever he needs to to get elected.
On the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms (source Politico:)
1.1994 “I don’t line up with the NRA.”, During his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney came out in support of the Brady Bill and a ban on certain types of assault weapons.
2. 2002 “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.” — Sept. 24, 2002, at a debate during the Massachusetts gubernatorial race.
3. 2004 Signed a permanent assault-weapons ban as governor of the Bay State. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said at the July 1, 2004, signing ceremony. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
5. 2006 Signed up for a lifetime NRA membership.
6. 2007 “I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American.” — Sept. 24, 2007, in a video address at an NRA conference.
7. 2012 "I will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes." But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.”So, again it appears that on the issue of gun control and gun ownership Romney's position is to say whatever he needs to say to gain consensus and get elected.
On HealthCare Mandates and Socialized Medicine: (source Slate):
June 21, 2005. In a Boston Herald op-ed, Romney outlines his vision: "Everyone must either become insured or maintain adequate savings to cover their medical expenses. We cannot expect some citizens to pay for others who can afford to pay some or all of their own way."
April 3, 2006. At a press conference, A reporter ask whether an “assessment” in the bill, which would charge companies $295 per worker for failing to insure their employees, violates Romney’s pledge not to raise taxes. Romney replies: "It’s not a tax hike. It is a fee. It’s an assessment. … "
April 11, 2006. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Romney writes: "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen. …"
April 12, 2006. Romney signs the bill into law. In the first paragraph of his press release, he proclaims: “Today, Massachusetts is leading the way with health insurance for everyone, without a government takeover and without raising taxes.” He notes that “failure by individuals to purchase health insurance will result in the loss of their state tax refund equal to 50 percent of an affordable health insurance premium.” But he describes this sanction as “penalties,” not taxation.
Aug. 24, 2007. In a speech to the Florida Medical Association, Romney says his “enforcement mechanism” for people earning more than three times the poverty level is that “when they get their tax bill … they’re charged $100 a month for not having bought insurance.” He calls the Massachusetts system universal coverage without “needing new taxes.”
Jan. 5, 2008. In a Republican presidential debate, moderator Charlie Gibson tells Romney, “You imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts.” Romney replies: “Yes. We said, ‘Look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. Don't be free riders and pass on the cost to your health care to everybody else.’”
July 30, 2009. In a USA Today op-ed, Romney touts the Massachusetts law: "First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar."
2009. In a CNN interview, Romney frames the tax penalty as an inverted tax credit: “It's a kind of mandate. It's a requirement. In order to get a tax exemption that you'd normally get, you’ve got to have health insurance, because we want everybody in the system. No more free riders.”
March 7, 2010. On Fox News Sunday, Romney says “we didn't raise taxes” in enacting the Massachusetts law. When Chris Wallace objects that “you have an individual mandate,” Romney replies that the Massachusetts law, unlike Obamacare, entails “no new taxes,” even though residents of Massachusetts who “don't buy insurance” will “find that their taxes are higher.”
April 15, 2010. In a speech at Claremont McKenna College, Romney repeats what he told Wallace: “If you don’t buy it, you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance.”
June 28, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Obama’s individual mandate is unconstitutional as regulation of commerce but is constitutional if interpreted as a tax. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, quickly declares, “The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.” But Romney, speaking a few minutes later, doesn’t bite. He confines his comments about taxation in the law to provisions other than the mandate.
July 2, 2012. On MSNBC, Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior adviser and spokesman, tells Chuck Todd, “The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.” He continues:
Fehrnstrom: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty, and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax. But again—
Todd: So he agrees with the president … and he believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
Fehrnstrom: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his hypocritical and contradictory statements. But he’s described it variously as a penalty and as a tax.
July 2, 2012. Lest anyone mistake Fehrnstrom's comments as a spontaneous rogue error, the Romney campaign issues a press release quoting spokeswoman Andrea Saul:
The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?”
July 4, 2012. In an interview with Jan Crawford of CBS News—six days after the Supreme Court ruling, six days after declaring his disagreement with the ruling, and two days after his campaign issued a press release reaffirming that the mandate was a penalty, not a tax—Romney announces that the court’s ruling has changed his view on that question.Romney's Massachusetts State socialized health care plan was the model for Obama Care. Do you seriously think that Romeny the "moderate consensus candidate" will have the cojones to overturn it? He has already telegraphed his position, "The Supreme Court is the final word."
Romney: The Supreme Court has the final word. And their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it's a tax. …
Crawford: Have you changed your views on this? Do you now believe that it is a tax at the federal level—that the Supreme Court has said it's a tax, so it is a tax?
Romney: Well, I said that I agreed with the dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt it was unconstitutional. But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And so now the Supreme Court has spoken. … They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is. And the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it's now clear that his mandate, as described by the Supreme Court, is a tax.
Crawford: But does that mean the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax, and that you raised taxes as governor?
Romney: Actually the chief justice, in his opinion, made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don't need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And, as a result, Massachusetts' mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.
Romney also tells CNN: "The Supreme Court is the final word, right? Isn’t that the highest court in the land? And they said it was a tax, didn't they? So it's a tax, of course.”
And the list could go on to other issues like immigration. For example, see "Romney Softens Stance On Immigration" from the Latino version of Fox News.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
President, Hillary Guilty of Treason, Murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Two CIA Agents .....
A sickening picture is developing concerning the murder of Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens. Overwhelming evidence has now surfaced which shows beyond reasonable doubt that:
(1) The American State Department (Hillary Clinton whose highest staffers have family and political ties to the Muslim Brotherhood) hired local Islamic militias which may have ties to Al Queda to protect the American Embassy and Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
(2) The ambassador warned for days that he was being set up for an attack and repeatedly begged for additional security which was not provided.
(3) When the attack did come, neither Clinton nor the President would authorize deployment of assets available on short notice in the region to rescue the Ambassador.
(4) When no one received orders to help, two CIA special operators on the ground in Benghazi went to the Ambassadors aid without orders. In the middle of the firefight, they then begged for available air support to rescue them, which was not authorized.
through those Predator drones but did nothing to assist the ambassador or the CIA agents who ran to his assistance.
(5) There were AC-130 Spectre gunships available on very short notice and armed Predator drones overhead providing real time video of the firefight.
(6) White House and State Department officials watched the firefight in REAL TIME (7) White House and State Department officials then lied to the American People about the source of the attack and blamed it on a hapless Egyptian American who posted a humorous video lampooning Islam on YouTube.
Taken in context, this brings up an even more difficult question. Why did Obama and especially Hillary Clinton want Ambassador Stevens dead? Well, it appears that in their rush to arm the Islamist militias in the infamous "Arab Spring" movement which has gone so terribly wrong, millions upon millions of dollars of US taxpayer funds have wound up providing sophisticated weapons including state of the art air to ground missiles WHICH HAVE WOUND UP IN THE HANDS OF AL QUEDA. In short, this is another "Fast and Furious" scandal on a far more massive scale. And, the man who knew more about it than anyone else was Ambassador Christopher Stevens who apparently ran the gun running program in Libya. And worse, the whole situation shows that the Obama administration's position that Al Queda was defeated by the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is an outright lie, that Al Queda influence is growing through the bungled US support of the so -called "Arab Spring" movement and that the entire Obama/Clinton foreign policy in the Middle East is not only a colossal failure but also treason. (see Front Page report HERE )
Glen Beck responded emotionally ( as usual) but his comments are directly on point. What kind of country have we become when our highest officials:
(1) ALLOW an American ambassador to be killed despite his almost daily pleas for help,
(2) Watch his murder on real time television and still do absolutely nothing to stop it despite the fact that they had multiple asset available which could have saved him, and
(3) Then lied to the American people about the source of the attacks and put forth a totally implausible story which just happened to further the interests of a UN initiative to make "insulting Islam" an international crime.
Glen is right. THIS IS NOT AMERICA. Our highest officials have committed cold blooded murder to cover their bungling asses. They deserve to be tried and convicted for murder. The father of one of the dead CIA agent calls O and Hill liars and cowards:
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Race Riots After the Election???
The internet is full of rumors about violence following the upcoming elections. While such talk has been around for months, even the most cautious commentators are beginning to admit that violence is likely immediately if Obama is defeated in the November elections or in January when we "fall off of the fiscal cliff" and have to cut back on welfare payments. Here is what respected economist and columnist Thomas Sowell has to say:
It stands to reason that if a respected figure like Thomas Sowell is openly discussing the possibility of riots following the election there is some possibility of it occurring. And, as horrible as that would be, the next question that immediately comes to mind is, what would happen next? The same people who have been predicting civil unrest as a result of Obama's caustically divisive rhetoric and the "see no evil" policies of his justice department, are now warning that martial law would likely follow. Here are Sean Hannity and Jay Sekulow discussing the existing legal framework that could make that possible.
There have been some news items in the past few weeks that would tend to support a martial law scenario. For example, every alphabet soup federal agency which claims to be broke has been feverishly buying small arms ammunition. By one account, in the past year under Obama, federal agencies like the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration and even the National Weather Service have bought enough high powered hollow point bullets to shoot every man, woman and child in America FIVE TIMES. They have purchased far more ammunition than the military is using to fight its wars in the Middle East and hundreds of times more than they could possibly use to arm and train their security guards. And, to add fuel to the fire, reports like this one are coming in from around the country that U.S. Military troops are being deployed and trained in communities all over the U.S.
So, even if martial law were imposed, what happens then? Here is Glen Beck confirming the existence of American concentration camps managed by FEMA and then denying it later:
How much of this innocent and how much is not is still very much an open question. But, it would be foolish not to very suspicious.
It stands to reason that if a respected figure like Thomas Sowell is openly discussing the possibility of riots following the election there is some possibility of it occurring. And, as horrible as that would be, the next question that immediately comes to mind is, what would happen next? The same people who have been predicting civil unrest as a result of Obama's caustically divisive rhetoric and the "see no evil" policies of his justice department, are now warning that martial law would likely follow. Here are Sean Hannity and Jay Sekulow discussing the existing legal framework that could make that possible.
There have been some news items in the past few weeks that would tend to support a martial law scenario. For example, every alphabet soup federal agency which claims to be broke has been feverishly buying small arms ammunition. By one account, in the past year under Obama, federal agencies like the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration and even the National Weather Service have bought enough high powered hollow point bullets to shoot every man, woman and child in America FIVE TIMES. They have purchased far more ammunition than the military is using to fight its wars in the Middle East and hundreds of times more than they could possibly use to arm and train their security guards. And, to add fuel to the fire, reports like this one are coming in from around the country that U.S. Military troops are being deployed and trained in communities all over the U.S.
So, even if martial law were imposed, what happens then? Here is Glen Beck confirming the existence of American concentration camps managed by FEMA and then denying it later:
How much of this innocent and how much is not is still very much an open question. But, it would be foolish not to very suspicious.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
They Have Not Rejected You But Me ....
1And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.Until this time, Israel had been ruled by God under God's law. Granted, that rule was applied through elders and other mixed theocratic/civic rulers but nevertheless the underlying authority was God, no earthly sovereign. But, Israel was worried. Samuel was old and his sons weren't following in his righteous footsteps. So, instead of asking God for a solution, they chose the world's solution ... a king. And God gave them a King ... King Saul.
2Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.
3His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.
4Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;
5and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”
6But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
7The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
8“Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.
9“Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”
The application is obvious. When God's people subject themselves to the sovereignty of any earthly king without remembering their first sovereign is God Himself, they invite ruin to their nation.
Politics and the Christian Life Is NOT Like A Football Game
One of the real downfalls of the way we raise our children in America is virtually forcing them to participate in organized sports. While everyone is quick to point out the so called character building aspects of these endeavors, I have my doubts. As I see it, it encourages youth to think and act in concert with a group whatever the group does. It encourages youth to subordinate individual initiative and decision making to a coach, a team captain and finally to the team members themselves. And, it conditions youth to think that the "right" answer to everything must be found through group consensus.
I have read my Bible through several times now over the years. I have skipped a year this year but intend to start again in January. I have as yet to find a place in the scriptures where Godly decisions were made by the group. Rather, the picture always presented is one where the group acts situationally, gets it badly wrong and then has to be corrected by an individual who has the capacity to step outside of the group and the situation and evaluate what is going to happen next within the context of God's Word.
I have just finished Dr. Edwin Lutz's powerful little book, "When a Nation Forgets God,
This phenomena is never more apparent than in American presidential elections. Americans choose up sides, form teams with coaches and captains and team members and then go a little crazy cheering and playing our hearts out so that our side can win without ever asking just exactly what is actually being accomplished. The problem is that there are times when neither team deserves to win and nothing good is going to come out the victory.
Over the past thirty years, GOP presidential candidates have gotten progressively more progressive. The current quarterback and hero, Mitt Romney, would have been classified as a left wing radical by John Kennedy. But now, he has the entire Republican party going a little nuts trying to get him elected. In John Kennedy's time, anyone who took Ayn Rand seriously was thought to be either sophomoric or seriously self centered. But now, we have a vice presidential candidate who paradoxically claims to be a Christian and a follower of Rand. And the greatest pity is that no one in the electorate, much less the media, has the knowledge or the critical thinking skills to call him on it.
The football game mentality has done great harm to the American republic. American conservatives and even American Christians have become so obsessed with winning the "big game" right now, that they never stop to analyze just what it is that they are winning. Progressives and communists never try to take over by armed force. Rather, they know that time is on their side. They will fight within the system to make gains then stubbornly hold those gains and wait for their next opportunity. And, instead of stopping this the GOP and the church have both stopped moral analysis of the candidates positions in place of a continued "lesser of evils" analysis. Instead of insisting on the good and righteous, we have been conditioned to accept the less bad. This is the classic example of the Communist incremental approach to political victory and a prime example of Bork's left handed ratchet theory applied to the whole political system.
Weimar Germany was faced with the same decisions, Communism or Facism? They knew the former was wrong so they trusted the latter. And within ten years, six million Jews were dead along with untold millions more Christians, aged, disabled, homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehova's witnesses and other "undesirables." With their cities were in flames, and the Russians literally raping their way across the country, the Germans, who were no different than you and I, paid a terrible price for the "lesser of evils" decision making.
One individual, a wealthy, upper class, pastor and theologian saw what was coming and preached against it. He eventually paid for his resistance with his life but before that he set the example for modern men in these political situations. He taught that there comes a time when people who name the name of Christ can no longer be a part of the political system and have to set themselves against it, literally to "jam a spoke in the wheel" of the oppressors juggernaut.
Bonhoeffer did not advocate violence. Rather, he preached, taught, organized underground churches and seminaries and even helped victims of the oppression escape, just as a brave Mennonite pastor recently did concerning a convert whose child was about to be taken from her and turned over to homosexuals by AN AMERICAN COURT. And yes, here in America that Mennonite pastor is facing criminal prosecution and the American Justice Department is spending a fortune scouring remote Mennonite settlements in Latin America trying to find one little girl whose mother, a former lesbian, converted to Christianity and said to the system, "you cannot have my child." (Details HERE) The pastor was sentenced to three years in federal prison for failing to assist the court in honoring a visitation and custody agreement with a lesbian ex-lover whom the court defined as a "co-parent."
American Christians have been sold a massive bill of goods when it comes to political participation. We have been convinced that we must vote and ratify policies that we know are sin because voting is is our Christian duty. As I said before, I have read my Bible through, cover to cover, many times over the years, and I have never found a command to participate in any political exercise. But, time after time, I found exhortations to avoid evil, not choose the lesser evil. Time after time I have found exhortations to confront evil, not ratify it because the perpetrator is a member of "our team." Bonhoeffer got it right. When the system presents you with no good choice, you must choose God and if necessary be ready to pay the price for that choice.
There is a passage of scripture which discusses God's people CHOOSING their leader. It is I Samuel 8: 1-9:
1And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.Until this time, Israel had been ruled by God under God's law. Granted, that rule was applied through elders and other mixed theocratic/civic rulers but nevertheless the underlying authority was God, no earthly sovereign. But, Israel was worried. Samuel was old and his sons weren't following in his righteous footsteps. So, instead of asking God for a solution, they chose the world's solution ... a king. And God gave them a King ... King Saul.
2Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.
3His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.
4Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;
5and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”
6But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
7The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
8“Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.
9“Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”
The application is obvious. When God's people subject themselves to the sovereignty of any earthly king without remembering their first sovereign is God Himself, they invite ruin to their nation.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Randian Objectivism - A Cancer On The Soul of Conservatism
Who is Ayn Rand? First she was an atheist:
Randian Objectivism, is a pernicious philosophy which encourages atheism, selfishness and callousness has taken hold with the GOP and is becoming respectable. I will write more about this later but for now, I encourage you to read this short article by the late Charles Colson:
Charles Colson on Randian Objectivism
and watch these videos:
Charles Colson on Ayn Rand:
William Buckley on Ayn Rand: Whittaker Chambers on Ayn Rand: Orthodoxy Today, 1957 Review of Atlas Shrugged.
Charles Colson on Randian Objectivism
and watch these videos:
Charles Colson on Ayn Rand:
William Buckley on Ayn Rand: Whittaker Chambers on Ayn Rand: Orthodoxy Today, 1957 Review of Atlas Shrugged.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
When A Nation Forgets God
Along with Eric Metaxas' Bonhoeffer biography, I am also reading Dr. Edwin Lutzer's "When A Nation Forgets God, Seven Lessons We Must Learn From Nazi Germany." Lutzer offers the proposition that when a nation "forgets" God, that is excludes Him from their public thinking, their descent into first moral and then political and economic decline is inevitable. And, if they do not repent, the literal wrath of God inevitably follows.
I am struck by the moral dullness of the German people during this era. Hitler promised them full bellies, good jobs and restored national pride. He was the lesser of evils, an alternative to communism. And, he delivered what he promised, with the minor exceptions of Jews, Gypsies, Evangelicals who would not convert the state approved Nazi church, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the chronically ill and any others who got in the way. One commentator noted that if he had died in 1939, Hitler would have been remembered not as a monster but rather as an economic genius who rebuilt Germany from the ashes of World War One. But, the nagging fact of history that prevents this is that he did not die in 1939, he "rebuilt" Germany without God, without a moral compass and without the stabilizing influence of the Holy Spirit through the Church and in so doing, literally bred a generation of monsters.
We are doing the same thing in America today. Christians are clamoring the that we must vote as our Christian duty for a candidate that is universally recognized as the lesser of two evils. Every time the politicians call upon the church and the body politic to do this, their souls are eroded a bit further and a little more scar tissue is added to their collective conscience. Every time the politicians use the lesser of evils argument to justify a vote, they introduce a larger dose of evil into the political and social bloodstream of the American people, effectively inoculating them from the conviction of the Holy Spirit on these issues.
Later this morning, in response to a national campaign, pastors across the nation who should know better will take to the pulpit and ask their congregations to vote for Mitt Romney. They are literally daring the government to try to enforce vague tax law pronouncements forbidding such activity. If they were simply challenging a wrongheaded public policy, I would agree that the move is courageous and long over due. But, literally, the devil is in the details and what are those details?
These pastors will be asking their congregations to vote for a man who, until he decided to run for president, was the governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation. He made a last minute, lukewarm, highly doubtful conversion to the pro-life cause when his name began appearing as possible presidential candidate after a life time of supporting abortion rights. During his term as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw the implementation of the state socialized medicine program which is the model for Obama Care. And just recently, through his surrogate VP candidate Ryan, he sent a broad signal to the gay community that he "has no problem with gays in the military" and all of the so far successfully hidden upheaval that has caused among our armed forces. So, let's take a quick tally here. Of the three issues that are central to the church, life, socialized medicine and gay rights, Romney gets a flunking grade on all three. AND STILL, WE HAVE PASTORS PREACHING TO THEIR CONGREGATIONS IN HIS SUPPORT!!! Is Romney the lesser of two evils? Of course he is. But, is God calling His people to embrace the lighter shade of grey, the lesser degree of evil, when He has forbidden in the strongest possible terms the policies of both? I think not.
It is time for the American church to decide just exactly who will be their lord. If their lord will be their American citizenship, their naive loyalty to a political system that was once righteous but now is in desperate need of a return to morality, let it be so. Just do not call yourselves Christians in the process because you will have substituted your blind faith in American exceptionalism for God's truth which was but is no longer the basis for that exceptionalism. But, if you decide that Jesus Christ is your Lord and that you are first a citizen of His kingdom which is not of this earth, then you must follow the rules of THAT kingdom first and reject evil regardless of the political party presenting it.
For further thought:
Rush Limbaugh - Romney Is NOT A Conservative
Rick Santorum - Romney Is NOT A Conservative
Daily Standard - Romney Not Conservative At Heart, Has Trouble With Conservative Ideas
Baltimore Sun - The Conservative Case AGAINST Romney (VERY GOOD)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)